Category: Opinion

  • After years of Conservative and Labour Party policies, and general election manifestos where it’s now difficult to tell the difference between the two – are chronically ill and disabled people politically homeless?

    Chronically ill and disabled? Good luck.

    Being chronically ill and disabled, I have spent years struggling with an ongoing decimated NHS to get a correct diagnosis for the conditions I live with.

    Due to years of both Tory and Labour policies I have also struggled with continued issues regarding firstly receiving the entitlements I was due, then secondly being able to keep these entitlements whilst navigating a benefits system that quite frankly a barrister would struggle with.

    Not dissimilar to the recent Child Benefit disaster, I was also left with nothing but Child Benefit for just under two years as a chronically ill single mother. God only knows what this has done to my National Insurance contributions – and therefore my state pension. Honestly, if it wasn’t for meeting my now partner and full-time career who helped me raise the funds to go private, I would never have received the correct diagnoses and disability status.

    And yes, this all sounds ridiculous that in 2024 that any disabled or chronically ill person should have to experience any of this living in the UK. But this unfortunately is pretty standard for many of us.

    The controlled ableism this has caused

    These politically-motivated polices that have come from both political sides have not only caused years of poverty for disabled and chronically ill people that have led to deaths and suicides, it has also left many of us now feeling politically homeless.

    One of the most recent policies affecting chronically ill and disabled people was the introduction of Universal Credit. Whilst this was supposed to help sort out the benefits system, it has made it very much worst.

    Many people, like myself, were firstly forced onto Universal Credit, to only then lose their disability benefits and carers allowance due to their partners work status – leaving them only with Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

    If you are on Universal Credit, it also means that your payments are only paid into one account.

    So not only does that mean disabled or chronically ill people have to rely on hand outs from their partners – stopping their independence – it is also open to many people being abused by this policy. This is away from the fact that there is the obvious potential for domestic violence and abuse. This is all creating a form of controlled ableism.

    Along with the loss of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), social care support, and NHS services, many disabled and chronically ill people are struggling to see any real change or support from the main political parties.

    Our current status in politics

    So where does this leave us as disabled and chronically voters in this years general election? Are we really even considered in any of the political parties plans or manifestos…? To be fair, we don’t seem to ever really be on anyone’s agenda.

    What the Tories are saying…

    Hmm, so after reading the Tories’ Clear plan bold action, secure future manifesto I struggled to find any direct policies for disabled or chronically ill people. Taking a further look, I discovered that it was all stuff they’d already announced, or extensions of existing policies. In reality, all the Tories are promising is to cut disabled and chronically ill people’s benefits even more. There’s a promise of more SEND school places, but there’s not a lot on social care. I didn’t expect anything less from the Tories, anyway.

    What Labour is saying…

    Labour’s manifesto Change wasn’t much of an improvement either. It promises to “review” Universal Credit – even though its been failing disabled and chronically ill people for over ten years. There was talk about social care, SEND, and making disabled and chronically ill people work. But there was little else for us. Come on Labour, seriously you need to get your act together. You proclaim to be a voice of the people, so please stop discriminating against the chronically ill and disabled ones. That’s 16 million votes, by the way…

    What the Lib Dems are saying…

    The Lib Dems For a fair deal is better than Labour and the Tories. It promises to make the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) law – unlike Labour and the Tories. Everyone has seen the Lib Dems free adult personal care pledge. They will scrap the hated bedroom tax, make some ‘reforms’ to other benefits, and focus on independent living. But the Lib Dems are not doing anything about Universal Credit and the £100bn of cuts to benefits since 2013. For all Ed Davey’s bravado, the Lib Dems are not doing a lot.

    What the Green Party is saying…

    The Green Party manifesto Real hope, real change is better but still leaves chronically ill and disabled people short. They have a ‘game changing investment plan to nurse the NHS back to health’ which, yep, you guessed it, has absolutely no mention of chronically ill and disabled people. They’re the only party that’s pledged to increase benefits, but as the Canary pointed out it still won’t be enough. The Greens have done a Lib Dems and offered free social care, but both also commit to assisted dying. For the party that is now supposed to be the most radical, the manifesto isn’t radical enough.

    Not all disabilities are invisible, but clearly disabled people are in the general election

    So, after reading all of these current plans, not only are my chronic illnesses and disabilities invisible, clearly I along with all the country’s chronically ill and disabled people are also often invisible to most of the mainstream political parties, their manifestos, plans, pledges, or whatever they want to call them – because none of them go far enough.

    As someone who lives with multiple chronic illnesses, none of the parties have said anything about improving healthcare for people like me, either.

    Also, the lateness in which they’ve released them completely disregards the time left in firstly applying for a postal vote, which many disabled and chronically ill people depend on, and secondly the time given to consider their vote and post them to be included in the general election.

    For anyone still wanting to do this the deadline for a postal vote is 18 June. You can apply here.

    But alternately, whoever you vote for they have currently left me and around 16 million other disabled and chronically ill people completely politically homeless – without a key pledge, decent promise, or plan for us if you’re the Tories or Labour, or not going far enough if you’re the Lib Dems or Greens.

    We are the most underrepresented and disproportionately neglected group of people living in the UK. This is just not good enough.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Nicola Jeffery

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • “The BBC seems to regard Palestinian lives as less valuable than Israeli lives”.

    Brian Eno was right.

    ‘FOUR HOSTAGES SEIZED AT NOVA FESTIVAL FREED IN GAZA RAID, declared the publicly-funded BBC.

    Then if you squint a little you can read underneath, “Hamas claims more than 200 Palestinians were killed in the densely populated area where the raid took place”.

    Of course, the BBC amended the article, but not before X/Twitter user @greg_herriett captured a screenshot and his post went viral.

    The BBC: Palestinian lives are subtext

    The BBC effortlessly relegated Israel’s wholesale slaughter of nearly three hundred Palestinians – as usual, mostly women and children, and which also left a further seven hundred civilians wounded — to a tiny bit of subtext, despite the horrifying images of disemboweled children being live-streamed to our phones.

    Palestinian children are continuing to bear the brunt of western complicity and a complete failure of international law and accountability mechanisms put in place to prevent exactly what is happening in Gaza right now.

    The children of Gaza should be at school learning, not buried under a mountain of rubble that used to be called home.

    Israel has quite literally just committed an illegal act of unspeakable brutality, but true-to-form, the shamefully complicit establishment media is found to be investing greater effort in humanising Israeli victims when compared with Palestinians, who are routinely dehumanised and not even considered worthy of the label, “collateral damage”.

    The BBC’s news coverage of Palestine rarely offers context or history to current events. There is no acknowledgement that Israel made Palestinians refugees in their own land.

    Covering for genocide

    Be in no doubt, dressing up as an aid worker and driving into a refugee camp in a vehicle designated for aid workers is a violation of international law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines war crimes, including the use of humanitarian assistance as a pretext for military attacks.

    So rather than obediently congratulating Israel for rescuing the soldiers-turned-civilians perhaps the British Broadcasting Corporation should focus on the criminality and the horrifying death toll of the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre.

    Israel — whose ‘history’ reads like a criminal record —  has committed some of the most heinous, wicked acts of unconscionable depravity and criminality in our lifetimes in the space of just eight bloody, genocidal months.

    Stick that on your website, ‘Auntie’.

    The former director of Labour Friends of Israel, David Mencer, is regularly put out in front of the cameras to minimise the genocidal lunacy of the colonialist superpower.

    Any idea who funds LFI? Me neither, so on that basis they should be a proscribed terrorist organisation.

    Why on earth does the mainstream media, including the BBC, treat this Eylon Levy with an extra chin character as some sort of a credible witness to the war crimes of the nuclear-armed rogue state of Israel?

    It would seem the only notable difference between Mencer’s previous post at LFI and his bullshitter-in-chief position with the Israel government is the addition of the word “official” to his job title.

    Not subtle, and not even tolerated by its own staff

    The BBC’s pro-Israel bias has always been as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face, and while the hard-right frequently describe the BBC as a woke, lefty, Hezbollah mouthpiece, headed by ‘Jermy Crumbin, and the ghost of Chairman Mao, you only need to look at the Beeb’s top brass to see why the flag-fondling fuckwits on the political right-wing are less intelligent than the hope-hoarding heroes on the political left-wing.

    I’m glad it’s not just me that is of the opinion the BBC fails to accurately report the Israeli genocide of Gaza.

    Eight of the BBC’s own journalists were so horrified by the state broadcaster’s appalling coverage they felt the need to send a 2,300-word letter to Al Jazeera, accusing the BBC of failing to portray the story of the Israel-Palestine conflict accurately and omitting key historical context in its coverage.

    Unsurprisingly, you didn’t hear about this on BBC News.

    Earlier this year, a study looked at thousands of online articles and posts from the BBC between October 7, the date of the Hamas attacks on Israel, and December 2.

    Researchers found a “systematic disparity in how Palestinian and Israeli deaths are treated” by the BBC, with words such as murder, massacre, and slaughter almost exclusively being linked to Israeli deaths.

    BBC is failing on every count

    I’ve got a headline for you BBC:

    THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY PALESTINIANS SEIZED FROM THE STREETS OF GAZA REMAIN HELD HOSTAGE IN ISRAELI TORTURE CAMPS WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL

    In the occupied Palestinian territories, one in every five Palestinians has been arrested and charged at some point. This rate is twice as high for Palestinian men as it is for women – two in every five men have been arrested and charged.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m delighted the Israeli detainees have returned home to their families — unlike the three Israeli captives that were shot dead by an unhinged IOF soldier, despite them holding a white flag —  but what about the thousands of Palestinians being held under administrative detention? Surely they deserve to see their families too?

    Neither the administrative detainees, who include women and children, nor their lawyers are allowed to see the “secret evidence” that Israeli forces say form the basis for their arrests.

    Does this sound reasonable to you? Locked up in prison for an indefinite period of time, and you don’t even know what you’ve done wrong? It is a penal system that is quite obviously ripe for abuse and maltreatment.

    Administrative detention is an anathema in any democratic society that follows the rule of law, and while Israel will argue it is a democratic society, it hasn’t got a leg to stand on when it comes to abiding by the rule of law.

    Israel’s genocide continues

    I thought it was important to write about the ongoing genocide. The general election here in Blighty is dominating the headlines and Gaza is barely afforded a few words on the page opposite the horoscopes. Don’t ever stop talking about Palestine, and don’t ever stop talking about the enablers and perpetrators of this harrowing genocide.

    Israel has committed some of the most heinous, wicked acts of unconscionable depravity and criminality in our lifetimes. History will not be kind to these evil bastards.

    The incoming Labour government will happily grasp the loyal subject of the Knesset baton from the Conservative Party, they already have, and let’s not pretend otherwise.

    The values of the Labour Party are the directives of the Likud Party. Whilst Israel occupies Palestine, the cancerous ideology of Zionism occupies the corridors of power across the Western world.

    Something has to change.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The general election is approaching fast, and as we get closer to polling day it’s clear that the NHS is a very hot topic for voters – with politicians from all sides making promises.

    Ipsos Mori recently carried out polling which showed that the NHS is the number one issue of concern to the public. YouGov described it last week as the second issue of importance after the economy, but the two were very close, commanding a significant lead ahead of “immigration and asylum” in third place.

    It’s not surprising, of course, that the NHS is on so many peoples’ minds.

    The NHS: falling apart around us

    The Conservative Party government has undermined the service to a terrifying degree for the past 14 years, and our public healthcare system is now facing the most significant crisis of its 75 year history.

    I qualified as a doctor in 2010, and the service is barely recognisable from the one I walked into as a newly-qualified medical graduate. The NHS has never been perfect; there were sometimes long waits, and errors, and during the winters things got very busy at times.

    But back then we felt that we were delivering a good service for our patients, and that things were improving too. All of that has changed now.

    There are the NHS waiting lists of course, which are the longest in the NHS’s history (they’re even longer now than when Rishi Sunak pledged to tackle them back in January 2023).

    There are chronic understaffing problems, because so many staff have moved abroad to places where they’ll be better supported, or have even left their careers in healthcare altogether, because of the relentless pressure and the real-terms pay cuts.

    There are crumbling buildings, crumbling morale, and crumbling satisfaction amongst patients, who feel understandably frustrated about the state of the service.

    The devastation that has been caused by the Conservatives is extraordinary; in just over a decade these politicians have created a bleak wasteland where there was once hope, and ambition, and collective pride in a service which has the ability to transform millions of lives.

    But there lies its danger; and we need to pay close attention now to what politicians are saying and the promises they make, because this ability, this promise of what it can offer, is the very thing that lays the NHS wide open to lies and exaggerations from politicians during a general election campaign.

    General election NHS promises and lies

    Politicians from all parties are falling over themselves right now to tell the public that they have the plan, the commitment, and the drive to save the NHS. We are hearing it from the Conservatives, unbelievably, who are promising new GP surgeries and community diagnostic centres (forgetting, perhaps, that they haven’t delivered on their 2019 manifesto promise of 40 new hospitals).

    We are hearing it from the Labour Party, who are alarmingly enthusiastic about working with private companies and claim that they will use “spare capacity” in the private sector to help with the NHS backlog, despite no evidence that this spare capacity exists in any meaningful way.

    We are even hearing it from the Reform party, with Nigel Farage saying on BBC Question Time that the NHS needs a new funding model (despite experts agreeing recently that the current funding model relying on public taxation is best.

    We can expect more of this as the campaigns roll on. More promises, more claims, big and bold and often inaccurate.

    Voters are vulnerable right now, and we are liable to listen to politicians who have a charismatic demeanour and a compelling vision for the NHS. But if we really want to save the NHS, we need to challenge them on what they are saying.

    Challenge the politicians – don’t take what they say as read

    Politicians have been undermining the NHS for many years now. Governments of different parties have come into office and have undertaken “NHS reforms” which we have been told will improve the service, but have actually inserted new layers of corporatisation and privatisation.

    None of this has improved the NHS; it has simply allowed public money to find its way into shareholders’ hands.

    If we want to save the NHS, this needs to stop. There is no evidence that privatisation benefits the NHS; in fact there is growing evidence that it is harmful.

    We need politicians who are brave enough and bold enough to reimagine the NHS; to transform the service not by creating “partnerships” with private companies, or by changing the funding model, but instead by eliminating privatisation from the NHS altogether, and investing in the service, its staff and infrastructure.

    We need a bold vision for the future of the NHS; and we need politicians who will put an end to profit-creation within the delivery of public healthcare in the UK.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Dr Julia Grace Patterson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Nick Rockel in Tāmaki Makaurau

    This morning I did something I seldom do, I looked at the Twitter newsfeed.

    Normally I take the approach of something that I’m not sure is an American urban legend, or genuinely something kids do over there. The infamous bag of dog poo on the front porch, set it on fire then ring the doorbell so the occupier will answer and seeing the flaming bag stamp it out.

    In doing so they obviously disrupt the contents of the bag, quite forcefully, distributing it’s contents to the surprise, and annoyance, of said stamper.

    So that’s normally what I do. Deposit a tweet on that platform, then duck for cover. In the scenario above the kid doesn’t hang around afterwards to see what the resident made of their prank.

    I’m the same with Twitter. Get in, do what you’ve got to do, then get the heck out of there and enjoy the carnage from a distance.

    But this morning I clicked on the Home button and the first tweet that came up in my feed was about an article in The Daily Blog:

    Surely not?

    I know our government hasn’t exactly been outspoken in condemning the massacre of Palestinians that has been taking place since last October — but we’re not going to take part in training exercises with them, are we? Surely not.

    A massacre — not a rescue
    A couple of days ago I was thinking about the situation in Gaza, and the recent so-called rescue of hostages that is being celebrated.

    Look, I get it that every life is precious, that to the families of those hostages all that matters is getting them back alive. But four hostages freed and 274 Palestinians killed in the process — that isn’t a rescue — that’s a massacre.

    Another one.

    It reminds me of the “rescues” of the 1970s where they got the bad guys, but all the good guys ended up dead as well. According to some sources, and there are no really reliable sources here, the rescue also resulted in the deaths of three hostages.

    While looking at reports on this training exercise, one statistic jumped out at me:

    Israel has dropped more bombs on Gaza in eight months than were dropped on London, Hamburg and Dresden during the full six years of the Second World War. Israel is dropping these bombs on one of the most densely populated communities in the world.

    It’s beyond comprehension. Think of how the Blitz in London is seared into our consciousness as being a terrible time — and how much worse this is.

    Firestorm of destruction
    As for Dresden, what a beautiful city. I remember when Fi and I were there back in 2001, arriving at the train station, walking along the river. Such a fabulous funky place. Going to museums — there was an incredible exhibition on Papua New Guinea when we were there, it seemed so incongruous to be on the other side of the world looking at exhibits of a Pacific people.

    Most of all though I remember the rebuilt cathedral and the historical information about the bombing of that city at the end of the war. A firestorm of utter destruction. Painstakingly rebuilt, over decades, to its former beauty. Although you can still see the scars.

    The ruins of Dresden following the Allied bombing in February 1945
    The ruins of Dresden following the Allied bombing in February 1945 . . . about 25,000 people were killed. Image: www.military-history.org

    Nobody will be rebuilding Gaza into a beautiful place when this is done.

    The best case for the Palestinians at this point would be some sort of peacekeeping force on the ground and then decades of rebuilding. Everything. Schools, hospitals, their entire infrastructure has been destroyed — in scenes that we associate with the most destructive war in human history.

    And we’re going to take part in training exercises with the people who are causing all of that destruction, who are massacring tens of thousands of civilians as if their lives don’t matter. Surely not.

    NZ ‘honour and mana stained’
    From Martyn Bradbury’s article in The Daily Blog:

    It is outrageous in the extreme that the NZ Defence Force will train with the Israeli Defence Force on June 26th as part of the US-led (RIMPAC) naval drills!

    Our military’s honour and mana is stained by rubbing shoulders with an Army that is currently accused of genocide and conducting a real time ethnic cleansing war crime.

    It’s like playing paintball with the Russian Army while they are invading the Ukraine.

    RIMPAC, the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise, is held in Hawai’i every second year. The name indicates a focus on the Pacific Rim, although many countries attend.

    In 2024 there will be ships and personnel attending from 29 countries. The usual suspects you’d expect in the region — like the US, the Aussies, Canada, and some of our Pacific neighbours. But also countries from further abroad like France and Germany. As well of course as the Royal NZ Navy and the Israeli Navy.

    Which is pretty weird. I know Israel have to pretend they’re in Europe for things like sporting competitions or Eurovision, with their neighbours unwilling to include them. But what on earth does Israel have to do with the Pacific Rim?

    Needless to say those who oppose events in Gaza are not overly excited about us working together with the military force that’s doing almost all of the killing.

    “We are calling on our government to withdraw from the exercise because of Israel’s ongoing industrial-scale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza”, said Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) national chair, John Minto.

    “Why would we want to join with a lawless, rogue state which has demonstrated the complete suite of war crimes over the past eight months?”

    Whatever you might think of John Minto, he has a point.

    Trade and travel embargo
    Personally I think we, and others, should be undertaking a complete trade and travel embargo with Israel until the killing stops. The least we can do is not rub shoulders with them as allies. That’s pretty repugnant. I can’t imagine many young Kiwis signed up to serve their country like that.

    The PSNA press release said, “Taking part in a military event alongside Israel will leave an indelible stain on this country. It will be a powerful symbol of New Zealand complicity with Israeli war crimes. It’s not on!”

    Aotearoa is not the only country in which such participation is being questioned. In Malaysia, for example, a group of NGOs are urging the government there to withdraw:

    “On May 24, the ICJ explicitly called for a halt in Israel’s Rafah onslaught. The Israeli government and opposition leaders, in line with the behaviour of a rogue lawless state, have scornfully dismissed the ICJ ruling,” it said.

    “The world should stop treating it like a normal, law-abiding state if it wants Israeli criminality in Gaza and the West Bank to stop.

    “We reiterate our call on the Malaysian government to immediately withdraw from Rimpac 2024 to drive home that message,” it said.

    What do you think about our country taking part in this event, alongside Israel Military Forces, at this time?

    Complicit as allies
    To me it feels that in doing so we are in a small way complicit. By coming together as allies, in our region of the world, we’re condoning their actions with our own.

    Valerie Morse of Peace Action Wellington had the following to say about New Zealand’s involvement in the military exercises:

    “The depth and breadth of suffering in Palestine is beyond imagination. The brutality of the Israeli military knows no boundaries. This is who [Prime Minister] Christopher Luxon and Defence Minister Judith Collins have signed the NZ military up to train alongside.

    “New Zealand must immediately halt its participation in RIMPAC. The HMNZS Aotearoa must be re-routed back home to Taranaki.

    “This is not the first time that Israel has been a participant in RIMPAC so it would not have been a surprise to the NZ government. It would have been quite easy to take the decision to stay out of RIMPAC given what is happening in Palestine. That Luxon and Collins have not done so shows that they lack even a basic moral compass.”

    The world desperately needs strong moral leadership at this time, it needs countries to take a stand against Israel and speak up for what is right.

    There’s only so much that a small country like ours can do, but we can hold our heads high and refuse to have anything to do with Israel until they stop the killing.

    Is that so hard Mr Luxon?

    Nick Rockel is a “Westie Leftie with five children, two dogs, and a wonderful wife”. He is the publisher of Nick’s Kōrero where this article was first published. It is republished here with permission. Read on to subscribe to Nick’s substack articles.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • Global Population Growth Is Slowing Down. Here’s One Reason Why,” Scientific American

    Governments worldwide are in a race to see which one can encourage the most women to have the most babies. Hungary is slashing income tax for women with four or more children. Russia is offering women with 10 or more children a “Mother-Heroine” award. GreeceItaly, and South Korea are bribing women with attractive baby bonuses. China has instituted a three-child policy. Iran has outlawed free contraceptives and vasectomies. Japan has joined forces with the fertility industry to infiltrate schools to promote early childbearing. A leading UK demographer has proposed taxing the childless. Religious myths are preventing African men from getting vasectomies. A eugenics-inspired Natal conference just took place in the U.S., a nation leading the way in taking away reproductive rights.

    The push for more babies to increase our numbers is hardly a new phenomenon. Longstanding forces of reproductive control have always favored population growth. These go back 5,000 years to the institutionalized male domination and patriarchy that emerged upon the rise of early states and empires centered in cities. Societies at the vanguard of civilization had two main goals: population expansion and seizure of resources. These were realized by coercing women to have as many children as possible and by pressuring men to become soldiers. Because of the dangers of both childbirth and war, birthing and soldiering had to be exalted and reinforced through social controls. To this day, pronatalism and militarism remain among patriarchy’s key features.

    Its strength undiminished over the course of millennia, pronatalism serves powerful institutions of the state, the church, the military, and the economy by preaching that parenthood is an obligation, not a choice. Pronatalism runs so deep in our society, has become so pervasive, that to this day it colors the most important policy discussions and social norms.

    As the Earth system groans under the burden of too many people consuming too much stuff, a new twist on this ubiquitous ideology – one that contemptuously sees women as mere procreative vessels – plays out on the global stage. While scientists warn that human numbers are a key driver of ecological and social crises, the subject of overpopulation gets short shrift by policymakers, think tanks, and even environmental groups. We are told that numbers don’t matter; what matters is solely the level of per capita consumption.

    For example, when the revered Jane Goodall spoke about the harms of population growth, environmental journalist-cum-activist George Monbiot attacked her by insinuating that she was proposing the culling of people. Elsewhere he wrote, “It’s no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men.”

    I am a woman, born in India and now living in Canada, happily childfree as I near the end of my reproductive years. I am grateful to have a steady income, but I am not wealthy. Some might say I’m obsessed with overpopulation, though obsession isn’t the right term to describe a rational assessment of the role of population in the ecological degradation that makes humanity’s future precarious.

    But Monbiot’s is just one example. Environmental journalist David Roberts acknowledges that population growth is a problem and then goes on to explain why “there’s much downside and not much upside to talking about population.” Katherine Hayhoe, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, an organization that has been accused of “promoting false climate solutions,” says in an interview, “As a climate scientist, I know that it’s not the number of people that matters. It’s how we live.” A formal statement by The Union of Concerned Scientists reads, “We’re sometimes asked ‘Isn’t population growth driving climate change?’ But that’s the wrong question—and it can lead to dangerous answers.”

    Let’s unpack these statements, all of which fall into what political and social theorist Diana Coole has called the discourses of population denialism.

    The first of these, “population shaming,” justifies silence about population by pointing to the excesses of “population control” movements of the past. And it is true that these coercive efforts deserve repudiation. Beginning in the 1970s, India forcibly sterilized millions of poor people (and it was backed in this endeavor by some Western powers). That was a dark moment in a benighted time, which focused on decreasing population growth in the lower-income countries rather than on moderating dramatically higher per capita consumption in the high-income countries.

    But it would be fallacious, and a disservice to the valiant history of family planning, to suppose all approaches to curbing population growth are destructive. During and following India’s reprehensible conduct, family planning programs in ThailandCosta RicaIran, and elsewhere not only advanced greater personal and reproductive autonomy for girls and women, but also led to significantly lower fertility rates, decreases in poverty, and gains in environmental conservation.

    We know from historical experience that slowing population growth requires upholding fundamental human rights: championing universal education, prohibiting child marriage, empowering females, improving access to family planning services, and, most of all, standing up to patriarchy and pronatalism.

    This relates to another oft-used and largely-superseded discourse of population denialism that “development” or economic growth is required to spur declines in fertility, a claim that plays directly into the hands of pro-growth neoliberal interestsResearch shows that declining fertility rates, however, are most closely associated with increasing use of modern contraception and are largely independent of changes in the economy.

    Disproportionately focusing on reproductive control efforts in the recent past, as so many environmentalists do, entirely misses the millennia-old chokehold of compulsive pronatalism in driving population growth—which makes these environmentalists unwitting accomplices of pronatalist patriarchy.

    Equally as offensive is that population denialism defies scientific evidence.

    In its 2022 report, the IPCC makes abundantly clear that “globally, GDP per capita and population growth remained the strongest drivers of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the last decade.” In a 2024 survey conducted by The Guardian, leading IPCC scientists candidly discussed their decisions to have no or fewer children, citing as their main motivations the impact of overpopulation on climate change and the fear of bringing their potential children into a perilous world environment.

    In 2017, over 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued a warning that “we are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically and demographically uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats.” Other Scientists’ Warnings have raised similar alarms.

    In 2022, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification warned that “within the next few decades, 129 countries will experience an increase in drought – 23 primarily due to population growth and 38 because of their interaction between climate change and population growth.”

    In its 2022 report, the UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs warned that “rapid population growth makes it more difficult for low-income and lower-middle-income countries to afford the increase in public expenditures on a per capita basis that is needed to eradicate poverty, end hunger and malnutrition, and ensure universal access to health care, education and other essential services.”

    It goes without saying that hyper-consumerism and affluence-seeking in rich countries have played an outsized role in these crises, yes. But to focus on consumerism alone misses the full complexity of the world problematique.

    The global middle class is the fastest rising demographic group, with at least one billion people—88% from Asia—projected to join it this decade, totaling 5.3 billion middle-class consumers. And other poorer billions surely have the right to increase their standard of living. Given that we are already in an extreme state of ecological overshoot, in which we are consuming 75% percent more than Earth can regenerate, further growth in our population and economy can only come at the expense of biophysical Earth systems, which means increased peril to our collective future. Refusing to deal with the twin threats of population and consumption, both of which are at unsustainable levels, only accelerates the destruction of other life and puts us on a long-term trajectory of immiseration of billions of people.

    Meanwhile, some politicians and pundits seem to believe the great threat to humankind is a shrinking economy driven by declining fertility rates and aging populations — that is, the threat is not too many people but too few. “Population declinism,” as this is known—another tentacle of population denialism—is what is fueling the global trend of pushing women to pump out the babies.

    Even amid declining fertility rates due to greater gender equality, global population is still growing by about 80 million people annually, just as in 1970, adding a projected 2.5 billion before the end of this century.

    Observers of the panic about declining fertility rates, such as Nobel laureate Steven Chu, have suggested that we are caught in a “Ponzi scheme” of endless growth that is “based on having more young workers than older people.” This unsustainable and ecologically-destructive scheme, which relies on an ever-increasing population, mostly serves the interests of tech billionaires, elites like Elon Musk, and the ideologies of far-Rightreligiousnationalist, and market fundamentalists.

    Not only has population denialism among progressives emboldened the far Right to pursue its pronatalist agenda of rolling back reproductive rights, passing stricter divorce laws, and relaxing domestic violence laws, progressives are now joining the chorus of “baby-bust” alarmism.

    Media outlets regularly platform growth-biased pieces: this in the New York Times by an author whose organization received $10 million from Elon Musk for “fertility research”; thisthis, and this in the Washington Post by contributors affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank with a history of climate denial and whose funders include ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers; and this by Vox in their Future Perfect section, a billionaire-funded project embedded in the deeply controversial effective altruism philosophy.

    More disturbingly, attempts to challenge pronatalism today are strategically conflated by these pro-growth actors with anti-natalismbaby hating, or misanthropy.

    Meanwhile, the rights of children to be born into conditions conducive to their social, psychological, and material well being are all but trampled as nations compete to pump out, by any means necessary, the next generation of worshippers, workers, consumers, taxpayers, soldiers, and of course, procreators. Warnings from leading authorities about dire population-driven consequences for children in the form of climate change impacts and extreme poverty, among others, go unheeded.

    The alarmism surrounding declining fertility rates is unfounded; it is a positive trend that represents greater reproductive choice, and one that we should accelerate. A smaller human population will immensely facilitate other transformations we need: mitigating climate change, conserving and rewilding ecosystems, making agriculture sustainable, and making communities more resilient and able to integrate more climate and war refugees.

    Research shows that societies with smaller populations and aging demographics can prosper. Instead of coercing women to have more babies, we can adopt progressive policies that strengthen social safety nets, wisely reallocate resources, and see seniors as meaningful contributors to society rather than a growing burden on a shrinking pool of younger workers. We can shift the failed paradigm of endless growth and transition to an economy that respects the biophysical limits of our planet.

    It’s time to reject “population shaming” that pretends to champion human rights while echoing pronatalist ideologies that treat women’s wombs as cogs in the growth machine. To defend the right of all to a livable future, we need to get off the growth treadmill, get past population denialism, and work for a future that has both fewer human beings and less consumption.

    The post How Patriarchal Pronatalism Dominates the Conversation about the Human Future first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • It’s been a busy week for Rishi Sunak, who somehow managed to make himself look even worse and alienate his core voters – that’s right, old bigots who bang on about the war all day.

    With the Tories so far behind in the general election polls, you’d think someone on team Sunak would’ve realised what a home run turning up at D-Day and pretending to care about tanks could’ve been. But for that to happen there needs to still be anyone on team Sunak I guess.

    After fucking off home early and then having to spend the next few days in hiding amidst rumours of ousting, he knew what he had to do. And so Rishi unveiled his plan for welfare.

    Well, unveiled is a strong word. He wrote a column in the Sun

    Sunak: spouting welfare propaganda in the Sun

    I’ve written previously about how the British media allows the government’s lies about disabled people to flourish, but this takes the piss. A big problem with the media is that constant staff cuts mean analysis suffers and Tory bullshit is reported as fact. 

    But this isn’t even reporting. It’s straight up letting one of the most powerful men in the world spout his propaganda.

    There’s also the fact that we’re expecting the main party manifestos next week, which will obviously dominate the front pages. An old trick the government likes to do with welfare cuts is soft launch them a few days before the “meatier’ things, so they’ll be swept aside for sexier policies like funding for the NHS or tax breaks. 

    We saw Hunt and Stride pull this with last year’s autumn statement where the WCA reforms were the pre-drinks for the full-blown tory hate fest.

    Anyway onto the welfare plans.

    Writing in the Sun (vom), Sunak says he’ll ‘slash welfare by £12bn a year and get Brits back to work’. He states pretty early on that:

    We Conservatives are compassionate [lol] and believe that those who really can’t work should be supported.’

    But there’s no elaboration on this – and crucially we need to remember that who ‘can’t work’ is decided by them.

    That imaginary benefit fraud again

    He goes on to say it’s his ‘moral mission’ to get as many people back to work as possible – though of course there’s no plans to shorten the waiting time for Access to Work or actually support disabled people into work. 

    Sunak reminds us all that the amount spent on sick and disabled benefits has increased by two-thirds since 2020. It’s almost like his government let a deadly pandemic rip through the country and created a whole new wave of disabled people. 

    Finally, after over 500 words, he tells us the Tories plan… and it’s the same one they already announced. 

    Expanding mental health treatment, reform the benefit system to ‘halt the unsustainable rise in claims’ whilst supporting those who need it most, and reform benefit assessments.

    The Telegraph meanwhile went with this headline and subheading:

    Rishi Sunak has promised to save the taxpayer £12 billion a year by clamping down on benefit fraudsters and reforming the welfare system.

    Major focus of Tory package will be cutting long-term sickness and ensuring more working age people are in employment

    Considering a few weeks ago it was revealed that disability benefit fraud is at almost zero, I’m not sure how much more it could be brought down? 

    But this is exactly what I was talking about when I said those figures, which they should’ve been really proud of, no longer fitting their narrative. 

    Wet Wipe meets Kuenssberg

    Never one to miss the disabled people hating, our favourite DWP wet wipe Mel Stride was on Laura Kuennsberg’s Sunday morning show. He had the prime spot of coming directly after Nigel Farage being racist as fuck, meaning he appeared almost rational.

    Whilst Sunak is having an absolute mare of a fortnight, Stride seems to have been media-coached to within an inch of his life. He spoke to Laura K in a low volume, ‘not angry just disappointed’ concerned tone that reminded me of a deputy headteacher who’s sick of residents complaining about kids being noisy walking home from school. 

    The way he was able to twist reform concerns and never directly talk about the people it’ll affect was masterful. He instead focused on how much it would save the poor innocent taxpayer in welfare. This is deliberate, as it means people are easily able to detach from those suffering and the people he’s planning to kill. It’s giving only those who make money humanity.

    He was weirdly proud of expanding Talking Therapies, as if he truly believed a huge waiting list and then six-eight sessions could cure the mental health crisis. It feels very insipid that the focus is on mental health. The Tories know that their vile core voters don’t take this as seriously, so wouldn’t object in the way they would a cancer survivor being forced back to work.

    In a truly chilling performance, he attempted to make 440,000 disabled people losing their benefits due to WCA changes sound like a good thing. There was no mention of supporting them and truly assessing if they really could work, just how much it would save the taxpayer. This man is truly a monster. 

    Sunak: none of this is serious but it forces Starmer to be viler

    This isn’t a new tactic, and it means they’ve been able to blur the line between Universal Credit and PIP by focusing on how much us workshy shirkers are stealing from the poor hardworking taxpayer. 

    It’s betting on the ignorance of non-disabled people to not know that PIP isn’t an unemployment benefit and that many disabled people claim it because our lives are so much more expensive. It’s also ignoring the fact you can be employed and claim Universal Credit, because even those who work can’t afford to live in a country that the Tories have destroyed.

    This means that the majority of disabled people, who you claim are tax dodgers, are in fact tax payers. But that doesn’t help their narrative. 

    As I’ve said before, none of these are serious plans – they’re using disabled people as bait to appeal to the vilest in humanity, those who think we truly are all scroungers. This time there’s also the clear use of us as a political football. 

    At every turn voters are reminded by the Tories that Labour doesn’t have a plan, almost daring Starmer to be even viler. Which is why we need to vote them out and then hold the next lot to account.

    On that note the deadline to apply for a postal vote is coming up this week, please make sure you sign up if you think you might need one.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Back in 2020, during the Labour Party leadership campaign, Keir Starmer – keen to demonstrate his passion for internal democracy – said:

    We should end the National Executive Committee (NEC) impositions of candidates. Local Party members should select their candidates for every election.

    How’s that working out?

    Keir Starmer: bare-faced liar extraordinaire

    The Labour NEC didn’t just impose candidates on local Labour constituencies, they actually chose THEMSELVES to stand in very winnable seats. This includes the painfully intolerable ultra-Zionist Luke Akehurst, of course.

    As if being made to be beholden to a rogue foreign state isn’t bad enough already.

    Labour NEC member Mish Rahman delivered this startling revelation on his X timeline to very little fanfare. The British media couldn’t give a shit if the next governing party is corrupt to its core.

    Why would they? They enabled and supported a government led by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

    If this scandalous abuse of power – reported in the Canary on Wednesday – was carried out by a left-wing NEC under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn you can absolutely guarantee the Canary wouldn’t be alone in reporting the top-down corruption in the Labour Party.

    Yes, Corbyn should have been more ruthless

    People often say Jeremy should’ve been considerably more ruthless during his time as Labour leader, and I absolutely accept that criticism. But they must not confuse ruthlessness with malversation.

    Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t do corrupt. He doesn’t do rich private healthcare donors, and he certainly doesn’t do tenebrous pro-genocide lobbyists that are seeking a substantial degree of influence and direct access to power-on-speed-dial for the price of a new digital photocopier and a few glossy leaflets.

    I don’t think any Labour member voted for Jeremy because they were expecting something that resembles the merciless autocracy that is synonymous with the Labour leadership of today, did they?

    The right-wing saboteurs of Labour would often level unfounded accusations at Jeremy Corbyn, only to have the same or similar accusations credibly directed at them some time later.

    This tactic is straight out of the hard-right playbook. Ask Donald Trump and the pariah state of Israel why nearly every accusation turns out to be a confession.

    The Labour right: accusations-turned-confessions

    The Labour right insisted we were antisemitic.

    The Labour right had very little to say when one of their own, Barry Sheerman, tweeted about a “run on silver shekels” in reference to a rumour about two high profile Jewish businessmen missing out on peerages.

    The Labour right insisted we were racist.

    The Labour right had very little to say when a member of their own National Executive Committee called for an inquiry into the Islamophobia that has permanently stained the soul of the once proudly anti-racist Labour Party. Believe me, Labour is a racist cesspit.

    The Labour right insisted we were a risk to national security.

    The Labour right has plenty to say when it comes to further funding and fuelling global conflicts — particularly supporting the depleting of our own stock of military hardware so Zelensky can continue to fight Biden’s war with Putin.

    I can’t think of a much greater risk to our national security than provoking a state with 5,500 nuclear warheads at its disposal. Just one nuclear warhead dropped over the city of London would kill 583,000 of our friends and loved ones.

    The Labour right insisted that Jeremy Corbyn crushed internal democracy and stitched-up candidate selection processes in favour of left-leaning candidates.

    The Labour right has spent the entirety of Keir Starmer’s tenure as Labour leader meticulously exploiting candidate selection processes to block left-wing candidates from standing for Labour while promoting a “London clique” of candidates that could broadly be considered Blairite.

    When the ruling class tells you what motivates them, believe them the first time because when they come looking for your votes they lie, and lie, and lie.

    Barros-Curtis who?

    I was delighted to hear the Labour Party has dropped its lawsuit against five ex-staffers who had been accused of leaking a controversial internal report – the work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2029

    The announcement was made just days after the party’s legal director, Alex Barros-Curtis, who dealt with the expensive legal action, was parachuted in as Labour candidate for the safe seat of Cardiff West.

    So let’s get this straight. The legal eagle that chased an unwinnable case against the ‘ex-Labour five’ was rewarded for his utterly humiliating waste of £1.5 million worth of Labour membership fees with a job-for-life, a very generous salary, and perks that the working class backbone of this country can only ever dream of?

    One senior Labour MP said:

    The parachuting of Alex Barros-Curtis into a safe Labour seat is a disgrace now we know what he is responsible for.

    This Starmer-appointed official has spent millions of pounds of the Labour Party’s money dragging former party employees through the courts for four years, pursuing a pointless and failed political vendetta.

    Barros-Curtis, who I know absolutely nothing about whatsoever, seems to be a “legal director” in the same way that Keir Starmer is a “former leading human rights barrister”.

    We only mentioned the Seven Deadly Sins on Friday…

    Starmer himself is no stranger to the perks of power, which were quite beautifully exposed by openDemocracy last year.

    In fact, Keir Starmer has taken more freebies from the obscenely wealthy than all of the Labour leaders since 1997 combined – and that is based on figures from the start of the age of beige in 2020 until August 2023.

    Some of the gluttonous Keir Starmer’s freebies included tickets to a Coldplay concert in Manchester worth £698 by a concert promoter, while the Jockey Club gave him a box and hospitality at the Epsom Derby worth £3,716.

    You know who sits on the board of the Jockey Club, right? Baroness Dido Harding.

    Repeat after me: They’re all in it together.

    Take a deep breath. Here’s Starmer’s freebies

    Junket king Starmer has also pocketed freebies from companies such as *takes deep breath* Just Eat, the grocery delivery app GETIR, online retail business the Hut Group, construction giants Mulalley and Co on TWENTY EIGHT occasions, various multi millionaires and gambling giants, and the gifts have included hospitality at Chelsea and Tottenham Premier League matches, ANOTHER Coldplay concert, numerous days at the races, an Adele concert, and nights in luxury hotels.

    It probably goes without saying, Keir Starmer isn’t the only top ranking Labour official to take full advantage of the corporate lobbyists generosity.

    Shadow secretary of state for health and social care, the Blairite disciple Wes Streeting, was gifted hospitality worth more than a grand at Hay Festival courtesy of the broadcaster Sky and on top of that he received £600 worth of tickets to the opera at Glyndebourne by a lobbying and public affairs company, FGS Global.

    It is important that I make clear, Starmer and Streeting are doing absolutely nothing wrong providing the freebie is declared within thirty days – if it has a value of more than £300. As you can imagine, many of the freebies are worth £295, thus avoiding the need to declare it.

    Keir Starmer: a piss-poor Cameron tribute act

    Parachuted candidates, the cancellation of internal democracy, the lies, double standards and jaw dropping hypocrisy, the racism and antisemitism, the financial recklessness, the trough-clearing, freebie-loving greed, all in one Canary column and yet they still want us to believe this piss-poor Cameron tribute act is going to responsible in government when it is so catastrophically irresponsible in opposition?

    Dream on.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • One strike, two strikes and they are out…

    Meanwhile there are even respectable, Establishment scholars who appear to have overcome their indoctrination or institutional discipline to express views on the current campaign in the eternal war of the Anglo-American Empire although at variance—if not deviance—from the positions they have been known to hold in the past or those that continue to prevail among the ruling class, its prelates, acolytes and fanatical hordes.

    Tucker Carlson has continued to sail full speed ahead in the same manner with which he confronted the Establishment’s re-enactment of the Reichstag fire (1933) in 2021 and exhibited the strongest circumstantial evidence that the farce staged on 6 January was quite obviously anything but what the Establishment has insisted it was to this day. Then he exposed millions of traditionally ignorant US Americans to the intelligence and immanent sanity of the Russian federal president, Vladimir Putin. Just last week he released an extensive interview with Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University. Although Sachs is probably still invited to parties and other events of the New York and Washington season, this prior preacher of shock therapy in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union—of whose legal dissolution he was personally informed by US stooge Boris Yeltsin—has arrived, on his own it seems, at an independence he could scarcely have been accused of exhibiting for much of his career. That said, just because he has said things with which critical historically conscious people can even violently disagree does not mean that his basic intellectual integrity is fraudulent.

    On the contrary, in the cult of individual personality that drives Western society there is also a compulsion to see every human as isomorphic with the verbal behaviour in which he or she engages. However since there is no immanent meaning in language—words—but only judged responses to verbal activity—it takes considerable energy and force to preserve dogmatic personalities of the kind with which we are routinely presented in mass media and wherever substantial power is exerted without corresponding challenge. What I mean is the judgement that anyone is inconsistent (as a liar or an idiot) relies on a more or less static and hence stereotypical or cliché-formed notion of the person whose behaviour is being judged. Hegel made this point more than two-hundred years ago in his journalistic essay “Who thinks abstractly?” (Wer denkt abstrakt?) It is not necessary to take vows of holy matrimony in order to have intimate and confidential relations—although as I child I did believe that children were mysteriously generated by the legal act.

    The education of Jeffrey Sachs, although far from complete, induced him to repudiate his role in the destruction of the Soviet economy while sitting on a New York Times panel discussing China. He was heavily criticized for that as well as his unwillingness to categorically condemn the Chinese State—especially by Western standards. However the economist is still ready to believe that the UN Sustainability Goals are benevolent policies driven by the sincere pursuit of human welfare. It appears that he does not advertise his destructive role in post-Soviet Eurasia. In speaking to Tucker Carlson he retained the positive version of his political-economic engagement. However he recounted an element of his epiphany when the very policy recommendations deemed a success in Poland (for reasons that are too extensive to explain here) were categorically rejected when it came to restoring Russia to the Western political-economic fold. The refusal of his masters to approve recommendations he had successfully implemented in the CIA-infested Catholic republic east of the Oder was by his own admission a stage of his Kairos. Apparently oblivious to actual Polish politics he assumed—not unlike the worshippers of Ludwig Erhard in Germany—that wonders come from liberal economics in lieu of canonized saints or the deity itself. This failure does not invalidate the lesson he learned, namely that the masters’ were not about to let their servant treat the hereditary enemy of Anglo-American Empire (I find hegemony an insufferable euphemism) in any other manner than destructive. Perhaps it should be said here that the very intelligence which elevated Jeffrey Sachs to the professorship and fellowship of Harvard University at such an early age was complemented by the spiritual-intellectual dependency sought in the loyal cadre. Repeatedly during the interview Professor Sachs refers to himself as naive or perhaps naive. That naïveté is cultivated among the bright, once talent-spotters have recruited them for the Establishment. He called the “neo-cons” “true believers”—a term popularized by Erich Fromm—but seems unable to recognise that he too was a true believer, spoiled with rewards that confirmed his own merit but ultimately had little to do with his undeniable intellectual capacity.

    Jeffrey Sachs, as a meanwhile marginalized if not banned regime critic, is important for two reasons. In the first place the credibility he enjoys because of his decades of devotion to the ruling cult lends some authority to the criticisms raised by those with little or no access to the apparatus of power. In the second place, Professor Sachs provides evidence of the permeability of a certain—albeit small—segment of the Establishment. His statements are evidence of the mendacity of his masters and ours. Although, unlike Tucker Carlson, Jeffrey Sachs is not willing to call his masters evil, he has at least reached the point of calling them insane. If we need proof that the evil 1% ought to be neutralized (to adopt a term favoured in those heights) there is at least testimony that the insanity requires us to act in our own defence.

    This interview was not unlike the Putin interview in one respect. Both Vladimir Putin and Jeffrey Sachs live in the world of diplomacy, civilized behaviour even among antagonists. Although of very different rank and station, Putin and Sachs demonstrate that there are limits to what one may say in public. The conversation Tucker Carlson conducted permitted him to interpolate or extrapolate from the statements made by his interlocutor. Hence we cannot know how critical Professor Sachs really is or how much he really understands beyond the framework his precocious academic career constructed.

    This is no where more evident than in the synthesis by which Professor Sachs asserts that none of the current crisis arose from spontaneous errors or miscalculations. On the contrary he argues very clearly that today’s brinkmanship derives at least from the policies (and culture) of Old Harrovian Henry Temple, 3d Viscount Palmerston and the Crimean War. The Old Etonian, David Cameron, who bowled Britain’s first innings against Russia until 2016 has continued that tradition in his assault as foreign secretary—recently on record as calling for direct assaults on Russia with British (and NATO) weaponry. In a discussion of his conclusions as chair of a committee appointed to investigate the origins of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, Sachs traced the story back at least to 2008 and the ambiguity of US regime claims to research “biodefense”. He also asserted that the 1963 assassination of POTUS John F. Kennedy could no longer be explained credibly by the fantastic story recorded and certified by the late Chief Justice Earl Warren et al. Moreover he concurred with a view meanwhile widely held that the assassination was a coup d’etat at least organized by the US national security apparatus (e.g. CIA). In all these Candide-like remarks—with Pangloss implied—Jeffrey Sachs demonstrated that even the most well-rewarded prodigies can under certain circumstances be induced to question many if not all of the fundamental assumptions by which they were recruited.

    Another admission—certainly rare among those of his rank and station—is that he actually values the lives of his family beyond the balance sheets and capital accounts with which political economy is obsessed. The idea that atomic war should be avoided because it kills the innocent (not necessarily the warriors) is foreign to any living Western politician or Establishment intellectual. As in the case of the settler-colonial regime in Palestine, the ideological standard is that mass killing of women and children “is worth it” (as the finally late Madeleine Albright proudly proclaimed for half a million dead Iraqi children). Sadism is an implicit prerequisite for high office and senior civil or military service. Corporations have departments dedicated to it. For Jeffrey Sachs the annihilation of his children and all the children like his was reason enough to oppose the insanity of the ruling oligarchy.

    Nonetheless as thoroughly confessional and sincere as Professor Sachs was in his conversation with Tucker Carlson, there were numerous loose ends. Perhaps the loosest of those is the de-contextualization of George Kennan’s anti-Sovietism. While it is true that in later years Kennan criticized much of the Establishment policy toward the Soviet Union he never went so far as to violate the sanctity of Chatham House, so to speak. Candidly this true believer accurately asserted that without military force the US would not be able to retain control over some 60% of the world’s consumption with 4% of its population. He also predicted that the damage the West had done to the Soviet Union would require at least 20 years to repair. In other words those who had ultimately backed the Hitler Wehrmacht as a means of destroying the Soviet Union had succeeded in creating the living conditions claimed to be the fruits of socialism. When despite that devastation the Soviet Union recovered ahead of schedule, the war intensified.

    By missing the essence of Kennan’s policy papers, Jeffrey Sachs fails to understand that the atomic weapons developed by the Manhattan Project— the largest single government research project at the time—were always intended for use against the Soviet Union, not against the German Reich or Japanese empire. Perhaps he never saw the de-classified Sandia oral history of US strategic policy. Yet Curtis LeMay was really no exception among the centurions. It was the Soviet Union that preserved what we in the West experienced to varying degrees as peace and prosperity, not the US. Even the story of the arms race taught in the West conceals this fact so as to blame the USSR for what was always unilateral, not mutually, assured destruction.

    What was the fundamental change in 1989? Professor Sachs says it was the “neo-con” ascendency. However Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were already embedded in the Nixon administration. Richard Holbrooke and his slightly older roommate began their careers as Phoenix counter-insurgency managers in the Mekong Delta (VietnamI)—that is junior mass murderers for the CIA before the official “neo-con” tracts were published. The dramatis personae of American empire has been incestuously linked to Britannia’s (in fact the City of London) destiny ever since Cecil Rhodes and Lord Rothschild founded what would become the Royal Institute of International Affairs franchise and the Council on Foreign Relations. A century of continuous class war, for convenience launched in 1913 with such paragons of legislation as the Federal Reserve Act and the South African Native Lands Act, has been waged by the “banking” class, guided by its dogma of world population reduction. In 1989, the triumph of the 1.0% meant that the horrific labour (human) intensive industrialization process could finally be transcended. The merger of eugenics and ecology, exemplified in the Club of Rome, prepared the ideological foundation for elimination of 20-40% of the world’s population, instead of merely 20% of selected target populations (China, Soviet Union, Central America, African states). The United Nations organisation—mainly the plethora of “specialized agencies” and the Anglo-American dominated Security Council and Secretariat—provided deniability for genocide in Korea, Indochina, Indonesia and the Congo or Haiti and of course Palestine. What seems unmentionable is the global enclosures program being implemented behind the facade of UN Sustainable Development Goals. The WHO—originally founded as a shell organization for the Rockefeller petrochemical pharmaceuticals cartel—has openly taken the point for biochemical herd culling/ eradication. The pejoratively denoted “Woke” ideology has emerged very much like Huxley and Orwell described—under the pretext of a vacuous and hypocritical morality, human kind are to be replaced by NCEs, i.e. numerically controlled entities. The abolition of biological sex, both in microsocial and macrosocial senses, accompanies the total commodification of “identity”. It only takes a cogent sense of consistency to see that when there are no essentially human qualities, then there can be no human rights.

    Fictive wealth can be indefinitely maintained by the minuscule tribe of monsters with the elimination of sufficient numbers of human beings (20-40% or more). Injecting genetically-engineered toxins into a billion people at a time is entirely consistent with pushing Russia into what could be politely called an atomic exchange.

    To the extent Russia and China oppose this nihilism it is because, unlike the West, they have actually been on the receiving end of previous culling campaigns (millions murdered by Western warrior-terrorists). However even there one can hear the grunts of members in the “big club”. Resistance to evil and insanity is far from uniform, especially among those committed to AI and contract pharmaceuticals manufacture.

    Nikki Haley is meanwhile standing in for that character played by Slim Pickens in Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove. As can be seen on the banks of the Hudson, Thames, Seine and Spree, between the River Jordan and the sea, the entire Western political class is compromised and or complicit in this accelerating democide.

    The post Unbecoming American: One strike, Two strikes, and You’re out first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • When the Black Death struck Europe in the Middle Ages, the fundamental values that held society together broke down. Husbands and wives abandoned each other and mothers abandoned their children. This void of ethics that overtook the population is described in Boccaccio’s The Decameron, considered a masterpiece of Italian prose and a documentary of life during that time. The book describes the sense of hopelessness that spread throughout the world, because it did not matter what stature one held in life or what one did or did not do to avoid the disease, all were subject to its lethality. Some implored their God in vain while others pursued a carpe diem spirit in an attempt to grab the last bit of pleasure from life when they were able. The common explanation for the indiscriminate devastation wrought by the Black Plague was God’s punishment for human wrongdoing. Nothing in human behavior has changed since then and I believe the ecological overshoot that man finds himself in today, manifested most prominently as climate chaos amongst a myriad of other threats, will cause humans to question the futility of life and their existence just as did those victims of the bubonic plague. A recent study has found that climate chaos is indeed worsening neurological diseases and mental health disorders. Another study found that people are denying climate change as a form of self-deception necessary to maintain their psychological health.

    Since those Dark Ages, mankind has developed the ability to accurately track and predict our own demise. Vast networks of satellites and other data monitoring tools are informing us that the planet is becoming increasingly more inhospitable for the vast majority of life on Earth, yet we plod onward, ignoring another plea by the world’s scientists. A reassessment of the Limits to Growth Study and its World3 model using different calibrations was done 6 months ago and the results are the same, which is to say that humanity is still following business-as-usual and heading for collapse within the next two decades:

    …the model results clearly indicate the imminent end of the exponential growth curve. The excessive consumption of resources by industry and industrial agriculture to feed a growing world population is depleting reserves to the point where the system is no longer sustainable.

    All the expertise and modern technology we possess will not be coming to save us; there is no techno-fix or deus ex machina remotely scalable to the planetary crises we face. Emergency atmospheric geoengineering schemes won’t save us at this point. Can’t we just suck the 900 billion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere that we have spewed since the beginning of the industrial revolution? No. It bears repeating that the spiking Keeling curve is non-reversible on human timescales.

    “We sadly continue to break records in the CO2 rise rate,” said Ralph Keeling, director of the CO2 program at Scripps. “The ultimate reason is continued global growth in the consumption of fossil fuels.” ~ May 8, 2024

    The rate of ocean warming has nearly quadrupled since the late twentieth century, doubling since 1993. In the last twelve month, ocean heating has been on a tear, shattering records consistently. The world is currently undergoing the fourth global coral bleaching event on record, the second in the last decade, and the Great Barrier Reef is suffering its worst bleaching event in recorded history. This year’s hurricane season will likely be a record-breaker. The oceans are starting to release all that thermal energy we have been unceremoniously dumping into them. At one time, oceans seemed like an endless sink for the emissions from humanity’s nonstop consumption of fossil fuels, but that appears to be coming to an end. The world’s rivers are warming and losing oxygen even faster than the oceans. In contrast to those grim stats, humanity is set to consume more resources in the next 30 years as we have since the dawn of civilization. We have already consumed the future and are now, as they say, eating the seed corn.

    We have breached tipping points and set in motion positive feedback loops that are accelerating non-linear ecological changes. Six of nine major planetary boundaries have been broken. Our unintended and haphazard experiment with complex Earth systems will unleash a Pandora’s box of deadly consequences. The current rate of CO2 change is unprecedented for the past 50,000 years. We have already passed the 1.5C warming threshold set by the Paris Agreement to prevent the irreversible and worsening effects of climate change. A recent study warns that as we add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, its potency for warming is stronger at higher atmospheric concentrations than an equivalent increase at lower atmospheric concentrations. The polar regions are warming four times faster than the rest of the planet and have been undergoing fundamental changes to their ocean/ice system which will affect all life on Earth. An ice-free Arctic is just around the corner. In a warming world, pathogens will be looking for ways to exploit the fast-changing environment, potentially creating the next global pandemic for people or destroying our food supply. The tree line, as well as animals, are expanding northward as the climate heats up and the ice melts. Nearly a third of all tree species are now endangered by our radically changing environment. The clear blue waters of Alaskan rivers are turning orange and rusty brown by the heavy metals being released from melting permafrost. The oceans are also turning green due to the shift in phytoplankton population from warming waters.

    The insurance industry, the backbone of the global economy, is beginning to buckle: “I believe we’re marching toward an uninsurable future.” As is typical of our modern-day society, the hypocritical insurance industry is heavily invested in fossil fuels while simultaneously warning about the looming destruction from climate change. Billion dollar disasters are increasing while the time between such disasters is decreasing. This continual rebuilding that needs to be done more often would be another doom-loop cycle for our crumbling civilization, considering the carbon emissions required in such repair and reconstruction. Compound extreme weather and climate events, combinations of two or more extremes (hazards) that occur concurrently or sequentially, are also increasing and expected to grow many fold over in the future. These compound weather events will inevitably create a perfect storm that will one day permanently destroy supply chains and economies by acting as a constant disruptor to stability. It would have the same effect as a monster cyclone, or hypercane, traveling the globe in perpetuity, waxing and waning in strength but never dying, and leaving a path of destruction wherever it roamed. A stable climate no longer exists to support the reconstruction of what once was. Walden Thoreau’s words seem very prescient today: “What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” With corporations also gobbling up single-family homes to monopolize the real estate market in America, we can officially say that the American dream of owning a home is dead. George Carlin always said you had to be asleep to believe anything about the American Dream.

    I have been hearing about the need to abandon fossil fuels since President Carter put solar panels on the White House 45 years ago. I am still waiting for the techno-optimists to explain to me how they will save us from this new age we have created, known as the Pyrocene or Age of Fire; rest in peace, Holocene. We could also call our modern-day clusterfuck the Plasticene or Age of Plastics. Scientists are finding the stuff in every nook and cranny of the planet, including Antarctic krill, men’s testicles, and throughout the human body. If you drive a vehicle, you are contributing to the primary source for microplastics in the environment, tires, which account for 78%. Just as they lied about their knowledge of the catastrophic effects from burning their fossil fuel products, so too did the oil and plastics industry lie about their greenwashing fraud called recycling.

    I never get an adequate, rational answer to our conundrum, because there is none. ChatGPT provides no better insight than the techno-optimists. The problem of a planet overrun by humans will resolve itself in short order and be recorded in the geologic fossil record after we put a cherry on top of this fossil fuel orgy, flattening the planet into a glass parking lot with nuclear weapons. That is another part of human nature that we will never escape…warfare. We seem to be one twitch away from WWIII and the next Stone Age. In fact, there are nearly 200 armed conflicts raging around the world right now, the largest number in decades. This marked uptick in violence could be an ominous sign of a violent new era. From the 2023 Armed Conflict Survey:

    “The accelerating climate crisis continues to act as a multiplier of both root causes of conflict and institutional weaknesses in fragile countries…”

    We are on the verge of authoritarian rule as global conditions break down and people embrace centralized solutions. Xenophobia will grow and borders will be shut down, sources of food and energy will be fought over and secured, and rationing of resources will be enforced.


    Illustration by Mark Bryan

    After studying our ecological overshoot for several decades, I have some observations that must be accepted as fact:

    • “Renewable” energy is not displacing our massive fossil fuel consumption at all, but only serving as a small addition to the total global energy consumption.

    • “Renewable” or alternative energy, such as solar and wind, is dependent on fossil fuels for its manufacture, installation, maintenance, and eventual disposal.

    •  The so-called “Energy Transition” away from fossil fuels is pure techno-hopium and will never materialize.

    • The general public and many scientists don’t understand the math and physics involved in transitioning a $100 trillion global economy, dependent on hydrocarbons, to intermittent alternative energy sources.

    • No such “Energy Transition” can be accomplished without radical reductions in resource consumption. This is antithetical to the basic biological urge for expansion by most organisms, including humans, and current trends illustrate this behavior. We also keep finding more ways to consume evermore energy. On top of this, the World Bank is urging faster economic growth for emerging economies in order for them to repay mounting debts.

    • Governments are ill-equipped to deal with industrial civilization’s complex polycrisis because effective solutions would undermine economic growth.

    The latest deadline to ‘save the planet’ is now two years from now, according to a UN Climate Change official. No doubt another arbitrary date given to justify someone’s job and department budget. According to Global Footprint Network’s calculations, humans have been in overshoot for over half a century. Others would say that we have been in overshoot since the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago, surviving only by mining the Earth’s soils. Like fossil fuels, the vast nutrient store of soils represents a unique one-time gift that has been squandered by agricultural erosion. Without petroleum and arable soils, the Earth will only support perhaps 5% of the present global population, as it did before the advent of agriculture. Considering that we are being constantly blindsided by faster-than-normal and worse-than-expected findings from scientists, I suspect there are far less food harvests left for us than we think. Hotter temperatures and pollution are hastening the destruction of topsoil. Our temporary extension of Earth’s carrying capacity for humans is coming to an end. Once Earth’s life support systems start to unravel, the grotesquely inflated human population will crash. In the meantime, “Memento moriturum; maxime faciunt vitae!”

    The state of the planet is getting considerably worse. I feel like the 2030s will be the decade when the wheels start coming off this ride of industrial civilization. Until I speak to you all again, please enjoy those blue skies and store-bought food while they last. And remember, industrial civilization is a heat engine and it will suddenly break one day!

    The post Last Rites for a Dying Civilization first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Friday 7 June, seven representatives from seven political parties thrashed it out in the second televised debate – the BBC debate – for the general election 2024. But did we get politics? Or was this a televised exposure of the seven deadly sins that currently exist in UK politics?

    Pride

    The pride that is displayed in UK politics is very clear to see from all parties – either defending their previous or future policies or boosting their parties’ current reputation. Friday’s BBC debate saw Penny Mordaunt from the Conservative Party as perhaps the worst offender, defending the indefensible: saying what they have done NHS has worked (it hasn’t) and blaming the pandemic for waiting lists, while talking about furlough.

    Greed

    After living under austerity for now 14 years the personal greed that resonates from the Tories has already been obvious. However, the BBC debate showed it even more – and also how Labour are now little more than self-serving careerists. Mordaunt was consistently talking over the Labour Party’s Angela Rayner amongst others throughout the debate –  including host Mishal Husain herself. Not to be outdone, Rayner did similar – leading to Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer to sarcastically say “well, that was terribly dignified”, to applause from the audience.

    Lust

    All politicians lust after power – however much they claim to the contrary. The prime example of this was when Husain reminded Lib Dems deputy leader Daisy Cooper on the BBC debate that her party was, of course, in cahoots with the Tories in government for five years – scandalously dropping their own pledge NOT to increase tuition fees, and infamously backing more attacks on chronically ill and disabled benefits in return for a 5p charge on carrier bags. Oh, and of course you had the very obvious sight of Reform’s Nigel Farage lusting after Tory votes.

    Envy

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave – even sometimes upon ourselves. Rayner, previously one of Jeremy Corbyn’s most allegedly staunchest allies, has become quite the worm that turned. However, even she must have been slightly envious of the impressive sermon the SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn gave about the positives of immigration on the BBC debate. There was probably a bit of envy from Husain, as well – wishing she was Victoria Derbyshire, or anyone else who could have actually kept control of the debate – because she repeatedly lost control like a bad school teacher.

    Gluttony

    Take the literal meaning of gluttony, then apply it to Westminster politics, and what do you have? The Tories gobbling up all the funding for the London and the south of England – leaving the rest of the UK hungry. Flynn rightly showed during the BBC debate how everything goes back to Westminster for it to gobble up, leaving Welsh and Scottish devolved governments struggling. Oh, and speaking of gluttony, it seems Farage wants to keep all the BBC debates to himself – after his 37 appearances on Question Time.

    Wrath

    Farage was wrath, personified, on the BBC debate Apparently, giving the NHS more money doesn’t work and that the model of NHS is completely wrong. After all, he knows best – saying it should be managed like a private company with people paying insurance. Of course, this has nothing to do with his personal experience. Spoiler: it does, as he claimed in 2015 the NHS “almost killed” him. However, on immigration and his angry claims that its responsible for EVERYTHING that’s wrong in the country – we can’t pinpoint any other reason for his wrath than that he’s a big, fat, racist.

    Sloth

    There was a lot of sloth on the BBC debate – and not all of it intentional. For example, on defence the Lib Dems’ Cooper reiterated word-for-word the same pledges as Labour had made – showing there’s not really a fag paper between them. More broadly, where we are unfortunately so used to the political bravado, we didn’t really hear much from Denyer or Plaid Cymru’s Rhun ap Iorwerth. The fact they couldn’t get a word in (or rather, Husain rarely let them) it appeared almost sloth-like. Speaking of sloth, it took an hour for someone to mention disabled people, and that was Cooper – while Farage used the lazy trope “people choosing not to work” to refer to the community.

    The warnings are there. We see the political red flags, but do we ignore them?

    So, from ancient writings to our modern day politics, the BBC debate has shown us that not only have we not really evolved much as a society over thousands of years, our politicians and potential leaders aren’t going to be evolving anytime soon either.

    We are still subjected to the same seven deadly sins by all seven of our potential political leaders that held society back thousands of years ago. We are clearly screwed as a society, democratic or not.

    Feature image via BBC iPlayer

    By Nicola Jeffery

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Israel’s illegal control over the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza has for decades prevented the Palestinian people from exercising their right of self-determination and full and effective self-governance. UN Resolution 3246 calls for all States to recognise that that right applies to all peoples subjected to colonial and foreign domination, including the Palestinians.

    The warning signs of genocide in Gaza had been there for all to see. But the lack of will on the part of UN members to implement 3246 not only let it happen but then failed to stop it even when its ferocity passed all comprehension.

    When October 7 erupted the West attempted to airbrush the pre-existing conditions Israel had imposed on Gaza and pretended Hamas started the ‘war’. But 1,000 lawyers, scholars, and practitioners immediately sounded the alarm about “the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” and issued an open letter as early as 15 October.

    For a start they reminded everyone that in 1982 the UN General Assembly condemned the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps as “an act of genocide”.

    Pre-existing conditions in the Gaza Strip had prompted discussion on genocide before, with warnings given over the years that the siege of Gaza (from 2006 onwards) might amount to a “prelude to genocide” or a “slow-motion genocide”.

    And since 2007, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, Israel had defined the Gaza Strip as an “enemy entity”.

    Earlier in 2023 Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich called Palestinians “repugnant”, and “disgusting” and proposed “wiping out” the entire Palestinian village of Huwwara in the West Bank.

    Here’s a timely reminder of what else the open letter said.

    • In the short space of time between 7 October and 15 October (when the open letter was written), 2,329 Palestinians were killed and 9,042 Palestinians injured in Israeli attacks on Gaza, including over 724 children, huge swathes of neighborhoods, and entire families across Gaza were obliterated.

    • Israel’s Defence Minister ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip prohibiting the supply of fuel, electricity, water, and other necessities. This intensifies an already illegal and potentially genocidal siege turning it into an outright destructive assault.

    • The ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) stated that orders to evacuate, coupled with the complete siege, are incompatible with international humanitarian law. Almost half a million Palestinians have already been displaced and Israeli forces have bombed the only possible exit route that Israel does not control (the Rafah crossing to Egypt) multiple times.

    • The World Health Organisation published a warning that “forcing more than 2000 patients to relocate to southern Gaza, where health facilities are already running at maximum capacity and unable to absorb a dramatic rise in the number of patients, could be tantamount to a death sentence”.

    • In the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, since 7 October, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF and police, have attacked and shot Palestinian civilians at point-blank range (as documented in the villages of a-Tuwani and Qusra), invaded their homes, and assaulted residents. Several Palestinian communities have already been forced to abandon their homes, after which settlers arrived and destroyed their property.

    • Between 7 and 15 October, Al-Haq documented the killing by the Israeli military and settlers of 55 Palestinians in the West Bank with 1,200 injured there.

    • Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared on 9 October: “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”, and afterward announced that Israel was moving to “a full-scale response” and he had “removed every restriction” on Israeli forces, also stating: “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.”

    • On 10 October, the head of the Israeli Army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, addressed a message directly to Gaza residents: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell”.

    • Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari acknowledged the wanton and intentionally destructive nature of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza: “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”

    • On 7 October, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Gazans would pay an “immense price” for the actions of Hamas fighters and asserted that Israel will wage a prolonged offensive that will turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centers “into rubble”.

    • Israel’s President emphasized that the Israeli authorities view the entire Palestinian population of Gaza as responsible for the actions of militant groups, and subject accordingly to collective punishment and unrestricted use of force: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.”

    • Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Israel Katz added: “All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”

    • On 12 October UN Special Rapporteurs condemned “Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for”.

    • UN experts warned against “the withholding of essential supplies such as food, water, electricity and medicines. Such actions will precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where its population is now at an inescapable risk of starvation. Intentional starvation is a crime against humanity”.

    • On 14 October the UN Special Rapporteur, on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, warned against “a repeat of the 1948 Nakba, and the 1967 Naksa, yet on a larger scale” as Israel is carrying out “mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war”.

    • The Palestinian population of Gaza appears to be presently subjected by the Israeli forces and authorities to widespread killing, bodily and mental harm, and unviable conditions of life – against a backdrop of Israeli statements that evidence signs of intent to physically destroy the population.

    Article II of the Genocide Convention provides that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as # Killing members of the group; # Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; # Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; # Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; # Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

    • The Convention provides that individuals who attempt genocide or who incite genocide “shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”.

    • The International Court of Justice has clarified that “a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harboring specific intent (dolus specialist), it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit”. (The many means available to the British Government include sanctions – readily applied to other delinquent nations – and withdrawal of favored-nation privileges, trade deals, and scientific collaboration).

    • Competent elements of the United Nations, particularly the UN General Assembly, are required to take urgent action under the Charter of the United Nations appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide. Emphasis is on the General Assembly given that the Security Council is compromised by the US and UK (both permanent veto-holding members) sending military forces to the eastern Mediterranean in support of Israel.

    • All relevant UN bodies, including the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, are called on to immediately intervene, carry out necessary investigations, and invoke the necessary warning procedures to protect the Palestinian population from genocide.

    Chock-full of hate

    All this was quickly followed by the UK Lawyers’ Open Letter Concerning Gaza of 26 October 2023, which contained important warnings regarding international law — for example:

    ⦁ The UK is duty-bound to “respect and ensure respect” for international humanitarian law as set out in the Four Geneva Conventions in all circumstances (1949 Geneva Conventions, Common Art 1). That means the UK must not itself assist violations by others.

    ⦁ The UK Government must immediately halt the export of weapons from the UK to Israel, given the clear risk that they might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law and in breach of the UK’s domestic Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.

    So, within 3 weeks it was clear to everyone paying attention that the Israeli leadership, chock-full of hate, were set on a course of vicious and brutal genocide. Yet the following month John Kirby, the White House National Security Communications Advisor, dismissed claims that Israel was committing genocide and told everybody that “Israel is not trying to wipe the Palestinian people off the map. Israel is not trying to wipe Gaza off the map. Israel is trying to defend itself against a genocidal terrorist threat. So if we’re going to start using that word, fine. Let’s use it appropriately.”

    Yes, and let’s use the term “right of self-defence” appropriately. In Gaza and the West Bank it only applies to the Palestinian resistance, not the belligerent illegal occupier.

    Incredibly, we’re now entering the 9th month of the genocide in Gaza and it has gone from bad to much, much worse. And there is still no let-up. People worldwide have been watching day after day mainstream and alternative media reports, seeing for themselves the horrors endured even by children, and aghast at the wholesale and wanton destruction of the Palestinians’ homeland. They cannot believe how depraved, immoral and spineless the international community has become, and how paralysed the UN in allowing the slaughter to continue. They are especially sickened by the conduct of the so-called ‘major powers’ and by the lunatic Netanyahu whom their own politicians call ‘friend and ally’ who thinks he can still dictate what happens in Gaza after he eventually condescends to end the butchery.

    If he thinks Israel can now grab Gaza by conquest he may be disappointed. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter expressly prohibits aggressive war and Article 5(3) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1975 (which includes the definition of Acts of Aggression) nullifies any legal title acquired in this way. And 5(3) says “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations“.

    In carrying through its genocidal assault on Gaza’s civilians and their homes, infrastructure and livelihoods Israel cannot possibly claim to abide by international law or honour their obligations under the Charter. And by encouraging Israel — and supplying the weaponry — neither can the US and UK.

    And now we have Biden, Israel’s loony protector, setting ‘red lines’ which Israel must not cross while merrily carrying on with their genocide. But they are so elastic that, with US permission, the hateful maniacs can almost do as they please to satisfy their genocidal lust. Biden arrogantly overrules the red lines on war crimes and crimes against humanity that are already set out by international law.

    The post The Shameful Journey from “Prelude to Genocide” to “Slow-motion Genocide” to “Rampant Genocide” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • COMMENTARY: By John Minto

    Good slogans have people nodding their heads in agreement because they recognise an underlying truth in the words.  

    I have a worn-out t-shirt which carries the slogan, “The first casualty of war is truth — the rest are mostly civilians”.

    If you find yourself nodding in agreement it’s possibly because you have found it deeply shocking to find this slogan validated repeatedly in almost eight months of Israel’s war on Gaza.

    The mainstream news sources which bring us the “truth” are strongly Eurocentric. Virtually all the reporting in our mainstream media comes via three American or European news agencies — AP, Reuters and the BBC — or from major US or UK based newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Washington Post or The New York Times. 

    This reporting centres on Israeli narratives, Israeli reasoning, Israeli explanations and Israeli justifications for what they are doing to Palestinians. Israeli spokespeople are front and centre and quoted extensively and directly.

    Palestinian voices, when they are covered, are usually at the margins. On television in particular Palestinians are most often portrayed as the incoherent victims of overwhelming grief.

    In the mainstream media Israel’s perverted lies dominate. 

    Riddled with examples
    The last seven months is riddled with examples. Just two days after the October 7 attack on Israel, pro-Palestinian protesters were accused of chanting “Gas the Jews” outside the Sydney Opera House.

    The story was carried around the world through mainstream media as a nasty anti-semitic slur on Palestinians and their supporters. Four months later, after an intensive investigation New South Wales police concluded it never happened. The words were never chanted.

    However the Radio New Zealand website today still carries a Reuters report saying “A rally outside the Sydney Opera House two days after the Hamas attack had ignited heated debate after a small group were filmed chanting “Gas the Jews”.

    Even if RNZ did the right thing and removed the report now the old adage is true: “A lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its trousers on”. Four months later and the police report is not news but the damage has been done as the pro-Israel lobby intended.

    The same tactic has been used at protests on US university campuses. A couple of weeks ago at Northeastern University a pro-Israel counter protester was caught on video shouting “Kill the Jews” in an apparent attempt to provoke police into breaking up the pro-Palestine protest.

    The university ordered the protest to be closed down saying “the action was taken after some protesters resorted to virulent antisemitic slurs, including ‘Kill the Jews’”. The nastiest of lies told for the nastiest of reasons — protecting a state committing genocide.

    Similarly, unverified claims of “beheaded babies” raced around the world after the October 7 attack on Israel and were even repeated by US President Joe Biden. They were false.

    No baby beheaded
    Even the Israeli military confirmed no baby was beheaded and yet despite this bare-faced disinformation the Israeli ambassador to New Zealand was able to repeat the lie, along with several others, in a recent TVNZ interview on Q&A without being challenged.

    War propaganda such as this is deliberate and designed to ramp up anger and soften us up to accept war and the most savage brutality and blatant war crimes against the Palestinian people.

    Recall for a moment the lurid claims from 1990 that Iraqi soldiers had removed babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and left them to die on the floor. It was false but helped the US convince the public that war against Iraq was justified.

    Twelve years later the US and UK were peddling false claims about Iraq having “weapons of mass destruction” to successfully pressure other countries to join their war on Iraq.

    Perhaps the most cynical misinformation to come out of the war on Gaza so far appeared in the hours following the finding of the International Court of Justice that South Africa had presented a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide.

    Israel smartly released a short report claiming 12 employees of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) had taken part in the October 7 attack on Gaza. The distraction was spectacularly successful.

    Western media fell over themselves to highlight the report and bury the ICJ findings with most Western countries, New Zealand included, stopping or suspending funding for the UN agency.

    Independent probe
    eedless to say an independent investigation out a couple of weeks ago shows Israel has failed to support its claims about UNRWA staff involved in the October 7 attacks. It doesn’t need forensic analysis to tell us Israel released this fact-free report to divert attention from their war crimes which have now killed over 36,000 Palestinians — the majority being women and children.

    The problem goes deeper than manufactured stories. For many Western journalists the problem starts not with what they see and hear but with what their news editors allow them to say.

    A leaked memo to New York Times journalists covering the war tells them they are to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to avoid using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land.

    They have even been instructed not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” or the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza settled by Palestinian refugees driven off their land by Israeli armed militias in the Nakba of 1947–49.

    These reporting restrictions are a blatant denial of Palestinian history and cut across accurate descriptions under international law which recognises Palestinians as refugees and the occupied Palestinian territories as precisely what they are — under military occupation by Israel.

    People reading articles on Gaza from The New York Times have no idea the story has been “shaped” for us with a pro-Israel bias.

    These restrictions on journalists also typically cover how Palestinians are portrayed in Western media. Every Palestinian teenager who throws a stone at Israeli soldiers is called a “militant” or worse and Palestinians who take up arms to fight the Israeli occupation of their land, as is their right under international law, are described as “terrorists” when they should be described as resistance fighters.

    The heavy pro-Israel bias in Western media reporting is an important reason Israel’s military occupation of Palestine, and the ongoing violence which results from it, has continued for so long.

    The answer to all of this is people power — join the weekly global protests in your centre against Israel’s settler colonial project with its apartheid policies against Palestinians.

    And give the mainstream media a wide berth on this issue.

    John Minto is national chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Did you know… the surname Starmer comes from the Old English words sterre, or starre, which meant star, and would have been given to someone with a bright personality?

    Keir Starmer has the charisma of a kidney stone. He is a half-filled bowl of semolina in human form.

    Even the Reform hategoblin Nigel Farage doesn’t mind Starmer because the Clacton carpetbagger claims his fellow right-winger Starmer is to the “right of the Tories on immigration”, accusing the Labour Party leader of “repeating the UKIP 2015 manifesto”.

    For shame.

    The ‘lesser of two evils’: you will always have evil and less

    I have never been one for buying into this lesser of two evils nonsense.

    If you always vote for the lesser of two evils — in this case, Keir Starmer’s “changed” Labour Party — you will always have evil, and you will always have less.

    For the easily confused, look at it this way.

    On one hand, the conquests of Genghis Khan are said to have caused around forty million deaths. While not being a personal associate of Mr Khan, I’d say that’s pretty damn evil.

    On the other hand, you have Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed and dismembered seventeen males over a period of thirteen years. Again, I’d say Jeff was evil.

    Still with me?

    Dahmer’s death toll may well be significantly less than Khan’s, and on that basis he might be considered the lesser of two evils. But the fact remains, Dahmer, the ‘Milwaukee Cannibal’ was evil.

    Of course, Rishi Sunak isn’t Genghis Khan — Khan is a card-carrying member of the Green Party when compared to Sunak — and Starmer certainly isn’t Jeffrey Dahmer, indeed, Dahmer was convicted for his heinous crimes whereas Starmer is still waiting for his invitation to the International Criminal Court.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Give it up, already

    I have friends who have been out campaigning for Labour over the past couple of weeks. They are still of the belief that it’s better to fight for change from within, despite the change they seek having absolutely no place in today’s Labour Party.

    I am of the belief that handing over your membership fees to pay for Starmer’s next bottle of Just for Men is an unimaginably stupid thing to do.

    You may as well give it to a worthwhile charity — the Tories have created enough of them — or join a political movement that aligns with your own values, such as Collective, as I know many of my old Labour left friends have done.

    But vote for Labour, or encourage other people to vote Labour? I’d consider dinner with Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben Gvir before I tell anyone to vote against their own interests.

    Starmer replaced free broadband with focus groups and a peace-first foreign policy with a foreign lobbyists policy. It’s not the left that’s the problem here.

    Starmer: the betrayal is complete

    Keir Starmer has betrayed you. He has cheated you. He has stolen your hopes and ambitions and replaced it with division and deselections. You once dared to dream of a better tomorrow, now the best you can hope for is replacing one set of Tories with another?

    Has there been a single day during this pointless general election campaign where the Labour Party haven’t left you feeling betrayed, disappointed, disgusted, or even apoplectic with rage?

    Whether it’s the shelving of yet another “pledge”, “promise”, “mission” or “fix”, or the embarrassment of a selection process that has seen Black and brown left-wing prospective parliamentary candidates callously tossed aside for saboteurs, Tories, racists and warmongering propagators for a pariah state currently under investigation for crimes against humanity – and that’s just in North Durham.

    Didn’t Durham police investigate Starmer for alleged breach of Covid rules? Revenge is a dish best served Cold War….

    Perhaps you’re one of these voters that still naively supports our anachronistic voting system, essentially dictating whether you vote for blue Tories, red Tories, or urinary tract infection orangey-yellow Tories?

    I’m trying not to swear so much these days, so I won’t call them treacherous piss diamonds that betrayed students and agreed to the Tories harsher benefit sanctions in exchange for a fucking carrier bag tax.

    I did say “try”.

    Labour’s election campaign is NOT about Tofu and Meghan

    This election campaign isn’t Labour versus the Tories, and it’s most certainly not right versus left, unless you’re one of those pillocks that still reads the Daily Mail and thinks Keir Starmer is a tofu-munching Meghan Markle sympathiser that spends his weekends on the allotment with Jeremy Corbyn.

    Sunak versus Starmer is a battle of S*n columnists. A war between a pair of perfidious establishment lickspittles. Two very different coloured rosettes promoting exactly the same failed capitalist ideology, where corporate welfare matters more than societal welfare.

    Gosh, aren’t we lucky?

    In the old days we used to keep up with the Jones’s, but in 2024 we can’t even keep up with the price of a fucking tin of beans and neither of those elitist guardians of the establishment have the solution because they are promising to maintain the problem.

    If it walks like a Tory, speaks like a Tory, looks like a Tory, and behaves like a Tory, there’s a bloody good chance it’s Keir Starmer, a dipstick simp to the rich and powerful. A master of broken promises.

    We have already got one load of principle free, privatisation-embracing, poor-hating, anti-working class, freeloading, apartheid-supporting, blatantly corrupt gaggle of blundering subhuman effluent in government, so why would we want even more of the same, dressed in a red rosette?

    Starmer: hang your heads in shame

    One day many will hang their heads in shame when they realise the obvious evil they defended and the heroes they ridiculed.

    The only reason Labour find themselves so far ahead is because so many people have had it up to their eyeballs with the Tories. It is not an endorsement of the Labour Party – far from – but a complete rejection of the Conservative party and their failed dogma, set to be continued under Prime Minister Starmer.

    I absolutely reject the Labour Party, and for the first general election in my lifetime I will not be giving my vote to the Labour candidate. They don’t need my vote any longer, they’ve got Tory votes to see them home, and they certainly don’t deserve my vote.

    Do they deserve yours?

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • This is shaping up to be a very strange general election period, isn’t it? The polls are consistently showing that the Labour Party has a jaw-dropping lead over the Conservative Party, with YouGov’s first major poll of the election campaign showing that Keir Starmer could be on track for an even larger landslide victory than Tony Blair’s in 1997. Yet despite the enormity of this lead, its historic significance, and the impact it would have on the shape of UK politics for the next five years, the media is not spending much time reporting on Labour’s policies – specifically the NHS.

    General election: policies don’t drive clicks

    Conservative policies aren’t attracting much attention either (except for the widespread coverage about their terrible plans for National Service). Policies don’t feel central to the public conversation right now. Instead, everyone is discussing the selection (and deselection) of Labour general election candidates, the scandals surrounding all this, and (huge heart-sink) Nigel Farage.

    Perhaps this should come as no surprise, because personality politics and the associated drama, makes for great copy. It’s click-baity, it riles people up online, and all of that drives traffic to news websites and makes money for media organisations. But if we really want change for the country, we need to get to grips with politicians’ plans beyond election day.

    In the coming days and weeks, I’ll share information with you about the NHS policies that are being proposed by different political parties, and I thought I’d start today by talking about the 100 new GP surgeries that Rishi Sunak is promising to build in England.

    The Conservative Party’s NHS track record

    First of all, we cannot talk about the Conservative Party and their plans for primary care without talking about their failures in recent years.

    Jeremy Hunt pledged in 2015 that there would be 5,000 more GPs by 2020. They then made another pledge in the 2019 election, saying that they’d increase GP numbers by 6,000 by 2025. As it stood in April 2024, there were actually 1,759 fewer GPs than there had been in September 2015, which is a pretty damning record.

    I’m sure there are a lot of people right now who aren’t sure they can trust the Conservative Party to deliver on any of their NHS promises.

    But let’s imagine that Sunak did manage to deliver on this promise for 100 new GP surgeries. Is it really what we need right now?

    Are more GP surgeries the answer?

    There is a crisis in NHS primary care that cannot be denied, and it’s a crisis which hasn’t received enough attention. Politicians and many media outlets have been dismissive of the pressures that NHS GPs have faced since the pandemic, and have even gone so far as to scapegoat them for the problems in the system.

    They’ve been accused of “hiding behind their telephones” or “avoiding patients” when in reality they have been under extraordinary pressure to keep their patients safe.

    As the NHS waiting lists have grown, many patients have relied on their GPs more and more. Perhaps their symptoms have worsened as their condition deteriorates waiting for hospital treatment. Perhaps their medication needs have increased. Perhaps their mental health has even deteriorated – after all, medical conditions do not sit in isolation.

    People who are waiting too long for medical treatment sometimes lose work, or suffer relationship breakdowns, or even experience housing instability. All of these impacts are serious, and situations like this often require a GP to intervene and provide help.

    NHS: institutional issues

    As the NHS waiting lists have lengthened and politicians have failed to properly tackle the causes underlying the situation, GPs have come under increasing pressure. On top of this, the Conservative government has not funded GP services properly, leading to a situation where some GP practices cannot afford to hire the doctors they need.

    Many NHS doctors are losing their jobs as a result and are struggling to find work, at a time when millions of NHS patients are waiting for treatment.

    Many NHS buildings are in a very bad state right now, and at the end of 2023, the unmet repair bill in the NHS in England alone was close to £12bn On top of this, many GP surgeries have closed in recent years; in fact, Pulse showed in December that 474 GP surgeries had closed across the UK since 2013.

    That’s an enormous number, and it deserves attention, and it’s clear why Rishi Sunak feels that 100 new GP surgeries will make a compelling promise for the public during this general election season.

    But if politicians just focus on the buildings, and ignore the staff, they will not fix the problems in NHS primary care.

    Yes, we need more GP surgeries, but the health service needs more staff

    Even if Rishi Sunak managed to build those 100 GP surgeries, they’ll be no use at all if we don’t have the NHS staff to work within them.

    We desperately need politicians from all parties to create bold, transformative policies to restore the NHS to its previous functioning. But those policies have to start with the NHS staff, who deserve proper support at long last.

    The public deserves a robust, well-supported NHS workforce; one that is paid properly, has manageable workloads, and is equipped to provide patients with the excellent care they deserve.

    Featured image via Rishi Sunak – X

    By Dr Julia Grace Patterson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • We know what a woman is. Keir Starmer doesn’t’, tweeted the Tories, signalling the start of another week of them desperately trying to be relevant – by weaponising trans rights. 

    Here we go again

    This of course stood alongside another disastrous outing from Kemi Badenoch where she attempted to explain how hospital wards would ban trans women without being horrifically inappropriate.

    The big argument around excluding trans women from hospital wards, toilets, changing rooms, and general life is that any man could ‘dress up as a woman’ and walk in to abuse women and kids. The problem with this though is men don’t need to do that to abuse women and kids, they just abuse them in broad daylight and people still don’t believe victims.

    Another glaring issue this brings up is that this isn’t about trans women. It’s that many men can’t keep their hands to themselves and think they’re entitled to women’s bodies. 

    They’re our bosses, teachers, family members, partners, police officers, elected officials, and more. And the most powerful of abusers are surrounded by equally vile people in power who support them and silence their victims.

    And so we move on to the Tories.

    Tories: serial misogynists, rapists, and bullies

    How many Tory MPs and donors have been accused of bullying, harassing, abusing, and raping women and girls? More than 56 MPs were named in a report on sexual misconduct, But how many weren’t named? The true figure for that one I’m afraid is something we may never know.

    For all Badenoch, Sunak, and many others claim they want to make the UK safer for women their actions say the opposite. The tweet from the prime minister read “biological sex matters. We’re protecting women and girls”, but this is patently untrue.

    Whilst they’re pledging to restrict trans women’s rights they’ve actually made life much worse for all women. 

    Making life worse for all women

    One in three women have experienced some form of physical violence at the hands of a partner. Instead of helping them, the past decade has seen women’s domestic violence services and refuge shelters pushed to breaking point thanks to Tory cuts. 

    One in 30 women in the UK are sexually assaulted every year and yet the conviction rate for rape is less than 2%. In the past five years, 800 police officers were accused of rape and sexual assault. However only 10 were convicted and at least 350 of them are still serving in the police force. 

    The Tories have also made no attempt to support women trying to escape abuse – and in the instance of disabled women, their policies often ensure they have no way of getting out. 

    Disabled women

    Disabled women often find it harder to escape domestic abuse as their abusers are usually their main caregivers. Though also often violent abuse is very often mental and financial. Disabled women are often trapped in abusive situations by the benefits system that disqualifies them if their partner earns too much meaning they have no money of their own to get out or means to escape.

    Outside of abuse, there’s also the way women are consistently kept down in general life. Women earn on average much less than men, in fact the Trades Union Congress (TUC) estimates that women work 52 days unpaid a year that men are paid for. The gap is much worse for disabled women who can earn up to SEVEN GRAND less than non-disabled men a year. 

    There’s also the fact women are still seen as the primary caregiver so expected to look after children, husbands, parents, and disabled family members for free. Carers allowance is a pittance and childcare costs are unattainable.

    The cost of living crisis

    While we’re on the subject of kids, the Tories also brought in the two-child benefit cap, meaning you can only get government support for your first two children. There is a clause to this, however, if a third child is the product of rape – but would you really want that on your kids record?

    Women are also at the brunt-end of the cost of living crisis. Women are already lower paid so they have less money to spend on food and bills. They are more likely to be reliant on services that have been cut. Women go without food in their own homes to feed their children.

    And since the Tories love to talk about how much of a danger trans women are in healthcare – let’s talk about how dire it is for women seeking any medical attention. 

    Health inequalities

    The UK APPG on endometriosis surveyed over 10,000 women about their experiences prior to diagnosis. 58% visited a GP more than 10 times. 21% visited doctors in hospital 10 times or more. 53% went to A&E. 27% went to A&E three times or more. 38% said that they had symptoms for 10 years or longer. 

    The ADHD Foundation estimates that girls are three times less likely to be diagnosed than boys and on average are diagnosed nine years later. They say that 50-75% of the one million UK women with ADHD are undiagnosed.

    Women in the UK are 50% more likely than men to be misdiagnosed after a heart attack. It was thought up until 2021 that this was before symptoms presented differently, but it was actually attributed to women being so used to not being believed by a doctor that they come with a list where men can go “ouch here” and are believed

    Women are often not believed or treated as making up health problems for attention. A 2018 review found that men are viewed as “brave” for seeking help for pain, whereas women are perceived as ‘hysterical’ “emotional” and “choosing to not want to get better”.

    Tories: abusing trans women to lay cover for their failures

    Trans people meanwhile are twice as likely to sexually assaulted or abused and four times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. One in eight trans employees have been attacked by a colleague or customer and a quarter of trans people have experienced homelessness.

    The truth is the Tories don’t actually care about “what a woman is” or where people pee, they just want to stoke further division to ensure that the plebs aren’t looking at how they’ve failed the country – and especially women. 

    But just FYI – Thatcher’s grave is a gender-neutral toilet

    Featured image via Matthew McNicholas – YouTube

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Hello hello, testing testing. Is this thing on? Can everyone hear me? Can you all see me?

    Oh good, it’s just the Conservatives and Labour who apparently have forgotten disabled people exist, again – right during a general election

    No general election ableist bullshit – which isn’t a good thing…

    After months of making disabled people the enemies of the public who are stealing the taxpayer’s money, we appear to have turned invisible to the two major parties. 

    I was about to start writing this column earlier in the week when I realised I had nothing to write about. There has been no massive amounts of ableism this week, because they’ve just… stopped talking about us.

    It’s like we’re in some weird twilight zone where they’re all just letting us get on with our lives without suggesting we shouldn’t be able to go on holiday or that we’re all lazy feckers who sit in front of the TV all day. I’m writing this whilst watching I Kissed A Girl and this is a safe space to say that now.

    Disability is often condescendingly called a superpower, but is this what they meant? Have we all become invisible?

    Has anyone checked on Mel Stride? He hasn’t been seen ranting about unemployed disabled people in TWELVE days. Is the wet wipe okay?

    Has he been spotted wandering around Devon yet ranting incoherently asking random wildlife if they claim benefits, trying to convince them about “the benefits of work”?

    It should be a comfort that they’re seemingly leaving us alone but after months of threatening to make our lives harder and years of actions that have led to our deaths. The silence is just as scary.

    General election: a scary silence

    While the prime minister, opposition leader, and candidates have been up and down the country and touted out across media for the general election, not one has mentioned anything to do with disability.

    There’s been nothing to do with PIP reforms, the threats to the Work Capability Assessments, and any changes they would make to the DWP (for better or worse). Absolutely not a peep on how they’ll support us in the cost of living crisis.

    It makes sense, almost for the Tories to be silent about us. After years of demanding us they no longer have to – the propaganda has already gotten to people. They also know that so many are turning away from them and I suspect they don’t want to give media pundits even more reason to hate them.

    However, it makes zero sense for Labour to ignore us. Things like the fact both the EHRC and the UN have found them to be actively endangering disabled people’s lives would be great fuel for the Tory-hating fire.

    Why aren’t they constantly pointing out that their policies have and will continue to kill disabled people? That their rhetoric has led to us being seen as lazy, workshy scroungers who want to leech off taxpayers.

    At a time when the DWP are attacking neurodivergent people and those with mental health conditions, it’d be an absolute home run for any of the Labour lot to speak out about how abhorrent they’re being.

    They must, therefore, be staying quiet for a reason.

    Labour: letting a good thing go to waste?

    This could be that they know how good a number the scrounger narrative has done on disabled people and they don’t want to lose the “hardworking” voters who might worry they’re going to give people who need it support at the expense of their taxes.

    The most worrying conclusion is this: Labour hasn’t spoken up about disabled people because they share the same ideals as the Tories.

    The only thing we’ve heard from the Labour election campaign so far is a line straight from the Tory playbook “Those that can work will”. There was also a vague idea yesterday that local government will support more disabled people in to work.

    But this sounds a lot like Wet Wipe’s WorkWell and there was no talk of funding for local authorities who are already stretched enough.

    As always, any focus on disabled people has been put on our ability to work, because humans are apparently only useful if they can make money and if they can’t well into the mixer with you.

    With a bit of luck, we’ll be well shot of the Tories in a few weeks time, but there’s no doubt in my mind we’ve got a fight on our hands with Labour.

    The Lib Dems a glimmer of hope? Yes, you heard that correctly

    One glimmer of hope is that the Tories are set to be wiped out so hard that the Lib Dems could become the official opposition. Ed Davey shared yesterday that he’s the father of a disabled child, so hopefully once he’s stopped having a lovely little adventure holiday he’ll get to work holding them to account.

    Until then we’ll have to do it ourselves, as always.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Don’t get me wrong, the Tories deserve an almighty drubbing of biblical proportions at the general election on 4 July, but is the Keir Starmer Labour Party a worthy benefactor of this rightful discontent for the Tories?

    Of course it isn’t.

    ‘Tory enablers’… blah, blah, blah

    No matter how often and how loud the supporters of no-change-whatsoever Starmer scream and shout that the general election is a binary choice, this is simply a lie.

    Pointing this out will see you labelled a “Tory enabler”, which is pretty damn rich coming from the same puddles of piss that worked against Jeremy Corbyn to lumber the British people with a hard-right, headbanging Conservative government headed up by the preposterous Etonian scarecrow, Johnson.

    There is no Corbynite-Tory axis. This is a bizarre invention from the Starmerites that makes even less sense when you consider their leader is quite clearly a Tory.

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again, possibly until I turn as blue in the face as the rosette pinned to Starmer’s chest. This is a Labour Party in name only.

    The Labour Party: in name only

    A Labour Party that commits to further NHS privatisation is a Labour Party in name only.

    A Labour Party that brazenly takes cash from ex-Tory donors with interests in private health care is a Labour Party in name only.

    A Labour Party that refuses to stand in solidarity with the working classes that have never needed a hefty pay rise as much as what they do right now is a Labour Party in name only.

    A Labour Party that cannot lay out a comprehensive plan that is meticulously designed to put an end to homelessness and rough sleeping is a Labour Party in name only.

    A Labour Party that treats millions of disabled people with the same vicious contempt as the Conservative governments of the past fourteen years is a Labour Party in name only.

    A Labour Party that has abandoned even the slightest pretense of possessing a functioning internal democracy and continues to stitch up the selection process in favour of centre-right Starmer-sympathising carpet baggers is a Labour Party in name only.

    The Purge: Election Year

    The left purge isn’t a new thing. The Canary was documenting it in 2020. I am shocked that anyone else is shocked by the racist and cruel treatment of Diane Abbott.

    Keir Starmer ditched the dissenting left some time ago. What you are seeing now is people on the soft left such as Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell-Moyle — hardly raging Corbynites — being cleared out for fresh right-wing Starmer loyalists.

    One particular imposition that caught the headlines was in North Durham where the director of ‘We Believe in Israel’, the hard-right NEC member Luke Akehurst, has been gifted a safe Labour stronghold.

    Akehurst, who calls himself a “Zionist shitlord”, may well end up being given a minister of state position, or perhaps they can create a Secretary of State for genocide complicity for the malignant toad?

    Reading that back, just how far has the socialist Labour party of Hardie, Attlee, Bevan, and Benn had to fall to become the crony capitalist party of Starmer, Akehurst, Streeting, and Reeves, under the guidance of Peter Mandelson?

    I genuinely wish the leader of the Labour Party would take a week off from being a ridiculous affront to human decency. While the opportunist Starmer will only be thinking about the next election, it’s the next generation I feel truly sorry for.

    Starmer: a ‘safe pair of hands’ – just not for you or me

    Keir Starmer is undoubtedly a safe pair of hands for the ruling class, and that makes him an unsafe pair of hands for the millions of us that used to believe the Labour Party was the only credible vehicle for societal change.

    You only need to look at where private healthcare cash is heading to get an idea of the access and influence being indirectly purchased behind the scenes in Keir Starmer’s “changed” Labour Party.

    Why would Yvette Cooper take £295,000 from donors with links to private healthcare? What about Keir Starmer? Some £157,000 has ended up with the Labour leader. Why?

    And then there’s the painfully obnoxious Pet Shop Boy, Wes Streeting, the shadow secretary of state for health and social care. He ended up with a very generous £193,000 from donors with links to private healthcare. Why? Are there no alarm bells ringing?

    In total, Labour’s front bench has pocketed an eye-watering £783,000 from donors with links to the private healthcare industry, leaving us in absolutely no doubt as to why bleating Streeting said just this week:

    We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals.

    This isn’t Blairism on steroids but Toryism on Tramadol and Temazepam, washed down with a pint of Tequila.

    Oddly enough, Wesley, private healthcare companies that have been awarded contracts to run NHS services need to make an obscenely immoral profit to satisfy their shareholders, and this ghoulish quest to make a killing out of our health has already lead to a mountain of catastrophic and expensive failures by private non-NHS organisations.

    You can’t trust them

    This rotten and corrupt Labour Party cannot be trusted with your NHS, no more or less than the bastards that have defunded and demoralised our greatest socialist creation over the past fourteen miserable years.

    Do you really trust the Labour Party — proudly funded by Tory donors — to end the cronyism and corruption that has been synonymous with the last fourteen years of Conservative clusterfuckery? I don’t.

    Fellow Canary columnist, Dr Julia Grace Patterson, summed it up quite nicely when she asked her 275,000 followers on X:

    I wonder if Labour will have any socialist MPs left by the time we get to election day?

    I must say, Dr Ju is a fantastic NHS activist and a bloody good author. But the shit she has received from the angry Starmerite mob for condemning the genocide in Gaza, and for consistently exposing the Labour Party’s profoundly concerning relationship with the private healthcare industry has been both utterly unwarranted and at times, typically vile and abusive.

    The answer to her question is yes, probably just a few that will remain committed to firing-off a letter of disapproval on Socialist Campaign Group headed-paper every time another comrade from a Black or brown background is kicked out of the party for the crime of liking a Green Party tweet twelve years ago, or worse still, attending a protest in 1981.

    We don’t need another Tory Party

    The cull of the leftists isn’t over. I know of at least another six socialist left-wing candidates at risk of being axed by Morgan McSweeny and Keir Starmer.

    And this only leaves me with one question to pose before we talk again on Wednesday:

    Why on earth do we need another Tory Party when the Tory Party in power is dying on its arse?

    We don’t.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The word “fascism” is a lightning rod. No one wants to be called a fascist. Everyone is ready to call someone else a fascist.

    Like many highly charged words, the more common its usage becomes, the more inexact its meaning becomes.

    Today, Trump is a fascist, Putin is a fascist, Modi is a fascist, Radical Islam is Islamofascism, the House and Senate members who passed the FISA renewal are fascists, Ukraine is a fascist country, political correctness is fascism, anti-Zionists are fascists, Zionists are fascists, and so on….

    Clearly, the word “fascism” in these contexts is most often an expression of extreme disapproval– a kind of expletive.

    A problem arises when the claimant– the person using the word– has something more definite in mind, something more exacting. A problem arises when the user of the word intends to draw an association with the real, historically concrete phenomena of fascism that emerged in the aftermath of World War I and rose tragically to ravage and terrorize nearly the entire world.

    The idea that people or organizations are preparing to organize Blackshirts, Brownshirts, Silver Shirts or whatever to intimidate or overthrow conventional political processes is understandably reprehensible. But to conjure such an image in order to influence the political process, though without sufficient warrant, is misleading.

    In a highly charged political context, it is not only misleading, but also unhelpful, and even incendiary.

    Even a policy as sanctified by much of the left as the New Deal has been called fascist, proto-fascist, or fascist-tinged by commentators from across the political spectrum. And the “sainted” FDR has been labeled fascist by many. Critics from both left and right have seen parallels between elements of the New Deal and Mussolini’s corporatism. Still others have found similarities between the Rooseveltian Civilian Conservation Corps and Hitler’s German Labor Services. Since the New Deal was a mish-mash of trial-and-error pragmatism, it is a disservice to wed it with any particular ideology.

    Of course, “fascism” depends on how we define it. Problems of definition arose immediately after World War II and the defeat of the major fascist powers. The emerging Cold War led to the US and its allies accepting a narrow definition when it came to new-found allies among former Nazis and Nazi collaborators. In its conflict with the Soviets, US leaders relied on Germans and Eastern Europeans with dubious, fascist ties to advance weapons programs, utilize intelligence, and bolster anti-Communism. Vetting of fascists by ideology was a haphazard process at best.

    On the other hand, attempts to link fascism to Communism was an ongoing project. Determined efforts to find common features to justify anti-Communism led to a construct called “totalitarianism.” Popularized by Hannah Arendt, Cold Warriors wanted and got a tally of supposed similarities that served their purposes and served to generate a common definition of two disparate ideologies.

    Thus, the Cold War created both a narrow and broad interpretation of fascism– one for practical purposes, the other for propaganda purposes.

    As the Cold War warmed in the 1980s, academics like Stanley Payne (Fascism, Wisconsin, 1980), made attempts at more independent, nuanced, and objective definitions of “fascism.” Payne engaged in comparative historical analysis and arrived at his typological description of fascism. Unfortunately, it suffered somewhat from raw empiricism and a failure to properly weigh the factors disclosed. To its credit, it undercut the Cold War conflation of Communism and fascism by emphasizing anti-Communism as a common feature of fascism, and not conflating it with Communism.

    Further, Payne in 1980 recognizes the historically met concept of “liberal authoritarianism” — a form of illiberal liberalism– that might serve to explain much of the confusion of our anti-Trump left today, who are anxious to dispense with the Bill of Rights to save “our” democracy.

    In a recent essay regarding the “fascism is eminent” fashion of today, noted liberal commentator, Patrick Lawrence, riffs on the concept of “liberal authoritarianism.” Lawrence declares in his article “This Isn’t Fascism,” posted on Consortium News, that “I cannot quite tell what people mean when they speak of fascism in our current circumstances. And [as] far as one can make out, a lot of people who use the term, and maybe most, do not know what they mean, either.”

    Unfortunately, while Payne still serves as a keystone for contemporary Western academic scholarship, the old Cold War conflation of Communism and fascism has resumed, particularly under a new wave of retro-Cold Warriors like Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder.

    But more consequentially, the charge of fascism — invoked irresponsibly — has served as a weapon in electoral politics. Specifically, many in the Democratic Party — bereft of an appealing program — charge that a vote for Biden is a vote against fascism. Given that Biden’s failure on inflation and his bloody war-mongering are rejected, especially by youth and the Party’s left wing, portraying Trump as a fascist is an act of desperation, but an act that will ultimately do little to forego the rise of Trump and his ilk.

    Again, invoking Lawrence:

    Much of this, let’s call it the pollution of public discourse, comes from the liberal authoritarians. Rachel Maddow, to take one of the more pitiful cases, wants us to think Trump the dictator will end elections, destroy the courts, and render the Congress powerless. The MSNBC commentator has actually said these things on air.

    One-man rule is the theme, if you listen to the Rachel Maddows. The evident intent is to cast Donald Trump in the most fearsome light possible, as it becomes clear Trump could well defeat President Biden at the polls come Nov. 5.

    We can mark this stuff down to crude politicking in an election year, surely. There is nothing new in it. But this is not the point.

    Opportunistic voices on the left will often draw a crude analogy with the rise of Nazism. They argue the simplistic and false case that disunity on the left opened the door for Hitler’s ascendency to the Chancellorship of Germany in 1933. They repeat an old whitewash of history — dismissing Hitler’s backing by the German capitalists, the perfidy of the weak government, and the betrayal of the Social Democrats. They ignore the economic crisis, the rulers’ failure to address the crisis, and the peoples’ desperate search for a radical answer to that failure. An unquestionable sign of that desperation was the continuing growth of the votes for the Communist Party, along with the decline in votes for the Social Democrats, and other centrist parties.

    Nazism was not inevitable, but ushered in on a fear of revolution, of workers’ power, by a despairing ruling class. That was the reality wherever fascism seized power in twentieth-century fascism.

    Today, the answer to a deepening crisis of capitalist rule that is losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the masses is not rallying support around the failed policies that created and deepened the crisis. The answer is not to cry wolf or remind the people that matters could get worse. They know that!

    The answer is to develop real answers to the despair facing working people– reducing inequality, raising living standards, guaranteeing health care, increasing social benefits, improving affordable public transportation, protecting the environment, improving public education, and so on. These issues have existed for many decades, worsening with each passing year. There is no mystery. We are offered only two parties and they are determined to evade these issues.

    Lawrence makes a similar point:

    I suppose it might make America’s many-sided crisis — political, economic, social — more comprehensible if we name it [fascism] to suggest it has a frightening antecedent. But this is profoundly counterproductive. So long as we, some of us, go on persuading ourselves we face the threat of fascism or Fascism, either one, we simply obscure what it is we actually face.

    We name it wrongly… I do not see fascism in any form anywhere on America’s horizon. To call it such is to render ourselves incapable of acting effectively.

    But that still leaves us with the question: What is fascism? Is there no cogent definition?

    Indeed, there is one that springs forth from a deep and thorough study by the late Marxist thinker, R. Palme Dutt. Published in 1934, soon after Hitler’s rise to power, Fascism and Social Revolution (International Publishers) locates fascism in the cauldron of the rise of Communism, a deep economic crisis, and the collapse of capitalist class legitimacy.

    Dutt, unlike servile academics weaving a bizarre, historically challenged link between Communism and fascism, discovers direct ties between capitalism and fascism (p. 72-73).

    Fascism manufactures its ideology around its practice. Dutt explains:

    Fascism, in fact, developed as a movement in practice, in the conditions of threatening proletarian revolution, as a counter-revolutionary mass movement supported by the bourgeoisie, employing weapons of mixed social demagogy and terrorism to defeat the revolution and build up a strengthened capitalist state dictatorship; and only later endeavoured to adorn and rationalize this process with a “theory” (p. 75).

    Dutt’s operational definition contrasts favorably with the failed attempt by writers like Payne who attempted to engage comparative studies in order to arrive at a superficial typography of fascism.

    Dutt further adds the class dimensions, absent in nearly all non-Marxist definitions:

    Fascism, in short, is a movement of mixed elements, dominantly petit-bourgeois, but also slum-proletariat and demoralized working class, financed and directed by finance-capital, by the big industrialists, landlords and financiers, to defeat the working-class revolution and smash working-class organizations (p. 82).

    Elegant in its simplicity, robust in its comprehensiveness, Dutt’s explication of fascism aptly characterizes historic fascism from the march on Rome to the Generals’ coup in Indonesia and Pinochet’s regime in Chile. When social conditions deteriorate drastically and workers and their organizations threaten the capitalist order, the rulers throw their support behind counter-revolutionaries prepared to defend and strengthen the capitalist order, even at the expense of bourgeois democracy.

    These institutions and organizations fester within bourgeois society as latent counter-revolutionary forces ready to be unleashed at the right moment by a desperate capitalist ruling class.

    Clearly, Dutt’s study and elucidation of fascism clears the muddy waters stirred by today’s alarmists and opportunists. There is no imminent threat of revolution; the revolutionary left and the workers’ organizations currently pose little threat to the capitalist order, unfortunately.

    There is no emergent organized mass movement responding to a counter-revolutionary call. The mass movements of the right — the Black Legions, the KKK, the Proud Boys, the militias, etc. — do exist, should conditions ever ripen for a mobilization against the working class; but for today, they remain unacceptable to most of the ruling class.

    For the most part, the capitalist class, especially its dominant monopoly sector, is satisfied to conduct its business within the confines of bourgeois democracy. “Finance-capital… the big industrialists, landlords and financiers…” defend and protect the two-party system because they regard it as functioning adequately, though the “lawfare” attacks piling up on Trump and the rabid media attacks against him show that an important section of the ruling class considers his unpredictability to be a threat to stability.

    Others think that his buffoonery and bluster serve as a safety valve for the discontent infecting the citizenry, much as Berlusconi’s clown-act pacified and entertained Italians unhappy over their political fate for three decades.

    In any case, Trump does not pose the threat of fascism that many would like us to believe.

    We need to find other words to describe the deep crisis of bourgeois legitimacy that we are enduring, words that do not force us into a frenzied defensive posture that deflects us from finding real solutions to a real and profound problems facing working people.

    The post Fascism: What’s in a Word? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • OPEN LETTER: Gaza academics and administrators

    We have come together as Palestinian academics and staff of Gaza universities to affirm our existence, the existence of our colleagues and our students, and the insistence on our future, in the face of all current attempts to erase us.

    The Israeli occupation forces have demolished our buildings but our universities live on. We reaffirm our collective determination to remain on our land and to resume teaching, study, and research in Gaza, at our own Palestinian universities, at the earliest opportunity.

    We call upon our friends and colleagues around the world to resist the ongoing campaign of scholasticide in occupied Palestine, to work alongside us in rebuilding our demolished universities, and to refuse all plans seeking to bypass, erase, or weaken the integrity of our academic institutions.

    The future of our young people in Gaza depends upon us, and our ability to remain on our land in order to continue to serve the coming generations of our people.

    We issue this call from beneath the bombs of the occupation forces across occupied Gaza, in the refugee camps of Rafah, and from the sites of temporary new exile in Egypt and other host countries.

    We are disseminating it as the Israeli occupation continues to wage its genocidal campaign against our people daily, in its attempt to eliminate every aspect of our collective and individual life.

    Our families, colleagues, and students are being assassinated, while we have once again been rendered homeless, reliving the experiences of our parents and grandparents during the massacres and mass expulsions by Zionist armed forces in 1947 and 1948.

    Our infrastructure is in ruins
    Our civic infrastructure — universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums and cultural centres — built by generations of our people, lies in ruins from this deliberate continuous Nakba. The deliberate targeting of our educational infrastructure is a blatant attempt to render Gaza uninhabitable and erode the intellectual and cultural fabric of our society.

    However, we refuse to allow such acts to extinguish the flame of knowledge and resilience that burns within us.

    Allies of the Israeli occupation in the United States and United Kingdom are opening yet another scholasticide front through promoting alleged reconstruction schemes that seek to eliminate the possibility of independent Palestinian educational life in Gaza. We reject all such schemes and urge our colleagues to refuse any complicity in them.

    We also urge all universities and colleagues worldwide to coordinate any academic aid efforts directly with our universities.

    We extend our heartfelt appreciation to the national and international institutions that have stood in solidarity with us, providing support and assistance during these challenging times. However, we stress the importance of coordinating these efforts to effectively reopen Palestinian universities in Gaza.

    We emphasise the urgent need to reoperate Gaza’s education institutions, not merely to support current students, but to ensure the long-term resilience and sustainability of our higher education system.

    Education is not just a means of imparting knowledge; it is a vital pillar of our existence and a beacon of hope for the Palestinian people.

    Long-term strategy essential
    Accordingly, it is essential to formulate a long-term strategy for rehabilitating the infrastructure and rebuilding the entire facilities of the universities. However, such endeavours require considerable time and substantial funding, posing a risk to the ability of academic institutions to sustain operations, potentially leading to the loss of staff, students, and the capacity to reoperate.

    Given the current circumstances, it is imperative to swiftly transition to online teaching to mitigate the disruption caused by the destruction of physical infrastructure. This transition necessitates comprehensive support to cover operational costs, including the salaries of academic staff.

    Student fees, the main source of income for universities, have collapsed since the start of the genocide. The lack of income has left staff without salaries, pushing many of them to search for external opportunities.

    Beyond striking at the livelihoods of university faculty and staff, this financial strain caused by the deliberate campaign of scholasticide poses an existential threat to the future of the universities themselves.

    Thus, urgent measures must be taken to address the financial crisis now faced by academic institutions, to ensure their very survival. We call upon all concerned parties to immediately coordinate their efforts in support of this critical objective.

    The rebuilding of Gaza’s academic institutions is not just a matter of education; it is a testament to our resilience, determination, and unwavering commitment to securing a future for generations to come.

    The fate of higher education in Gaza belongs to the universities in Gaza, their faculty, staff, and students and to the Palestinian people as a whole. We appreciate the efforts of peoples and citizens around the world to bring an end to this ongoing genocide.

    We call upon our colleagues in the homeland and internationally to support our steadfast attempts to defend and preserve our universities for the sake of the future of our people, and our ability to remain on our Palestinian land in Gaza.

    We built these universities from tents. And from tents, with the support of our friends, we will rebuild them once again.

    This open letter by the university academics and administrators of Gaza to the world was first published by Al Jazeera. The full list of signatories is here.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • For once, the waste-of-space fraud unit at Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has actually caught some real-life fraudsters leeching British taxpayers out of a tidy £53.9m. So naturally, the right-wing corporate media had a field day crowing about Mel Stride’s wet wipe army’s sudden DWP benefit fraud breakthrough. Of course, there’s nothing curious about the timing at all – it’s not as if there’s an election on the horizon or anything – oh, wait.

    DWP benefit fraud: a media field day

    Surprise, surprise, GB News was all over this case of DWP benefit fraud. It reported how:

    A Bulgarian gang which fraudulently claimed over £50million in Universal Credit “poked fun at the naivety” of the Department for Work and Pensions, a court has heard.

    Cue the corporate media smears – with an (un)healthy dose of rancid racism thrown in for good measure. Right-wing shill Matthew Lynn was laying it on thick with the anti-migrant, benefit scrounger rhetoric. And that’s not to forget his anti-woke ‘work from home’ culture war prattle too. He wrote that:

    the civil servants who are meant to monitor claims are all working from home, or attending compulsory “unconscious bias” courses, and are too terrified of accusations of xenophobia to start checking whether all the claims from Bulgarian sounding names might mean there is something fishy going on.

    Naturally, the DWP press goon managed to shoehorn in the whole benefits are “too generous” steaming pile of shit to boot. Clearly he missed the memo about a key UN committee finding the UK’s benefit system is rife with “grave” and “systemic” rights violations, for the second time. Or the one about it callously cutting thousands from people’s benefits through its bullshit Universal Credit ‘mass migration’ process.

    Fast-and-loose with the truth on fraud

    Here’s the thing though, as the Canary has consistently reported, benefit fraud is largely non-existent – and this Bulgarian benefit fraud racket is the anomaly. For instance, the Canary’s Steve Topple has previously underscored how a sizeable proportion of the DWP’s fraud estimates are not in fact from actual claimants at all. Instead, Topple has detailed how:

    much of the £8.3bn the DWP promotes as fraud (and that the media dutifully laps up) is just based on assumptions and guesswork.

    Then, take Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey recently pointed out that the government’s own data found that cases of PIP fraud were next-to-nothing at just 0.1%. Funnily enough, as Charlton-Dailey also highlighted, the DWP were a little quiet on this:

    When they made a massive stab-vested song and dance about DWP fraud decreasing in 2023, you have to wonder why they aren’t shouting from the rooftops that PIP fraud is now at 0%. The only conclusion to be reached is that low-or-no DWP benefit fraud doesn’t fit their narrative of how much disabled people are wasting taxpayers money. So nothing to see here.

    Unfortunately then, it never actually matters that the proportion of fraud in the benefits system is infinitesimally small. What matters isn’t fact or fiction – it’s the cherry-picked, fast-and-loose with the truth that feeds their foul agenda.

    But of course, there’s a more serious side to all this too. That’s because, the stream of articles from the Tories devoted media lapdogs played up its usual toxic line. Specifically, it feeds into its narrative that benefit claimants are laughing all the way to the bank. In reality, the UK’s benefit system is screwing over poor and disabled people as regularly as Tory corruption scandals brew.

    The DWP are the real fraudsters

    So after a two-year investigation, the DWP has “cracked down” on a four-person benefit-laundering gang. It has exposed them for fraudulent claims of £53.9m.

    Meanwhile, the average salary for an employee in the DWP’s so-called ‘Targeted Case Review’ is around £30,000 a year. With plans in the works for 2,000 more ‘external agents’, the DWP has said this will swell its ranks to 6,000 employees working in fraud detection.

    So chasing after the big bucks, the department will pay its benefit snoops, wait for it: £1.8bn a year. In other words, the DWP is throwing billions at recovering millions – slow-clap, long eye-roll.

    At the end of the day, that’s where the money is: because it’s the DWP that’s defrauding the British taxpayer, with its ceaseless “crack down” crock of shit.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Taylor Swift fans are urging the megastar to “speak now” on Israel’s genocide in Palestine. So far, across over 30 concerts she has held since Israel began its murderous assault, Taylor hasn’t uttered a word. That is, while Swift has danced around a stage, in a storm, in her red dress, Israel has been raining down bombs and turning Gaza red with blood – and she has stayed silent. Now, Swifties For Palestine are getting “tired waiting, wondering if” she’s “ever gonna come around”.

    What’s more, as Swift gears up for her tour debut in Edinburgh, her concerts there are set to push homeless people out of the city.

    Fans might worship her music, but it’s time to stop idolising ultra-rich celebrities for any claims to moral acuity.

    Swifties For Palestine

    On May 24, Swift fan Sofia Martins draped a Palestinian flag over the balcony at the music megastar’s concert in Lisbon, Portugal.

    Then, on May 29, fellow fan Robin posted an open letter to the touring musician calling on her to “speak now” on Palestine:

    Robin cleverly invoked the title of Swift’s third album ‘Speak Now’ to demand the singer use her enormous platform for Palestine. In fact, in the liner notes to the album, Swift had penned:

    There is a time for silence. There is a time waiting your turn. But if you know how you feel, and you so clearly know what you need to say, you’ll know it.

    I don’t think you should wait. I think you should speak now.

    Admittedly, this prologue is a somewhat vapid, insular commentary on telling a boy she loves them. Ostensibly, it’s not intended as a radical, stirring call for solidarity in the face of social injustices. However, music and lyrics take on a meaning all of their own. Fans are now using her own words to tell Swift to do just as she herself once wrote.

    From there, the letter instigated the hashtag ‘#SwiftiesForPalestine’ – which fans have pushed up the trending charts all across the world:

    At the time of publication, the singer-songwriter has yet to raise her voice on Palestine. Meanwhile however, her tour support act Paramore has issued a statement. Naturally, this has had many asking why exactly the superstar hasn’t spoken out:

    Why isn’t she speaking up?

    Let’s get this out of the way first: I’m an unabashed Swiftie. But like others in the fan community, I am ashamed to see her perform gig after gig without the slightest mention of Gaza. So, you could say right now, “we got bad blood”.

    Some fans have begun to float the feeling that it doesn’t matter if the megastar speaks now, or not. To some extent, I agree – but for wholly different reasons. For one, any statement she makes at this point, will be at best, performative. In short, speaking now would be little more than a nauseating display of grifting to her fanbase.

    However, Taylor Swift actually could make a difference, if she chose to. In the past, she has made generous donations to a number of causes. Right now, she could put her money and her mouth to mutual aid. As one Swifties For Palestine pointed out, she could fund every individual Gaza crowdfunder going and barely see a dent to her fortune:

    So why doesn’t she speak now, or use her vast billions to help people escaping Israel’s horrific genocide? Some have suggested that it could have something to do with her tour sponsor One Capital:

    The bank holding company has previously financed notorious arms manufacturer and Israel munitions supplier Elbit Systems.

    Then of course, there’s her deal with Disney. Swift has streamed her ‘Eras Tour’ on Disney+ across the globe. However, the company is a ‘pressure’ target of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. Partly, this is owing to its upcoming ‘Captain America’ film.  In this, a character personifies – and by extension, glorifies – apartheid Israel. Palestinian cultural institutions have called for widespread boycotts of the movie.

    On top of this, the company donated $2m in support to Israel after the 7 October Hamas attacks. Conversely, it too has stayed silent as the apartheid regime continues its brutal assault on Gaza.

    What’s more, during Israel’s genocidal siege, cinemas in settler-colonial state were screening Swift’s movie.

    Of course, Swift wouldn’t be the first mega-rich musician to loan cultural legitimacy to murderous regimes. In the 1980s, plenty of morally vacuous musicians like Elton John, Queen, Dolly Parton, and Liza Minnelli readily broke the blanket boycott of South Africa’s apartheid state.

    Granted, she hasn’t performed a gig in Israel, but her silence, coupled with the screenings, is at best, a mark of indifference to Israel’s despicable violence. At worst, it’s a tacit show of support for its genocidal actions.

    Swift swoops in and leaves homelessness in her wake

    Many fans have also expressed their disappointment at Taylor Swift after her purported political awakening.

    Specifically, in the star’s 2020 documentary film Miss Americana, Swift regaled viewers with the tale of her journey to political activism. This referred to her decision to come out in support of the Democrats in her home state of Tennessee in 2018. Following this, she then blasted Trump on X in the 2020 elections and endorsed Biden.

    In the documentary, Swift revealed her unease after years of apoliticism, saying:

    I need to be on the right side of history

    Yet some have suggested her silence on Gaza shows her newfound politicism is selective:

    Now, her upcoming concert in Edinburgh is pitching her on the wrong side once again. As the BBC reported:

    A number of homeless people have been sent out of Edinburgh to make way for tourists ahead of Taylor Swift performing in the city, BBC News has learned.

    Shelter Scotland said several homeless people it supports had been sent via taxi to Aberdeen and Glasgow amid a shortage in accommodation, and one person was offered temporary accommodation as far away as Newcastle.

    Essentially, Swift’s concert is causing a shortage of temporary accommodation for homeless people in the city. This is because, as the BBC explained, the council currently utilises tourist accommodation due to a lack of social rented homes.

    Moreover, the BBC noted that:

    campaigners fear the sheer scale of Taylor Swift’s appearance has caused a surge in demand.

    Ostensibly, Swift is swooping in without consideration for the impact her concerts have on marginalised people.

    Swifties For Palestine: we’ve “never heard silence quite this loud”

    Swifties For Palestine are lamenting that, as Swift herself says in one number, they’ve:

    never heard silence quite this loud.

    After eight long, hellish months of Israeli impunity and flagrant war crimes in a literal, livestreamed genocide – that silence is unconscionably deafening.

    Yet while Swift herself has kept her lips zipped tight on Israel’s ongoing abhorrent genocide, her fans have have not. By contrast, they have used the Swifties For Palestine hashtag to spread awareness, amplify mutual aid requests, and point other fans towards educational resources:

    At the end of the day, billionaires of all stripes are the embodiment of a capitalist, colonial status quo. Ultimately, it doesn’t pay to challenge the imperialistic hegemony. For those at the back – billionaires aren’t going to overhaul the injustices at the heart of the Western-dominated global economic system.

    If anything, they only serve to entrench it. And Taylor Swift, with her silence on Palestine, and concerts pushing homeless people to the margins, is only more glaring evidence of this.

    Feature image via Taylor Swift – Youtube

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Friday 24 May, 2024, I was one of the three European people released from Amygdaleza Deportation Camp, outside Athens, Greece. Nine non-Greek European passport-holders were amongst 28 people arrested on Tuesday 14 May, during a police raid of the Athens Law School, which had been declared occupied in solidarity with Palestine and in support of al-Aqsa Flood, the ongoing liberation struggle, waged by the Palestinian Resistance, since 7 October.

    The occupation of the law school entailed demands for academic boycott and divestment from any affiliated parties supporting or profiting from the Zionist entity’s retaliatory genocidal warfare, witnessed by the world for the last eight months.

    After a typically long and inconvenient detention and arrest procedure, followed by a night in the cell, all 28 defendants were declared free to go from the Evelpidon Courthouse, the next day – Nakba Day – pending a postponed hearing for charges of disturbing the peace.

    Upon the adjournment of the session, however, the police continued to cuff and detain the nine non-Greek European passport holders and conspired to lie to the legal representatives that the 9 people were required to return to the central police head quarters, where their documents would be checked to determine the ‘legitimacy’ of their presence on Greek territory.

    The deception of the ‘law enforcers’ was quickly realised due to the direction of travel; soon, the bus transporting the nine arrived at Allodipon, the immigration processing centre.

    Through extrapolation of the circumstances and rumours, the nine people gleaned the possibility they may be facing deportation, although this was never formally expressed by any police official and was only confirmed upon the visitation of lawyers.

    Beginning Wednesday 15 May – Nakba Day – the nine people were detained under administrative detention at Amygdaleza Deportation Camp. The subsequent Saturday, all nine people were handed deportation orders, which are currently being challenged; the administrative detention was also appealed. On Friday 24, three people were released from detention, while six remain, awaiting a response, which is anticipated to be delivered on Monday 27 May.

    The judge handling my case made their decision quicker than the others, which we were advised could happen. Many of us have visited the various detention camps and centres around Athens, before. Many of our friends have also been held inside such camps. But, it is a different to have been processed and detained, and then to leave the reality behind. I feel sick with rage.

    Not just for the comrades with European passports – if they let me out, the others are smooth sailing. But there are many others who’ll spend much longer, under worse conditions, awaiting their fate.

    The nine of us were separated from the general population, secluded to a segregated container compound, closed off at each end with barbed wire fencing, we suspected this had something to do with our status as ‘unwanted aliens’ who present a ‘threat to national security’. Seclusion was also no doubt due to fears we’d be exposed to the realities and conditions experienced by non-white, non-European people, despite the aforementioned, preexisting knowledge and interactions with these institutions, which has also been well documented by refugees and migrants.

    We had air conditioning, hot water, food delivered by a supportive network of comrades, lawyers on call, access to our phones. While inside, I learned in some camps the police remove inbuilt cameras completely from electronic devices belonging to detained people. Our period of detention was tainted with rage due to this shared understanding of the realities for others.

    I received the news that I would be free, while I was on the phone to Abdullah, a friend of mine who lives in Gaza. We had not talked for a while. He conveyed his deep faith in Allah, his family’s resolve to remain, and of course the urgency and necessity of raising funds to survive the unimaginable reality of genocide enacted by the imperialist-backed Zionist entity. I want to sincerely thank everyone who has amplified and donated to his fundraiser.

    The place in which Abdullah and his family are currently located, there is nothing; no infrastructure, just tents and makeshift living environments. The IOF-guarded and polluted sea is the only source of water.

    His family’s survival is indeed by the grace of God.

    Bathing in the sea, eating scarcely, drinking less. Sick, tired and exhausted. Physically and mentally drained. Witness to unspeakable atrocities. We strained a conversation through bad network reception; me from the camp, Abudllah from a particularly exposed and dangerous location. We talked about the fundraiser; how to amplify it; the complications with international money transfers; fundraiser accessibility issues for his Arabic speaking colleagues.

    The lawyer said me and two others would be free to go in a few hours. I was interrupted during a precious phone call; we don’t know when – or if – the next one will occur. Abdullah said he would go, to be “safer” – he was at increased risk in the area where internet access can approximately be found. He reiterated the need to purchase an e-sim compatible phone and hung up.

    The time came for me to leave the camp. Leave the others behind. Leave the 40 men from various non-European countries, cramped in the containers running parallel to ours, who announced a collective hunger strike in recent days.

    The European comrades I left behind have also announced a hunger strike, following the decision to release just three of us today. Like the 40 other detainees, the demands of the hunger strike pertain to the living conditions in the camp, the random and repressive structure of administrative detention and the release of those who remain.

    Medical negligence, withholding food, nutritionally-insufficient meals, arbitrary rules and abuse of power as a vehicle for psychological abuse; we experienced all these punitive measures and rights violations in 11 days of administrative detention. For us, it was 11 days. Some will spend months, years… When I think “11 days”, May 2021 comes to mind. Saif al-Quds, the 11-day battle sparked by the Unity Intifada, a collective uprising that erupted across Gaza, West Bank, and inside ‘48, duo to the increased colonial violence in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

    While being held under administrative detention, I thought of my friend Khalid.

    I met Khalid through We Are Not Numbers, an initiative in Gaza that provides training and workshops in creative writing, digital journalism, videography and presentation skills. Participants in Gaza and journalists aboard are paired up through a mentorship scheme. I was incredibly lucky to be introduced to Khaled, who had written an article about the Occupation’s use of administrative detention. I learnt then, how the Occupation entangles Palestinian prisoners in an endless loop of torturous incarceration.

    At present almost 10,000 Palestinian people – men, women and children – suffer under Zionist lock and key, a number which increased exponentially since 7 October. Prisoners are the compass of the struggle, negotiating their release was one of the principle motivating factors behind the inception of al-ِAqsa flood.

    In November, 2023, and multiple times since, the Resistance has indeed been victorious in forcing the Occupation to liberate streams of prisoners, including high profile people like Israa Jaabis. The release of the imprisoned exposed the horrors of detention.

    Needless to say, knowing the extent of abuse Palestinians face at the hands of their jailer made my detention at Amygdaleza practically inconsequential.

    As I departed the camp, I scrolled through the Resistance News Network; the occupation extended the administrative detention of Wissam Abu Zeid, a Palestinian resistance fighter from the Jenin Brigades, for a further four months. Abu Zeid has been imprisoned since Zionist soldiers failed to assassinate him, almost three years ago. Resistance in the West Bank, and especially in Jenin, has exploded in response to increased IOF invasions, since 7 October.

    For those who are not martyred while actively fighting for Palestine, the Occupation prisons – referred to as ‘slaughterhouses’ – are often the locations of slow and painful deaths due to torture, medical negligence, poor sanitation and ‘food’ that is better described as a health hazard. For all these reasons and more, Palestinian prisoners have long harnessed hunger striking as a form of protest, reclaiming their right to bodily autonomy in defiance of the Occupation’s grip on their freedom.

    Since 7 October, regimes around the world have resorted to myriad repressive tactics to silence Palestinians and the voices of their allies. Arrest, brutality, torture, administrative detention and deportation have been wielded with increased frequency. Deportation and displacement are weapons of repression straight from by the Zionist playbook.

    Since the waves of al-Aqsa Flood engulfed the world, Palestinians from Gaza have been detained in both the West Bank and ’48, with random releases and transfers back to Gaza taking place; hundreds of martyrs have ascended due to torture, malnutrition and medical negligence. Inside Gaza, vicious collective punishment has led to consistent scenes of mass kidnapping, humiliation and execution of civilians.

    Mass graves continue to be discovered, revealing decomposing bodies with their hands tied behind their back; wrist ties for babies, children and adults have been unearthed from shallow graves, pitifully covered.

    In the weeks before the Athens Law School action, the Hellenic police had cracked down severely on all and any expressions of solidarity with Palestine. On one occasion the mass detention of 42 people from solidarity gatherings outside the courthouse and the police HQ shocked the movement in Athens, highlighting, with utmost clarity, the need to assemble and organise in strong and protective numbers. One arrest followed the detention of 42, which was a pathetic move, aiming to deter and criminalise support for victims of the police state’s fascistic behaviour.

    The strategy of deportation is now being leveraged by repressive regimes across the world; last year, Jerusalem-born, French-Palestinian, Saleh Hamouri, was deported to France for his consistent resistance to colonial subjugation in Palestine. This marked a significant shift and revived the spotlight, internationally, on the illegal practice of deportation and the denial of the right to return. The lack of action from the international community and the direct collaboration between the Zionist entity and European regimes has now seen this silencing strategy spread to the European continent.

    In recent months, Samidoun Network have launched campaigns for Mohammed al-Khatib and Zaid Abdul-Nassr, who risk the revocation of their residency and refugee statuses, as well as deportation, from Belgium and Germany, respectively.

    In Jordan, after weeks of mass mobilisation in support of the Palestinian Resistance have triggered continued police sweeps. Various people were taken hostage by Jordanian authorities, crystalising the traitorous and normalising attitude of the Kingdom and it’s complicity with Zionism.

    For Jordanians citizens, the ramifications are bad, but for the refugee community, especially Syrian refugees, who have been ostracised, mistreated and segregated from Jordanian society, the threat of deportation back to a hostile homeland is enough to trigger hunger strikes. Syrian nationals, Wael al-Ashi and Atiya Abu Salem, are just two of the people holding refugee status who face the reality of deportation. Last week, Abu Salem comitted to a hunger strike in protest, as our comrades in Amygdaleza.

    Now, retaliation for Palestinian advocacy has become widespread, regardless of nationality, country of origin or documentation. Greece has entered the conversation with its recent move to deceptively administratively detain nine European passport holders, and threaten them with deportation. The decision to do so is, of course, not a deterrent for determined strugglers, but a catalyst for robust resistance and refusal to submit to techniques of silencing.

    While we witness the same fascist and intolerant practice rolling out across continents, it’s crucial to remember the impact will never be the same for everyone. Deporting Europeans back to France, Italy, Spain, the U.K and even Germany is a mere inconvenience, as opposed to a fearful prospect with deathly potential. In the US, international students participating in university campus uprisings are also increasingly facing threats to their immigration status and visas.

    During our time at Amydaleza, the authorities withheld food, refused access to visitors from outside, enacted medical negligence, prevented access to doctors, psychological support and other basic rights. Despite this, there was an ever-present cognizance of the dramatically different effect these abuses of power can have.

    The role Egypt plays in besieging Gazans, for example, through the application of restrictions on goods, services and rights violations. The decision of Egyptian authorities to prevent aid and access to Gaza has exacerbated the impact of the Occupation’s maniacal obliteration of all life-sustaining infrastructure, including disabling the healthcare system through incessantly bombing hospitals.

    Waves of starvation and sickness have spread rapidly across the strip due to Egypt’s prevention of aid and healthcare. This, twinned with the policies of extortion and bribery amounting to human trafficking, perpetrated at the Rafah crossing by the spineless Sisi regime, condemns Palestinians to confront their murderous oppressor with no way out.

    This despicable cheapening of Palestinian life contradicts the vast sums of money demanded for emergency evacuation through Rafah. This exorbitant cruelty puts a price tag on the right to seek safety from genocide, to the tune of thousands of dollars, depending on the size of families wishing to leave.

    The cost is inhumane and inconceivable, especially for a population of people who’ve spent eight months livestreaming their mass murder to little effect. The millions of social media followers who have borne witness, digitally, to the genocide are now rallying to share fundraisers, which aim expressly to raise money for the corrupted movement of people.

    These fundraisers are a veritable point of contention – from calls to boycott Zionist Go Fund Me, to abhorrent reports of disingenuous people stealing funds they assisted in raising – the fundraising last resort accentuates the crucial need to destroy and build alternative’s to the pervasive hegemony of racial capitalism.

    The tentacular spread of fascism, emanating from the beastly body of imperialism, grows audaciously each time the popular masses submit to repressive control by ‘authorities’ and governments. These entities pacify and condition their citizens – beneficiaries of exploitation – while scrambling to protect their economic and political interests. But, increased repression with always entail increased resistance. The call to escalate for Palestine is echoing around the world, strengthened by each reverberation.

    Actions and movements aiming to break international support and involvement in the genocide are increasing, not only in frequency, but also in militancy. As the wider axis of armed resistance across the Arab world continues to overwhelm the capabilities of the Occupation Forces, it is the duty of every person outside Palestine to heed the calls of the Palestinian people and their resistance.

    Now is the time to locate our positionalities in the struggle for collective liberation and to act upon our revolutionary duties. By any means necessary, we owe it to the Palestinian people to sacrifice and defy our personal, social, vocational, economical and political involvement in genocide.

    Actions speak louder than words, but never forget: silence is violence – don’t stop talking about Palestine.

    Featured image supplied

    By Jodie Jones

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Electoral democracy, like the upcoming general election, functions as it was made to: as a tool for maintaining a power establishment, and to preserve those who move within it. It is also perhaps true that periodic elections are the strongest pillar of the illusion (and convenient fiction) that democratic processes are completely free and fair. But is this always the case – especially with candidates like Jeremy Corbyn?

    General election: voting for the prize hen of the corporate class

    Public discourse in the run up to an election is at best biased and at worst propagandist manipulation. Such malignant narrative management makes it impossible for people to reach an informed choice based upon impartial and accurate data, a forebear of sustained democratic health.

    Media and political broadcasting corral people into marching formation to vote for the prize hen of the corporate class. Another aspect of deleterious corruption suggesting democracy is only notional is the fact of enduring relationships between super rich donors, politicians and party leaderships, the secretive, protected lobbying industry.

    Electing people who end up making policy reflecting the influence and needs of corporations, rather than public needs, is not meaningfully democratic.

    The existence of corporate lobbying and the democratic dysfunction it creates suggests that the surface rift between the main parties in the UK bipartisan system is illusory.

    Both teams are unified at the core by clear contempt for the sovereignty of parliament and the sovereignty of the public, an attitude blatantly obvious to anyone observing the recent deluge of dangerous anti democratic and illiberal policy.

    Corbyn launched a sea change

    All those moving in the corridors of power, regardless of party affiliation, share tendencies to neglect public interest issues, seldom pursuing the common good. Significant numbers of politicians breach the parameters of parties, the bipartisan divide, in shared pursuit of a narrow calculus of self interest.

    As a result most policies benefit only the upper and corporate classes, far removed from addressing concerns of everyday people.

    Jeremy Corbyn’s ascent to Labour Party leader in 2015, a shock result, was sunny with the promise of deep reform to this flawed, failing system. He galvanised one of the most vibrant, hopeful, and inspiring examples of a powerful popular resistance movement in recent British political history.

    His ascent heralded a new era of rehabilitation for original, founding Labour values, a mission to bring the soul and substance of the party back to life. This was a promising time in which mass enfranchisement significantly expanded, particularly amongst a hitherto apolitical youth constituency, driving a profound forward shift in political consciousness, political literacy, and social awareness.

    Corbyn’s tenacity, resilience, and grace in dealing with a vile, relentless smear campaign marks him out as a person who leads by example, with more integrity in his little finger than most politicians have in their entire body.

    Starmer: coiled up in the corporate corruption

    Should his successor Keir Starmer command a victory in the upcoming general election, the only thing we can look forward to with any certainty is the continuing retrenchment of the ideals, values and altruism Corbyn symbolised.

    A glimpse into Starmer’s professional history helps us understand why and how he became the reactionary figure he is recognised as today by many leftists.

    His professional timeline began, promisingly, as a senior human rights lawyer, with a vast portfolio of casework relating to human rights abuse, which he tended to conclude successfully and according to the path of justice.

    However, when he was later appointed as head of the Crown Prosecution Service, it turned out to be a juncture in his career in which he gravitated heavily in the direction of serving the empire, phasing out his earlier orientation in human rights activism.

    Such seniority, power and authority in an office that is an auxiliary and subsidiary of the crown inevitably corrupted the man. Many decisions made by the CPS during his tenure have proved questionable at best, downright sinister and dubious at worst.

    One suspects that if all the truth were told about Starmer’s intentions, that he is a composite element in the ongoing attack on socialism and the working class, that he is as coiled up in corruption as the conservatives, his opinion poll advantages would collapse, as well as the pledge of votes he has marshalled.

    A vote for Corbyn may well not be wasted

    To conclude, the aggregate result in a general election, such as the one we are about to face in the UK, is not necessarily a vote of approval for, or confidence in, those who attain power, despite the declarations of politicians that it shows people trust them.

    Deep down many voters don’t believe those they vote for deserve a mandate, and recognise them as reactionary, but vote anyway, to assert what’s left of the slim bargaining power of the vote.

    The peril to the establishment of Corbyn is that he explicitly sought to fix and reform this dysfunctional political system, whose dysfunction benefits elites.

    The real story of how he “failed” is not that he lacked political competence, but that he was subject to a deep, coordinated attack, to neutralise the existential threat he posed to the status quo, even from within his own party.

    Ultimately, to topple the status quo we must go beyond merely voting in a general election. However, voting is completely justified where the candidate is a threat to the status quo. There is one running in Islington North.

    Featured image via Wikimedia

    By Megan Sherman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has declared he is a socialist and a progressive.

    No laughing at the back please.

    Tony Benn was a socialist.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a socialist.

    Robert Owen was a socialist.

    Nye Bevan was a socialist.

    Diane Abbott is a socialist.

    Keir Starmer is a Tory fraud.

    Starmer: a neoliberal Trojan horse

    Of course, Starmer isn’t the first centre-right neoliberal Trojan horse to rebrand their snake oil as a palatable medicine of hope for the masses.

    I am a socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality.

    that was Tony Blair’s maiden speech in the House of Commons, 1983.

    You see, Keir Starmer can call himself a socialist in the same way I can call myself an astronaut, an Olympic gold medalist, or even the 15th Dalai Lama in-waiting. But without a shred of meaningful evidence to support my claims I cannot expect anyone to take them seriously.

    Around about now, raging little Starmerrhoids will be searching the darkest corners of the internet to prove their socialist, soft left, social democrat, liberal centrist, conservative with a small “c”, neo-Thatcherite, Farage-approved flag-shagging slosh bucket of a leader did actually once stand on a picket line at Paddington.

    If such a thing does exist you would do well to make sure the mundane plonker isn’t waiting to be served at Pret.

    Never forget where he’s coming from

    We won’t ever forget when Keir Starmer — seeking left-wing votes during the 2020 Labour leadership election — turned up to ‘support’ striking McDonalds employees, agreeing with their demand for a £15 an hour wage.

    I’m really pleased to be here this morning supporting the staff at McDonald’s, and they’re not asking for the Earth, they’re asking for the basics – £15 an hour”, said Starmer, lying through his teeth as always.

    Just a year later, shadow employment rights secretary, Andy McDonald, quit in protest at being told to argue AGAINST a national minimum wage of… £15 per hour.

    No part of the Overton Window is safe from a Starmer solidarity encampment. How long will it be before Starmer discusses his profound revolutionary communism in an interview with the new Labour MP for Tel Aviv South, Tommy Robinson?

    What part of Keir Starmer’s socialism thought it was fair game for Israel to withhold water and power from the people of Gaza? Is this wretched, opportunistic chameleon for real?

    What part of Keir Starmer’s socialism thinks it is a good idea to employ failed Tory policies to confront and conquer the numerous Tory crises left behind after fourteen years of Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and little Rishi Sunak?

    Changing your shirt when you’ve shit your trousers

    The desperation of the British people to get shot of the Tories is utterly palpable. But getting rid of Sunak and replacing him with Starmer is like changing your shirt when you have shit your trousers.

    An uncomfortable part of me still expects Starmer to quietly agree with Sunak’s ridiculously rushed national service plan.

    I can picture these kids being dragged off to some military camp with Prime Minister Keith standing in the background telling a reporter how a bit of conscription before the Battle of the Home Counties never did his old man any harm, and probably made him the renowned toolmaker that he was.

    Keir Starmer is not a socialist. I can’t believe I even need to say that. He is an accomplice, not an antagonist, because he is one of their own. Appealing to jingoism with union jacks might work for some, but it does nothing for me.

    The Labour Party will be fielding three former Conservative MP’s at the general election on 4 July. No socialist would welcome Natalie Elphicke into their party.

    What is the point in talking about Labour’s so-called “broad church” when the cathedral is blatantly positioned in the centre and only actively encourages and welcomes parishioners in from the right while using every undemocratic power within its means to turf out the left?

    These factional degenerates that support the ignoble and contemptible Starmer hate socialists more than Tories because their anti-state, pro-big business, fuck human rights ideology is a million miles closer to the Tories than it will ever be to those of us with a social conscience.

    Starmer, you ain’t no socialist bro

    I am a socialist. The word may well have been sullied by the establishment media, but when have they ever told the truth? I cannot give my vote to a man and a party that has done more to attack socialism and socialists than the Conservatives.

    The 93-year-old Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers was absolutely right when they declared the anti-socialist Keir Starmer as “unfit for membership”.

    A motion passed at the society’s annual meeting condemned the Labour leader as ‘demonstrably not a socialist’. Among the items on the charge sheet were ‘appalling policy positions’, ‘his behaviour over schools during the pandemic’ and ‘his inaction over abuse of transgender people’.

    You ain’t no socialist, bro.

    I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask how a young socialist lawyer went from being massively critical of paramilitary policing methods in 1986 to working tirelessly in later years to shield the police from facing accountability, do you? Starmer was (and still is) a servant of the security state.

    In the same breath, I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask how a young socialist of apparently working class origins ended up espousing policies barely distinguishable from those of his Conservative opponents, do you?

    Power without principles

    There’s a long answer, of course, and I’m sure a few of the numerous new left media outlets have covered it. But they need a parliamentary press pass, so they will dilute the truth to keep the politicians on side.

    I don’t have such issues, so I’ll give you the short answer.

    Power without principles. The fastest route to the top is to abandon any sense of morality, and that is why Keir Starmer is seen by the establishment as a safe pair of hands while the Tory party does a bit of soul searching and gets its shit together.

    Keir Starmer, a socialist? This is taking gaslighting to a whole new level.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • It’s not been a good first week of general election campaigning for Rishi, has it? Along with an abysmal few days full of embarrassing press moments, he seems to have been deserted by all his pals in the cabinet. What other explanation can there be for how much the DWP‘s wet wipe Mel Stride  – MP for Devon Central – and his annoying face has been all over TV?

    It’s no secret that I cannot stand the secretary of state for the Department for Works and Pensions. The Tory goon has spent the past two years fearmongering about workshy scroungers who are committing benefit fraud and coming to steal your pensions. 

    At best he’s another over-privileged tosser who’s never had to worry a day in his life. At worst, he’s an evil pathetic little man who seems hell-bent on destroying disabled people’s lives with his disgusting policies and constant dangerous rhetoric.

    Rishi no mates

    So imagine my glee when I discovered, whilst I was preparing to write this, that ol’ wet wipe had been gurning all over the breakfast media circuit yesterday morning. 

    You can really tell how little the Tories want to be associated with Rishi when the person being whored out to the media the most (second only to Cleverley) is someone who most reporters would’ve gone “Who?” about a year ago. Whilst he may be called a ‘top Tory’ by some papers, if you look at the cabinet homepage he’s not even in the top 10. The DWP boss is all the way down at ranking number 16.

    Ever Rishi’s faithful little gimp, Mel, was across all manner of media – and the word vomit just kept coming.

    DWP Mel’s daily gaff dump

    When LBC’s Nick Ferrari asked him if he could rule out any announcements on income tax thresholds he smarmed, ‘It isn’t for me to start announcing policy on the hoof.’ which is weird because that’s exactly what he seems to be doing with anything concerning the DWP and disabled people.

    On BBC Breakfast he said there’d be no sanctions for parents of kids who don’t want to do national service. It took all of six seconds for him to contradict himself and say the government would be looking into incentives and sanctions.

    But his really truly inspired moment came when he decided to pull out a totally original nickname for Keir Starmer.

    Absolutely nee banter

    He told Kay Burley:

    ‘He should debate with the prime minister every week and we should be applying that scrutiny so we can actually find out what No Idea Keir is all about’

    When Kay congratulated him on it he desperately said ‘I made that up this morning did you like it?’ exactly like a sad little yes man yearning for daddy’s approval would.

    Well if we’re doing ‘clever’ nicknames Mel you already know I’ve got one for you – and a new slogan to go along with it too. Having previously branded him the Human Wet Wipe, I today would officially like to gift you all with a new campaign idea.

    It’s time to bin the DWP wet wipe, Devon Central

    What is clear is that Mel’s got about as much chance of being in charge of the DWP in two months’ time as the amount of disability benefit fraud was committed last year – almost zero.

    However, there is still a very very slim chance that he could still be an MP after the next election. I say ‘very very’ because Electoral Calculus currently puts his chances of holding onto his seat in Devon Central at just 17% (though EC has been wrong before.)

    There’s nothing the rest of us can do now but urge the people of Devon Central to vote this fucker out. 

    Judge him on his voting record not just his shite jokes

    This is a man who has consistently voted for the privatisation of the post office, raising uni fees, and against LGBTQ+ rights. Some other things he’s against are landlords having to pay to make their buildings safe, stronger fire safety measures, and even improving air quality. 

    On the DWP and welfare he consistently voted for the bedroom tax, reducing welfare spending, and increasing the state pension age. He voted against giving those with long-term disabilities or illnesses that mean they can’t work a higher rate over the years. He also voted against raising DWP benefits in line with inflation.

    In parliament, he voted to reduce local government funding and against local governments having more power. And in his own constituency, he has been accused of not holding surgeries and forgetting his constituents in order to rise up the ranks of government. On that last point, I can’t help but agree.

    You know what to do Devon

    This is a man who is desperate to cling to power that he doesn’t care how many disabled lives he ruins on the way. But his time is ending, as it is for hopefully most Tories.

    So Devon Central this all rests on you now. Surely you don’t want this man sticking around for another four years?

    Time to show up and bin the wet wipe for good.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Teanau Tuiono

    There is an important story to be told behind the story Aotearoa New Zealand’s mainstream media has been reporting on in Kanaky New Caledonia. Beyond the efforts to evacuate New Zealanders lies a struggle for indigenous sovereignty and self-determination we here in Aotearoa can relate to.

    Aotearoa is part of a whānau of Pacific nations, interconnected by Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. The history of Aotearoa is intricately woven into the broader history of the Pacific, where cultural interactions have shaped a rich tapestry over centuries.

    The whakapapa connections between tangata whenua and tagata moana inform my political stance and commitment to indigenous rights throughout the Pacific. What happens in one part of the South Pacific ripples across to all of us that call the Pacific Ocean home.

    Since the late 1980s the Kanak independence movement showed itself to be consistently engaging with the Accords with Paris process in their struggle for self-determination.

    The Nouméa Accord set out a framework for transferring power to the people of New Caledonia, through a series of referenda. It was only after France moved to unilaterally break with the accords and declare independence off the table that the country returned to a state of unrest.

    Civil unrest in and around the capital Nouméa which has continued for two weeks, was prompted by Kanak anger over Paris changing the constitution to open up electoral rolls in its “overseas territory” in a way that effectively dilutes the voting power of the indigenous people.

    Coming after the confused end of the Nouméa Accord in 2021, which left New Caledonia’s self-determination path clouded with uncertainty, it was inevitable that there would be trouble.

    Flew halfway across world
    That France’s President Emmanuel Macron flew across the world to Noumea last week for one day of talks in a bid to end the civil unrest underlines the seriousness of the crisis.

    But while the deployment of more French security forces to the territory may have succeeded in quelling the worst of the unrest for now, Macron’s visit was unsuccessful because he failed to commit to pulling back on the electoral changes or to signal a meaningful way forward on independence for New Caledonia.

    Green MP Teanau Tuiono
    Green MP Teanau Tuiono (left) with organiser Ena Manuireva at the Mā’ohi Lives Matter solidarity rally at Auckland University of Technology in 2021. Image: David Robie/APR

    Paris’ tone-deafness to the Kanaks’ concerns was evident in its refusal to postpone the last of the three referendums under the Nouméa Accord during the pandemic, when the indigenous Melanesians boycotted the poll because it was a time of mourning in their communities. Kanaks consider that last referendum to have no legitimacy.

    But Macron’s government has simply cast aside the accord process to move ahead unilaterally with a new statute for New Caledonia.

    As the Kanaky Aotearoa Solidarity group said in a letter to the French Ambassador in Wellington this week, “it is regrettable that France’s decision to obstruct the legitimate aspirations of the Kanak people to their right to self-determination has led to such destruction and loss of life”.

    Why should New Zealand care about the crisis? New Caledonia is practically Aotearoa’s next door neighbour — a three-hour flight from Auckland. Natural disasters in the Pacific such as cyclones remind us fairly regularly how our country has a leading role to play in the region.

    But we can’t take this role for granted, nor choose to look the other way because our “ally“ France has it under control. And we certainly shouldn’t ignore the roots of a crisis in a neighbouring territory where frustrations have boiled over in a pattern that’s not unusual in the Pacific Islands region, and especially Melanesia.

    There is an urgent need for regional assistance to drive reconciliation. The Pacific Islands Forum, as the premier regional organisation, must move beyond words and take concrete actions to support the Kanak people.

    Biketawa Declaration provides a mechanism
    The forum’s Biketawa Declaration provides a mechanism for regional responses to crisis management and conflict resolution. The New Caledonian crisis surely qualifies, although France would be uncomfortable with any forum intervention.

    But acting in good faith as a member of the regional family is what Paris signed up to when its territories in the Pacific were granted full forum membership.

    Why is a European nation like France still holding on to its colonial possessions in the Pacific? Kanaky New Caledonia, Maohi Nui French Polynesia, and Wallis & Futuna are on the UN list of non-self-governing territories for whom decolonisation is incomplete.

    However, in the case of Kanaky, Paris’ determination to hold on is partly due to a desire for global influence and is also, in no small way, linked to the fact that the territory has over 20 percent of the world’s known nickel reserves.

    Failing to address the remnants of colonialism will continue to devastate lives and livelihoods across Oceania, as evidenced by the struggles in Bougainville, Māo’hi Nui, West Papua, and Guåhan.

    New Zealand should be supportive of an efficient and orderly decolonisation process. We can’t rely on France alone to achieve this, especially as the unrest in New Caledonia is the inevitable result of years of political and social marginalisation of Kanak people.

    The struggle of indigenous Kanaks in New Caledonia is part of a broader movement for self-determination and anti-colonialism across the Pacific. By supporting the Kanak people’s self-determination, we honour our shared history and whakapapa connections, advocating for a future where indigenous rights and aspirations are respected and upheld.

    Kanaky Au Pouvoir.

    Teanau Tuiono is a Green Party MP in Aotearoa New Zealand and its spokesperson for Pasifika peoples. This article was first published by The Press and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • With the Labour Party enjoying a strong lead in the polls ahead of the general election, many people are watching what Wes Streeting says closely about the NHS. After all, he hopes to become our next secretary of state for health and social care in a matter of weeks, and he’s certainly not the quiet, retiring type.

    In fact, he has a particular style of communication which has emerged over the past year or so, and I thought I’d explain what I’ve observed.

    Wes Streeting: a journalist’s dream – especially for the right

    Wes Streeting is a journalist’s dream, because he makes bold statements which lend themselves to the sort of inflammatory headlines which drive a huge amount of outrage, clicks, and ad revenue. Streeting has also been interviewed by a whole range of media outlets in recent months, which allegedly span the range of the political spectrum.

    This, in itself, is incredibly revealing. We’re meant to believe that certain media outlets have a politically progressive editorial agenda, when they’re printing very similar content and opinion pieces to some proudly right-wing publications.

    I’ve been campaigning for the NHS for almost a decade now, and I’ve learnt that politicians have different styles when they want to convince us that they will save the NHS.

    For many years now, politicians have undermined the NHS through the policies they have pushed through parliament, and through budgetary restraints that they have intentionally enacted. Meanwhile, they have enabled the proliferation of privatisation in various ways, and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it has helped.

    During this time, however, those in charge have been keen to tell the public that they are doing these things to help, and that their actions are in the best interests of the public and the future of the NHS.

    The personas of health secretaries

    Each health secretary has taken on a different persona; a political personality.

    Matt Hancock liked to be seen as a nice guy. He’d tell us that he loved the NHS, and seemed to take every opportunity to associate himself with the service, in a bid to bask in the glow of its public support.

    Sajid Javid had a tougher approach; he seemed to like pitching himself as a sensible person who was willing to have the tough conversations that others avoided.

    Wes Streeting’s persona is different to both of these, and all of the other recent health secretaries too. In fact, it’s a persona which only seems to emerge in reaction to other things, other people, who he sees as threats.

    He is very keen to impress upon us that he is not afraid of any of these imaginary threats, and will fight them (presumably on our behalf?).

    Streeting likes to tell us that he’s unafraid of pushing back on trade unions, and he would like you to know that he “won’t give in” to striking NHS workers who are fighting for a fair wage.

    He received a lot of attention recently when he attacked “middle class lefties”, who he is concerned are somehow trying to thwart his planned revival of the NHS.

    Those pesky trade unions, and NHS workers holding our crumbling health service together, and politically active members of our society who are advocating for an end to profit-creation within public healthcare! If any of these groups feel irksome to you, then don’t worry, Streeting’s on the case!

    Streeting: NHS privatisation via the backdoor

    However, the case he is actually making, when it comes down to it, is to involve more privatisation in the NHS, which he claims will help to bring down the waiting lists.

    The waiting lists are terrifyingly long, even longer than they were when Rishi Sunak pledged to reduce them back in January 2023, with around 7.5 million cases currently awaiting treatment. It therefore makes perfect sense for any new government to tackle the situation.

    However, Streeting has the wrong approach.

    The private healthcare sector does not have any meaningful “spare capacity” to save the NHS, and the vast majority of doctors working in the private healthcare sector in the UK have NHS jobs too. If Labour wins the next election and expands the workload of the private sector, this will simply result in private healthcare companies poaching (yet more) NHS staff to do the work.

    For months now, NHS campaigners have been speaking up about this, because the plan simply isn’t logical, and we haven’t been alone.

    Many organisations have questioned Labour’s plans, and many members of the public have been extremely vocal too. Now, even a private healthcare boss has criticised the plans. Justin Ash, the CEO of Spire Healthcare, spoke to the Times to say that Labour’s plans to rely on private hospitals to bring down waiting lists is “unlikely to work”.

    Labour needs a rethink

    If Wes Streeting wants to be taken seriously as a future health and social care secretary, and truly wants to rebuild the NHS, he needs to have a re-think.

    Firstly, he and Keir Starmer need to change their plans, because their bid to increase NHS privatisation isn’t going to help patients.

    Secondly, Streeting needs to stop attacking the people who are holding the NHS together, and those fighting for its future too.

    I won’t take him seriously until he does.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Dr Julia Grace Patterson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • COMMENTARY: By Martyn Bradbury

    The coverage by the New Zealand media over the brutal crackdown in New Caledonia by the French on the indigenous Kanak people as they erupted in protest at France’s naked gerrymandering of electoral law has been depressingly shallow.

    To date most mainstream NZ media (with the exception RNZ Pacific, Māori media and the excellent David Robie) have been focused on getting scared Kiwi tourists back home, very few have actually explained what the hell has been going on.

    This sudden eruption of protest follows a corrupt new draft law French law allowing French people to vote after only 10 years living there.

    A typical NZ media headline during the New Caledonia crisis
    A typical NZ media headline during the New Caledonia crisis . . . trapped Kiwis repirted, but not the cause of the independence upheaval. Image: NZ Herald screenshot APR

    This law is a direct attack on Kanak sovereignty, it’s a purely gerrymandering response to ensure a democratic majority to prevent any independence referendum.

    While no one else is allowed in there, as Asia Pacific Report reports the French are using heavy handed tactics…

    Pacific civil society and solidarity groups today stepped up their pressure on the French government, accusing it of a “heavy-handed” crackdown on indigenous Kanak protest in New Caledonia, comparing it to Indonesian security forces crushing West Papuan dissent.

    A state of emergency was declared last week, at least [seven] people have been killed — [five] of them indigenous Kanaks — and more than 200 people have been arrested after rioting in the capital Nouméa followed independence protests over controversial electoral changes

    In Sydney, the Australia West Papua Association declared it was standing in solidarity with the Kanak people in their self-determination struggle against colonialism.

    Don’t stand idly by
    We should not as a Pacific Island nation be standing idly by while the French are giving the indigenous people the bash.

    We need to be asking what the hell has France’s elite troops being doing while no one is watching. The New Zealand government must ask the French Ambassador in and put our concerns to them directly.

    Calm must come back but there has to be a commitment to the 1998 Noumea Accord which clearly stipulates that only the Kanak and long-term residents prior to 1998 would be eligible to vote in provincial ballots and local referendums.

    To outright vote against this as the French National Assembly did last week is outrageous and will add an extra 25,000 voters into the election dramatically changing the electoral demographics in New Caledonia to the disadvantage of indigenous Kanaks who make up 42 percent of the 270,000 population.

    This was avoidable, but the French are purposely trying to screw the scrum and rig the outcome.

    We should be very clear that is unacceptable.

    Our very narrow media focus on just getting Kiwis out of New Caledonia with no reflection whatsoever on what the French are doing is pathetic.

    Republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • And we’re off! This week, of course, saw Rishi finally put his big boy pants on and call a general election – which conveniently buried a load of news about the DWP.

    General election shambles

    It was an utterly baffling decision for everyone. Not only are the Tories further behind in the polls than ever but the little snake gave everyone just a few hour’s notice. Even poor ole pig fucker David Cameron was getting some bizarre dictator-style welcome in Albania that he had to call off.

    And now we’re seeing the absolute shambles that is Rishi’s campaign playing out. In the first few days of the campaign alone we’ve seen him:

    And then just when you thought he couldn’t fail anymore, he announces he’s shipping your kids off to war.

    Nothing to see here

    Of course, we know what the Tories love doing more than anything else is burying news that makes them look bad, and this is especially true for anything DWP-or disability-related. 

    So whilst they’re shitting themselves in public and hoping we don’t go looking at the real issues, here I am to bring them to the front – not the front Rishi wants our teenagers on though.

    Human rights watchdog investigating if the DWP are murderers

    Way back on Wednesday morning – before Rishi stood in the pissing rain – it was announced that the EHRC would be launching an inquiry into DWP treatment of disabled benefits claimants. There would be a particular focus on DWP benefits deaths, which is interesting when the new policy would cause far more deaths. 

    It’s interesting this was rushed out on the same day that the will-he won’t-he tension reached a fever pitch. This meant any reporting on the watchdog holding the DWP to account was as drowned out as Rishi was by Steve Bray’s sound system. 

    Only fraudsters are the ones in the cabinet

    While the government and especially the DWP have been fearmongering about benefit fraud and cracking down on disability benefits for months, their own figures found that there was almost no cases of disability benefit fraud last year. 

    That’s right, the government’s own data found that in the financial year ending in April 2024, there was 0% PIP fraud, while DLA stood at 0.1%. Universal Credit overpayments still stand at 10.9% – however, this is down from 11.4% last year. 

    When they made a massive stab-vested song and dance about DWP fraud decreasing in 2023, you have to wonder why they aren’t shouting from the rooftops that PIP fraud is now at 0%. The only conclusion to be reached is that low-or-no DWP benefit fraud doesn’t fit their narrative of how much disabled people are wasting taxpayers money. So nothing to see here.

    DWP snooping thrown out of the Lords on a technicality

    This last one is a bit of good news for disabled people. For the past few months the DWP and government have been trying to push through the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. 

    The proposed bill would allow the DWP to snoop on the bank accounts of anyone in receipt of benefits and anyone connected to them. It would mean the government scrutinising what you spend your benefits on and using that to take them away.

    The bill had already passed through the Commons, but thanks to the rules around general election season it has fallen foul to ‘wash up’ season and been binned off. Let’s hope it’s gone for good

    They don’t want you to talk about it – so let’s shout instead

    Whilst Rishi and his lot come up with the shittest ideas possible and Labour come back with even shitter banter, it’s important that DWP news like this doesn’t get forgotten. 

    One of my favourite things about disabled people is our sense of humour. When you’ve been in the gallows for as long as us there’s nothing else for it. But in amongst the laughing at terrible Tories and endless memes, we also need to keep informing people of theirs and the DWP’s incompetence and lies.

    The Tories are trying to make disabled people the enemy of the electorate, but we’re louder and funnier than you fuckers.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • We have arrived at that place. A general election. The one where our two main political parties are campaigning to see who’s going to be burying the bodies of the people their policies kill.

    The Tories have proven over the last 14 years that they don’t give a shit about anyone who is disabled, trans, not British, mentally ill, young, old or poor. Basically, if you’re not an Oxbridge educated, racist, corrupt prick who likes to avoid paying their taxes – you’re pretty screwed. 

    Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition has made more U-turns than a drunk guy on a unicycle. From scrapping the two-child limit, tuition fees, and renationalising our public services, to blocking new oil and gas exploration in the north sea. 

    But here’s the thing. As a proud Gen Z, people have told countless times over the years that I have to tolerate, or even be friends with, people who have opposing political opinions to me. Honestly, I’ve always agreed. I’ve never even thought about it too much. Everyone disagrees sometimes, right?

    Who lives and who dies

    However, recently a sense of hopelessness has struck me. Somewhere along the line, we moved away from discussing – and even disagreeing – about politics, to disagreeing on fundamental morals and human rights. 

    When did our politicians stop asking ‘how are we going to solve this issue?’ 

    Why is the new default ‘should we even bother trying to solve this issue?’ 

    Why do the looney tunes in charge get to decide who lives and who dies? How does the colour of my skin and where I was born mean my life is more valuable than children in the Middle East? 

    Basic human rights should not be a political issue. Clearly they are – now more than ever before – but they shouldn’t be. It’s so much more than politics. It’s literal life and death. 

    Sneaky and calculated or downright cruel?

    Currently, our main two political parties are condoning the murder of Palestinians in the name of colonialism. There are literal disabled people dying because the government doesn’t give a shit about systematically screwing them over. Meanwhile Labour made zero mention of disabled people in their pre-election pledges. 

    If one of my close friends told me they were voting Tory – I wouldn’t be angry. I’d be sad, but mainly disappointed. To me, that says they’re okay with Israel needlessly killing Palestinian children. It says they’re okay with systematically excluding disabled people. It says they’re okay with young people literally killing themselves because they can’t access mental health care. 

    As someone who has personally experienced homelessness, it tells me they don’t have a problem with thousands of people sleeping on the streets every night. That becomes even more of a problem when you realise that homelessness is a political choice. Which they proved during Covid, bringing everyone inside practically overnight.

    And getting really honest for a minute – voting Labour isn’t much better. Unless it’s tactical to keep the Tories out. Because whilst they might appear on the surface to be a little less cruel – many of their policies will have the exact same impact as the last 14 years of Tory hell. 

    Not so Great Britain

    At some point, politics stopped being about politics. The muppets in charge changed the game. From being about who could create the most well-thought-out policies and making the country a better place to live in. To one which they trivialise suffering and question people’s value. 

    Maybe it’s naive of me to expect any less from a bunch of overpaid pillocks. But I don’t believe its naive for Gen Z’s to dream of a country where the core values of our politicians – and consequently the people voting for them – are not questioned every two minutes. 

     

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.