Minister for disabled people Stephen Timms has been holding regular meetings with deaf and disabled people’s organisations. These chats are supposed to be under the guise of listening to us and wanting to actually work with Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs). However, one attendee of past meetings with Timms, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Canary:
It looks on the surface like he’s listening to us and does care, but it’s exactly that, always on the surface.
They continued:
You get the sense he’s only there because he has to be, and, to be honest, like he hasn’t actually got a clue what he’s doing or willing to accept just how much cuts will affect disabled people.
At the latest meeting, on Tuesday 16th September, the focus was on two areas that disabled people and our organisations are particularly anxious about. Disability Rebellion shared details of the discussion, and what Timms had to say for himself on social media.
DWP Timms Review must be co-produced
The first matter was the full review of the Personal Independence Payments (PIP), better known as the Timms Review. As the Canary previously revealed, the review is under increased scrutiny, with demands that the review must be co-produced by disabled people and be fully transparent. There have also been calls for it not to include cuts at any point. This is a central point, as the system does need an overhaul, but one that would make it more compassionate – not one that would save the DWP money.
Disability Rebellion said that Timms was still looking at the possibilities of an outside body helping to set up the review committee (of around just 10-12 people), elect co-chairs, and rewrite the terms of reference. Crucially, though this might not necessarily be a DDPO, so disabled people could be shut out again.
Timms told the meeting that the expression of interest to join the committee will be going out shortly and that the department hopes to have the committee up and running by October or early November at the latest.
However, it must be assumed that committee members will also be forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in the same way as those who wish to join the government’s highly suspect Independent Disability Advisory Panel.
Timms skirts around gagging order issues
Which brings us neatly onto the second half of the meeting. Activists had a lot of questions for Timms surrounding the Innovative Devices Access Pathway (IDAP). More specifically, around the aforementioned controversial decision to make panellists sign an NDA, which would effectively stop them from raising concerns with anyone outside the panel.
On this, Timms gave what sounds like the usual round-the-houses answer. He told the meeting there was no expectation to sign the NDA; however, if you didn’t sign the NDA, you wouldn’t be allowed to attend closed-door meetings. He also said that not all meetings would come under the NDA, so you’d be perfectly fine to talk about those as you wished.
Cynically, it sounds like the meetings that don’t come under the NDA would probably be the sort that you’d never be given much information to raise concern about. And surely they’d rather pick a panellist who would be willing to sign the NDA over one who wouldn’t.
The DDPOs suggested that instead of an NDA, there could be a code of conduct with a mention of confidentiality being needed around some discussions. In my opinion, though this still needs to give participants the freedom to bring up concerns or be able to be transparent about how they really feel the panel is going, without having to stay silent when inevitably it turns out to be a tick box exercise that just looks like the government is including disabled people.
Another fear around participation in the panel was payment. It was unclear whether compensation would be categorised as income. If it was considered income, that could then mean that individuals have their Universal Credit reduced. Timms unfortunately confirmed that payment would need to be declared to UC, and so would count towards deductible income. It’s almost as though the DWP don’t actually want disabled people to be part of this process.
DDPOs can’t become complicit in benefit cuts
Activists have privately expressed their fears of becoming collaborators in the government’s plans if DDPOs continue to support the Timms Review. And, it’s still unclear just how many DDPOs will continue to work with the Timms if nothing changes.
In my opinion, whilst I can see why disabled organisations want to be involved in this, to ensure it is run above board and we’re not shafted again, the DDPOs should be very explicitly telling the DWP that unless the review is done in true co-production with disabled people, they are not willing to work with them – and stand by that.
There’s only so far you can work with the government before you become complicit, and there’s much more strength in standing by your beliefs.
As a Palestinian, the latest report by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry came as no surprise to me, nor to any Palestinian who has lived through or followed what has been happening in Gaza since 7 October 2023.
We live the details of the genocide every day: the sounds of aircraft, the smell of rubble, the cries of children, and the hunger of mothers. But for this acknowledgment to come this time from the highest independent international human rights body, using the explicit term “genocide,” is a game-changer, because it strips away the last fig leaves from the Israeli narrative.
The UN report on Israel leave it little place to hide
The UN report documented four acts of genocidecommitted by Israel, including mass murder, starvation, and the deliberate destruction of children’s futures. These are not just numbers or cold facts, but our daily lives as Palestinians: thousands of bodies under the rubble, generations of children suffering from malnutrition and milk shortages, and entire families wiped out in an instant. What the report describes in the language of international law, we describe in our simple language as “the erasure of life.”
Israel was quick—as usual—to deny the report and accuse it of bias. But can an official denial erase the image of the child Hind Rajab, who was killed by soldiers despite her screams and cries for help? Can any political rhetoric cover up the hunger of thousands of infants who have been deprived even of their milk?
What is important now is that the report does not become just another document on the shelves of the United Nations. Its value lies not only in its words, but in the responsibility it imposes on the world. International law, established after the tragedies of war and genocide, is not just a set of idealistic texts, but an obligation on states to prevent crimes when they occur and to punish their perpetrators. Today, it must be said: the world is facing a moral and legal test.
The UN report confronts Israel with the truth, but it also holds up a mirror to the international community: Will the tragedies of Rwanda and Bosnia, where recognition came too late, be repeated, or will the world act this time before what remains of Gaza is wiped out?
Palestinians do not need miracles. We just need the law to be enforced.
We are not asking for miracles, but for the application of the law. We are not asking for pity, but for justice. If the UN has described what is happening as genocide in its report, the least that can be expected of states is to stop the arms that fuel this genocide, impose sanctions on Israeli leaders who openly incite our murder, and support the course of justice at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
The UN report said that “the essence of childhood has been destroyed in Gaza.” I say that the essence of humanity is being destroyed with it. That is why international silence is no longer mere complicity, but participation in crime.
Gaza today is not just a Palestinian issue; it is a humanitarian issue, a yardstick by which to measure the sincerity of the slogans raised by nations about human rights. Those who do not see this report as an urgent call to action are choosing to be complicit in genocide, even if only through their silence.
As I walked into a Fort Worth Post office the other day, I passed a young redneck wearing a patently ignorant t-shirt. Not just ordinarily stupid, run-of-the-mill cretinous or incredibly ignorant. But extraordinarily ignorant—if not full-blown delusional.
The wearer was the usual type. Hair high and tight underneath a straw cowboy hat, a forearm tattoo or three, with at least one rendering of his favorite phallic stand-in … daring a nonexistent mob to “Come and Take It.” He was flaunting his pseudo-badassery for all who were susceptible (or as ill-informed as he).
I rolled my eyes as we passed, but I didn’t look back. It was pointless for me to respond, even nonverbally. But it was too much, really. Too much of too much on a tortuous loop.
The teen ranger’s t-shirt read: “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: YOU MEAN TEXAS AND ITS 49 BITCHES”
Yeah.
Yeah, I thought. Sexist, asinine and perversely grandiose.
I mean, I’m a native Texan and all, and proud to be so. Except when young troglodytes brandish apparel that flagrantly illustrates Lone Star idiocy. He might as well have been wearing an “I’m With Stupid” tee except, instead of the arrow pointing left or right, it pointed straight up, at the dip’s dip-stained chin.
To be fair, though, the teen ranger was probably educated in Texas, where—in the teen ranger’s vernacular—literacy rates are inferior to the citizens of 47 other bitches in America. But he did get the current number of states right, and that’s reassuring. Because the numeracy levels of the wayward denizens in 45 other bitches are superior to those of Texas.
Forty-five? Forty-seven? Why do those numbers ring a bell? Hmmm.
For the peanut gallery, numeracy is the capacity to understand, reason with, and apply basic numerical concepts. It’s essentially the numerical counterpart of literacy. As in, if you’re ranked 46th out of 50, you’re darn near illiterate in terms of math, which is why you may still consider the state of your birth swell. And why your clueless opinion of said birthplace is so groundlessly swollen.
A colloquial corollary to someone being one’s bitch is making someone one’s bitch. Are Texas conservatives watching too many prison dramas? Or is it an unconscious itch they’ve found a way to metaphorically scratch?
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to explain things to Jethro Q. Pudwhack, because he is fiercely unworldly, proudly ill-informed and comfortably illiterate in terms of culture, politics and ethics. Not to mention insensate in terms of his own sexism, chauvinism and—yes, again—perverse braggadocio.
Now, I, myself, grew up a redneck. We had a small pasture, a garden, a few dogs and spent a little time around cattle. But even I know that if you’re trotting near the rear of fifty head of cattle, you’re getting the last lick of feed, grass or hay, and you’re settling for backwash at the trough.
The real head-scratcher for me is, why are teen ranger and his ilk okay with backwash?
Where were his ma and pa when conservative knuckle-draggers rode into their town, and why didn’t they run them off before their little Jethro Q. Pudwhack was intellectually handicapped by their talking points?
Stupid may be as stupid does, but Joannie and Jethro Q. Pudwhack elected the current batch of scamps and they, in turn, made “stupid” the state bird. But what’s the point in Bocephus going around giving every state that’s not full of doofuses the bird?
Now, I know what you’re thinking.
Well, maybe not thinking, but vaguely wondering.
You’re wondering if I’m really from Texas, because, in that dim space between your ears, you suspect real Texans don’t run their heads about education or opine polysyllabic about the lack or sad state thereof. But you and yers are simply mistaken simps.
Not everyone in Texas drinks piss from a boot and breathes through their mouth. And a bunch of us are plumb tired of settling for backwash at a shrinking trough and teen rangers who don’t have a lick of sense.
You may not have realized our state is no longer great, and you may not be able to get your hat around the implications of our current morass: our legislature is full of dumbasses and the only thing really big around here these days is our clear and present acceleration backwards … or, in the words of teen rangers, moving backwards bigly.
On 23 September, Black mums won’t just do the nursery run — we’re heading to Parliament. Black Mothers Go to Parliament: Have Your Say rejects the checkbox model of events and panels that silence us and our truths, spoken straight into the halls that have long ignored us.
The Motherhood Group has called us to Parliament from 9 a.m. to noon, and there’s nothing symbolic or decorative about it. This is care work demanding equal weight with lawmaking. Politics isn’t just bills and debates — it’s the pushchair path, the PTA meeting, the labour ward fear. It’s every decision between paying rent or childcare, speaking truth to health professionals who won’t listen, and pleading with schools that see Black children as problems.
Sandra Igwe, one of the organisers, has been clear:
I’m taking Black mothers to Parliament. Yes, you heard that right. For too long, we’ve been told there aren’t ‘enough seats at the table’.
Black women in the UK are more than twice as likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth than white women. Schools disproportionately exclude our children, with Black Caribbean pupils facing some of the highest fixed-term exclusion rates. These aren’t “niche” concerns. They are systemic, life-and-death realities that expose how deeply racism cuts into care, education, and family life.
Tokenistic consultation is draining us twice over
I’m tired of being used as a case study. They ask for our stories, they nod, they say ‘thank you for your courage’ — and then nothing changes.
We know this pattern too well. A government review announces it will ‘look into’ race and maternal health. Data is collected, reports are published, and headlines briefly acknowledge the crisis. The figures confirm what we have been saying for decades — that Black mothers are dying at disproportionate rates. The recommendations are noted, the meetings are adjourned, and then? Silence. Those in power withhold funding, block reform, and dodge accountability. Another cycle of ‘raising awareness’ while mothers continue to bury their children.
Tokenistic consultation drains us twice over. Policymakers force us to relive trauma, then shelve our testimonies instead of acting on them. They mine our words as evidence but refuse to honour them as truth. Institutions use our voices as props to dress up diversity reports. Politicians turn our grief into raw material for speeches that flatter their power while failing our families.
Black mums are demanding more than empathy. Empathy cannot keep women alive. Exclusions will not end with empathy. Childcare will never be funded by sympathy alone. We demand action — action measured not in sympathetic nods, but in budgets, laws, and lives saved.
As Igwe puts it:
Black motherhood has always been a site of leadership.
On 23 September, we’re not there for recognition or platitudes. Instead, we’re there because our lives — our bodies, our children — require serious, immediate action. Westminster cannot get away with simply listening; it has to act.
Real action means funding safe maternity care. It also means reforming exclusionary education policies. Crucially, it means investing in childcare so mothers can raise families with dignity rather than constantly fighting for survival. As a result, families thrive, communities strengthen, and the cycle of disadvantage begins to break.
Every nursery run is political. What’s more, every bedtime story is political. And each act of care becomes a form of resistance. When the state neglects us, we build networks of support. Meanwhile, when schools fail our children, we fight for their futures. When healthcare dismisses our pain, we create advocacy that saves lives.
This movement of Black mothers is not asking for permission. On the contrary, it is demanding transformation. We carry generations of struggle and possibility into Parliament — the wisdom of our mothers, the grief of those we’ve lost, and the vision of children who deserve better.
From nursery runs to Parliament: Black mums demand to be heard. We force the state to answer — not through invitation, but by showing up together and refusing silence.
US tech billionaire Elon Musk stands accused of using the rally as an opportunity to seemingly incite violence. One person who’s unprepared to consider this normal is the Liberal Democrats’ Ed Davey, who is calling on every UK political leader – including Keir Starmer – to condemn Musk:
I’ve written to Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, urging them to join me in condemning Elon Musk’s dangerous remarks inciting violence yesterday.
As leaders, we must stand together and make clear Musk will face serious consequences for these actions. pic.twitter.com/EfdICsydWT
Violence is going to come to you. You will have no choice. This is… you’re in a fundamental situation here where… whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back, or you die.
— Uncle Klaus #ANTIZIONIST #ProPalestine #BDS (@KlausUncle) August 2, 2024
Next time they tell you they just want their country back, as them which country they’re talking about.
“violence is coming to you, you either fight back or you die”. What could be more patriotic than cheering on a South African who lives in the US, while he encourages violent insurrection in a country he knows fuck all about? pic.twitter.com/tfZEiENSXr
He probably expected other politicians to take a similar stance. When that didn’t happen, he sent the following letter to Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, and Nigel Farage:
Dear Prime Minister,
The attempts this weekend by Elon Musk to sow discord and incite violence on our streets represent a serious and dangerous interference in our democracy. Speaking at the “Unite the Kingdom” march organised by far-right hate preacher Tommy Robinson, Musk told the crowd that “violence is coming” and that “you either fight back or you die”.
The United Kingdom has always prided itself on resolving disagreements through debate, through the ballot box, and through the rule of law. The recent conduct of Elon Musk – deliberately spreading misinformation, stoking anger and encouraging violence- represents a reckless and dangerous assault on those values. This attempt to endanger public safety and meddle in our politics must be met with clarity and resolve.
At times like this, it is vital that the people of our country see their leaders united. That is why I am writing to urge each of you to put party politics aside and join me in publicly condemning these dangerous remarks, and to jointly consider what sanctions Elon Musk should face as a consequence. We must make clear that no individual, however wealthy or powerful, can get away with using their platform to inflame tensions and incite violence. At the same time, we must uphold freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest without fear of violence, intimidation, or manipulation from abroad.
The strength of Britain lies in our shared commitment to mutual respect, decency and the rule of law. If we fail to speak with one voice now, we risk emboldening those who want to threaten these values and undermine our democracy.
I hope you will join me in making this important stand.
With Trump’s state visit set to take place this week, it’s more important than ever that we don’t normalise America’s toxic influence on the stability and independence of European countries:
Yesterday the world’s richest tech baron addressed a huge far right march which he fuelled & funded. Starmer said nothing. This week he’ll roll out the red carpet to the far right kingpin.
While some are saying you can’t label all those that marched ‘far right’, it was the far right who organised the rally, and the day played out as far-right marches always do.
The British media have a tendency to baby people who get pulled in by the far right, but that isn’t something we have any desire to play along with here. We understand that the black hole pulling people in is turbocharged deprivation caused by late-stage capitalism, but people need to have some personal responsibility. If you find yourself lined up behind Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins, make no mistake, you’re furthering a far-right cause which will only worsen the state of this country.
If you’re confused as to why the financial establishment would support a supposedly anti-establishment party, it’s because the demonisation of migrants is a sleight of hand – a distraction to take your eye off the ball while they rinse this country for everything it’s got.
It was a far-right rally, and Elon Musk is a far-right plutocrat who’s using his undeserved power to push for worse yet to come.
Britain’s leaders need to stand against this if they want to be seen as anything other than a pawn of international oligarchy.
The following article is a comment piece from Abbeyfield Chester resident George Morris for Unite the Union Housing Workers branch’s Social Housing Action Campaign (SHAC).
I am a resident of Abbeyfield Chester, a retirement scheme that claims its residents enjoy supported housing with:
high standards of accommodation, companionship and a support service designed to promote independence.
At least, that’s according to the Abbeyfield website.
They also claim to treat residents with dignity and respect. This is all we residents could ask for, but we also know that this carefully curated shop window is nothing like the reality for us residents.
Abbeyfield Chester retirement scheme: our story
Over the last few years, the residents of Abbeyfield Chester, most of whom are in their eighties and nineties, and many of whom have mobility issues plus dementia, have endured unsafe conditions and overly aggressive behaviour by management.
In one incident last year, a resident was startled by a loud crash as her bathroom cabinet detached from the wall. It was directly above the toilet, and if the resident had been in situ, then the likelihood is that she would have either been killed outright or would have suffered serious, life-changing injuries.
A local councillor intervened, attempting to force Abbeyfield Chester into inspecting and moving the bathroom cabinets in our flats. This has still not happened. I have no record of my bathroom cabinet being inspected, and it is certainly in the same place as those of my neighbours – directly above our toilets.
Alongside the fear of injury, the bullying and discrimination of vulnerable residents is also intolerable. One had his mental health condition weaponised by Abbeyfield. Incredibly, a trustee-director who had called the residents together for a meeting, alleged in front of the other residents that he had presented at the Countess of Chester Hospital with a mental health episode.
In fact, his GP had referred him to the hospital because of suspected Arterial Temporitis – a physical health condition which is caused by inflammation of the arteries and which can lead to loss of vision.
The big silence
In October 2024, after attempts to resolve the problems locally with Abbeyfield Chester, a formal complaint was made to the national organisation, Abbeyfield England. Nearly a year on, it is still sitting on file and nothing has changed.
In response to our complaint, Abbeyfield England claimed that it has no power to investigate complaints about local Abbeyfield societies. Despite this, they recently issued Abbeyfield Chester with a ‘Certificate of Excellence’. This highlights the duplicitous and misleading appearance of quality control that comes about through the odd structure of Abbeyfield housing.
Abbeyfield England is not the head office for the Abbeyfield almshouses that are dotted around the country, like ours in Chester. If you read the Abbeyfield statements carefully, it is clear that they are trying to have it both ways – while building an idyllic picture of local Abbeyfields and shared high standards, it is also careful to make sure that the independence of each organisation is emphasised.
Abbeyfield’s odd structure
There are around 100 or so local Abbeyfield societies, and all are independent of each other, not subsidiaries of Abbeyfield England in the way that a traditional housing group might structure its organisation.
Abbeyfield England says that it is there to:
empower member societies in their delivery of [the Abbeyfield] vision, whilst also celebrating the independence and localism of Abbeyfield.
In other words, it is there to create the appearance of a unified organisation, but as our experience has shown, it is not willing to take responsibility for what happens in Abbeyfield homes.
The local societies who actually own the Abbeyfield homes have only a weak line of accountability to Abbeyfield England. The local organisations operate as affiliates who buy into a brand, with the role of Abbeyfield England being to provide “membership services and strategic direction”, nothing more, and certainly not to enforce the high standards it claims for itself on its website.
Abbeyfield England’s ‘Certificate of Excellence’ is meaningless. Meantime, in the walled city of Chester, the Abbeyfield residents and their families and friends, are still waiting for answers.
Back in 1789, when Jacob Rees-Mogg was a teenager, Benjamin Franklin said, “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”.
Had Mr Franklin had a bit more of the Nostradamus about him, he would’ve added something about Peter Mandelson being a dead cert for heaping shame and disgrace on himself and Britain whenever a political leader is naive and corruptible enough to promote the permanently disgraced creature of the night to the highest offices of power.
Why do people so easily forget what the narcissistic creep, Mandelson is capable of?
How many other politicians were forced to resign, TWICE, from Tony Blair’s cabinets? We had the home loans scandal in 1998 which led to his resignation as Trade and Industry Secretary, and just three years later the cash for passports controversy cost him his position as Northern Ireland Secretary.
But Mandelson’s sickeningly-supportive emails after Jeffrey Epstein’s 2008 conviction for procuring a child for prostitution must put an end to the political career of the vile monster, once and for all, with no possible option of a return to frontline politics.
A sacking for now with the prospect of a return in the future isn’t good enough. This must be the last we ever hear of Peter Benjamin Mandelson.
Mandelson gone – but the revelations continue
Starmer and his advisers were undoubtedly aware of Mandelson’s exceptionally heavy, filthy baggage some time before his Ambassadorial appointment across the pond. If you think this is up for debate, I’ve got a big bucket of unicorn poo to sell to you for just a grand – all enquiries through the Canary website, please.
Where was the most basic of due diligence prior to appointing Mandelson to his Ambassadorial role? There’s only two possibilities here. They either failed to do adequate due diligence on Mandelson, which would be absolutely staggering, or they were already fully aware that ‘Mandy’ knocked about with a celebrity paedophile and simply didn’t care.
Either way, this leaves Keir Starmer in the deepest pile of shit he has found himself in to date.
It must’ve been so much easier to protect depraved elitists before the internet was invented. But these days you only need to Google “Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson” to find out why Mandelson would be more suited to a prison cell than the luxury he surrounds himself with.
I really don’t want to hear a word about Mandelson’s commitment to public service, or the work he does for British trade, or any other old nonsense that is essentially designed to protect his legacy.
In 2017, during an event hosted by The Jewish Chronicle in London, Mandelson told the audience: “I work every single day to bring forward the end of [Jeremy Corbyn’s] tenure in office.”
While this was a great little distraction from being the best friend of a nonce, Labour and Jeremy Corbyn went on to deliver Labour’s greatest number of votes since 2001 (when Mandelson was forced to resign following corruption allegations), increasing Labour’s vote by 9.5% and forcing Britain into hung parliament territory.
Appalling lack of judgement – or worse?
Keir Starmer’s lack of judgement is utterly appalling. How did this fraud of a human ever make a living out of prosecuting people? It is no secret he is under immense pressure from both the left and right, so where will the Mandelson scandal leave the Labour Party?
And more importantly, what mechanisms are in place to remove him from the ludicrous House of Lords?
If the raging racists that are so desperately trying to make their little voices heard over this weekend want something to be genuinely angry about, if they really want to “PROTECT ARE GIRLS”, they could do worse than turn their attentions — however short their spans may be — to the former MP for Hartlepool and the establishment institutions that allow the rich and powerful predators to hide within plain sight.
For me, the Labour Party shouldn’t just be looking for a deputy leader when they so obviously need a new party leader to at least keep the party critical, but alive until the next general election.
Of course, the gutless right-wing Labour Party can die on its arse for all I care, but if I was a Labour backbencher I would be questioning how much longer Keir Starmer — whose shocking approval ratings have hit a new low — will survive in his post, because he is making the harrowing prospect of a Reform UK government seem more likely by the day.
Better the devil you don’t know
I know a few of you think it is better to keep Starmer in office until the next general election, and I absolutely hear you. But let’s not pretend the Labour Party will have a snap general election because they have changed their leader, because they won’t.
Starmer’s Labour govern as ‘social conservatives’, not democratic socialists, and right now, in today’s political climate, they will face a beating of disastrous proportions that will take at least a generation to recover from.
And besides, accountability must apply to any Prime Minister, however great their undeserved but likely to be short-lived majority may be.
In a week where Keir Starmer has welcomed the president of Israel to Downing Street, just a day after disgracefully and officially denying the Gaza genocide, while calling out Israel’s negotiation-busting bombing in Qatar that was assisted by… British forces, I believe ultimate accountability needs to come sooner rather than later.
And then we can deal with the next Labour Friend of genocide that the party replace Starmer with.
You know when you have one of those moments that sticks with you? It was the Majority Conference recently in Newcastle.
I’d just got back to the venue, the impressive Great Hall in the Discovery Museum. The hall was filling up. All the volunteers in their Majority T-shirts. The high-quality slides and audio-visuals. Just the buzz, that a great event was pulled together in just six weeks by a 100% volunteer organisation.
Majority Conference: no egos, no power grabs
A mix of inspirational speeches, interviews, table discussions, and lots of practical training on how to get things done. People volunteering to step up and take on roles. Putting themselves forward as candidates. The whole team was uplifted, all being part of creating a success. No egos, no huffs, no power grabs. A model of teamwork.
We’re gearing up to contest next May’s local elections. We covered how we’ll be running in Newcastle and the rest of the North East. We’re building around the country, too.
We got a lot of coverage, including the BBC and the Guardian. They have a habit of calling it Jamie Driscoll’s Majority Party. The coverage is good, but incorrect on both counts.
It’s not Jamie Driscoll’s. I don’t own it, not the way Reform was a company owned by Farage, or in any other way. Nor do I control it. We’re completely democratic. In fact, every year, the entire membership votes on whether they want to boot out the current leader and elect a new one. I’m not aware of any other political organisation that gives their members such power.
Members get to vote on all key decisions, and have freedom to self-organise. My job as elected leader is half general secretary, managing resources, and half a chief training officer, empowering members and sharing my experience.
A platform to build progressive alliances, not a political party in the conventional sense
Majority is not a party, either. At least not as people usually understand it. The organisation that people join is a social movement, not a registered political party. No one has to leave their current party to join us. So long as you agree with our political values statement, you’re welcome.
There is a separate legal entity that is Majority the political party. We set that up, after discussions with the Electoral Commission, so we can run candidates as Majority if we wish. Or we can back Greens, or independents, or, when it’s ready, Your Party.
Our constitution commits us to seeking progressive alliances. Independent Holly Waddell who previously took a seat of the Tories in Northumberland, and the Green Party’s Sarah Peters who took a seat from Labour, both spoke at the conference. Two young women who stepped up, and got Majority support.
That’s the key. How do you build an organisation that people want to give their time to? It’s not enough to have a party where people think, “Well, I suppose they’re not as bad as the rest”. Without passionate volunteers, you need rich donors to pay the staff. If you need rich donors, you can never truly represent the people who vote for you.
Majority conference members ready to help shape ‘Your Party’
As Your Party takes shape, many of our members will be shaping it. I know I will. I’ll be arguing that to stop a far-right government in this country, we need a progressive alliance. We need radical grassroots democracy. We’re showing it can work.
Some say progressives need to build a social movement. Some say the focus should be on electoral politics. Why can’t it be both? In fact, how can it not be both? Without a broad base in society, we only represent ourselves. We won’t win against big money unless we’re embedded in communities. And without electoral success, how will we change public policy to serve the interests of the many and not the few? Citizens’ assemblies are great place to start.
So many people joined Labour, and went to their first meeting thinking, “Will we be talking about the climate, I wonder, or perhaps the NHS?” Then got there, and someone sold them a raffle ticket. Then a long report from the officers. Then a long and repetitive debate about leaflets. Honestly, it’s less interesting than being at work. And no one got within a mile of making any meaningful decisions. People concluded, “If I am going to make no difference, I can do that much more efficiently at home”. If you want volunteers to step up, you must engage their emotions and their intellect.
Majority is fun. We have reading groups, where everyone gets to develop their ideas in a safe space. We have film clubs. We have very little admin. We’re out campaigning. Against austerity. Against racism. Against genocide. For a sustainable world for ourselves and our kids. And every member gets an equal say. One member, one vote.
Zarah Sultana’s standing ovation: a sign of what’s to come
Zarah Sultana was our keynote speaker at the Majority conference. The hall was so packed people were standing round the edges. Even the venue staff came to listen. She’s a charismatic speaker. She got a standing ovation.
But all she did was articulate what every person in that room, and millions across this country were already thinking. It’s about time Britain was run in the interests of its people, not billionaires.
If we can win in Newcastle in May’s all-out elections, the whole country will look to us and believe it can be done.
“HAVE A GREAT LABOR DAY WEEKEND, PATRIOTS!!! GOD BLESS THE WORKING PEOPLE WHO MAKE AMERICA GREAT!,” read an August 2025 tweet, capped with three American flags and a photo of its author in a convertible, sunglasses on, peace sign raised. This wasn’t 2016. This wasn’t President Donald Trump. It was California Governor—and presidential hopeful—Gavin Newsom.
Newsom’s sudden shift to Trump-style posting has been hailed by some legacy outlets as proof Democrats are finally learning to compete in the digital-media space. The New York Timesgushed that he “has that dog in him.” NBC claimed his “national profile soars.” But Democrats are not just late to the party—they’re fundamentally unprepared for it. Unlike Trump and other Republicans who thrived in podcasts and digital platforms by appearing authentic, Democrats have struggled with stiff rhetoric, unpopular policies, and a legacy-media mindset that collapses in unscripted, contentious interviews. Newsom’s Twitter cosplay is less a breakthrough than a symptom of a party pretending it can play a game it doesn’t understand.
After the 2024 election, the contrast couldn’t have been clearer. Trump and then Vice-Presidential candidate J.D. Vance seemed comfortable and unscripted on podcasts like This Past Weekend with Theo Von and TheJoe Rogan Experience. To drive home the contrast, Trump used his appearance on Rogan’s show to mock his Democratic opponent for President, Vice-President Kamala Harris, for avoiding such interviews, “Can you imagine Kamala doing this show? She’d be laying on the floor… call in the medics!” Harris did eventually sit down with Call Her Daddy, but it was a softball interview that looked like a last-ditch stunt, not a confident embrace of the medium.
Since then, Democrats have been scrambling to figure out how to succeed electorally in a media environment increasingly dominated by populist rhetoric. After 2024, Trump’s side had Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Andrew Schulz’s Flagrant, and Tony Hinchcliffe’s Kill Tony, his own Truth Social platform, and Elon Musk’s X—at least until the Musk-Trump falling out. Democrats realized that they had nothing similar and tried to mimic the formula. Newsom even launched his own podcast, but misread the moment entirely. Convinced America wanted to move right, he booked guests like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon while back-pedaling on progressive causes like transgender rights. When that backfired, he pivoted again—back to resistance liberalism on social media.
Dark Money, Influencers, and the Digital Echo Chamber
Democrats have long struggled with the shifting news environment. After their 2016 loss, they blamed digital media, dismissing it as “fake news” or disinformation. “Over the next four years, they came to realize that digital media was not going away, and that competing successfully would require a more active media strategy. So, in 2020, Democratic allies and Trump’s opponents coordinated efforts to shape media narratives against him in what Time called a “shadow campaign.” In 2024, the Harris campaign went further, funding favorable—but false—AI-generated headlines through Google ads and enlistinginfluencers and celebrities. Still, these efforts could not match the brand loyalty and digital reach Trump had cultivated with online content creators.
In 2025, Democratic supporters looked beyond candidates and sought to amplify party-friendly influencers. This included a dark money group named the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which poured money into pro-Democratic Party messaging online through Chorus. The Sixteen Thirty Fund has a long history of bankrolling Democratic causes—spending $400 million in 2020 to help defeat Republicans. Chorus describes itself as “a creator-led nonprofit organization dedicated to helping content creators expand their reach and educate their audiences about news and public policy.” According to Taylor Lorenz’s August 2025 reporting in Wired, Chorus ran the Chorus Creator Incubator Program, which paid liberal content creators like David Pakman and Brian Tyler Cohen up to $8,000 a month to produce party-friendly content—without disclosing the source of the funding.
Lorenz, who has been accused of fabricating interviews and lying to editors (both of which she denies), became an easy target in this controversy. Some have criticized her for not proving the existence of dark money in the report. Others, including Pakman, threatened to sue her and Wired for defamation, while some falsely accused Lorenz of taking money from the same dark fund.
In subsequent interviews, Lorenz noted that the problem is not that creators are being paid, but that they are not disclosing where their funding comes from. Indeed, Lorenz’s reporting indicates that the Chorus funded content creators were forbidden from revealing the source of the money. It does seem that Lorenz has a point: during Trump 2.0, Pakman became a favorite of Democratic-leaning legacy media, earning glowing praise from outlets like MSNBC for his commentary on how Democrats could build influential progressive media—though he conveniently left out the role of dark money in that analysis.
Critics of the content creators note that Pakman and Cohen have avoided critiquing Israel—or, in Cohen’s case, covering the topic at all. Pakman’s former producer claimed this is because, after a White House meeting with then-President Joe Biden, content creators including Pakman discussed how covering the topic was too divisive and might cost them their audience. Thus, it may be the case that Pakman and Cohen are telling the truth—that this money did not directly influence their content—and this highlights an age-old critique from famed linguist and media scholar Noam Chomsky: people like Pakman and Cohen only receive funding from Democratic Party supporters because they already say what the funders want, and the money will stop if they change course.
At the heart of this story is the fact that, rather than creating a truly open information superhighway that levels the playing field, the digital space has merely replicated the problems of corporate media: funding has often trumped ethics, including transparency in financial support. Just like cable news, the two major parties can buy up platforms and major content producers, giving the public a narrow window into the world—though the world is far bigger than Democrats and Republicans. This is not lost on commentators in the space; left-populist commentator Krystal Ball has warned that new media outlets risk replicating the same corporate media model they claim to oppose.
Buying Attention, Not Support
With rare exceptions, such as the redistricting fight, the Democratic Party seems more focused on buying the appearance of public support than on building it through a genuinely popular policy agenda. After all, since the start of Trump’s second term, the Democratic Party’s new chair has claimed the party has “good billionaires“; young leaders like David Hogg have been sidelined for trying to transform the party toward a more populist direction; Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) refused to use parliamentary tricks to delay Trump’s agenda; top Democrats refuse to endorse candidates who are energizing the electorate such as the Democratic nominee for New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani; Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) delivered a marathon speech against Trump before ultimately voting to support his policy agenda; and Democrats are largely avoiding tapping into the energy and popular appeal of Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Fighting Oligarchy Tour.”
It is no surprise that polls suggest it is not working: even as Trump’s numbers dip—especially on the economy, his traditional strength—voters aren’t flocking to Democrats. Party leaders seem convinced their policies are popular and only their communication strategy needs fixing. But the data tells a different story. A recent report from the New York Times found that in the 30 states that track voter registration, since 2020, Democrats have lost ground to Republicans in all of them. That seems to indicate it is the message and policy, not the media, but Democrats forge ahead with their belief that new media will make their message and policies attractive to voters.
The irony is sharp: Democrats are chasing an artificial “new media” presence when, not long ago, a thriving, organic one already existed. Rogan, Schulz, and the social media giants were often aligned with Democrats before 2024. Now, the party is reduced to manufacturing what it squandered. And when you have to pay people to amplify your message, it means your message—and your brand—aren’t resonating. Recent polling reveals just that. In July 2025, the Wall Street Journalfound Democratic approval at its lowest point in 35 years, back when George H.W. Bush was president.
When Democrats Meet Unscripted Media
But the problem runs deeper than money or platforms. Democrats don’t have candidates who can spar in good faith while sounding authentic. The party of the educated professional class has produced politicians trained to communicate like Human Resources (HR) representatives: no jokes, no controversy, no substance, no ambiguity. In podcast spaces where comedians riff vulgar jokes and hosts lob provocative hot takes, that robotic style falls flat.
Worse, Democrats are conditioned by decades of cozy legacy media treatment. Step into new media, and suddenly their rhetorical tricks don’t work. Nowhere is this clearer than on Israel-Gaza. In podcasts and alt-media, Israel’s treatment of Gazans is routinely called “genocide”—even by Jewish commentators like Norman Finkelstein and Dave Smith. Although criticism of Israel is often treated as fringe in legacy media, polling shows these views are actually widely held. In July 2025, Gallup found that only 32% of Americans support U.S. military aid to Israel in Gaza. An August 2025 Economist/YouGov poll found that 45% of respondents called what Israel is doing in Gaza “genocide,” while only 31% disagreed with that conclusion. The same poll also found that 70% of respondents believed there is a hunger crisis in Gaza. Another poll found that about 70% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans have no confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An August 2025 Reuters poll showed that roughly 60% of Americans think the U.S. should contradict Israel and recognize Palestine as an independent nation. Even the Israeli government recognizes its waning support: a leaked study of global opinion found that substantial portions of the world—Europeans in particular—”agree with the characterization of Israel as a genocidal, apartheid state.”
In his 2025 book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows… Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life, Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, explains that coordination depends not only on people having a common belief or assessment, but also on knowing that many others share the same view, so they can collaborate. As media scholars such as Robin Andersen, Professor Emerita of Communications and Media Studies at Fordham University, point out, legacy media shields the Democratic Party—which tried to avoid an internal debate about Israel in 2024—from confronting widespread dissatisfaction with Israeli policy. Indeed, members of both parties and allies in the news media are trained to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a tactic that collapses in adversarial interviews in the digital-media space.
Just ask Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY). On the Adam Friedland Show, Torres, a staunch supporter of Israel, tried to avoid commenting on human rights abuses by Israel by saying he supports free speech, which he said includes criticism of Israel but not antisemitism. The host, Friedland, himself Jewish, wasn’t having it. He argued that Israel’s violence in Gaza fuels antisemitism more than anything else, cited civilian death tolls, and outright called it “genocide.” Torres, unable to rely on the usual rhetorical tactic of shutting down debate by calling his opponent antisemitic—since Friedland is Jewish—ended up flailing. He tried to rely on his identity as a person of color, a technique that works in corporate pro-Democratic Party media, by claiming it made him aware of oppression and hyper-attuned to the feelings of Jews. Just for a moment, imagine if in the middle of 2020 a white person had used an identity feature to tell a Black person how they should feel about Black Lives Matter. Liberals would have been clutching their kale. It fell totally flat.
Torres simultaneously denied that Israeli policy targets civilians while conceding that thousands had been killed, then bizarrely tried to draw a distinction between Israel’s “right-wing” government and the Israeli government itself—as if he opposed the right-wing government, which is the government of Israel, but would not denounce the government of Israel. The exchange left him looking evasive, unprepared, and profoundly out of touch, as evidenced by commentary from other creators in the space and audience reactions.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg fared no better. On Pod Save America—a podcast practically designed to give Democrats soft landings—he was asked about U.S. support for Israel. Buttigieg deployed the usual consultant-speak about “assessing” aid and referred to U.S.-Israel relations as friendship, noting that sometimes friends need to guide each other “to a better place.” When pressed on whether Israel’s killing of 60,000 people should end that “friendship,” he responded vaguely, saying, “Sometimes words can fail.” It was classic HR-speak—saying nothing while sounding pained. Subsequent reporting confirmed what was obvious: Buttigieg’s appearance wasn’t just a dud—it was the kind of empty performance that made him look more like a consultant auditioning for a board seat than a leader taking a stand.
Democrats who step into these independent media spaces often seem to expect the usual softball treatment from legacy outlets, only to find themselves cornered by facts—and with few skills to fight their way out. Take Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who appeared on Breaking Points and was pressed by host Krystal Ball over her hypocrisy on Palestine. Ball cited multiple examples, including Slotkin’s own past statements, showing how she condemned colleagues’ criticism of Israel while ignoring Democrats spreading Islamophobia or even calling for Gaza to be nuked. Caught off guard, Slotkin sputtered until her staff, apparently mercifully, cut the interview short.
Faking It Won’t Cut It: Democrats’ New Media Crisis
Funding conflicts and weak interview performances aren’t exclusive to Democrats or liberals. Earlier this year, reports emerged that conservative content creators such as Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson were taking money to promote pro-Russian content. Republicans, too, largely trained in the legacy media space, aren’t immune from poor interviews in the digital-media space. For example, in 2025, Tucker Carlson humiliated Senator Ted Cruz by bluntly telling him, “You don’t know anything about Iran,” after Cruz fumbled basic questions about a country he was advocating bombing. But Republicans at least have figures like Trump who can command new media spaces. With few exceptions—such as Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), who has spent years honing his communication for these platforms—Democrats are consistently exposed as unprepared, insincere, and allergic to authenticity.
That brings us back to Newsom. His Twitter-Trump cosplay might fool a few credulous reporters, but it doesn’t solve the real problem. Democrats can’t fake authenticity in spaces built on blunt honesty, biting humor, and relentless confrontation. To compete, they don’t just need new platforms—they need new policies, new skills, and candidates who can thrive outside the safe bubble of legacy media. Until then, all the paid influencers, all the all-caps tweets, all the manufactured hype won’t disguise the truth: this is a party that doesn’t get the post-legacy media era—and the digital world is punishing them for it.
But with Gaza, they’re testing out how much brutality they can get away with. While they’re not the ones dropping bombs or holding guns in their hands (for now), their support for the US-Israeligenocide is very much out in the open. And if they face no punishment for this, it could be game over for the class war. Because it could emerge from the shadows and go full-on dystopian. Some companies are already frothing at the mouth to establish an era of techno-dictatorship.
Billionaire rule out in the open
The US has a long history of genocidalimperialistterror. So perhaps unsurprisingly, it has also become the epicentre of the billionaire battle for global domination. In April, Statistasaid it had “a record 902 billionaire citizens, almost a third of all worldwide billionaires”. It leads the top ten of countries with most billionaires. Alongside it are Western allies Germany, Canada, Italy, and the UK.
Trump has just had 13 billionaires around for a dystopian White House dinner. And he’s now wasting around a billion dollars simply to put up “Department of War” signage.
The billionaires have the real control. Israeli fascism is just a tool.
As journalist Jonathan Cookinsists, Israel is just a tool and a distraction. Those with real power in the world are the billionaires. They can deny direct involvement in the genocide, but they overwhelmingly support the apartheid state. And we can absolutely guarantee that the pro-Israel lobby only has big influence in Western politics because its behaviour aligns with the interests of billionaires.
If Israel gets away with its genocide in Gaza, it will only embolden the West’s billionaire class even more. They’ll be able to drop the veil covering their war on vast majority of the world’s population. And they’ll feel confident enough to use force and technology to win the class war once and for all.
Now is not the time for half measures. We need to tackle billionaire control head on, by any means necessary.
As supporters of Your Party keep a keen eye on emerging policy positions, Zarah Sultana continues to be a shining light. Over the past few weeks, a growing concern over the party’s seeming lack of a position on transphobia has dominated discussion on social media. Given a mix of transphobic legislation, a rise in transphobic hate crimes, and an ongoing moral panic over the very existence of trans people, such an omission was glaring.
However, in recent days Sultana spoke to the Canary to remove any doubt as to her position. She told us:
it’s really important that, from the outset, we are loud and proud about the values that we have. Otherwise, what’s the point? If we’re not proudly saying we’re anti-racist, we’re supportive and pro-LGBT, there is no space for transphobia…If we are going to change society for everyone, we have to centre the most marginalised people.
And, she made it clear:
there can’t be any kind of questions about our position on trans rights. And we need to make sure that everyone feels safe, everyone feels welcome in shaping this party. And that’s really important.
In doing so, Sultana also demonstrated something else: as one of the most prominent brown women in politics, she is taking more of a principled stand for marginalised people than many of her colleagues.
Zarah Sultana stands for all
With the advent of Your Party, Sultana has made a clear strategic shift to a more plain-speaking and forthright style. She had no qualms in calling out smears made against her; she proudly stated she was an anti-Zionist; she’s been inspiring people wherever she goes. Finally, here is someone with a vision for the future and principles that are actually built around the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society. But, let’s get one thing clear. It is fucking galling to see this principled brown woman make waves in politics whilst white and brown men who claim to have similar politics keep their mouths shut.
Just by being a brown woman with a considerable amount of public attention trained her way, Sultana is under more of a microscope than her male colleagues. Whether it’s Jeremy Corbyn or Adnan Hussain, anything that comes out of Sultana’s mouth is subject to more scrutiny and vitriol. As much as misogyny and racism irrevocably colour how her statements are received, it is when they come together that brown women face a particular form of vicious bad faith responses.
Identity politics
Detractors of identity politics, from both the left and right, stand ever-ready to blow such claims out of the water. But, as popular a concept as identity politics is, it’s fundamentally misused. Someone like Zarah Sultana is not in the position she has reached because she’s a brown woman. She’s in that position because her politics, time and again, support people who face racism, misogyny, transphobia and more. The parts of her identity that come from being a brown woman are undoubtedly central to both her politics and sense of self.
After all, just having identity categories that are marginalised isn’t enough. As we covered last week, Adnan Hussain has, rightfully, attracted criticism for his messy takes on trans people. In a now-deleted series of tweets, a seemingly frustrated Hussain said:
“A broad, inclusive church” doesn’t mean ‘the type of people I want but not those other ones.’ It means all marginalised and vulnerable people who are on the sharp end of a violent and uncaring state. Problems like poverty, racism, and transphobia are structural. They intersect in many ways, and it is extremely bloody commonplace for people to belong to many marginalised groups.
With such a view in mind, what’s the point of Hussain’s targeting of trans people? Either he believes structural issues that the state presides over are, indeed, structural, or he’s just picking and choosing which marginalised people he stands with.
Different standards
Identity politics or, as they’re sometimes known, representation politics are nowhere near radical enough in politics. Black or brown faces in high places do not change the material reality of Black and brown people on the other end of the poverty scale. If the only metric we’re using is identity politics, then sure – there goes Adnan Hussain, and Shabana Mahmood, and Zarah Sultana. Lovely.
But, then what? If we approach the issue of whose political visions most serve the people of this country, Zarah Sultana’s approach is surely the only one that contains any realistic sense of hope. Whether brown or white, men are much more insulated from social or media blowback. There is much more tolerance of their opinions, and notably, their missteps. As brilliant as she is, Sultana is held to a much higher standard than her colleagues. Nevertheless, she has maintained her principles.
As Your Party spends the next few months deciding its platform and politics more broadly, we need more of the likes of Zarah Sultana.
The following piece is a guest article from Mogamat Reederwan Craayenstein. He is a hero of the South African anti-apartheid struggle, a former political prisoner who now lives in the UK and continues his fight against racism and discrimination everywhere.
The imminent arrival of the Israeli president in the UK is a critical moment for the police and judiciary of the UK. He is the head of state of Israel, which has been accused of genocide at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The president of Israel stands accused of aiding and abetting war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza and the West Bank.
The relevant precedent for the UK is the arrest of General Pinochet in London in 1998. The House of Lords Judicial Committee ruled that immunity is not absolute. On 25 November 1998, it ruled on the immunity of a former head of state.
Herzog is the current head of state of a state that is committing the first live-streamed genocide in history. It also commits torture and Apartheid. These are crimes that are prosecutable on a ‘universal jurisdiction’ basis. As the head of state of a state that commits these kinds of crimes, Herzog is arguably an enemy of all of mankind.
Isaac Herzog: culpable as the head of a state committing genocide and war crimes
He must be arrested under the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Israeli courts do not punish Israeli officials for any of these crimes against Palestinians. Herzog is the head of this state of mendacity.
The current Labour Party government aims to repeat the poor decisions of the 1998 Labour government regarding the interaction between public international law and domestic law. There is no doubt that the UK has the authority to arrest Herzog. It has the right. So if he comes to the UK, he should be arrested. If he wishes to avoid arrest, then he should stay at home.
We are witnessing the impunity that the Labour government allows to Israeli politicians, diplomatic staff, and IDF personnel. The Tories and Reform share the same views.
Diplomatic, economic, military, and cultural support by the USA, the EU, UK, Australia, Canada, and NATO have destroyed the credibility of the rules that govern the international order since WWII. Arresting Herzog like Pinochet in 1998 would begin retrieving the remains of universality under the law from the graveyard that Israel has created. After the Nazi Holocaust, it cannot be that the life of a Palestinian matters less than that of a Jewish Israeli. It cannot be that the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinian children are less valuable than those of Jewish Israeli children in Tel Aviv.
Send Herzog to the Hague to stand trial
We have observed how the Labour government, led by a human rights lawyer, refuses to recognise that Israel is committing gross violations of international law, human rights law, and humanitarian law. The UK government does not have a factual problem. The facts are being live-streamed. It has an attitudinal problem. A Palestinian is less of a human being than a Jewish Israeli: that is the logic. President Herzog leads the state that is the grave-digger of the rules-based international system established after World War II. He must be arrested when he arrives in the UK.
A democracy cannot endure with only two elements: isegoria (the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in democracy) and parrhesia (the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom). The former demands informed citizens who participate in all matters of public concern. It should not be the case that major issues are controlled by corrupt politicians within the government and powerful corporations, and that the public is misled by a manufactured consensus. The media is as culpable as our government and corporations, which act as shields for the Israeli genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the settler colonial project of Apartheid.
This piece is part of our effort to engage in parrhesia, regardless of the costs of speaking truth to power. We see hundreds of activists offering themselves for arrest in defence of the non-violent direct action of a Palestinian activist group. We see hundreds of thousands turning out for monthly demonstrations in defence of the international rules-based order.
Labour and the Tories: indifferent to Israeli war crimes
President Herzog must be arrested when he comes to London. He must suffer the same fate as General Pinochet. However, unlike Pinochet, Herzog must be sent to the Hague to stand trial. Jack Straw, home secretary at the time, sent Pinochet to Chile instead of Spain, which was waiting to put him on trial. Shabana Mahmood, another lawyer, should get ready. How many more Palestinians have to die at the hands of this rapacious, racist state before its head of state is arrested?
We have seen that indifference to the crimes of Israel is a bipartisan consensus position. Labour and the Tories are shields for Israeli crimes against humanity. The opposition to those crimes is outside of parliament, on the streets, and in our small demonstrations across the country.
William James, the American philosopher, said that indifference is the one human trait that makes even the angels weep.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said that indifference is worse than evil itself.
Herzog should be detained and put on trial for war crimes and assisting and facilitating a genocide. We must not allow the government to use the same kind of ruse with him as Blair’s government used when Jack Straw allowed Pinochet to get away on medical grounds.
Israeli war criminals must live in fear of arrest, or rules-based international law falls apart
Like Nuremburg, the voices of the victims of the Nazi Holocaust had to be heard. We honour the Palestinian dead by arresting Herzog and putting him on trial. There must be integrity and universality if we claim to have a rules-based international order. Integrity means moral and legal consistency. We cannot just arrest leaders from the Global South and put them on trial. When there are white people from the Global North, then we want to ‘um and ah’. Arrest Isaac Herzog and put him on trial for war crimes and for aiding and abetting genocide so that we might believe that the law applies to everyone equally.
The Israeli political, business, media, academic, sports, and other cultural elites must live in fear of being arrested. If we do not arrest them, then our own humanity is at stake. Do not be as complicit as Germany and hypocritical as France when it comes to the dignity of Palestinians. Herzog’s arrest in London, September 2025, would be as significant as the referral of Israel to the ICJ by South Africa.
Herzog: stay home, or face arrest
It will force the Israeli public to accept their complicity in the genocide in Gaza. They are most likely as guilty as the German public that supported the Nazi Holocaust. The arrest will also force the Israeli judiciary to stop acting as a rubber stamp for Apartheid and genocide by Israeli governments since 1947.
It will also cause the IDF to think twice about committing genocide and implementing an Apartheid project in the Palestinian-occupied territories and the IDF and Israeli police to review and reconsider their complicity with the racist, bigoted armed settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The pro-Israel lobby in the UK will also have to shut up shop or they too will be arrested for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. They have had a free ride for too long.
Herzog must be put on notice. Come to London and you will be arrested. If you do not want to be arrested, stay at home. His world, and the world of those like him, must become very small.
Earlier in the week, I did something that shocked me: I found myself agreeing with my MP Lewis Atkinson. Atkinson and I haven’t seen eye to eye ever since I published my email to him detailing just how much of an impact benefits cuts would have on his constituency and he replied with some Labour Party bullshit about how work is good for you and actually he’d been listening to his constituents – which is news to his constituents who he never replies to unless they publish their emails in the press like I did.
Given the geographical distribution of other leading members of the party & Government, it would not be acceptable to have a London Deputy leader. We need to represent and win across the whole of the UK. I’ll be looking to support a non-London woman.
Weird “non-London woman” aside, Lewis and I were seemingly in agreement here, cos even a broken clock is right twice a day. But when I started seeing rumoured names, the penny dropped: he meant Bridget Phillipson.
Bridget Phillipson makes a bid for deputy leader
Sure enough, the secretary for education, who is also from the North East and represents the constituency next door to mine, announced yesterday that she was throwing her hat in the ring. And sure enough she couldn’t do it without relying heavily on her roots.
Phillipson said:
I am a proud working-class woman from the north east. I have come from a single parent family on a tough council street, all the way to the Cabinet, determined to deliver better life chances for young people growing up in our country.
You don’t get to be working class when it suits you, Bridget
As an actual working-class woman from the North East, I’m sick and tired of women with immense privilege co-opting a huge part of my identity for their own gain. While it’s true that Phillipson used to understand the struggles women in one of the most deprived regions in the country faced, her 15 years as an MP and 5 years on the front benches with the salary attached to that makes it impossible for her to really be in touch with just how soul-crushing it is to be in a working class northern woman in a system that seeks to keep you as low as possible.
While it’s true that Phillipson is from a working-class background, I don’t think it’s fair to still call yourself working class when you earn over £165,000 per year. There’s a huge difference between growing up working class and still being working class, one that many politicians happily forget. Because if she were still working class, she would be absolutely disgusted by the policies that she has put forward and supported in cabinet.
Most recently, she supported huge welfare cuts for disabled people, when the North East has the highest rate ofdisability in the whole country. 21.2% of people in the north east are disabled, while 7.8% of households have two or more disabled people in them. That’s on top of the 25% that live in poverty. She also voted for means testing of winter fuel payments, which would affect many older and vulnerable people in the North East.
The reality of being from Sunderland
I love being from Sunderland; it’s a city that in recent years has really come into its own. We have an incredible arts and culture scene and incredible places to eat and drink, and our coastline is a true thing of beauty. But all of that is in stark contrast to the level of poverty Sunderland also faces. There’s the fact that despite investment in making our town centre look good, there’s been nothing meaningful done to stop antisocial behaviour. And there’s been no further investment in youth programmes or anything to tackle homelessness.
It’s all well and good spending millions on Keel Square, which in fairness has played host to incredible events, but if you walk down High Street, you’ll find it littered with empty stores because even the bigger companies aren’t prepared to pay the sky-high rents.
Sunderland, by the way, was also the scene of one of the first riots of summer 2024. It’s something Phillipson condemned as “unforgivable violence and thuggery”. But like most local Labour MPs, she has done nothing to tackle why people feel dissatisfied with the way Labour are running the North East, and nothing to really improve the lives of those who live in our region. Though, of course, that doesn’t stop her from popping up at all the local photo ops.
Phillipson claims to have “beat” Reform, also a lie
On the oncoming shitstorm that is Reform, she said:
Because make no mistake: we are in a fight. We all know the dangers Reform poses our country. But not only am I ready for it: I’ve proven we can do it. I’ve shown we can beat Farage in the north-east, while staying true to the Labour Party’s values of equality, fairness and social justice.
Which is almost hilarious when the North East is one of the areas that is being preyed on most heavily by Reform. Every day on local Facebook pages, I see outrage at how little Labour cares about the region and, indeed, the city Phillipson represents, with more and more showing their support for Reform.
The claim we’ve beaten Farage in the North East is absolutely preposterous when Reform completely controls Durham County Council, with 65 of the 98 councillors being Reform. They also came second in most North East constituencies in the 2024 general election.
She continued:
With me as deputy leader, we will beat them right across the country and unite to deliver the opportunity that working people across this great country deserve.
Reform is set to make much bigger gains in local elections over the next five years, and the prospect of huge parts of the North East, especially Sunderland, becoming controlled by Reform is all too real. To claim we’ve beaten Reform in the North East shows just how out of touch with the North East Phillipson actually is. Which is worrying when she’s now claiming that shows Labour can beat Reform across the whole of the country.
The deputy leader race so far
Phillipson is currently winning the election race, with 47 nominations out of the 80 she needs so far. Following behind her is former leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, who was ousted by Starmer last week with 37 nominations.
Sadly, there is only one left-leaning candidate, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who was part of the disability benefits cuts rebellion of the summer. She’s in third place but still currently only has 12 nominations. With such a purposefully short time scale for the race, Phillipson could become deputy leader by Thursday without even Labour Party members getting a say.
Phillipson does not hold working class values, or she wouldn’t be part of the cabinet
Being a working-class woman from the North East means more than simply being from here. It’s understanding how much the area fights despite always being taken for granted, listening to your community so that we can all work together because nobody else is doing it, and the resilience to keep going despite all the shit those in power throw at us.
Someone who truly held working class values and anything other than contempt for our region would never be part of a Labour cabinet which has done and plans to do so much harm to working class people in such a short space of time.
As a working class woman from the North East, I’m sick and tired of seeing people like Bridget Phillipson who are so out of touch with what we actually need: people who’ve long turned their back on their North East working class roots, but have no trouble using them for political gain.
How is Trump doing in the polls? Over the last week and a half, averaging polls done by CBS, NBC, The Economist, Reuters/Ipsos and Quinnipiac, he is doing terribly: an average approval rating of 41.6% and a disapproval rating of 55.4%. He is down 14 points.
As significant, however, are the results from the Quinnipiac poll as far as strength of support for Trump. Those polled were asked if they strongly approved, or strongly disapproved. Here the margin widened by a lot: only 28% approve of Trump, compared to 49% disapproving.
I was struck by these numbers when first hearing about them last week. I remembered back to the lowest point for Richard Nixon as the Watergate criminal conspiracy unraveled and Congress was moving toward impeachment. This led to Nixon’s ultimate resignation in August, 1974, 21 months after he had won re-election in a landslide, garnering 61% of the vote and winning 49 states.
What were Nixon’s approval numbers in July of 1974? 25%, just three points less than Trump’s “strong approval” numbers.
This is a big deal.
The Quinnipiac polling on issues was similar. By a 60 to 32 percent margin, those polled opposed US military aid to Israel. By a 55-37% margin, people disapproved of Trump’s handling of the job of President. By a large 62-37% margin, people disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy. But the largest margin was on handling the Epstein files: 19% in support to 67% disapproving.
I was surprised by these margins when I learned about all of this last week, but it fits with my sense of what is going on in the country and my experiences interacting with other people, which I’ve just done a lot of. For eight weeks between mid-July and yesterday, I was either at a week of family reunions in Virginia, traveling in my 2018 Chevrolet Bolt electric car out to Montana to visit my son, daughter-in-law and 4 year old grandson, spending five weeks with them, or returning home to New Jersey over 2,300 miles in our car.
One of the reasons my wife and I decided to travel this way was to experience very directly areas of the country we had never been to or not been to for a long time. We hoped all would go well mechanically, as well as our interactions with people along the way as we stopped to charge the car, camp or stay overnight in motels, eat in restaurants, get food and drink during rest stops and then, in southwest Montana, interact with others for the five weeks we were there.
I returned with a lot more hope about this country than I had before this trip. In the 12 states we went through or spent time in, most of them “red” or “purple,” we saw and heard very few signs of much support for Trump and his authoritarian government. I would estimate that, in all those eight weeks and thousands of miles, we saw no more than a dozen Trump signs and even fewer Trump hats or t-shirts being worn. People overwhelmingly were polite to us, as we were to them. There was virtually no evidence from these very many brief encounters that the USA at the grassroots has become a nasty, brutish, mean place.
I am sure that if we had gotten into ideological/political discussions with the people we interacted with, most of them of European descent, that there would have been some disagreements and tensions, but my sense is if that, even when that were true, there would have been some points of agreement to be found.
Trump and his regime are in big trouble, and they know it. Our resistance movement is winning victories and putting up a strong fight on local, state and national levels. The US American people as a whole are clearly open to and supportive of our message. Let’s keep building and growing that movement, incorporating more and more people into it who have never been activists before. That is a central, continuing task if we are serious about truly revolutionary change, in the very best sense.
You vilify and condemn, you slander and demean too much.
You insult and mock, you intimidate and provoke too much.
You posture and pose, you bully and brag too much.
You threaten and coerce, you beat the war drums too much!
WAY TOO MUCH!
Sure, we have some tough competition out there. Sure, there are countries and leaders who don’t think very highly of us. Sure, there are those who want to hold us down, get a leg up, make THEIR COUNTRY great again.
But what you’d have us all think: EVERYONE WANTS TO ATTACK US, EVERYONE WANTS TO KILL ALL OF US, DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!
Where’s the evidence, sirs and madams?
Has Russia ever attacked us?
Has China ever attacked us?
Has Cuba ever attacked us?
Has Iran ever attacked us?
Has Venezuela ever attacked us?
Has Nicaragua ever attacked us?
Has North Korea ever attacked us?
Why should we be afraid of countries who are never hostile to us?
Listen, you bellicose, belligerent, bombastic purveyors of perpetual war …
We’re on to you! We see what you’re up to.
The more you protest, the more it sounds contrived and hollow.
The more you protest, the more it looks like crass manipulation.
The more you protest, the more it appears to be plain old brainwashing.
Yes, the louder you bellow, the more it sounds like pure … BULLSHIT!
Methinks thou are a fraud!
Methinks thou are a serial liar!
Methinks thou are drunk on power!
Methinks thou prefer profit over peace!
Methinks thou are a puppet of the war industry!
Methinks thou are squandering trillions of our dollars!
Methinks thou are going to be looking for a new job!
If Keir Starmer has had one success, it’s killing democracy in the Labour Party. Following the latest reshuffle, it’s clear that Starmer has no intention of tolerating dissent, even though his MPs clearly have a better read of the public mood than him – and his head honcho Morgan McSweeney:
Labour source points out that the government whips office now contains the wife of Morgan McSweeney, the No10 chief of staff, and the husband and brother of Amy Richards, No10's new political director.
"I'm sure that will reassure the PLP," the source says.
Whips are MPs and peers affiliated to a political party appointed to ensure their party colleagues vote according to the leader’s agenda
Reading that, you might think a bit of Morgan McSweeney-style nepotism is actually the most sensible means of whipping the party into shape. After all, it’s going to feel pretty awkward slagging off the abysmal operation in Number 10 when you’re talking to one of the abysmal operators’ wives.
The first problem for Starmer is that Britain is superficially dedicated to democracy and meritocracy. Can Starmer pretend to be in favour of either of those things when he’s employing the spouses of his meritless lackeys to enforce his ill-thought out bidding?
The second problem for Starmer is that everyone knows he’s becoming increasingly authoritarian because his rank incompetence and public unpopularity demand it. A key example of this was Starmer’s recent attempt to gut benefits for sick and disabled people. Because the plan was blatantly cruel and demonstrably at odds with why people voted Labour, it was wildly unpopular with the public. Many Labour MPs picked up how unpopular the cuts would be, and whether or not they actually cared about their constituents, they did take a stand against the government.
The climb down
As a result of the rebellion, Starmer was forced to climb down. This was embarrassing for Labour, but ultimately it was less of a clusterfuck than it would have been if they’d actually succeeded in forcing the cuts through.
I am determined we will change this country for the better for millions of working people – and I’m not going to be deflected from that.
Therefore, we have to deal with people who repeatedly break the whip.
Everyone was elected as a Labour on a Labour manifesto of change and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government.
The word ‘change’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Yes, it’s unarguable that the British public wanted change; it’s equally clear that Starmer’s election campaign revolved around monotonously repeating the word ‘change’ like a busted chatbot.
It’s equally clear, however, that the people implicitly understood ‘change’ to mean ‘change for the better’; not ‘change for the worse’.
What goes around
You could make the case that the previous Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was too soft on MPs. He sought to strengthen democracy wherever he could, and his MPs repaid him by stabbing him the back at best and stabbing him in the front more often.
Now, the same MPs who shat and pissed at the thought of re-nationalising the NHS are upset because they’re being bullied into torching their careers by a political idiot.
What a shame.
The problem Corbyn faced wasn’t that democracy doesn’t work; it was that it’s too late to reintroduce it to the Labour Party. At this point, Labour is really just three lobbyists in a trench coat.
These people were never going to disembark the gravy train of their own free will, but it’s good that Corbyn attempted it, because now we can all see that the concept of ‘Labour democracy’ is an oxymoron.
Once again, real democracy must be built from the ground up.
This time, let’s try not to let the sell outs take it over.
On Friday 5 September, Angela Rayner resigned after it became clear her housing scandal had broke Labour’s code of ethics. Her resignation prompted a cabinet reshuffle, with the clear ideological winners of this being the Labour right. While we’re sure Starmer and .co are very happy about this turn of events, let’s not pretend they weren’t already the Tory Party Mark II. With that in mind, we shouldn’t expect things to significantly change now that the cabinet is 3% more right-wing than it was a week ago.
In other words, things cannot only get better.
Rayner out
As Rayner was considered to be a member of Labour’s ‘soft left’, some have speculated she may have been pushed into resigning by Keir Starmer’s sinister (yet ultimately incompetent) chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney.
McSweeney is destroying this Labour Gov; he’s jettisoned traditional Labour values, particularly re the proper care of our disabled, vulnerable & elderly. In so doing, he’s lost core Labour voters & Members. @UKLabour @@Kier_Starmer
Time for change – McSweeney OUT! https://t.co/2SF2Iiqyno
Speaking at Palace Fields Primary Academy in Runcorn ahead of the crucial Runcorn and Helsby by-elections, Rayner sought to justify the government’s decision to slash DWP spending by approximately £4.8 billion, despite mounting backlash from charities and vulnerable communities that warn these cuts endanger disabled people and struggling families.
As the Liverpool Echo reported, Rayner framed the controversy as a necessary step towards economic growth, with a heavy focus on job creation and youth engagement.
He added:
In a cynical personal anecdote, Rayner referenced her 17-year-old son’s visual impairment to underline her argument against “writing off” people on lifelong DWP benefits. This attempt at empathy, however, rings hollow given the stark reality that the very cuts she defends jeopardise the fragile safety nets disabled individuals depend on.
You might think Rayner was pushed to resign by the Labour right; you might believe her fuck up was so consequential she simply had to go; you might think it’s a little from column A and a little from column B. Regardless of how things have shaken out, however, Labour’s right flank is undoubtedly happy with the result.
I’m speaking to a Labour MP who voted against the Government’s recent disability benefit cuts and now fears they will be the next victim of what they describe as the “punishment beatings” currently being dished out to Labour MPs
“I’m on a hair trigger. I know that”.
“And you can go around worrying about it, but I think there’s a sense now that it’s going to happen, and it probably doesn’t really make much of a difference what I do.”
Bienkov further noted:
Starmer, under the advice of Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, green-lit the suspension of four more Labour MPs for their roles in recent parliamentary rebellions.
The suspensions, which included the well-liked moderate soft-left MP Rachael Maskell, have been a clarifying moment for many in the party.
“I think when it was only happening to the hard left, most MPs thought ‘oh it’s fine, it’s not my problem’.
“But now with what they did to Rachael, the soft left are beginning to realise what’s really going on here.”
If you’re wondering what ‘hard left’ and ‘soft left’ equate to in Labour terms, it’s ‘hard left’ when you want a fully nationalised NHS that’s operated for people instead of profits, and it’s ‘soft left’ when you want the same failing health system we have now but with 10% more murals or some shit.
I simply don’t buy the nonsense there is a ‘left’ or ‘soft left’ in the Labour party anymore… It doesn’t exist… It is a pure phantom.
He added:
They are the most useless people in British politics.
There’s another reason why the right will have wanted Rayner gone, and that’s her popularity with Labour members. As Left Foot Forward reported in June:
The full results of the poll of Labour members are below. The percentages listed indicate the net favourability ratings of each cabinet minister.
Ed Miliband (74%)
Angela Rayner (71%)
Hilary Benn (38%)
Lisa Nandy (32%)
Shabana Mahmood (31%)
Bridget Philipson (31%)
John Healey (30%)
Jonathan Reynolds (29%)
Heidi Alexander (25%)
Yvette Cooper (23%)
Darren Jones (19%)
David Lammy (16%)
Pat McFadden (14%)
Baroness Smith (13%)
Steve Reed (11%)
Jo Stevens (10%)
Ian Murray (8%)
Lucy Powell (8%)
Wes Streeting (7%)
Ellie Reeves (4%)
Alan Campbell (4%)
Lord Hermer (2%)
Baroness Chapman (-5%)
Keir Starmer (-7%)
Liz Kendall (-23%)
Rachel Reeves (-28%)
This means that if Starmer does step down, there’s one less soft left candidate to worry about (unless she runs against the Labour right’s wishes and the members vote for her anyway, which has happened in the very recent past).
The deputy prime minister leadership contest will be interesting anyway, and potentially a headache for Starmer. The Labour membership clearly don’t like Starmer or his policies, and given all the ‘punishment beatings’, you’ve got to hope at least one MP is spiteful enough to run on an anti-Starmer platform.
Interestingly, considering the reason Rayner resigned, McSweeney himself has been accused of not declaring things as they relate to large sums of money, as another Novara contributor noted:
I smell bullshit.
By far the biggest undeclared donation to Labour Together was 534k from Martin Taylor (not Jewish). In fact the *only* donation LT declared 2017-20 was 12k from Chinn (Jewish).
McSweeney knowingly broke the law – and is using anti-semitism to cover his tracks. pic.twitter.com/NruwS70x8b
There was another clear victory for the Labour right in the reshuffle, and that was the promotion of Shabana Mahmood to home secretary:
Maurice Glasman, father of blue Labour, tells me Mahmood’s appointment is “fantastic” and said “she’s now clearly the leader of our part of the party.”
Starmer is not the biggest socially left-wing liberal going: his muted support for trans rights has been criticised, and during the leadership election he didn’t sign a pledge card committing to expel “transphobic” members. Moreover, he’s come out recently and said Labour should be “proudly patriotic”. And he even got a front page in the Telegraph.
Yet he conversely pledged to renationalise rail, water, energy and the Royal Mail during his leadership bid. So, it seems Starmer’s brand of triangulation might be a ‘fourth way’: taking more socially conservative policies and combining them with left-wing economics. This is all a bit “Blue Labour”, a concept founded by Maurice Glasman based on socially conservative values of ‘family, faith and flag’ but more socialist economic policies. It is rooted in the values that Glasman perceived existed in the party pre-WWII. So far, Blue Labour hasn’t endorsed Starmer. It’s merely given its opinion on what he should do.
This contradiction was later explained by Starmer abandoning his socialist policies, exposing the fact he never believed in them in the first place.
He’s right. The Blue Labour strand in left thinking is about conservatism, it is about protecting a way of life. Actually, more than that, it’s about going back to ‘the life we had’. It’s also entirely mythical, selling nostalgia to desperate people. What uninspiring nonsense. pic.twitter.com/b1TX7RNZOr
Given that Starmer has made flag shagging a key pillar of his government, it’s unsurprising to see him elevating a member of Blue Labour to home secretary. It doesn’t seem like he’ll have any more success with Mahmood than Yvette Cooper, however, as the racist goons that Starmer yearns to impress have responded exactly as anyone would expect:
Shabana Mahmood, who swore her oath of parliamentary office on the Koran, is to be Starmer's new home secretary.
She will now be in charge of immigration and the borders.
Here she is saying islam to her is more important than anything.
I have no love for @ShabanaMahmood's politics, frankly I think they're terrible, but nothing justifies the racial abuse and islamophobia she is facing! We can oppose her politics without being racist… it's simple really pic.twitter.com/slaCr3s1nJ
While this might leave a bitter taste in your mouth, don’t forget that the biggest obstacle to the Labour right’s success is the Labour right. Just look at what Britain thinks of Labour after a year of Starmer:
There are three key things you have to remember about the Labour right:
They have bad ideas (e.g. cutting Winter Fuel Allowance).
In trying to convince people why bad ideas are actually good, they make things even worse.
They never learn from their mistakes (e.g. rolling from the Winter Fuel cuts to PIP cuts).
As such, it’s almost heartening to see them consolidating power – like watching your worst enemies give you the finger then shut themselves in a fridge that won’t open from the inside.
Compassion in World Farming’s Christopher Browne argues how factory farming both contributes to – and is impacted by – the climate crisis. And the vicious cycle must stop.
17,000 dead cattle. 1.2 million dead chickens. And a 342 million US dollar blow to the economy. This was the damage done to Rio Grande Do Sul – a farming region in southern Brazil – within the space of just days, last May. The cause? Violent floods, worsened by the climate crisis.
Globally, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and devastating. The reason for this is the rise of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But beyond the classic culprits of energy and transport, another sector is to blame. A sector which tends to slip under the radar.
The food we eat, and the system built around it, is responsible for a third of total global GHG emissions. And animal farming – dominated by cruel, polluting, factory farms – produces more direct GHG emissions than all the world’s planes, trains and cars combined.
A broken system
Courtesy: Egor Myznik/Unsplash
Our broken system is trapping animals, farmers and our food supply in an inescapable doom loop.
From heatwaves across Europe to hurricanes in the US, a new report by Compassion in World Farming features what happened in 11 extreme weather events – just a snapshot of the bigger picture. It reveals that over 14 million farmed animals have been killed as a direct result of these climate disasters, and over 56 million people impacted, at an estimated global cost of $120B.
Following floods in Emilia-Romagna, the Italian region famous for Parma ham and Parmigiano cheese, pigs were seen swimming, and piled up dead, in their hundreds. In Nigeria, more than 500,000 birds were reported dead from heat stress in just one month – the true figure was likely much higher. In the US, up to 5 million chickens were killed by Hurricane Helene. These disasters all took place in the past two years, and they are becoming increasingly common.
Factory farms make food security worse, not better
When animals are crammed together in their thousands – as is the case in factory farms – they are sitting ducks when a flood, heatwave, or hurricane strikes. This makes our food system extremely vulnerable, too – threatening food security. That means rising prices, empty supermarket shelves and ultimately, with a growing global population, people going hungry.
That’s why we need urgent reform to our food and farming system. Without it, the apocalyptic scenes of last summer in Rio Grande Do Sul will become the new normal.
Right now, on the opposite side of Brazil and the edge of the Amazon rainforest, preparations will be ramping up for COP30. Taking place in November, this major conference is a pivotal moment for global action on the climate crisis. Last year’s southern floods – and their ramifications for food security – should remain front and centre of host President Lula’s mind, and those of the other Heads of State attending.
Courtesy: Getty Images via Canva
There’s no silver bullet for livestock emissions
With a sweltering planet, an increasing frequency of extreme weather events, and more and more mouths to feed, the food question is getting harder to ignore. Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet.
Just last year, a Harvard study with 200 leading climate, food and agriculture scientists refuted sustainable intensification as a solution for reducing animal agriculture emissions. Most (90%) believed that reducing meat consumption – particularly in the Global North – would be the most effective action.
It’s now or never
It’s clear that a total transformation of our global food system is the only option. We must dramatically reduce livestock production and meat consumption– especially in richer countries – whilst also establishing proper plans for climate resilience. Governments must support farmers to move away from cruel, unsustainable factory farming and towards responsible climate- and nature-friendly practices.
Our planet, farmed animals, economies, and the food on our plates are all under serious threat. We must act now before it’s too late.
Sign Compassion in World Farming’s global petition calling for a more sustainable food system.
I am anti-Zionist. I say that without a second thought, or without a single shit given for who I may or may not offend. I mean, if *that* offends you, just you wait until you see what’s been happening in Gaza.
No, Jeremy Corbyn did not have to say he is an anti-Zionist
But I’m not a public figure. I do not hold any office of responsibility beyond the permanent Secretary of State for dog feeding. There are very few, if any, ramifications for my declaration of intolerance and disdain towards to the cancerous ideology of Zionism.
If I was a public figure, seeking to bring together a broad church of the left to take the fight to Nigel and the roundabout botherers, I would be considerably more careful with what I said, when I said it, and who I said it to.
When you are like me, merely a tiny droplet of water in a seemingly endless ocean, or one of those egotistical ‘in the know’ left types that seem to know somewhere between nothing and fuck all, but love to say things like “my sources tell me” — and call everyone a raging Zionist for not agreeing with them — it doesn’t really matter what we say, regardless of how many likes you might get on a post.
When all is said and done, how many of the electorate are going to look at the index in the back pages of a political manifesto for the letter “Z”, apart from a handful of Reform voters with a bizarre zebra fetish?
Political reality
An acceptance of political reality — however distasteful it may be — doesn’t make an individual a Zionist asset. We on the left should know this as well as we know anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism.
I understand why someone would feel disappointed in Jeremy Corbyn for not standing on a soap box and reeling off numerous anti-Zionist slogans, but that understanding needs to extend both ways.
An activist will always think about the here and now. We react to events and we organise to challenge the false narrative of the political establishment on a daily basis. But a leader has to think about the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, and the next generation.
Ultimately, we do have a choice. Do we put the purity test to one side long enough to have a sensible discussion about what the left can do to stop the return of fascism to the UK, or do we paint a fucking great big Z on everyone’s chest and allow Nigel and Tommy to drive the final nail in the coffin of diversity, tolerance and compassion?
The answer is blindingly obvious.
Enter Polanski
The Green Party leadership contest, which seemed to start sometime between the first and second World Wars, finally came to an end this past week.
Congratulations must go to the reinvented Zack Polanski. To come from the soft-left to the new great hope for a socialist democracy is quite an accomplishment, and one that should be applauded.
Within just an hour of Polanski’s thumping landslide victory, Labour let the world know they feel threatened by this new assault from the eco-left.
And so they should be.
I am not a Green Party member, but I have voted for them a couple of times, and I will most probably do so again, based on policy alone.
I don’t particularly care about Polanski’s hypnotherapy past. If that’s the best they have got on the new Green leader I would simply ask how this almost-amusing tale from the last decade compares to the charge of complicity in genocide.
The Labour Party, being the vile little entity that it is, will spend the next few years telling everyone that a vote for the Green Party is a vote for Nigel Farage and the far-right. This is standard establishment fearmongering and it has to be countered with facts.
The greatest recruitment tool for Farage, Robinson, and the lamppost climbers is Keir Starmer and this utterly inept Labour government.
Reform UK picked up just over 14% of the vote share at last year’s general election. Where are they now? 33%? That’s the Keir Starmer effect in full swing.
Rayner off
The inevitable resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has plunged the permacrisis Labour government into yet another bruising crisis.
What a shame.
I remember I used to regularly write about the Sunak government’s never ending cycle of catastrophes, and I swear on everything I hold dear, I never thought it could possibly get any worse than those terrible, dark days of staggering incompetence.
Hands up, I was absolutely wrong, and it doesn’t matter how many times you reshuffle shit, Mr Starmer, because it will still be shit when you have finished reshuffling it.
Rayner had to go. I don’t think anyone with any common sense is arguing otherwise. But would the McSweeney mafia force out Weasel Streeting, or Liz Kendall, had they made the same faux pas as Ms Rayner?
Ed Miliband aside, the soft left of the Labour Party is dead and buried, and the contest to replace Rayner will only further deepen the gaping rifts within the parliamentary Labour Party.
Rayner’s USP of being a “single mum from a working class council estate in Stockport” was never going to save her from the hard right of the Labour Party.
Where’s Tom Watson when you need him?
You know when Keir Starmer mentions pater was a toolmaker, and you roll your eyes and sigh at his desperate attempt to be seen as an ordinary person, rather than a millionaire establishment lickspittle?
That is how the right-wing of Labour reacts when Rayner’s working class credentials get a mention. They detest anyone from a poorer background that tries to better themselves, and whether you like Rayner or not, she has tried to better herself, despite going completely the wrong way about it.
This only leads to one possible question.
Where is Tom Watson when you need him?
With any luck, as far away from public life as possible.
They’ve had skin in the game — the Podcast and Substack game — for four years.
Amazing guests, and unfortunately for us, but fortunately for us, too, they have been covering the genocide in the Jewish State of Raping and Murdering and Starving and Maiming and Poisoning Palestine: Going on TWO goddamned years.
One of their favorite guests, and mine too: Assal Rad, Peter and Karim examine the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the failure of international institutions to respond effectively. The conversation explores how Israeli propaganda has become increasingly ineffective as images of starvation make their justifications harder to sell, yet Western governments continue providing unwavering support despite shifting public opinion.
An outright assault on all Palestinian Life Anywhere.
Now, both are floundering, as they start a new semester in Hong Kong. Floundering because the world and their own adopted country, China, isn’t doing anything to stop the genocide. Here, a telling interview with a Portuguese fellow, also in China, talking about the lack of soft power from China toward the West, and the odd bullshit in China’s textbooks describing Palestine as a terrorist place:
But, let’s not forget, that the Jewish Illegal State of Israel has a lot of cadres in their camp that have committed settler colonial genocide and mass murder.
Man, oh, man, the Jews of Israel have solid genocidal ground to stand on: Let us put this in a historical perspective: the commemoration of the War to End All Wars acknowledges that 15 million lives were lost in the course of World War I (1914-18).
The loss of life in the Second World War (1939-1945) was on a much larger scale, when compared to World War I: 60 million lives, both military and civilian, were lost during World War II. (Four times those killed during World War I).
The largest WWII casualties were suffered by China and the Soviet Union:
26 million in the Soviet Union,
China estimates its losses at approximately 20 million deaths.
Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) — which lost a large share of their population during WWII — were under the Biden-Harris administration as categorized as “enemies of America”, which are threatening the Western World. Under Trump? Same continuation of the hatred.
Germany and Austria lost approximately 8 million people during WWII, Japan lost more than 2.5 million people. The US and Britain respectively lost more than 400,000 lives.
Here’s a carefully researched article by James A. Lucas documenting the more than 20 million lives lost resulting from US led wars, military coups and intelligence ops carried out in the wake of WWII, in what is euphemistically called the “post-war era” (1945- ).
The extensive loss of life in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and Libya, Palestine is not included in this study.
Nor are the millions of deaths resulting from extreme poverty — largely induced by economic sanctions and Western interference in nations’ ability to democratically elect who they want. Selling weapons to both sides of a revolution or war, well, that has its multiplier effect.
The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.
This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.
The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.
But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.
The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.
To the families and friends of these victims it makes little difference whether the causes were U.S. military action, proxy military forces, the provision of U.S. military supplies or advisors, or other ways, such as economic pressures applied by our nation. They had to make decisions about other things such as finding lost loved ones, whether to become refugees, and how to survive.
And the pain and anger is spread even further. Some authorities estimate that there are as many as 10 wounded for each person who dies in wars. Their visible, continued suffering is a continuing reminder to their fellow countrymen.
It is essential that Americans learn more about this topic so that they can begin to understand the pain that others feel. Someone once observed that the Germans during WWII “chose not to know.” We cannot allow history to say this about our country. The question posed above was “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” The answer is: possibly 10,000. — James A. Lucas
Here, a bio on Karim:
I am interested in how the asymmetrical cultural flow from the West into societies across the world, reinforced by corporate hegemony in a neoliberal global political economy (e.g., dominance in the spheres of social media, the movie industry and fashion), influences the individual psychology of the global population. In particular, the effects of racism/white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism hold my strong attention. My research revolves around questions such as: Why do racism and colorism follow highly similar patterns across the globe; How do (Western) social media platforms perpetuate racial hierarchies in cultures across the globe; What are the psychological ramifications of colonialism; What is the relationship between neoliberal political economies and our understanding of human nature?
“When Left is Right and Right is Left: The psychological correlates of political ideology in China” (Under Review). [Link]
“Knowing what the electorate knows: Issue-specific knowledge and candidate choice in the 2020 elections” (Under Review). [Link]
*****
We intended to get into geopolitical or political economy, but we ran out of time: Here, a primer with Peter Phillips, former director of Project Censored and professor of Political Sociology at Sonoma State University. His new book Giants: The Global Power Elite details the 17 transnational investment firms which control over $50 trillion in wealth—and how they are kept in power by their activists, facilitators and protectors.
Ahh, we did get briefly into the Fertile Crescent, when agriculture highjacked humanity:
Ahh, Peter Beattie said things have been messed up for 10,000 years: Think about this evolution of the brain and psyche for two million years, or more, and now what, the Fertile Crescent fucked us up big TIME.
2 million years ago: The earliest evidence of a hunter-gatherer culture emerges with the appearance of the genus Homo.
1.9 million years ago: The lifestyle became more developed and accelerated with Homo erectus, a species with a larger brain and physique suited for long-distance walking to acquire meat.
700,000 to 40,000 years ago: Hunting and gathering was the way of life for later hominins, including Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals, who used increasingly sophisticated tools.
200,000 years ago to ~12,000 years ago: The hunter-gatherer lifestyle continued through most of the existence of our own species, Homo sapiens. This period ended with the Neolithic Revolution, which led to the development of agriculture.
I’m adding this here in the DV piece:
Locking up the food and fencing in the hunter/ gatherer and nomadic and pastoral lands caused:
Social stratification
Specialization and gender roles
Warfare
While in 1995 there appeared to have been at least a 1,500-year gap between plant and animal domestication, it now seems that both occurred at roughly the same time, with initial management of morphologically wild future plant and animal domesticates reaching back to at least 11,500 cal BP, if not earlier. A focus on the southern Levant as the core area for crop domestication and diffusion has been replaced by a more pluralistic view that sees domestication of various crops and livestock occurring, sometimes multiple times in the same species, across the entire region. Morphological change can no longer be held to be a leading-edge indicator of domestication. Instead, it appears that a long period of increasingly intensive human management preceded the manifestation of archaeologically detectable morphological change in managed crops and livestock. Agriculture in the Near East arose in the context of broad-based systematic human efforts at modifying local environments and biotic communities to encourage plant and animal resources of economic interest. This process took place across the entire Fertile Crescent during a period of dramatic post-Pleistocene climate and environmental change with considerable regional variation in the scope and intensity of these activities as well as in the range of resources being manipulated.
Check out my interview with Manning here:
Scroll Down and find the old show illustrated above HERE.
*****
Peter has a big essay — “The Pull of Humanitarian Interventionism: Examining the Effects of Media Frames and Political Values,” (with Jovan Milojevich) International Journal of Communication 12: 831–855 (2018). [Link]
(Oh, winning those hearts and minds with intervention of the Western Humanitarian (sic) kind!)
The Candy Man Soldiers of Good Will?
Propaganda:
Edward Bernays anyone?
“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” — Edward Bernays, from Propaganda
Soft power into murderous coups:
We talked about soft (not mashed banana) power: Edward Bernays’ promotional stunts were only a smokescreen for a not-so-innocent deep-state strategy. With sly public relations tactics, he began to influence American media toward discrediting the new Guatemalan President and ultimately incite action against the duly-elected leader. In 1954, a CIA-backed coup d’état turned the government of Guatemala over to what was ostensibly a leader hand-picked by the U.S. government and indirectly by a U.S. corporation — the United Fruit Company.
I’ll have them both on again, soon: Peter Beattie
The media create frames to transmit information to the public, and the frames can have varying effects on public opinion depending on how they combine with people’s values and deep-seated cultural narratives. This study examines the effects of media frames and values on people’s choice of resolution of conflict. The results show that neither values nor exposure to frames are associated with outcome. Participants overwhelmingly chose the humanitarian intervention option regardless of frame exposure and even in contrast to their own political values, demonstrating the influence of the mainstream media’s dominant, humanitarian interventionist frame on public opinion.
In early 2013, the Syrian crisis was growing worse by the day, and violence was escalating at a rapid pace. Then–U.S. president Barack Obama was weighing the option of a full-scale military intervention, based on humanitarian grounds, in the troubled state. Islamic State was wreaking havoc throughout the country; however, it was Syrian president Bashar al-Assad who was primarily making the headlines in the United States for alleged atrocities and violations of the Geneva Accords and human rights. The seemingly perpetual beat of war drums in the United States did not take long to sound off, and they grew louder each day President Obama did not declare war on Assad. The media played along, and, generally, so did the political elite. Even former U.S. president Bill Clinton contributed by stating that if Obama chose not to go to war because Congress voted against it, he would risk “looking like a total wuss” (Voorhees, 2013)—a feeble and desperate attempt to demean the president into taking the United States to war. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain, never ones to shy away from a military confrontation (Johnstone, 2015; Landler, 2016), echoed Bill Clinton’s sentiment as they were both displeased with Obama’s foreign policy decision making on Syria (Landler, 2016; Voorhees, 2013). Highly emotive phrases—popular in interventionist frames—such as, “History will judge us,” “We don’t want to be on the wrong side of history,” “We cannot look the other way,” “The world is watching us,” and “What will and “What will the world think,” dominated the headlines and news reports. Then–secretary of state John Kerry touched on almost all of these in his speech at a State Department briefing in August 2013, at a time when President Obama was deliberating possible recourses in response to an alleged chemical attack by Assad’s forces.
Kerry stated,
As previous storms in history have gathered, when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. . . . What we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security. Some cite the risk of doing things. But we need to ask, “What is the risk of doing nothing?” . . . So our concern is not just about some far-off land oceans away. That’s not what this is about. Our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of Syria is about choices that will directly affect our role in the world and our interests in the world. It is also profoundly about who we are. We are the United States of America. We are the country that has tried, not always successfully, but always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations. . . . My friends, it matters here if nothing is done. It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens. History would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction.
…
Continued, Beattie:
One of the main cultural themes in the United States is the nationalism theme, with the global responsibility nationalism theme—which emerged after World War II—being the most dominant. As Gamson (1992) articulates, “With the advent of World War II and the cold war, public discourse fully embraced the global responsibility theme” (p. 142), and the American public threw its support behind the United Nations and the idea of collective security. Democrats and Republicans alike “embraced a dominant U.S. role in the creation of political-military alliances, not only in Europe but in other regions as well” (Gamson, 1992, p. 142). The global responsibility theme was the dominant theme during the Cold War and the framing of the U.S. doctrine of containment, and it continues to be the dominant theme today in the framing of the humanitarian interventionist doctrine.
Prior to World War II, the “America first” nationalist theme was the most dominant; however, the global responsibility (then) countertheme was still quite prevalent. When the America first theme was dominant, the kind of isolationism that it supported “was never incompatible with expansionism in what was regarded as U.S. turf” (Gamson, 1992, p. 141); therefore, the global responsibility (at that time) countertheme actually supported the America first theme rather than countering it. The Monroe Doctrine is evidence of this compatibility, because it reinforced American isolationism—by telling European powers to stay out of the Americas—yet supported U.S. expansionism. The global responsibility countertheme was “reflected in the idea of America’s international mission as a light unto nations” (Gamson, 1992, pp. 141–142), with the belief that the “expansion of American influence in the world would bring enlightenment to backward peoples and confer upon them the bounties of Christianity and American political genius” (p. 142). The global responsibility (then) countertheme clearly embodied the notion of American exceptionalism, just as it does today as the dominant nationalism theme. Nevertheless, we would like to make it clear that we are not claiming that deep-seated cultural narratives in the United States are necessarily pro–humanitarian interventionist. What we are claiming, and will substantiate throughout this section, is that the U.S. media and political elites have tapped into a deep-seated cultural narrative to gain support for pro–humanitarian intervention policy options.
Many Americans believe, just as Kerry and other political elites publicly pronounce, that their country does try to honor a set of universal values around which they have organized their lives and aspirations and that these values include the notion that the United States is the leading “defender of democracy and human rights” around the world and that it is “exceptional.” Regardless of whether political elites actually believe this or whether it is simply rhetoric on their part, the mere invocation of this notion to justify war (much of the time conducted illegally—without United Nations or congressional approval) is troubling on its own. For instance, American exceptionalism “originally meant that the U.S. had a God given duty to impose its government and ‘way of life’ on lands not already under its control” (Pestana, 2016, para. 3), and it was, therefore, used to justify American imperialism. In more recent times, however, American exceptionalism has morphed into a more idealistic notion, being viewed as a
belief that the American political system is unique in its form, and that the American people have an exceptional commitment to liberty and democracy. By virtue of this, American exceptionalists assert that America has a providential mission to spread its values around the world. American power is viewed as naturally good, leading to the proliferation of freedom and democracy. (Britton, 2006, p. 128)
*****
In the end, really, what is a new semester and a new bunch of students in this time of genocide? The following should lend pause to anyone who is comfortably numb.
The classroom feels smaller than I remembered, like the walls have moved closer while I was gone. Professor X assigns readings on constitutional interpretation, and I watch twenty-three students highlight passages about due process while Palestinians are denied the most basic right of all: the right to exist. The girl next to me underlines “equal protection under law” in yellow marker, and I wonder if she knows that phrase is meaningless when some lives are worth more than others.
“The framers intended,” someone says, and I stop listening. The framers intended many things, but they could not have intended for us to sit in air-conditioned rooms debating legal theory while children suffocate under rubble. They could not have intended for us to parse the meaning of justice while justice dies in real time, broadcast live, ignored by everyone in this room.
During breaks, I sit on the steps and watch them. They cluster in their familiar groups, talking about internships and weekend plans and whether Professor Y is a hard grader. Their voices float past me, a steady stream of nothing that matters.
“I’m so stressed about the bar exam.” “Are you going to the Football game this weekend?” “My parents want me to come home for Labor Day, but like, I have so much reading.”
I listen for something else, anything else. I wait for one of them to mention that children are being murdered while we debate constitutional amendments. I wait for someone to say the word Palestinian, or genocide, or even just acknowledge that the world exists beyond their study guides and social calendars. I wait for an hour, and then another, and I hear nothing.
In another class, we discuss mens rea and actus reus, the guilty mind and the guilty act. Professor Z explains how intent matters, how knowledge of wrongdoing affects culpability. I think about my classmates’ guilty minds, their knowledge of genocide coupled with their deliberate choice to say nothing. I think about their guilty acts of scrolling past videos of dying children to double-tap vacation photos. But this kind of guilt will never be prosecuted. This kind of crime never sees the inside of a courtroom.
“Can someone give me an example of willful blindness?” Z asks.
I could give twenty-three examples right here in this room, but I stay quiet.
This is my new reality. Sitting in rooms with people who revealed themselves to be the kind of people who would have looked away during any other genocide. Listening to them complain about reading assignments while Palestinians are denied the right to read anything ever again. Watching them stress about internships while Palestinian children will never have the chance to worry about their futures.
The loneliness is not in being alone. The loneliness is in being surrounded by people who chose to be strangers to their own moral obligations. It is in sharing space with those who had the chance to speak and chose silence, who had the opportunity to care and chose comfort, who had the moment to act and chose nothing.
At the coffee shop, I overhear a conversation about whether the new professor is mean. At the library, someone complains that their laptop is slow. In the dining hall, a group debates which Netflix show to binge next. Normal life continues, mundane concerns persist, and the world beyond their bubble might as well not exist.
The hardest part is not their cruelty. It is their comfort with it. It is how easily they moved on, how quickly they forgot, how completely they have convinced themselves that their silence was not a choice. They live their lives as if Palestinian children were not buried alive while they read for evidence.
I am back now, walking through classrooms where professors teach about human rights while ignoring the most basic human right being violated in real time. I am surrounded by people who think my people’s elimination is too complicated to have an opinion about, whose cowardice proved stronger than their morality.
And I still carry shame that I must even share the same air.
Journalist Mariam Dagga was just 33 when she was brutally killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza on August 25.
As a freelance photographer and videographer, she had captured the suffering in Gaza through indelible images of malnourished children and grief-stricken families. In her will, she told her colleagues not to cry and her 13-year-old son to make her proud.
Dagga was killed alongside four other journalists — and 16 others — in an attack on a hospital that has drawn widespread condemnation and outrage.
This attack followed the killings of six Al Jazeera journalists by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in a tent housing journalists in Gaza City earlier on August 10. The dead included Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Anas al-Sharif.
A montage of killed Palestinian journalists . . . Shireen Abu Akleh (from left), Mariam Dagga, Hossam Shabat, Anas Al-Sharif and Yasser Murtaja. Image: Montage/The Conversation
Israel’s nearly two-year war in Gaza is among the deadliest in modern times. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which has tracked journalist deaths globally since 1992, has counted a staggering 189 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza since the war began. Two other counts more widely cited have ranged between 248 and 272
Many of the journalists worked as freelancers for major news organisations since Israel has banned foreign correspondents from entering Gaza.
In addition, the organisation has confirmed the killings of two Israeli journalists, along with six journalists killed in Israel’s strikes on Lebanon.
‘It was very traumatising for me’
I went to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Israel and Ramallah in the West Bank in 2019 to conduct part of my PhD research on the available protections for journalists in conflict zones.
During that time, I interviewed journalists from major international outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN, BBC and others, in addition to local Palestinian freelance journalists and fixers. I also interviewed a Palestinian journalist working for Al Jazeera English, with whom I remained in contact until recently.
I did not visit Gaza due to safety concerns. However, many of the journalists had reported from there and were familiar with the conditions, which were dangerous even before the war.
Osama Hassan, a local journalist, told me about working in the West Bank:
“There are no rules, there’s no safety. Sometimes, when settlers attack a village, for example, we go to cover, but Israeli soldiers don’t respect you, they don’t respect anything called Palestinian […] even if you are a journalist.”
Nuha Musleh, a fixer in Jerusalem, described an incident that occurred after a stone was thrown towards IDF soldiers:
“[…] they started shooting right and left – sound bombs, rubber bullets, one of which landed in my leg. I was taken to hospital. The correspondent also got injured. The Israeli cameraman also got injured. So all of us got injured, four of us.
“It was very traumatising for me. I never thought that a sound bomb could be that harmful. I was in hospital for a good week. Lots of stitches.”
Better protections for local journalists and fixers
My research found there is very little support for local journalists and fixers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in terms of physical protection, and no support in terms of their mental health.
International law mandates that journalists are protected as civilians in conflict zones under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. However, these laws have not historically extended protections specific to the needs of journalists.
Media organisations, media rights groups and governments have been unequivocal in their demands that Israel take greater precautions to protect journalists in Gaza and investigate strikes like the one that killed Mariam Dagga.
London-based artist Nishita Jha (@NishSwish) illustrated this tribute to the slain Gaza journalist Mariam Dagga. Image: The Fuller Project
Sadly, there is seemingly little media organisations can do to help their freelance contributors in Gaza beyond issuing statements noting concern for their safety, lobbying Israel to allow evacuations, and demanding access for foreign reporters to enter the strip.
International correspondents typically have training on reporting from war zones, in addition to safety equipment, insurance and risk assessment procedures. However, local journalists and fixers in Gaza do not generally have access to the same protections, despite bearing the brunt of the effects of war, which includes mass starvation.
Despite the enormous difficulties, I believe media organisations must strive to meet their employment law obligations, to the best of their ability, when it comes to local journalists and fixers. This is part of their duty of care.
For example, research shows fixers have long been the “most exploited and persecuted people” contributing to the production of international news. They are often thrust into precarious situations without hazardous environment training or medical insurance. And many times, they are paid very little for their work.
Local journalists and fixers in Gaza must be paid properly by the media organisations hiring them. This should take into consideration not just the woeful conditions they are forced to work and live in, but the immense impact of their jobs on their mental health.
As the global news director for Agence France-Presse said recently, paying local contributors is very difficult — they often bear huge transaction costs to access their money.
“We try to compensate by paying more to cover that,” he said.
But he did not address whether the agency would change its security protocols and training for conflict zones, given journalists themselves are being targeted in Gaza in their work.
These local journalists are literally putting their lives on the line to show the world what’s happening in Gaza. They need greater protections.
As Ammar Awad, a local photographer in the West Bank, told me:
“The photographer does not care about himself. He cares about the pictures, how he can shoot good pictures, to film something good.
“But he needs to be in a good place that is safe for him.”
If you vandalise innocent mini-roundabouts with red paint, politicians don’t care. But if you do the same with machinery that helps wanted war criminals commit genocide, politicians will call you terrorists and put you in jail.
That’s Britain today. It’s absurd. But at least it makes it clearer for anyone in doubt that most of our politicians don’t serve ordinary people – they serve the rich and powerful.
No interest in red-paint vandalism…
My area is currently full of mini-roundabouts which suddenly have the cross of St George on them. Local people aren’t all ultra-nationalists, though. I’ve probably seen just two houses – out of hundreds – that have put an English flag in their window in recent weeks. But it only takes a small number to have an impact. Because there’s no sign the council has any interest in un-vandalising the road markings.
I’ve seen a “standard response” on behalf of the local council. And while it points out that it’s “an offence to paint or make any unauthorised markings on the highway”, it says it will base any assessment on whether to act or not depending on “risk to the asset and risk to road users”. So if there’s “an immediate risk to assets or road safety they will be removed”. But in reality, of course, there’s no such risk. As a result, the response clarifies, the council will only un-vandalise the road markings “as part of our routine highways maintenance subject to funding”. In other words, it’s unlikely to happen any time soon.
I’ll be honest. It’s not exactly high on my list of priorities either. (I’d prefer for Britain’s participation in and support for the Gaza genocide to end first, and then for the government to fund the NHS, education system, and public housing properly.) But because Keir Starmer’s Labour government has decided to prioritise cracking down on vandalism of machinery with links to genocide, it’s hard to ignore the hypocrisy.
… unless it hurts the lucrative industry of death and destruction
The pro-Israel lobby is not the only lobby group in Britain. But it probably is the most prominent and aggressive lobby group that acts on behalf of a foreign state. (Ask the artificial intelligence bots of the corporations complicit in Israel’s genocide, and they’ll say the same thing.) As Declassified UK reported in 2024, a quarter of all MPs had received funding from the Israel lobby. And Starmer’s top team in particular is positively rolling in money from Israel supporters. In other words, it pays to support settler-colonial crimes.
So it’s clear that proscribing activists who dared to paint genocide-complicit machinery wasn’t about the vandalism. It was about what they were vandalising and who that annoyed. If it just annoyed local residents, there would be no real action. But because it annoyed influential lobbyists with the ear of our corrupt ruling class, politicians mobilised the full power of the state to try and harass non-violent opponents of genocide into silence.
The UK’s elites may cosplay democracy for appearances’ sake. But when a small number of people’s voices matter more than the majority’s, that’s not democracy. And the simple story of where you can – and can’t – put red paint sums that up perfectly.
Last year, my mum finally had a hysterectomy due to her endometriosis after years of disabling pain. In the months since, it’s become clear that I will likely be following. But, the care on offer for me so far has consisted of a suggestion to use the contraceptive pill.
The kicker? I had avoided acknowledging my symptoms for months, knowing the realities of seeking support.
During the course of 2025, I have watched countless competition reality TV shows, ranging from Race Across the World to Hell’s Kitchen. Last week, during the final of The Fortune Hotel, finalist Briony spoke about her participation being related to her need to self-fund fertility care in relation to her endometriosis, and described how she was not being supported to access in the NHS.
This is not the first time this year we have heard something similar from a competition participant in the UK. Following her banishment during season 3 of The Traitors in January, Elen spoke to the press about being on a four-year waiting list for surgery following ten years of debilitating pain and gaslighting from her doctors, including being told she had a low pain tolerance.
What is the UK getting so wrong about endometriosis?
For people with endometriosis or seeking care for their menstrual health, a comment like that experienced by Elen will not come as a shock. In 2024, Endometriosis UK surveyed over four thousand people, finding that 78% of those who later received a diagnosis had been told by one or more doctors that they were making a ‘fuss about nothing’ or similar, with many having their symptom severity questioned.
Research on medical misogyny is still in its infancy, relatively speaking. However, it is a tale as old as time for women and other people of marginalised genders. The Women and Equalities Committee published a report into reproductive health conditions in December. Their findings echoed similar sentiments when it came to dismissal of symptoms. They also looked into the impact of delays in treatment, both in progressive symptoms and on an individual’s mental health.
The journey to diagnosis for endometriosis continues to be an average of eight years and 10 months. And, that statistic is rising, rather than falling. In the past few years, this has been attributed to the pandemic. However, it doesn’t change the fact that lack of treatment is not for lack of trying by patients. The same Endometriosis UK survey found almost half of respondents visited their GP ten or more times with symptoms, and 70% at least five times.
Endometriosis and similar menstrual conditions are still not taken seriously. This is clear not only from the attitudes of professionals but also through the lack of funding, intervention or support. But when endometriosis is represented on television and other media, the reality is crystal clear: people with endometriosis are desperate to be heard.
Financial factors: why might TV be the best route?
For many seeking treatment, private healthcare becomes the only route. Waiting lists simply get longer for everything from initial gynaecological appointments to surgeries. This was the case for my mum: as a family, we had to borrow the £14,000 it cost to get her surgery sooner. Her symptoms were so debilitating she could barely move, impacting every aspect of her life.
This, of course, impacted her ability to work. The lack of funding for endometriosis at large feels even more cruel as the government continues to insist disabled people must be in employment. And, just for the kicker, if we don’t work – because we can’t – we’re seen as scroungers. As part of written evidence for the government report into reproductive health conditions, charity Bloody Good Period highlighted employment as a barrier to treatment and diagnosis due to inability to take leave or discuss their conditions openly.
Given these compounding financial factors, it’s no wonder why people with endometriosis are turning to reality television for desperately needed funds. Unfortunately, these competition shows often have extremely active elements during their missions and challenges. It is an extremely dystopian sign of the times that individuals are better off putting themselves in taxing situations that could cause more harm to their bodies in order to get basic healthcare.
What private healthcare?
In The Fortune Hotel, the final clips revealed the winners giving £5000 to Briony and her mum to contribute to her treatment. Whilst it should have felt touching, it only troubled me further that this is even necessary in the first place.
Going on TV for any kind of healthcare should be seen as extremely concerning. But, surely it’s time to ask: how and why is the system going so wrong for people of marginalised genders, and where can the situation even go from here?
Ultimately, I hope someone from the government has been trying to enjoy some evening television and been reminded of the failures they are inflicting on endless people with menstrual health conditions – because we’re reminded every single day.
Hahaha, oh I love my job sometimes, and never more than when it gives me the chance to laugh at a terf loser getting their comeuppance – and there’s no bigger one than Graham Linehan.
Glinner: the biggest terf loser on Twitter
Graham Linehan, if you’ve the pleasure of never having heard of him, was formerly known for being the creator of shows such as Father Ted and Black Books. But for the last few years, he’s progressively become known as the weirdo on Twitter who harasses trans women and their allies to the point that his wife and family walked out on him.
Anyone who dares to tweet about trans rights is bound to have plenty of experience with Graham, or as he’s known on Twitter by his username Glinner. In my time, I’ve been told to stay away from kids, stay out of women’s spaces, called a man, the Stasi and of course, the classic “gold star trans maiden”. Glinner’s tweets are nearly always a dog whistle to his even weirder loyal followers, so if he tweets you or about you, you’re guaranteed the absolute worst people in your mentions for a minimum of 2 days.
But compared to the sustained hatred some have received from Graham, that’s small fry. He’s already in the middle of a court case for harassing 18-year-old trans activist Sophia, which included abusive comments and damaging her phone. He pleaded not guilty to these charges back in May and is due to stand trial tomorrow for that.
Telling people to punch trans women is, in fact, inciting violence
However, when he was returning to the country for the trial, he was arrested for a completely different reason. On Monday, the terf was arrested for inciting violence towards trans women through his tweets. To be honest with you, the police could’ve chosen a myriad of Glinner’s tweets, but three in particular were reported.
As well as the above he also says you can “smell” a photo of trans rights protestors and another tweet simply stating “I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes. Fuck em.” In the tweets, he can clearly be seen being hateful towards trans people and their allies and definitely telling people to assault trans people. But of course, this is something Glinner denies.
Linehan wrote about his arrest on his Substack because, in the best news of all – the police have told him he’s not allowed to tweet! Which must be absolutely killing the man who averages around 80 tweets a day. Jesus, we know you’re divorced Graham, but that takes the piss.
Absolute comedy gold
While I won’t link to his Substack, I will share some quotes from the post, because it’s the funniest shit he’s written in decades.
After some horribly vile excuse for why he wrote the tweet about assaulting trans women, which involves him claiming all trans women in female-only spaces are abusers and should be assaulted, he comes out with a corker that apparently definitely happened:
…The ‘punch in the bollocks’ bit was about the height difference between men and women, the bollocks being closer to punch level for a woman defending her rights and certainly not a call to violence. (Not one of my best as one of the female officers said “We’re not THAT small”).
He then immediately challenges the police officer who is interviewing him on his use of the phrase trans people:
He mentioned “trans people”. I asked him what he meant by the phrase. “People who feel their gender is different than what was assigned at birth.” I said “Assigned at birth? Our sex isn’t assigned.” He called it semantics, I told him he was using activist language. The damage Stonewall has done to the UK police force will take years to mend.
Imagine being so privileged that you not only feel you can challenge an arresting officer’s language but then think so warped that you think Stonewall have any influence over the UK Police.
Linehan then informs the reader he was taken to A&E after his blood pressure was exceedingly high; he blames this, of course, on the harassment he’s faced by trans people and their allies. But let’s be honest, it’s from getting himself so red in the face any time a trans person breathes, isn’t it?
But it wasn’t only Stonewall that’s embedded in the police force:
The police themselves, for the most part, were consistently decent throughout this farce. Some were even Father Ted fans. Thank God the Catholic Church never had with the police the special relationship granted to trans activists.
Yes that’s right, the Catholic Church definitely don’t have a special relationship with the police force, but trans people do. Let that sink in for a minute and try not to burst out laughing.
Glinner: banned from Twitter at the worst time for a terf
The terf mournfully informs his loyal Twitter followers:
I looked at the single bail condition: I am not to go on Twitter. That’s it.
Which, let’s be honest, may as well be a death sentence for the man who has literally nothing else.
Glinner ends his diatribe with this:
To me, this proves one thing beyond doubt: the UK has become a country that is hostile to freedom of speech, hostile to women, and far too accommodating to the demands of violent, entitled, abusive men who have turned the police into their personal goon squad.
Which is funny because there’s only one abusive man I can see being treated sympathetically by the police, from what you’ve described, Graham.
One of Glinner’s big gripes these last few years is that despite him sacrificing (read: throwing away) everything in his life to be a rancid terf, Queen Moldemort JK Rowling has never thanked, supported or even acknowledged him. Presumably because while she likes to cleverly incite hatred with thinly veiled words, Linehan tells people to kick trans women in the balls. But that all changed yesterday.
Moldemort weighs in
Rowling quote tweeted a post about the arrest, saying:
What the fuck has the UK become? This is totalitarianism. Utterly deplorable.
As it was rightly pointed out on Twitter, Glinner would’ve had an absolute field day that his hero had finally acknowledged him, so it makes it absolutely fucking hilarious that she waited until he couldn’t respond to do so.
She’s since shared tweets contrasting the treatment of Linehan with the way raped women are treated by the police. When actual fact, they should be comparing it to how rapists are treated, considering that Linehan said himself, everyone was very polite and understanding.
We want the police to focus on policing streets rather than tweets
He then said something just as funny:
But the thing we are mindful of, as a government that backs the police to keep us safe, is that police are there to enforce the laws that we as Parliament legislate for.
So if over the years, with good intentions, Parliament has layered more and more expectation on police, and diluted the focus and priorities of the public, that’s obviously something we need to look at.
So basically, when Kneecap or other pro-Palestine figures tweet, their laws are working fine. But because one of their side got caught out, it’s bad and needs changing, okay got it.
Glinner got his just desserts
As someone who’s been harassed endlessly by terfs, alt-right men and those against benefits for well over a decade on Twitter, I personally don’t think the laws go far enough. Terf accounts who wished my grandmother had died sooner are still active, men who shared my photo with cum on it never even got the posts removed. I’ve been threatened with violence, rape, and abuse to me and my family, and the only time police have visited me about Twitter is when a man got me cautioned for warning others what he’d done.
Glinner got exactly what he deserved here, and it’s all the more funnier that his precious Twitter got taken away in the process.
Western reporters are full partners in the genocide. They amplify Israeli lies, which they know are lies, betraying Palestinian colleagues who are slandered, targeted and killed by Israel.
ANALYSIS:By Chris Hedges
There are two types of war correspondents. The first type does not attend press conferences. They do not beg generals and politicians for interviews. They take risks to report from combat zones.
They send back to their viewers or readers what they see, which is almost always diametrically opposed to official narratives. This first type, in every war, is a tiny minority.
Then there is the second type, the inchoate blob of self-identified war correspondents who play at war. Despite what they tell editors and the public, they have no intention of putting themselves in danger.
They are pleased with the Israeli ban on foreign reporters into Gaza. They plead with officials for background briefings and press conferences. They collaborate with their government minders who impose restrictions and rules that keep them out of combat.
They slavishly disseminate whatever they are fed by officials, much of which is a lie, and pretend it is news. They join little jaunts arranged by the military — dog and pony shows — where they get to dress up and play soldier and visit outposts where everything is controlled and choreographed.
The mortal enemy of these poseurs are the real war reporters, in this case, Palestinian journalists in Gaza. These reporters expose them as toadies and sycophants, discrediting nearly everything they disseminate. For this reason, the poseurs never pass up a chance to question the veracity and motives of those in the field.
I watched these snakes do this repeatedly to my colleague Robert Fisk.
Took huge hit
When war reporter Ben Anderson arrived at the hotel where journalists covering the war in Liberia were encamped — in his words getting “drunk” at bars “on expenses,” having affairs and exchanging “information rather than actually going out and getting information” — his image of war reporters took a huge hit.
“I thought, finally, I’m amongst my heroes,” Anderson recalls. “This is where I’ve wanted to be for years. And then me and the cameraman I was with — who knew the rebels very well — he took us out for about three weeks with the rebels.
“We came back to Monrovia. The guys in the hotel bar said, ‘Where have you been? We thought you’d gone home.’ We said, ‘We went out to cover the war. Isn’t that our job? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do?’
“The romantic view I had of foreign correspondents was suddenly destroyed in Liberia,” he went on. “I thought, actually, a lot of these guys are full of shit. They’re not even willing to leave the hotel, let alone leave the safety of the capital and actually do some reporting.”
You can see an interview I did with Anderson here.
This dividing line, which occurred in every war I covered, defines the reporting on the genocide in Gaza. It is not a divide of professionalism or culture. Palestinian reporters expose Israeli atrocities and implode Israeli lies. The rest of the press does not.
Palestinian journalists, targeted and assassinated by Israel, pay — as many great war correspondents do — with their lives, although in far greater numbers.
Israel has murdered 245 journalists in Gaza by one count and more than 273 by another. The goal is to shroud the genocide in darkness.
No other war close
No war I covered comes close to these numbers of dead. Since October 7, Israel has killed more journalists “than the US Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined.” Journalists in Palestine leave wills and recorded videos to be read or played at their death.
A funeral for Palestine TV correspondent Mohammed Abu Hatab. Hatab was killed, along with his family members, in an airstrike on his home in Khan Yunis, Gaza. Image: Abed Zagout/Anadolu via Getty Images
The colleagues of these Palestinian journalists in the Western press broadcast from the border fence with Gaza decked out in flak jackets and helmets, where they have as much chance of being hit by shrapnel or a bullet as being struck by an asteroid. They scurry like lemmings to briefings by Israeli officials. They are not only the enemies of truth, but also the enemies of journalists doing the real work of war reporting.
When Iraqi troops attacked the Saudi border town of Khafji during the first Gulf War, Saudi soldiers fled in panic. Two French photographers and I watched frantic soldiers commandeering fire trucks and racing south. US Marines pushed the Iraqis back.
But in Riyadh, the press was told of our gallant Saudi allies defending their homeland. Once fighting ended, the press bus stopped a few miles down the road from Khafji. The pool reporters clambered out, escorted by military minders. They did stand-ups with the distant sound of artillery and smoke as a backdrop and repeated the lies the Pentagon wanted to tell.
Meanwhile, the two photographers and I were detained and beaten by enraged Saudi military police, furious that we had documented the panicked flight of Saudi forces, as we tried to leave Khafji.
My refusal to abide by press restrictions in the first Gulf War saw the other New York Times reporters in Saudi Arabia write a letter to the foreign editor saying I was ruining the paper’s relationship with the military. If not for the intervention of R.W. “Johnny” Apple, who had covered Vietnam, I would have been sent back to New York.
I do not fault anyone for not wanting to go into a war zone. This is a sign of normality. It is rational. It is understandable. Those of us who volunteer to go into combat — my colleague Clyde Haberman at The New York Times once quipped “Hedges will parachute into a war with or without a parachute” — have obvious personality defects.
Pretend war correspondents
But I fault those who pretend to be war correspondents. They do tremendous damage. They peddle false narratives. They mask reality. They serve as witting — or unwitting — propagandists. They discredit the voices of the victims and exonerate the killers.
When I covered the war in El Salvador, before I worked for The New York Times, the paper’s correspondent dutifully regurgitated whatever the embassy fed her. This had the effect of making my editors — as well as editors of the other correspondents who did report the war– question our veracity and “impartiality.”
It made it harder for readers to understand what was happening. The false narrative neutered and often overpowered the real one.
The slander used to discredit my Palestinian colleagues — claiming they are members of Hamas — is sadly familiar. Many Palestinian reporters I know in Gaza are, in fact, quite critical of Hamas. But even if they have ties with Hamas, so what?
Israel’s attempt to justify targeting journalists from the Hamas-run al-Aqsa media network is also a violation of Article 79 of the Geneva Convention.
I worked with reporters and photographers who had a wide variety of beliefs, including Marxist-Leninists in Central America. This did not prevent them from being honest. I was in Bosnia and Kosovo with a Spanish cameraman, Miguel Gil Moreno, who was later killed with my friend Kurt Schork.
Miguel was a member of the right-wing Catholic group Opus Dei. He was also a journalist of tremendous courage, great compassion and moral probity, despite his opinions about Spain’s fascist ruler Francisco Franco. He did not lie.
Seeking to crush
In every war I covered, I was attacked as supporting or belonging to whatever group the government, including the US government, was seeking to crush. I was accused of being a tool of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, Hamas, the Muslim-led government in Bosnia and the Kosovo Liberation Army.
John Simpson of the BBC, like many Western reporters, argues that the “world needs honest, unbiased eyewitness reporting to help people make up their minds about the major issues of our time. This has so far been impossible in Gaza.”
The assumption that if Western reporters were in Gaza the coverage would improve is risible. Trust me. It would not.
Israel bans the foreign press because there is a bias in Europe and the United States in favour of reporting by Western reporters. Israel is aware that the scale of the genocide is too vast for Western outlets to hide or obscure, despite all the ink and airtime they give to Israeli and US apologists.
Israel also cannot continue its systematic campaign of annihilation of journalists in Gaza if it has to contend with foreign media in its midst.
Israel ‘lies like it breathes’
I covered the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, much of that time in Gaza, for seven years. If there is one indisputable fact, it is that Israel lies like it breathes. The decision by Western reporters to give credibility to these lies, to give them the same weight as documented Israeli atrocities, is a cynical game.
The reporters know these lies are lies. But they, and the news outlets that employ them, prize access — in this case access to Israeli and US officials — above truth. The reporters, as well as their editors and publishers, fear becoming targets of Israel and the powerful Israel lobby.
There is no cost for betraying the Palestinians. They are powerless.
Call those lies out and you will swiftly find your requests for briefings and interviews with officials rebuffed. You won’t be invited by press officers to participate in staged visits to Israeli military units. You and your news organisation will be viciously attacked.
You will be left out in the cold. Your editors will terminate your assignment or your employment. This is not good for careers. And so, the lies are dutifully repeated, no matter how absurd.
It is pathetic watching these reporters and their news outlets, as Fisk writes, fight “like tigers to join these ‘pools’ in which they would be censored, restrained and deprived of all freedom of movement on the battlefield”.
When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?
‘Hamas camera’
“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.
“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.
“Israel army says six ‘terrorists’ killed in Monday strikes on Gaza hospital,” the AFP headline read.
“Initial inquiry says Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that killed journalists,” Reuters said.
“Israel claims troops saw Hamas camera before deadly hospital attack,” Sky News explained.
Just for the record, the camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.
When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif and three other journalists were killed on August 10 in their media tent near al-Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?
Pulitzer prize-winner
“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.
The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”
The barrage of Israeli lies amplified and given credibility by the Western press violates a fundamental tenet of journalism, the duty to transmit the truth to the viewer or reader.
It legitimizes mass slaughter. It refuses to hold Israel to account. It betrays Palestinian journalists, those reporting and being killed in Gaza. And it exposes the bankruptcy of Western journalists, whose primary attributes are careerism and cowardice.
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report”. This article is republished from his X account.
Amidst rising racism, Keir Starmer has revealed that he hangs the English flag in his home and:
always sits in front of a Union Jack.
Of course, the word ‘revealed’ there is more akin to the type of ‘reveal’ that happens when you lift the toilet lid to see a stinking turd looking back at you.
Never one to miss out, home secretary Yvette Cooper echoed these bizarre sentiments:
Asked if she's got a flag on display in her home, the Home Secretary says she has Union Jack bunting, St Georges flags, St Georges bunting, and Union Jack flags and tablecloths. pic.twitter.com/gvYsfMqOrf
What else would you expect when racists are daubing roundabouts with England flags, spraying racist graffiti on takeaways, and mosques are attacked? Perhaps for political leaders that understand flags are symbols of nation states and rarely, if ever, just a simple expression of patriotism? Or, political leaders that understand their responsibility to head off another round of white riots?
No?
Fine, let’s dive in to the fuckery.
Racism on the rise and Starmer is busy looking at flags
Starmer defended his flag remarks, saying:
I’m proud of our flag as a patriotic symbol of our nation, like lots of people I’ve proudly got one up at home.
Do you think someone would do that? Use a flag to divide people?? If you share that sentiment of shock and surprise, then do get in touch with us – we’ve got some magic beans to sell you.
The increase in abhorrent racism and stoking of anti-immigrant hysteria should have been a slam dunk for any Labour prime minister. Simply say that you like the flag when it’s for the lionesses winning their latest trophy, and when it’s used a symbol of racism, those same racists must be rejected entirely.
However, Starmer isn’t just any Labour prime minister. He’s a charlatan Labour prime minister, so we all have to sit through his bumbling attempts to appeal to Reform voters who will never vote for him anyway.
And, Starmer’s cack-handed flag bollocks will have undoubtedly emboldened an already pretty fucking bold section of the country who think spreading terror to Muslims is acceptable behaviour. Al Jazeera reported that the South Essex Community Centre had a makeshift England flag left covering its entrance.
Unlike Starmer, local council leader Gavin Callaghan got the measure of the situation and said:
Don’t dress it up. Don’t excuse it. It’s scum behaviour, and it shames our town … The cowards who did this will be caught.
To do this right before Friday prayers is no coincidence. That’s targeted. That’s intimidation. And it’s criminal.
Imagine! A leader calling racism out for what it is!
Patriotism is no excuse
There’s been a pervasive excuse over the years that patriotism is an acceptable reason for flying the flag of your nation. But, we know more than we ever have about corrupt governments, crony politicians, and wealth hoarders. It doesn’t make any type of sense anymore – if it ever did – to be proud of your country. And, that’s even more the case when it comes to England and Britain. The flags of both states have been known as the butcher’s apron: heralds of vicious settler colonialism that continues to this very day.
Is it really worth flying those same flags along with the excuse ‘but I’m not doing it in a racist way’? Ultimately, flags are symbols. The symbols of England and Britain are drenched with the festering blood of colonial violence. These nations are so far away from even beginning to reckon with that colonial past, never mind its colonial present.
If you can show me a left-wing person who is proud to wave flags of England or Britain, I’ll show you a naive gullible fool. Pride has nothing to do with patriotism. Be proud! Be proud of your neighbours, your colleagues, your friends, the people, and not the nation states. See the good of local communities – but why restrict that to arbitrary borders drawn up by raging cunts?
The symbolism of flags will, of course, vary wildly depending on where you come from. Palestine and Sudan flags have become synonymous with solidarity with oppressed people. Whether English and British people like it or not, our flags are symbols of vicious and vile racism.
Doesn’t matter if it’s twee bunting, the Queen’s third birthday, for a game of sports ball, or otherwise. We all know what it means.
When the Flores and Velasco articles and posts whitewashing Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza first came out a few days ago, I was waiting for people in the Philippine media to criticise and denounce them since they were so obviously hack pieces that did not meet the minimal standards of decent journalism.
I waited and waited, until I realised that there were no media people or organisations that were going to speak up.
I was not out to do an expose, but that’s what it effectively became. In my subsequent posts, I raised the question of what was the reason just two journalists were willing to challenge the stories.
Was it a case of circling the wagons to protect errant colleagues? Was it fear of ties with the Israeli state being exposed by the Israelis in retaliation? Was it fear of physical or political reprisals by the Israelis?
These may have played a part, but the deafening silence meant there was something bigger at work.
This morning I received a long text from a prominent media practitioner that provided the answer. It’s not fear. It’s actually worse: agreement with Zionist ideology and policies, including genocide.
That the person asked me not to divulge his name for fear of suffering retribution from his colleagues stunned me. OMG, is this how deep the rot is with our media? ? Here is his disconcerting revelation to me:
‘Most are prejudiced’ “Yes some are scared, but honestly most of them actually are prejudiced against Muslims and side with the Zionists anytime.
“Most believe in the US religious fascist Zionist narrative, and also cannot accept that the world has changed — that the US is no longer the unipower it was decades ago, and that Russia, China, India and BRICS are on the rise.
“And also, you should hear them talk about how Filipino Muslims should be wiped off the face of the earth.
“These are college graduates from UP [University of the Philippines], UST [University of Santo Tomas], Ateneo who studied media.
“Whenever I would voice empathy for the Muslim minority here, or Palestinians, I’d be called stupid. Same also because I refused to join in the corruption.
“Oh, and also they have the same prejudice against China and the Chinese and mistake the Japanese imperial army atrocities as something China did to us!
“Also this is not limited to media. I have batchmates from UP Diliman, medical doctors, lawyers, engineers who also have the same prejudices.”
He added: “Some of these journalists have won awards abroad.”
Walden Bello is a Filipino academic and analyst of Global South issues who was awarded Amnesty International Philippines’ Most Distinguished Defender of Human Rights Award in 2023. He has also served as a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
The obsession with flags is called vexillomania. A flag is just a symbol. It’s tribalism – which side I’m on. Tribalism in football is mostly good natured banter. I’ve been to European games and international games where it has built bridges with foreign fans. That’s what responsible adults do.
Tribalism says my side is good, your side is bad, and evidence is irrelevant. If we lose it’s the ref’s fault. If we win it’s my personal achievement. Tribalism works in sport. But it’s dangerous in governments. Left unchecked it leads to wars because their religion is different from ours.
Is vexillomania over flags right wing?
The current wave of vexillomania is labelled as right wing. But what is right-wing? I worked with a Tory councillor who was genuinely concerned about child poverty. He hadn’t connected the dots the same as me. He hadn’t concluded that Thatcherite economic policies led to wealth inequality, increased utility bills, spiralling housing costs and a wave of insecure employment. He was economically right-wing, but in opposing poverty, supported left-wing economic values.
Thing is, he’s not unusual. As mayor I met with a centre-right think tank researcher who agreed with me on decentralisation and devolution. He was all for free market economics, but genuinely anti-racist.
And is decentralisation left-wing or right-wing? Communist parties want to replace capitalism with a centrally planned state-owned and state-run economy. Anarchists want to replace capitalism by supplanting all hierarchies with decentralised voluntary associations. They are polar opposites, but both want to replace capitalist inequality. Both are left-wing.
What is left wing?
I was once at a global investment summit, flying the flag for the North East (metaphorically).
People like Bill Gates were there, hedge fund managers and all kinds of government ministers. I got talking to a Treasury minister I negotiated with over the North East devolution deal. “I can’t place you politically,” he said. “You’re creating jobs and investing in businesses and talk about fiscal devolution. But you’re left-wing.” Some people think economic competence is the preserve of the right. Although less so since Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. And austerity.
On Newsnight I argued against Labour’s adoption of the Conservative’s two-child benefit cap. “This is fiscally sensible,” was Labour’s argument.
“It costs a fortune to keep kids in poverty,” I argued:
Our health is plummeting. Our NHS waiting lists are through the roof. Teachers are leaving education in droves. How are we going to get a healthy, productive high-skilled workforce unless we look after kids?
It’s common sense to say that lifting 400,000 kids out of poverty provides a long-term benefit not just of those kids and their families, but public services and the economy too. Is this a left-wing argument, though, or just a logical, evidence-based argument?
Centrist dads
In response to this interview, Novara Media’sAaron Bastani made an interesting point, “I can’t help but feel that in a sane political culture Jamie Driscoll would be a, quote, ‘centrist Dad’ rather than regarded as too radical to run for a Labour Party on the apparently centre-left.”
The Nolan chart, or political compass, attempts two dimensions. One dimensions is economically left-wing or right-wing. Redistribution and taxing wealth vs. unfettered free markets. And by the way, billionaires really don’t like free markets. They engage in all kinds of anti-competitive behaviour and lobby for huge taxpayer subsidies and government contracts.
The second dimension is libertarian vs. authoritarian on personal freedom. But gun control is authoritarian. Pro-choice on abortion is libertarian. So millions of Americans are simultaneously at both ends of that spectrum.
I’d have two totally different dimensions. One axis is how willing are you to listen to evidence, check facts, and think things through. That’s also the hallmark of a good leader – someone who listens without prejudice. That’s why I’m an advocate of deliberative democracy. Not reality TV style popularity polls. But citizens’ juries where they weigh evidence and expert testimony, and bring their diverse lived experience to bear.
The second axis is how much you want to control other people. Do you object if people are different from you? Do you believe that how they live their life is their business, not yours?
Strip away all the sophistry and distraction, and in the end it comes down to which freedoms you prefer: the freedom to exploit, or freedom from domination?
Waving flags is not always tribal – but it currently is
Everyone should enjoy the freedom from violence, harassment and hate just for being who they are. Everyone should enjoy the freedom to pursue economic, cultural and personal endeavours. But when freedoms collide, we should prioritise freedom from domination over the freedom to hoard resources.
That means your freedom from damp and eviction trumps your landlord’s freedom to make more money. Your freedom to raise children on a sustainable planet trumps a corporation’s unregulated freedom to pump oil. Your freedom to grow up in peace trumps the freedom of warmongers and arms dealers to profit from war. The freedom to starve is no freedom at all.
The people waving flags outside asylum accommodation are completely tribal. They’re not interested in evidence or thinking things through. The freedom they seek is the freedom to vent anger and hatred on those worse off than themselves. Sadly in most cases, they’re punching down because they’ve been punched down upon. If they want real freedom, they should punch up, at the billionaires who oppress them.
We’re now at that point of the not-so-great immigration debate where mainstream political leaders are committing to sending refugees back to the Taliban to be slaughtered, to the unbridled glee of a bloodthirsty minority that think “our” is spelled as “are”, and painting a red cross on a roundabout is an act of revolution not seen on these sewage-ridden shores since the English Civil War of 1642 – 1651 — thought to be around the time Reform UK and Tommy Five Names wish to take Britain back to.
This elite-backed and elitist-fronted ‘moral revolt against multiculturalism’ is a hugely embarrassing stain on our national moral conscience. Be in no doubt of that.
A betrayal by Labour over immigration
During the 2024 election campaign, Labour emphasised creating “safe and legal routes” as part of their plan to address the small boats crossing over from France, reducing those perilous Channel crossings that risk the lives of the passengers and the heroic souls that are tasked with rescuing them.
An immigration bidding war between Starmer and Farage that ends with a Taliban bullet to the back of the head isn’t quite the patriotic look that we should be aspiring to, is it?
Why are we even attempting to have this debate on Nigel Farage’s terms? Because he’s been on BBC Question Time almost as often as David Dimbleby?
The Reform Führer simply peddles poisonous, opportunistic, uncosted hogwash, with a huge dose of populism, carefully wrapped up in a Union flag.
If this is all it takes to float the (small) boats of the hard-of-thinking right, it’s not going to be impossible to sink them.
The British media — who have always got a good word to say for the testicle-chewing monster — want you to believe the rise, and eventual success of this toxic nationalism is an inevitability.
It isn’t.
Flagshagging ahoy
A handful of dopey-arsed flagshaggers with the Winston Churchill/Richard The Lionheart/St George Cross/Reform UK social media profile photo is far from representative of the people of Britain.
Granted, the government’s catastrophic handling of just about everything it touches — particularly the crass and deeply immoral way they have dealt with the debate around immigration — has fanned the flames of discontent amongst the racists and bigots in our communities.
We have seen this sort of nationalism dressed up as patriotism before, haven’t we? They select a minority group, paint them out to be a threat to our way of life, or in this case, our ‘Britishness’, and the rest is all about raising flags and turning up at rallies to scream something about “protecting are girls”.
The fact that the British government, a Labour government no less, thinks it can go toe-to-toe with the likes of hateful little shit heads like Farage, Tommy Five Names, and whoever the Tory leader is these days on immigration, is as worrying as it is sickening.
That’s their MO, Mr Starmer.
A Labour government is supposed to stand at the other end of the political spectrum and offer an alternative to this loathsome, divisive style of politics, not join in with the populist hatefest while the far-right push our national flags down the same route as the Swastika.
Human rights lawyer? Pull the fucking other one. ‘Sir’ Starmer is a vainglorious, entirely disingenuous fraud, living off past achievements such as, erm… *scratches head*… his mum working for the NHS.
Ugly scenes
The ugly scenes in Epping are set to be repeated across the country in the coming days and weeks. Patreon Prince Robinson is banging the drum of hatred and violence and the middled-aged minions, desperately trying to relive their football hooliganism days, march along to every single beat, ready to throw a quick Seig Heil, because they’re proud to be British.
I’ve never worked that one out.
The billionaires and their useful idiots have done a fucking fantastic job of radicalising the people with the very least to turn them against the refugees and asylum seekers that are being stored away in these hotels.
Had your local Holiday Express been rammed to the eyeballs with white Ukrainian refugees, do you think the South African, Elon Musk would be tweeting a St George cross and complaining about the downfall of democracy in the UK?
Do you think the EDL fascists with the Nazi Germany ideology would be lining up in the hotel car park, pitchforks in hand, demanding Sergei from Kyiv is sent back to the front line to face the full force of the Russian bear?
Do you think this toxic, corrupt corporate media, owned by foreign billionaires and tax exiles, would be offering a free 40:1 scale replica of the late Queen’s coffin and a lifetime’s supply of Chinese-made, St George flags to the first person that sets fire to a hotel full of refugees, if they just so happened to be white?
Immigration: a national scandal, but not for the reasons Reform says
Reform UK is currently riding high in the opinion polls for one very good reason. I know that every single Reform voter isn’t a racist piece of shit, indeed, some are economically left, it just seems apparent that every single racist piece of shit is likely to vote for Reform UK at the next set of elections.
Finally…
At this moment in time, it is not appropriate or sensible for the British left to engage in these internal disputes over ideological purity. I’m talking about Your Party. Diverting any focus from our broader objectives will only serve to undermine the absolute unity that is needed to effectively address the urgent, pressing challenges that we are facing today.
I am alarmed by reports that Filipino journalists were flown in by the Israeli government to participate in what is essentially a whitewashing campaign for the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
By attempting to divert attention from the massacre of Palestinian civilians to “the Old City’s labyrinthine alleys,” Flores acts as an apologist for war crimes, akin to writing a travel blog about Nazi Germany.
In a Facebook post, Flores further parrots Israel’s propaganda by highlighting how the brutal IDF employs both men and women to carry out atrocities, a cynical weaponisation of “feminism.”
Even more repulsive is the piece from the Daily Tribune about “Gaza’s Fake Famine” from Vernon Velasco. It is a parody of a story, overly simplifying the famine of Gaza to a matter of food truck logistics, and uncritically quoting an IDF Officer.
Fittingly, the article contains three photos of shipping containers but not a single photo of a human being.
This runs counter to facts laid out by UN officials, including Joyce Msuya, the UN’s Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who points out how half a million people face “starvation, destitution, and death”.
‘Moral failure’ over Gaza
A study published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet points to the “moral failure” as 1-2 million people live in the most extreme food insecurity level (phase 5 or catastrophe famine) according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC).
“By attempting to divert attention from the massacre of Palestinian civilians to ‘the Old City’s labyrinthine alleys,’ Flores acts as an apologist for war crimes, akin to writing a travel blog about Nazi Germany.” Image: TPS “Life” screenshot APR
This famine unfolds as shameless journalists make food vlogs kilometres away.
The facts are clear. At least 63,000 people have been killed and 150,000 injured, with women and children making up a significant portion of the casualties. The UN has also reported that nearly 90 percent of Gaza’s population (around 1.9 million people) has been displaced.
Widespread destruction has left over 70 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure destroyed, including more than 94 percent of hospitals either damaged or destroyed. No amount of narrative spin or “complexity” can sanitise this genocide.
As we celebrate National Press Freedom Day, I implore friends in the press to not fall for the lies of the murderous Zionist regime.
It would be tragic for journalists to provide cover for a regime that has murdered at least 240 of their peers.
Filipino journalists must shed the unhealthy culture of silence and non-intervention, and not hesitate to criticise errant colleagues.
They must make it clear that these recipients of Zionist gold are a disgrace to Philippine journalism. The Philippine government must look into the activities of the Israeli Embassy and their manipulation of local media narratives to sanitise their genocide.
Filipino journalists must stand in solidarity with their slain colleagues abroad, not with their killers.
Walden Bello is a Filipino academic and analyst of Global South issues who was awarded Amnesty International Philippines’ Most Distinguished Defender of Human Rights Award in 2023. He has also served as a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.
Maurice Glasman, father of blue Labour, tells me Mahmood’s appointment is “fantastic” and said “she’s now clearly the leader of our part of the party.”
(@TRobinsonNewEra) 
NEW | Reform lead by 13pts
REF – 32% (-2)
LAB – 19% (+1)
CON – 17% (+2)
LD – 13% (-)
GRN – 11% (+1)
(@LeftieStats) 
