radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Tory campaign leaflets just sunk to a new low – even after the ‘fake newspapers’ scandal

    The Conservative Party is up to its old tricks again, using more and more deceptive leafletting for its political campaigning. This time, it’s dropping ‘NHS surveys’ through people’s doors. They look like actual surveys, but in reality they’re a data-gathering exercise. Of course, the Tories have form on this – just look at the scandal over them distributing campaigning material dressed up as local newspapers.

    ‘Let’s protect our NHS’… kind of…

    Chris Rand is a writer and community organiser from Cambridge. On 14 October, he shared an image on X which has now gone viral. It showed a Tory Party leaflet which, in his words, was “Literally pretending to be the NHS”:

    The Tories circulated it for their MP candidate for South Cambridgeshire in the next general election, Chris Carter-Chapman – whose name is missing punctuation on the leaflet. It wasn’t the only error on the leaflet, which also asked people:

    How would our rate local healthcare services?

    Rand was furious. As he wrote on his website:

    There’s a bit of blurb saying the survey is from the “South Cambs parliamentary candidate”, which will sound alarm bells to many people, although not all. And note there’s no mention at this point of any political party. There is some small print at the bottom, making it legal; and by the time you get to the second page, a “Conservatives” logo does appear, although we might well skim over that as we go through the form that we’d been ordered to complete (“Fill in your details now”!)

    The Tories even sent the leaflet with a pre-paid return envelope. However, as Rand pointed out, the address on that gave little away to it being from the Tories. He summed up by saying that these kind of leaflets create an “air of suspicion” around what drops through people’s letterboxes.

    People on X were unimpressed. EveryDoctor founder Dr Julia Grace Patterson was livid:

    Another user reminded us of another, albeit bigger, con some Conservatives previously pulled:

    Meanwhile, regulator the Electoral Commission was predictably limp regarding it – saying no law had been broken:

    There’s also the issue of exactly what the Tories will be doing with people’s data from the survey. The party will be getting a lot of personal data – yet it’s unclear from the leaflet what will be done with this, how it will be stored, and whether it is even safe. Even the government’s data regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), felt the need to tweet:

    Tory Party form on fake leaflets

    As one X user pointed out, this is hardly the first time the Tories have pulled such a stunt:

    The Canary previously reported on the ‘fake Tory newspapers‘ scandal. As we wrote:

    In the three by-elections held recently, the Tories… [used] fake news tactics:

    • In Selby and Ainsty they distributed election propaganda posing as the “North Yorkshire Chronicle”.
    • Over in Somerset, it was the “Somerton and Frome Chronicle”.
    • In Uxbridge, the Tories published the “Uxbridge and South Ruislip People”.

    Another example was this gem:

    Lincoln Chronicle is a fake newspaper as Byline found

     

    Someone on X also reminded us that the Tories also changed their leafletting colours as well:

    Again, as the Canary previously reported, some Tories have changed their local leaflets to be green in colour – again, probably to fool voters. Foreign secretary James Cleverly is one such offender:

    Manipulated by all three parties

    Of course, it’s not just the Tories who are guilty of this. Rand pointed out the Lib Dems used dodgy voting figures in one of their campaign leaflets. Then, Labour previously ran those highly questionable ‘attack ads’ on Rishi Sunak.

    Overall, as the Canary previously wrote:

    it seems there’s no level of manipulation to which the three main parties won’t stoop to try and dupe people into voting for them. The Tories are, of course, the worst offenders. However, it seems the public aren’t daft – which poses a huge problem in itself. This century, voter turnout at general elections has been the lowest since 1918.

    The Tories dressing up campaign material as the NHS is about as low as it’s got, though – until whatever trickery they decide to come up with next.

    Featured image via Chris Rand

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • GMB and Sky let shameless war crimes apologists spout propaganda, as government and Labour are threatened with legal action over support for Israel

    Corporate television in the UK on Monday 16 October was a shameless display of apologists for Israeli war crimes in Gaza. From a host of breakfast television to the Israeli ambassador to the UK, there was repeated and inflammatory dismissal of Israel’s war crimes and attempted genocide against the Palestinian people.

    However, this wasn’t going on without reaction – one organisation has now threatened criminal proceedings against the UK government and the Labour Party for doing similar.

    Madeley: shamelessly invoking WWII

    First, Good Morning Britain (GMB) host Richard Madeley stooped to new lows during a segment on the ongoing chaos in the Middle East. He posited over Israel’s genocide in Gaza that:

    When they invaded Europe in 1944 and defeated the Nazis by going into Germany and in doing so… a lot of German civilians were killed. But nobody at the time made any excuses or apologies for that. They just saw that as a necessary evil. Is that a fair parallel?

    Co-host Susanna Reid clearly saw the problem with this – as she immediately said that she thought we’d “moved on, haven’t we, from those times”. The guests didn’t seem to agree with Madeley’s comparison, either:

    In case you needed to know what the problems were with Madeley’s comparison of Nazi Germany during WWII and Israel committing human rights atrocities in Gaza, people on X pointed them out.

    Madeley’s ignorance of the history of international law wasn’t lost on some people:

     

    Ultimately, as one person pointed out – and as the Canary has documented – commentators and politicians in the West have been actively endorsing Israel’s attempted genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza:

    So, with that in mind – enter the Israeli ambassador to the UK on Sky News to double down on genocide apologism.

    Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely

    Tzipi Hotovely is the right-wing Israeli ambassador to the UK. When Burley asked for her view on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Hotovely said:

    There is no humanitarian crisis

    Burley questioned this, and Hotovely doubled down. The host once again pressed Hotovely, saying Sky News had shown the humanitarian crisis in Gaza on the show. So, Hotovely deflected, saying:

    Are you a mother… What would you think if your children would have been executed in front of your eyes? Would you expect your government to think about those Nazis committing those crimes and say ‘wait a second, first of all we need to protect the enemy, and then to protect my children’. Your children come as priority to your prime minister.

    Hotovely’s response to Burley repeating that Sky News showed the humanitarian crisis was to tell her to “blame Hamas”:

    It’s hard to know where to begin with what Hotovely said. X reacted furiously:

    People pointed to her “shameless” questioning of whether Burley was a mother:

    X users also felt that Burley gave Hotovely an easy ride:

    Hotovely’s far-right, inflammatory, and manipulative comments are not a surprise. As the Canary previously reported, during a Newsnight interview on Wednesday 11 October she claimed:

    40 bodies of babies that their heads were cut off… we’ve seen… the bodies of those babies and children, and actually this is evidence-based.

    We now know there was no ‘evidence base’ to the claim – but Hotovely chose to claim it, anyway. This has been a running theme during Israel’s onslaught into Gaza – with politicians like Tory minister Grant Shapps, Labour leader Keir Starmer, and Labour front bencher Emily Thornberry all effectively laying cover for Israel to commit war crimes.

    Complicity in Israel’s Gaza war crimes may lead to prosecution

    However, the UK-based International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) announced on Saturday 14 October that it believed the UK government was complicit in Israeli war crimes due to its support – and that it would prosecute it if needed. Bear in mind, also, that the ICJP isn’t some ‘woke, lefty’ group. One of its leaders is the right-wing Tory MP Crispin Blunt.

    Now, the ICJP has also issued a formal warning to the Labour Party over its support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, too:

    It specifically called out Starmer and Thornberry, as well as shadow foreign secretary David Lammy:

    Of course, the likelihood of the ICJP getting a successful prosecution is slim. However, they are shining a light on what Western politicians and the media are doing by fuelling war crimes via the spread of propaganda and disinformation.

    You might think that would be enough for this despicable whitewashing campaign to cease. Clearly not, though – as broadcast television in the UK has shown.

    Featured image via Good Morning Britain – YouTube and Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • It’s a new academic year at the UoM, but freshers are already threatening rent strikes over dire accommodation

    The University of Manchester (UoM) is once again under fire over its dire student accommodation. This time, freshers are threatening a rent strike after it emerged bosses have barely made any changes since the last academic year’s strike by students.

    UoM: an ongoing rent strike

    The Canary has been following the story of the UoM rent strikes. Around 650 students have been withholding their rent from the university. This is because bosses increased rents on halls by up to £450 for the 2022 academic year. Plus, the state of accommodation is appalling.

    Back in February, students occupied areas of the university in protest. They were part of the group UoM Rent Strike. Bailiffs eventually removed them. However, bosses have responded disproportionately, even taking the students to court to try and stop the strikes.

    Perhaps most ridiculous incident was university bosses taking disciplinary action against 11 of the students – all for performing a peaceful protest. However, that didn’t go according to bosses’ plans. A UoM panel found that only one of the six allegations bosses made against the students was true: that they’d breached health and safety rules by barricading themselves into buildings.

    However, the UoM still warned those students that if they took part in more action, it could expel them. Not that this has deterred people – now, a new batch of students will be taking action.

    The action continues

    First year students at the UoM have said they will be continuing the rent strike because bosses have put rents up yet again. UoM Rent Strike said in a press release:

    On average, rent has increased a further 6% from last year, continuing to rise faster than the 2.8% increase in maintenance loan. On top of this, the University continues to provide subpar spaces to its students. Within weeks of moving in, students in Denmark Road accommodation lost water for six days – with others dealing with flooding, damp, and infestations. Last year, the University made a £120 million profit, and UoM Rent Strike feel they should not continue to profit off their students in this way.

    UoM Rent Strike said that first year students should cancel their rent direct debit in time for the first payment on the 20 October. It’s urging them to sign up to join the strike. Any student who lives in university-run accommodation can join the action.

    While the group acknowledged that the university has not put rents up by as much as it was expected to, it says there are still issues:

    Oak House has seen a basic refurbishment. Yet even Oak House is not considered affordable by the NUS definition (50% of the maximum maintenance loan), and rent continues to be high. From the small victories of last year’s strike, and those of the strike in 2020 (resulting in a 30% rent decrease 2020-21), the campaign sees reason to continue this year.

    Moreover, some of the images coming out of the halls show they are in a state of disrepair:

     

     

    Stop treating students like dirt

    UoM Rent Strike says its demands for this academic year are:

    • A reduction of all… rents by a third.
    • A commitment from UoM that all new accommodation built as part of the Fallowfield Redevelopment will be affordable (under 50% of the maximum English maintenance loan).
    • Guarantee every 1st year student accommodation they can afford, by changing the application process to take finances into account.
    • All rent increases capped to the annual increase of the English maintenance loan.
    • Students receive full rent refunds for every day which maintenance issues are not fixed.

    UoM Rent Strike also said bosses must stop punishing and victimising students who take action over rent and living conditions. It said:

    The University of Manchester is not allowed to impose academic punishments as a result of rent striking, but despite this, students report being subject to illegal threats of expulsion from the University, and a complaint has been submitted to the Competition and Markets Authority. Last year, every rent striker was issued either a £25 or £50 fine, depending on the length of their strike. All of these fines have been fully covered by the Rent Strike fund, which managed to raise enough money and support to prevent anyone having to pay more than they should have.

    So, it seems that while UoM Rent Strike made some progress in getting bosses to listen, overall, little has changed. First year students getting involved in the action is a necessary move if people are going to make university bosses take notice.

    Featured images and additional images/video via UoM Rent Strike

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tens of thousands across the UK rallied for Palestine amid Israeli propaganda and aggressive cops

    Tens of thousands of people across the UK took to the streets in support of Palestine. Whilst many of the rallies successfully provided space for Palestinian voices, some were marred by antagonistic policing.

    London marches for Palestine

    As Israel continued bombing Gaza, Palestinian solidarity groups across the country called for rallies on 14 October. The biggest and most significant of these was in London, where an estimated more than 100,000 people turned out. Videos showed the entirety of Portland Place, home to the BBC, filled with people:

    The rally marched to Downing Street, where it then hosted speeches by Palestinians:

    As well as a speech by former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn:

    Meanwhile, the crowd had some choice words for current Labour leader Keir Starmer – after he endorsed Israel committing war crimes against the Palestinian people in Gaza:

    The BBC‘s building had earlier that morning been covered in red paint. Direct action group Palestine Action claimed responsibility. It said in a press release that it had done so:

    in response to it’s recent coverage of Palestine, which has been complicit in manufacturing consent for the occupation’s genocide of Palestinians.

    As the Canary previously reported, the BBC and other corporate media have been complicit in spreading anti-Palestinian propaganda – to give cover to Israel’s attacks on Gaza. For example, as we previously wrote, we:

    analysed the first 20 minutes of BBC News at Six on 11 October. When you remove anchors Clive Myrie and Sophie Raworth’s monologues, the BBC dedicated 84% of the reporting to human stories and analysis around Israel. It gave just 16% of the same type of coverage to Gaza.

    Meanwhile, at the London protest, there were also reports that the Met Police had aggressively policed the demonstration. Black Protest Legal Support said its members had witnessed cops engaging in “violence against both protesters and Legal Observers”. The group also said police were forcing the removal of kuffiyehs, a traditional Palestinian headdress. The Met had earlier issued a Section 60AA, which makes refusal to remove face coverings an arrestable offence.

    BBC News reported that police arrested four people under the Section 60AA power. LBC reported that the Met arrested a total of 15 people during the London rally:

    Marchers in London hold a banner saying "Free Palestine"

    Masked up pro-Palestine marcher in London holds a green smoke flare

    Cities across the UK march for Palestine

    People in other cities across the UK also took to the streets in support of Palestine:

    This writer was at the Norwich rally where more than a hundred people including Palestinians turned out to the steps of City Hall. Speakers included Palestinians, Muslims, and trade unionists. Police were present but remained calm, escorting one person away after they heckled a speaker:

    Rally for Palestine in Norwich 14/10/23

    Rally for Palestine in Norwich 14/10/23

    Rally for Palestine in Norwich 14/10/23

    People in cities across the world also held pro-Palestine rallies over the weekend, though Germany and France had both banned such demonstrations.

    Listen to Palestinians

    It’s clear that people throughout the country have seen through the overwhelming anti-Palestine propaganda put out by world leaders and the corporate media. While rallies and demonstrations aren’t likely to have an impact on Israel’s attacks, they have provided a space for Palestinian voices to be heard.

    Those voices spoke of pain, sorrow and grief – not only of the Israeli state’s actions but of complicity by world leaders and the media. They also spoke of strength, belief and hope in the resilience of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and around the world. For everyone feeling helpless as we watch on, they are messages we need to remember and amplify.

    Featured image and London images via Aidan Frere-Smith, Norwich images by the Canary

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour’s latest policy retreat once again exposed Starmer for the untrustworthy charlatan he is

    On 11 October at the Labour Conference, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting spoke of his party’s “ten-year plan for a National Care Service”. This was a key speech which happened merely days ago. So, you’d expect it would still be part of Labour’s agenda. Those who’ve followed the party under Keir Starmer, however, won’t be surprised to learn that the “ten-year plan for a National Care Service” is reportedly now a zero year plan for nothing:

    FFS

    According to Sunday 15 October’s Observer:

    Starmer’s party will avoid laying out a detailed plan for reform of social care, and the politically nightmarish issue of how to fund it, because it fears any proposals would be torpedoed by the Tories in the heat of a campaign.

    According to senior party figures, Keir Starmer’s team – while committed to social care reform – do not want to offer the Tories a target that would invite them to attack the plans and make claims about the tax implications. Instead, there would be a general commitment to make changes when in office.

    To sum up, Labour’s election plan is to offer vague promises from a man who the British public already don’t trust. This is polling from YouGov:

    Keir Starmer trustworthiness

    When Starmer first came to power, you can see the vast majority of people ‘didn’t know’ if he was trustworthy or not. 22% of those polled believed he was; 19% swung the opposite way. Over time, the ‘don’t knows’ have dropped as people have got to know the new Labour leader. However, while the number of people who trust him has risen 8 percentage points to 30%, the number who don’t trust him has risen by a whopping 24 percentage points to 43%.

    As you can see below, trust in Starmer is better than trust in Rishi Sunak, but it’s also less steady. Notably, the direction of travel for Starmer is that the longer people have any awareness of him, the less they trust him:

    Rishi Sunak trustworthiness

    So, what’s happened to cause this situation? Quite simply, Starmer has shown himself to be a man who’s almost pathologically incapable of sticking to his word.

    Mr U-turn

    In June 2023, Politico compiled an already out-of-date list of Starmer’s key U-turns. Said list includes:

    • Abandoning several proposals to renationalise key services (despite support for such policies remaining incredibly high).
    • Un-abandoning his pledge to “end outsourcing” in the NHS.
    • Distancing himself from the trade unions he once claimed to support.
    • Abandoning his aim to retain EU free movement.
    • Not only abandoning the pledge to remove Universal Credit, but having his work and pensions secretary claim they “actually agree with the concept behind” it.
    • Abandoning the plan to abolish tuition fees.
    • Ditch any serious pretence of fighting climate change.
    • Abandoning his pledge to increase tax for the top 5% of earners.
    • Scrapping his pledge to get rid of the undemocratic House of Lords.

    This isn’t even all of it. And as such, it’s plain to see why you couldn’t trust this guy as far as you could throw him.

    Electioneering

    Of course, the lack of trust in Starmer may be baked into Labour’s strategy for the next election. If Starmer doesn’t offer anything, then people can’t mistrust his ability to deliver it. There are two problems with this, and the first relates to this quote from the Observer article:

    “We need to give ourselves cover to do reform in the manifesto, without giving the Tories a target to attack us. We can’t allow the issue to dominate a campaign again,” said a party source.

    Going off how eagerly Starmer sheds policies – especially half-decent ones – most people will naturally come to the conclusion that he isn’t abandoning progressive proposals because he’s a clever political operator; he’s abandoning them because he’s a regressive politician.

    If Labour promised a National Care Service in ten years, people would constantly be asking for progress updates. By vaguely hinting at one, Starmer can more easily get away with not delivering a policy he had no interest in delivering in the first place. The embarrassing U-turns have taught Starmer one thing, it seems, and that’s that you can’t U-turn on a policy which never existed.

    Social care: hardly a vote-loser

    The issue is that people aren’t stupid, and many will see his vague promises for exactly what they are – i.e. a big old heap of nothing.

    The second problem for Labour in the next election is this: what happens if the Tories find something they can offer which the public get on board with (much like when the Tories’ 2019 Brexit stance turned the party’s fortunes around)? This is from the Observer:

    In 2010, Labour’s plans for funding social care were branded a “death tax” by the Tories, and hit the party’s vote badly, while in 2017 Theresa May’s Conservative campaign suffered irreparable damage amid accusations she was planning a “dementia tax”.

    This framing is bizarre, as it suggests the concept of a National Care Service is a certified vote loser. The 2017 election isn’t a good example of that, however. While May was slated for her ‘dementia tax’, Labour offered a fully-funded National Care Service, and it saw the biggest increase in vote share since 1945. While Labour’s fortunes were down to more than offering a National Care Service, it’s clearly not the guaranteed vote loser that the party is now claiming it is.

    Labour isn’t caring

    While Labour claims it’s shaping its policy platform to win votes, I’d argue that we’re witnessing something else entirely.

    The Tories’ 13-year failure to deliver has finally caught up with them, and polling is reflecting that. Starmer knows this is down to the Tories’ mistakes rather than his own moves. However, this window of time does give him the opportunity to abandon policies without it impacting on polling too much – i.e. he can make the argument that no one cared about these policies anyway. This is giving a false impression of what will happen in the actual election when all eyes are suddenly upon both parties, and it becomes more obvious than ever that Labour has nothing to offer.

    At this point, it’s entirely likely that Labour win anyway because the Tories have even less to offer. Regardless of who wins in that situation, however, it’s the public who ultimately lose.

    Featured image via the Labour Party – YouTube

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • End of the line for two Just Stop Oil protesters as courts uphold draconian anti-protest laws

    The Court of Appeal has refused two Just Stop Oil protesters a chance to challenge their sentences. They were handed what their lawyers called “extraordinary” three-year sentences for stopping traffic on the Dartford Crossing. And the court’s refusal to allow an appeal has raised serious concerns over protest laws.

    What’s the difference between deterrence and chilling effect?

    On 12 October, the Court of Appeal told Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker that it would not permit the pair to challenge their existing sentences at the Supreme Court. Decker and Trowland had stopped traffic on the Dartford Crossing for roughly 37 hours in October 2022. They had scaled the bridge’s mast to protest the UK’s approval of new oil and gas licences and were protesting under the Just Stop Oil banner.

    Basildon Crown Court found the pair guilty of public nuisance on 4 April 2023. By that point, they’d already spent five months on remand. The court then gave them custodial sentences, with Trowland receiving three years and Decker receiving two years and seven months. Just Stop Oil described the sentencing as “draconian”, while their lawyers said they were “extraordinary” in length.

    Trowland and Decker’s first attempt to appeal the sentencing was rejected in July. Appeal judges said at the time that the penalties went “well beyond previous sentences” for similar actions, but that the terms reflected “Parliament’s will” as outlined by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act.

    Carr reinforced this position on 12 October. Trowland and Decker had attempted to take their appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the Court of Appeal denied this, with Carr stating:

    the sentences meet the legitimate sentencing aim of deterrence for such offending in current time

    However, she then claimed that:

    The sentences should not be seen as having a “chilling effect” on the right to peaceful protest or to assembly more generally; deterrence and “chilling effect” are not the same.

    Tightening the screws on dissent

    The PCSC Act trod a controversial path to parliament, including giving rise to the Kill the Bill movement. The government brought it in to give police greater powers against protests, but it was widely criticised by researchers, civil rights groups and protest groups as draconian and authoritarian.

    One of its clauses legislated a new crime of ‘public nuisance’. However, the Act ambiguously worded what constituted a nuisance. The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) said in its summary of the bill that:

    It is not yet clear what any of the terms covered by the new public nuisance offence will mean for protesters.

    However, it is public nuisance legislation that the courts used to convict and sentence Trowland and Decker. So we now have one example of what the offence means for protest – and how the courts will use it to defend the state and capitalism.

    On the same day that the Court of Appeal rejected the Dartford Crossing pair’s plea, the Guardian published How criminalisation is being used to silence climate activists across the world. It doesn’t mention Trowland and Decker, but its timing is notable. It quoted David Armiak, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy, saying the UK’s PCSC Act was:

    part of a last-ditch, industry-backed effort to protect its profit model in the face of public demands to turn to renewables and divest from fossil fuels as the climate emergency intensifies

    That legislation was bolstered less than a year later by the Public Order Act, an equally authoritarian anti-protest law.

    Despite what Carr said, it’s clear that the PCSC Act’s intention was exactly to have a ‘chilling effect’. And the decision to refuse Trowland and Decker’s appeal is meant to double down on this capital-led, state-enforced hostility. Sadly, their sentences may be a sign of things to come.

    Featured image via Just Stop Oil/YouTube

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Obnoxious ‘Tory enabler’ and former Labour staffer Harry Burns admits to sabotaging Corbyn

    A former Labour Party staffer under Jeremy Corbyn has admitted trying to bring him down during the 2017 general election campaign. Harry Burns made the claims live on GB News with Nigel Farage – with people on Twitter branding him a “Tory enabler”.

    Corbyn: an “unexpected” journey

    Burns works for PR firm Crestview Strategy. However, before that his LinkedIn profile says he was a regional organiser for the Labour Party from 2014. He was then:

    serving as Head of Elections and Campaign Support for the UK Labour Party for the 2017 General Election, playing an integral role in delivering one of the most unexpected election results in recent times.

    “Unexpected” is an appropriate word for the 2017 general election – because far from supporting Corbyn as leader, much of the party machinery was trying to stop a Labour victory. As the Canary previously reported, Al Jazeera‘s The Labour Files documentary series revealed much of this. And as Nasim Ahmed wrote for Middle East Monitor, overall The Labour Files showed that the “British establishment” led a:

    campaign against… [Corbyn]… aided by the right-wing press, as well as self-styled left-wing publications like the Guardian and, most shocking of all, the Labour party itself which, it would later be revealed, sabotaged Corbyn’s chance of becoming Prime Minister.

    Now, one of the people who helped sabotage Labour’s election victory in 2017 has admitted to doing so out loud – and it’s Burns.

    ‘I was one of the snakes who stopped a Labour victory’

    During an interview on GB News, Burns was discussing the Labour Party conference. He said of his former job:

    I was the head of elections for the 2017 general election campaign, when Labour were very far behind the Tories at the start of the campaign. My job was very clear: save as many Labour MPs as possible. Then, when it became clear that Corbyn was getting close to government, I along with a lot of my other colleagues resigned. I left the Labour Party, and then I tried to do everything I can [sic] to bring Corbyn down.

    While Burns alleges he wasn’t a Labour staffer or member when he “tried… to bring Corbyn down”, the implication is clear. When he was a Labour staffer, he was doing nothing to even try to get a Labour victory.

    Then after that – presumably in the lead up to the 2019 election – Burns did his best to stop the party winning again.

    This is pretty obvious from his LinkedIn, as he was a founder of notorious failure Change UK – The Independent Group. Remember that party? The ragtag group of Tory and Labour centre-right (now mostly former) MPs? Well, Burns was central to it – as his LinkedIn notes:

    I helped to establish the Independent Group of MPs, which included planning and managing the high profile press conferences which launched the group, before playing a leading role in setting up Change UK – The Independent Group political party.

    I took on the role of Head of Campaigns and Field for the party and was a leading member of the senior staff team. I recruited and managed the party’s field organisers and oversaw the creation and delivery of the party’s campaign strategy. I also worked closely with the Director of Political Strategy and the press team to create and deliver the party’s media and communications grid.

    People were predictably incensed:

    Labour: a war criminal ‘nest of vipers’

    There’s a lot to unpack here. It was obviously common knowledge that many people in Labour’s back office (as well as front-facing MPs) were trying to destroy the party’s chances of winning under Corbyn. However, to hear it said out loud by one of those snakes still angers people:

    Some people were clear that Labour had definitely lost their vote now:

    Then there’s the obvious narrative around how different things might have been if Corbyn hadn’t been sabotaged:

    However, there’s also a particularly horrifying pertinence to the obnoxious Burns’s bragging about this in the context of Palestine.

    This week has seen Keir Starmer, and other Labour politicians, effectively endorsing Israel committing war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza – while almost all of the corporate media followed suit.

    As the West sinks further into an immoral abyss, if people like Burns hadn’t destroyed Labour’s chances in 2017 then we may have actually had a leader in the UK right now who would be speaking up for the Palestinian people – not encouraging genocide against them.

    Featured image via GB News – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Portland resident loses case against Bibby Stockholm asylum barge, but shines light on its racist impact

    It’s been a week of bad news for refugees and those fighting against the inhumane and racist barge-turned-asylum accommodation, the Bibby Stockholm.

    The London High Court has quashed a local Portland resident and mayor’s challenge against the Tories’ controversial refugee detention barge. Meanwhile, the Home Office has notified asylum seekers that they will be returned to the vessel on 19 October. Both came as i News reported that the government department has refused information requests to disclose the full cost of the floating, formerly disease-infested hell-site.

    Bibby Stockholm – a racist floating cage

    Home secretary Suella Braverman’s asylum housing barge has so far been a repeated source of embarrassment for the far-right Tory government.

    Days after the Home Office had forced 39 migrants aboard the vessel in August, tests detected the bacteria legionella within its water system. This bacteria can cause a potentially deadly respiratory condition known as Legionnaires’ disease.

    As a result, the government had to evacuate the refugees from the barge. In September, freedom of information requests (FOI) revealed that tests had identified the most deadly strain of legionella on the vessel. The Bibby Stockholm has remained vacant since 11 August.

    Meanwhile, others have highlighted the huge sums of taxpayer’s money the government has thrown at the abhorrent floating cage.

    As the Canary’s Glen Black detailed in September, a migrant solidarity group had estimated the cost of the barge at £560k in just four weeks. However, new information obtained by investigative group Corporate Watch has revealed the Bibby Stockholm’s bill to be much higher in total, revealing the weekly cost at nearly £300k. Which means that the government squandered £2.2m while the barge remained vacant due to legionella.

    Yet, as i News has reported, the Home Office is withholding the true cost of the asylum barge. It refused an FOI request made by the Liberal Democrats.

    Given all this, and the sheer callousness of the Home Office’s plan, campaigners have kept up the heat. Since the government announced its asylum barge, protests have sprung up against the barge from Cornwall and Dorset all the way to Liverpool.

    High Court dismisses local resident’s legal challenge

    On Tuesday 10 October, one Portland resident also took Braverman and the Home Office to court. Portland town councillor and Mayor Carralyn Parkes issued the challenge in a private capacity. She did so after Dorset Council decided against taking legal action over the barge.

    Parkes crowdfunded for the judicial review. Nearly a thousand people donated to her fundraiser, which quickly met its £25k target.

    On the day of the case, protesters from Stand Up to Racism turned out in solidarity outside the High Court. Parkes spoke to the crowd before entering. She lamented to the protesters that she had tried to speak out against the barge “on the grounds of humanity” but it had not been enough to stop the government’s immoral plans. Instead then, she hoped she might be able to stop them on the grounds of planning permission.

    Specifically, Parkes’ case revolved around the Home Office’s failure to seek planning permission from the local council. In a statement in advance of the hearing, Parkes said that:

    If the Home Office had applied for planning permission, they would have had to consult with local people – but we never got the right to have our say.

    I believe that planning permission would have been refused.

    However, the government’s lawyers argued that the local planning authority did not think planning permission was necessary. In particular, Dorset Council had taken the view that since the barge operated below the mean low water mark, this would place the Bibby Stockholm outside its jurisdiction.

    Parkes’ legal team disputed this. As the Canary’s Steve Topple previously explained, they argued that:

    1. Idea of a ‘low water mark’ as a boundary for planning permission should be “interpreted flexibly”. Parkes argues that in this instance, the Bibby Stockholm is in the local planning authority’s jurisdiction as it’s in the harbour.
    2. The Bibby Stockholm is attached to the land for electricity, sewage, and so on. Therefore, it is “effectively a permanent structure” like a pier, so does fall under planning rules.

    Despite this, on 11 October, the High Court rejected these as grounds for a judicial review.

    ‘Racial segregation’

    Moreover, part of the case focused on what the lawyers argued amounted to “racial segregation”. In a press release ahead of the challenge, Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors stated that the Equality Impact Assessment:

    conducted only days before the barge’s use commenced, is woefully inadequate as it fails to consider the impact of the barge’s operation in radicalising far-right extremism and in segregating rather than integrating asylum seekers.

    Of course, this is exactly the purpose of Braverman’s racist asylum accommodation project. As the Canary’s Afroze Fatima Zaidi wrote in September:

    Current policy regarding asylum in the UK is an extension of the ‘hostile environment’ introduced by former PM and home secretary Theresa May.

    In other words, the Bibby Stockholm sits among the government’s portfolio of racist plans designed to position the UK as unwelcoming to refugees.

    Predictably also, the barge has indeed served as a focal point in drawing out far-right fascist groups like Patriotic Alternative.

    In effect, the Bibby Stockholm embodies the government’s hostile rhetoric, which seeks to sever asylum seekers’ connection with the surrounding community and support groups.

    ‘Remote’ and ‘monstrous’ location

    And a barge in Portland harbour is the perfect place to do this. Speaking to the protesters outside the High Court, Parkes also remarked on the remoteness of the location for housing asylum seekers. She explained that Portland port:

    is a secure area – you can’t easily come in and out of it.

    As a result, she argued that:

    The whole idea of holding human beings on a barge in such a location is so monstrous

    Specifically, Portland is an island tied to the Dorset coastline by a singular access road. Between 2015 and 2017, the island was also host to the Verne immigration removal centre. A local detention centre visitor group, and even the prison inspectorate, had raised concerns about the inaccessibility of the site. Notably, the inspectorate said that:

    the remoteness of The Verne made visits very difficult for many families.

    As Open Democracy reported in 2015, the inspectorate’s survey:

    revealed that just 19 per cent of detainees had been visited by family or friends, compared with an average of 43 per cent for other immigration detention centres. Only a quarter of lawyers had managed to visit their clients.

    The site where the government has moored the barge is therefore extremely isolated.

    Back to the Bibby Stockholm

    Parkes’s loss in the High Court came as the Home Office announced it would be returning asylum seekers to the barge. The department gave notice via letter that it would move asylum seekers onto the Bibby Stockholm on a “no-choice basis” on 19 October.

    Countering the government’s hostile environment rhetoric, in August, Parkes said that:

    human beings belong in communities and need to be cared for in communities, not on barges

    Moreover, protesters have vowed to continue to fight the Home Office’s cruel asylum plans.

     

    Braverman may have fought off this legal challenge, but she won’t stop people across the UK from welcoming asylum seekers into their communities. The people seeking safety whom this callous government is forcing onto the Bibby Stockholm will be no exception.

    Feature image via Ashley Smith/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The media reports on DWP plans for more cost of living payments are probably nonsense

    Some media outlets are reporting that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has said it is reviewing whether or not to give claimants more cost of living payments. It comes as the next batch of money is due to drop into some people’s banks from 31 October. However, the reports should not be taken at face value – as the government is in the midst of a clampdown on benefit claimants.

    When is the next cost of living payment?

    The DWP has been paying some claimants cost of living payments. Overall, it’s giving people £900, split into three payments. It paid the first one in April. People will start getting the second payment of £300 from 31 October. Then, a third payment of £300 will be made in spring 2024. However, the DWP is not giving them to everyone.

    Many Universal Credit claimants will get the money. However, if you only claim one of the following benefits, you will not get the cost of living payment:

    In April, as the Canary previously calculated, this meant around 1.6 million people on benefits were not entitled to the first cost of living payment. This included many chronically ill and disabled people.

    Now, some media is reporting that the DWP is considering more cost of living payments.

    Media reports another round of DWP support might be coming

    Birmingham Live reported on Monday 9 October:

    DWP looking at more cost of living payments as November announcement expected

    The Government review will decide whether extra support is needed as householders face a winter of rising costs

    It also said:

    More cost of living payments could be announced to help hard-pressed households if a Government review decides there is a desperate need for additional support. The Department for Work and Pensions says it is assessing its current package of measures to see whether further cash sums should be rolled out.

    netmums ran a similar story on Thursday 12 October. It noted that:

    Guy Opperman, Minister for Employment at the DWP, said we should expect an announcement on any future cost of living payments in the Autumn Statement which is being held on 22 November, 2023.

    Mr Opperman said: ‘Obviously there is an Autumn Statement in November which would be the clear time for decisions to be telegraphed, if not decisions made.’

    However, both these stories should be approached with caution.

    A large pinch of salt needed

    Birmingham Live and netmums are basing the potential for more cost of living payments on a Westminster Hall parliamentary debate from 4 September. This is where MPs discuss an issue away from the House of Commons. During this debate, minister for disabled people Tom Pursglove said:

    There is ongoing work to review the cost of living payments that the Government have made available in the current climate. I anticipate that the results will come forward over the autumn and inform future decisions that we make. We continue to have conversations with the Treasury about the support that we provide.

    This in no way means the government will roll out further cost of living payments. In fact, the DWP is already considering cutting people’s benefits in real terms in 2024. Plus, as Disability News Service (DNS) reported, the Conservative Party conference was a platform for ministers to:

    ramp up rhetoric that blames disabled people on out-of-work benefits for the country’s economic problems

    Given the current government has a clear agenda of targeting benefit claimants, the idea that it will given them another round of cost of living payments is fanciful at best. So, take any news reports of this with a larger-than-average pinch of salt, as it’s unlikely any new support for people already impoverished will be arriving soon.

    Feature image via SteveAllenPhoto999 – Envato Elements, UK government – Wikimedia, and UK government – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Glittery Keir Starmer declaring Labour’s democratic credentials is a dazzling display of irony

    An activist interrupted the start of Keir Starmer’s keynote speech on Tuesday 10 October, the penultimate day of the Labour Party’s annual conference.

    The activist showered biodegradable glitter on the shocked Labour leader while shouting:

    True democracy is citizen-led. Politics needs an update. We demand a people’s house – we are in crisis.

    The demands came from the new non-violent direct action group People Demand Democracy. A spin-off from Just Stop Oil, the group’s website draws links between the multiple crises hammering the UK electorate. It states:

    Crises such as cost of living and climate are related. Their roots lie in the question of power: who has it and who doesn’t. Our democracies are incomplete, undermined and broken. Those that have wealth and power have done that to prevent us, the people, from actually being in charge. If we want to deal with any of the crises we face, we will have to upgrade our democracy.

    The group are calling for the two main political parties to embrace a proportional voting system and implement a permanent citizen’s assembly. Only Starmer’s Labour wouldn’t know democracy if it hit the party in the face like a glitter bomb.

    Labour Party’s glaring democratic hypocrisy

    After security forced the protester off stage, a bedazzled Starmer declared to the room:

    If he thinks that bothers me, he doesn’t know me. Protest not power; that’s why we changed our party, conference.

    Of course, the conference floor and the corporate media ate it up. And almost as quickly as Starmer brushed off the glitter along with the protesters demands, the Mirror had penned a nauseating puff piece opining in its headline that:

    Glitter protest against Keir Starmer only reveals leader fit to form next Government

    Cue some well-deserved eye-rolling. Ultimately, this take from the Mirror labours under the assumption that a politician’s ability to not lose face in front of an audience during a public protest enshrines them with some innate leadership quality. Instead, his quick dismissal should be seen in the context of the leadership’s consistent failure to engage with campaigners.

    Because tellingly, it isn’t the first time the Labour leader has ignored activists. During the 2021 party conference, Starmer blanked a Green New Deal activist (and Labour party member, no less), as he approached to discuss Labour’s climate policies. A politician unwilling to listen to a vital part of its membership and electorate is no leader.

    Incidentally, Bristol MP and shadow secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport Thangam Debbonaire has also snubbed Green New Deal protesters at this year’s conference in much the same way:

    Moreover, it’s hard to divorce these reactions from the party’s position on protest at large. In June, Labour leadership refused to get behind a fatal motion to put a stop to the Tories’ repressive Public Order Bill. It has also stated that if it wins a general election, it won’t repeal any of the Conservatives’ anti-protest legislation.

    So it’s plain to see that Labour is no party of the people –  it’s a party of the rich and powerful capitalist class.

    Pantomime of internal democracy

    Given the Labour leader’s rousing proclamation, you could almost be forgiven for thinking the party has been a shimmering beacon of democracy since Starmer took the helm. Of course, you’d be palpably wrong. As the Canary has previously documented, the party has purged left-wing members and curtailed Constituency Labour Party (CLP) debates.

    Funny, too, that Starmer could champion his party’s commitment to democracy with a straight face when, as the Canary’s Steve Topple reported on Monday, the party were:

    trying to remove the voting rights of minoritised officers in constituency parties

    Moreover, People Demand Democracy has pointed out that Labour members and multiple Unions overwhelmingly voted for proportional representation at the previous annual conference in 2022. But since the motion was non-binding, Labour’s leadership shunned the result.

    It similarly looks set to do so to a motion tabled by Unite’s Sharon Graham. On Monday, conference voted through a proposal to nationalise the energy industry and the railway system. Despite the support for public ownership, however, shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told the BBC:

    We’re not going to nationalise the energy system.

    So it looks like the protester who transformed Starmer into a knock-off panto villain might have had a point. Evidently, when it comes to Labour’s internal democracy, it might as well be pantomime.

    Sponsored by corporate criminals Inc

    What’s more, the Labour party conference highlighted, once again, that the UK itself is a sham of a democracy. Come the next election, voters realistically have the choice between two parties that are firmly in the pocket of big business.

    Naturally, corporate lobbyists and industry bodies peppered the Labour fringe. Cadent Gas flogged hydrogen – a fossil fuel industry-favourite climate ‘solution’ – to a room of delegates. It also led an event at the Conservatives annual conference.

    Meanwhile, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) was another industry lobbyist playing the field at both major conferences. The body boasts a buffet of big polluters among its leadership and overall members.

    And Amazon – hardly a paragon of workers’ rights – sponsored multiple events at this year’s conference. Fortunately, GMB members were on hand to highlight the rank hypocrisy:

    A leader with the ‘integrity’ to screw over everyone

    Yet the presence of ecocidal and human rights violating corporations should come as no surprise either. As Topple reported for the Canary in August, Starmer’s Labour has shafted everyone, bar its rich backers.

    Its abandonment of marginalised communities and the planet has only continued apace. At a fringe event hosted by a fossil fuel industry lobby, shadow decarbonisation minister Sarah Jones poured cold water on the possibility that Labour could revoke the climate-disastrous Rosebank oil field. Meanwhile, the Labour leader once again threw trans people under the bus with his response to Sunak’s latest transphobic tirade at the Conservative conference.

    With no ounce of irony, in a speech to conference, shadow secretary for energy security and net zero Ed Miliband lauded the Labour leader for his “integrity” and “decency”. This about a man who has repeatedly reneged on campaign promises and screwed over multiple marginalised communities in the process? It’d be hilarious if the impacts of Labour’s about-turns weren’t so dangerous to so many.

    Ultimately, Starmer’s bluff should not fool anyone. Regardless, under an undemocratic electoral system, he’ll still win power. So long as he keeps his capitalist chums rolling in it, they’ll fund the party’s sweep to victory in 2024.

    One thing’s for sure: a UK under Starmer’s Labour won’t be “citizen-led” – it’ll be corporate bought and paid for.

     

    Feature image via Channel 4 News/Youtube screengrab

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The NHS is still ignoring cries for help from the family of a woman with severe ME

    The family of a woman from Sussex living with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) has said the NHS still hasn’t responded to their pleas for help, weeks after they contacted it. Karen Gordon is bedbound at home with what the family says is “life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition”. Yet despite this, as well as a petition and media attention, the NHS is failing to act to save her.

    Karen Gordon: living with ME since she was 10

    Karen has lived with severe ME for nearly 20 years. It is a chronic systemic neuroimmune disease not dissimilar to Long Covid. You can read more about ME and its symptoms here. Around 25% of people living with the disease are classed as ‘severe’ or ‘very severe’. These people are generally, if not permanently, bedbound; they’re often unable to eat solid food, and sometimes barely able to communicate.

    This is what Karen’s life is like. As a petition her family set up for her notes:

    Karen is totally bed bound and cannot eat or drink.

    The ME causes many symptoms including generalised pain, abdominal pain, headache, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli including, light and noise. She has to keep her eyes covered…

    Karen has had ME since she was 10 years old. She has been tube fed for 19 years mostly at home. In the last two years her ME health has become worse, causing more severe nausea and vomiting and severe abdominal pain leading to more feeding and nutritional difficulties.

    Medical professionals generally think there is no known cure for ME. Around 6% of patients have recovered from the disease – but otherwise, doctors often leave people without adequate support or care – actively making their condition worse. This is what Karen is currently experiencing. However, the NHS has repeatedly failed her.

    The NHS: worsening Karen’s situation

    As the Canary previously reported, Karen has repeatedly had to go into hospital because she cannot eat or drink. However, the Conquest Hospital in St Leonard’s-on-Sea has been making this increasingly impossible for Karen. Due to her ME causing extreme hypersensitivity to noise, she needs a side room when she’s an in-patient. The hospital stopped providing this – but did agree that she could be tube-fed at home.

    However, the Conquest Hospital said it could not do this. Bosses told Karen she would have to travel 100 miles to the St Mark’s hospital in London which could arrange it. Again, her ME would make the journey impossible, so Karen said she couldn’t do that either.

    So, the hospital refused to help Karen and discharged her. Her family then started a petition, begging people to support Karen and them. On 14 September, her family noted that:

    Two tests in the last month have shown that Karen is dehydrated. But she has not even been given a few days of I/V fluid at home to help her during this time by the Urgent Community Response / Virtual Ward teams.

    They believe she is:

    suffering from life threatening dehydration and malnutrition. She has lost a lot of weight. She is getting thinner and thinner. Karen is scared that she is going to die from dehydration and malnutrition. Karen does not want to die.

    Karen needs the East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust to provide I/V feeding (TPN) and I/V fluid at home without delay.

    In response to a Canary article on Karen’s plight, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust which runs the Conquest Hospital said on 20 September it will:

    continue to work to provide care that will deliver the best outcome for our patient.

    However, we now know this hasn’t been the case.

    Not an isolated case for people with ME

    Karen’s family updated her petition on 9 October. They said:

    It has been two weeks since we contacted Joe Chadwick-Bell, CEO of East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, about Karen’s life-threatening malnutrition and dehydration and about the hospitals not meeting the needs that Karen has because of her very severe M.E. We still have not had a response to our concerns and our request for urgent action.

    Karen is continuing to struggle and is still getting thinner and thinner.

    To sum up, the Conquest Hospital is doing nothing. This is despite the petition getting nearly 9,000 signatures and media coverage of Karen’s dire situation.

    This lack of action and care from the NHS is not an isolated case in terms of ME. The Canary has documented several women who it has treated in a similar way. Moreover, at least anecdotally, people living with ME will tell you that neglect and failure is par for the course when dealing with the NHS.

    Karen’s situation in Sussex is extremely concerning – and she needs immediate support to get the NHS to listen. Long term, however, a sea change is needed so the health service never leaves people with ME in these kinds of situations again. When that change will happen, and where it will come from, remains to be seen.

    Featured image via Karen Gordon’s family

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Corporate presence at party conference shows Labour is no climate justice champion

    Another conference, more politicians half-assing it on the climate crisis. This year, the Conservative and Labour Party conferences were jam-packed with discussions on climate. Between the two, the Labour Party came out clearly ahead on its climate pledges – but that’s only because the Tory Party’s plans are just that abysmal.

    Labour boasted how it is “on the side of the British people”. However, the climate-wrecking corporate bodies flooding the Labour fringe events told a different story.

    Climate pledges at the Labour Party conference

    At first glance, Labour’s climate plans appeared to offer a greener alternative to the Tories’ recent lurch towards borderline climate denialism.

    Helena Bennett, head of climate policy group Green Alliance UK, noted the huge number of climate-focused events:

    Though, as the Canary previously pointed out about the Tory party conference agenda awash in net zero talks – this doesn’t necessarily translate into concrete climate action.

    Even so, the leadership’s climate focus scored some points among Labour conference-goers and climate Twitter alike:

    Shadow secretary for energy security and net zero Ed Miliband also laid out the party’s vision for tackling the crisis:

    The Guardian’s Helena Horton remarked on Labour’s break from the Tory party’s hostility to onshore wind and solar:

    Labour conference falls short on meaningful climate action

    Yet despite the supposed climate pledge fanfare, some members of the climate Twitter community weren’t wholly won over.

    Non-profit War on Want criticised the party’s fixation on nascent climate technologies:

    Moreover, the charity underscored that these particular solutions often come with a heavy ecological and social price-tag:

    Meanwhile, Greenpeace’s head of politics Rebecca Newsom decried the party’s failure to make the rich pay up for the green transition:

    But then, Starmer’s corporate-suck-up Labour Party was hardly going to bite the hand that feeds it millions in donations.

    Climate-wrecking corporate sponsors

    Naturally then, the Tories weren’t the only party pandering to big polluters this conference season.

    Campaign group Green New Deal Rising interrupted a talk by oil and gas industry lobby body Offshore Energies UK (OEUK). OEUK represents a membership teeming in fossil fuel companies and contractors. Naturally, this includes oil majors such as BP, Chevron, Exxonmobil, and Equinor.

    At the end of September, OEUK chief executive David Whitehouse called for “more projects like Rosebank” – the climate-wrecking oil and gas field project. So the protesters took them to task at the Labour fringe event:

    Spurning the protesters demands, shadow decarbonisation minister Sarah Jones said at the event that:

    We’re not going to unpick the decisions that are made now, because that wouldn’t be fair on industry

    Climate site Desmog has also identified that some of the same industry lobbyists were schmoozing attendees at both party conferences. For example, this included the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. The lobbying body boasts bigwigs in the oil and gas industry among its leadership and general membership.

    As the Canary has previously pointed out, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a climate ‘solution’ favoured by fossil fuel companies. This is because CCS lends the industry a lifeline to continue their destructive business-as-usual. It figures that the industry is hedging its bets by sponsoring events at both party conferences.

    When it comes down to it then, Labour is a far cry from climate justice champion. Instead, its corporate connections confound its climate ambitions. Ultimately, the party will readily throw working class and/or minoritised communities – and the planet – under the bus. The only difference is that this bus might be electric.

    Feature image via Guardian News/Youtube screengrab

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Palestine Action issues rallying cry for people to target 50 companies complicit in Israel’s apartheid

    As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, in the UK direct action group Palestine Action is calling for people to mobilise against British companies complicit in the Israel’s apartheid and carnage against the Palestinian people.

    Palestine Action: a history of direct action

    For years, Palestine Action has been taking direct action against British companies that supply weapons, or components of them, to the Israeli state. For example, in September 2022 the group shut down UAV Engines Ltd, which is owned by Elbit Systems. UAV specialises in making engines for combat drones. Palestine Action said that:

    Elbit openly market these as ‘battle-tested’ on the Palestinian population. The Hermes 450 aircraft has been used to surveil and attack the people of Gaza for over a decade, decimating thousands of lives.

    This is despite attempts by the company, and the government, to deny that the Israeli military uses UAV Engines’ products. However, an Information Commission Office investigation revealed that UAV Engines holds a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the Israeli military, stopping it from saying it supplies to them.

    In September 2022, cops arrested ten activists who were protesting against UAV. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) eventually charged two of them. However, a judge acquitted them, agreeing that Palestine Action’s tactics in this case were proportionate compared to what UAV’s products would end up doing to Palestinian people.

    Elbit Systems: a legitimate UK target

    This is just one example of how Palestine Action actively resists the Israeli apartheid. The group’s main target has always been Elbit Systems. It’s an Israeli weapons company that works out of the UK. As Palestine Action said in a press release, its:

    main target has hitherto been Elbit Systems and their affiliates. Elbit Systems are a mainstay of the occupation and its aggression: manufacturers of 85% of Israel’s drone fleet – without which these assaults on Gaza would be much limited, sole supplier of its small-calibre ammunition, and responsible for producing a range of ‘battle tested’ munitions, high-explosive rounds, and mortar bombs.

    The group has been relentless in targeting the company:

    Elbit have seen their British operations undermined continually for the past three years, with Palestine Action having refused to allow them a quiet moment. We have shut down two of their factories and cost them hundreds-of-millions in now-voided Ministry of Defence contracts.

    Now, amid the chaos unfolding in Gaza and the Occupied Territories, it’s calling on people to mobilise further.

    Working underground

    Palestine Action has created a list of 50 companies that it intends to target in the UK. They are organisations that the group says are “complicit in Elbit’s murderous arms trade”. It has created a website where people can find out where these companies are based. You can view the website here.

    It said in a press release that:

    We acknowledge that no company can operate in isolation. Elbit relies on a broad, complex supply chain and each facilitator of its crimes against the Palestinians plays their own part in the bloodshed – from office suppliers to logistics, landlords to recruiters. These companies willingly partner with, and profit on the back of, Elbit Systems and its business of bloodshed. By enabling this company to operate in Britain, their partners are accountable for the cruelty and suffering conducted with Elbit weaponry. Murderous drone strikes in Gaza, imperialist border-security operations in the US, EU, and Britain, and weapons exports to regimes including Myanmar and Azerbaijan: these are the activities enabled when companies align themselves with Elbit Systems.

    On top of this broadening of target companies, the group has also launched a new initiative. It’s encouraging people to set up their own, “autonomous” groups. Palestine Action has created the “Underground Manual”, where it explains how to set up your own group and how to take direct action. You can read the manual here as a pdf.

    ‘Direct action’ against ‘any friends’ of Israeli apartheid

    Palestine Action summed up its new initiatives by saying:

    For those of us in Britain, the US, EU, and elsewhere, we have the privilege, and it could be said the obligation, of taking direct action against Israel’s weapons factories. These factories are placed in companies allied with the occupation regime, with both the host country and Israel profiting from the production of weaponry either bound for, or developed upon, Israel’s genocidal occupation.

    Listed companies include the likes of Kuehne + Nagel, providers of shipping services for Elbit; Fisher German, property managers for Elbit’s UAV Engines factory in Shenstone; ADS Group, an arms industry body of which Elbit is a member, and similar such participants in their criminal enterprise. Targets will remain on the list until they make a public statement announcing they have permanently cut all ties with Elbit. Until that point, direct action will continue against any and all friends of apartheid.

    The group’s latest pushback against companies complicit in Israel’s apartheid is probably going to cause uproar from some people. The state will likely clamp down hard on the group – given, for example, it’s now talking of restricting people’s right to wave the Palestinian flag.

    However, whatever the UK authorities do to people taking direct action, it pales in comparison to the horror the apartheid Israeli state has been, and continues to, mete out against Palestinians.

    If you would like any further information on Palestine Action, please contact info[at]palestineaction.org

    Featured image via Palestine Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Brighton University’s management sink to new lows with union busting of the UCU

    Nationwide, workers across higher education are now divided as to whether to take strike action over pay and working conditions. In September, 42 universities saw staff walk out – but many more decided not to take action. Unfortunately, at the University of Brighton management has decided to escalate their action against University and College Union (UCU) members as the indefinite strike enters its 15th week.

    Union busting at Brighton University

    On 22 September, an open letter from the Brighton University’s director of people Julie Fryatt stated that the senior management team (SMT) has become increasingly concerned about the behaviour of UCU members during pickets. Fryatt alleged these behaviours included:

    blocking of the highway, forcing colleagues and students in their cars to stop until they open their windows to speak to pickets, and banging on cars.

    In a follow-up email to staff, professor Andrew Lloyd confirmed that the university sent a “letter of claim” to the UCU. It said this was the “first step in seeking an injunction to enforce legal picketing” by no longer allowing staff members to picket on university grounds.

    In addition, due to these accusations against UCU members, the SMT is now investigating four of Brighton’s UCU reps (with no specific charges). They could face potential disciplinary action. The group includes the Brighton branch UCU chair Mark Abel. He told Canary:

    There is no evidence for these allegations. They are doing this because they do not like the strike. Picking on four UCU picket supervisors and union representatives amounts to trade union victimisation. SMT argue that we have breached ‘reasonable management instruction’ yet fails to recognise that ‘reasonable management instruction’ does not apply to us in a trade union capacity. If they did apply, we would never be able to act against management as we would always be under their control. 

     Regarding the ongoing dispute against the 22 compulsory redundancies, Abel stated:

    It is the duty of the employer to reduce the number of compulsory redundancies. What UCU expected to happen is a discussion between the union and management about the redundancies and trying to reduce the number. People have left the university independently (e.g. resignations), and management could have used those savings to mitigate the compulsory redundancies before the deadline at the end of this month.

    UCU knows that resignations happened after the selection process, and the SMT are refusing to consider how this shifts the numbers and is thus not complying with a legal requirement on their part. 

    These emails attacking the UCU have not gone down well with staff. Some UCU members have been striking for the first time in opposition to this attack. Brighton University’s SMT seems to wish to spend its time and energy teaching UCU a lesson. Yet in the everyday running of the university, students face the brunt of these actions.

    Student impact ‘will be minimal’

    Chelsea Reinschmidt is a deaf international student. Brighton University recently told them they would have to drop out of their course because it could not provide them with a British Sign Language (BSL) Interpreter.

    The university assured Chelsea in the leadup to coming to Brighton that it would not have accepted them onto the course if it could not support them. However, it then backtracked. The university said it would not be able to support Chelsea anymore. It claimed this was due to high costs and changing timetables (meaning interpreters were cancelled). 

    Initially, Chelsea agreed to fund BSL interpreters through their student funding. However, the university stated that because there were no alternative avenues to provide funding for an interpreter, unless Chelsea could pay the estimated £100,000 themselves, it would be impossible for them to properly engage with the course and achieve the grades needed for their progression.

    Now out of pocket financially due to visas and travel expenses to get to Brighton, and as Chelsea is on a student visa with no course to take, they must return to the US. Heartbroken over their situation, Chelsea told Canary: 

    I came here from New York excited to start my journey in Occupational Therapy (OT). I had lived a lifetime of experience relevant to the course, I was well-positioned to succeed. I was full of hope for my new life and what I could do, particularly in the NHS which is in dire need of specialist OT’s right now. I really believed in the power of OT.

    When that opportunity was stolen from me due to albelism and audism, I was crushed.

    It’s the university’s responsibility to make the course accessible to its students. It is not my responsibility to figure out how they will accommodate [me]. But at every twist and turn, Brighton University kept putting the burden on me, acting like I was supposed to supply my own interpreters for their course, and they actually thought it was reasonable and equal for me to give them £100,000 for this purpose. I asked every student in my cohort if they had £100,000 to give the university if it meant them being on the course. Every single person said no. 

    I am one person; they are an institution. It is very clear that no deaf person is accessing this course now or in the near future for OT, and this is the field that directly serves Deaf and Disabled people. Any way you want to dress it up, it is discrimination, plain and simple. 

    While this situation is appalling, it comes as no surprise. In an attempt to run the university on the cheap, cuts to support staff mean there are not enough people to do the job properly. While there has not been a mass cut to support teams like we’ve seen with the academic redundancies, the gradual erosion of these services has still had disastrous effects.

    Continued cuts to student support

    I work as an Academic Support Worker (ASW) at Brighton University and have experienced first-hand the continued cuts to student support.

    I want to make it crystal clear from the outset that I am not criticising the service at Brighton University. My colleagues in the Disabilities and Dyslexia Department are kind and compassionate individuals who work tirelessly to support students. The SMT’s systematic underfunding of our department means that it has become increasingly difficult for us to provide specialist support to our students.

    Moreover, like academics who have not had a pay rise in line with inflation in over a decade, ASWs have suffered a substantial pay cut in the last year.

    Former ASW Alex Lee told the Canary:

    When I started as an ASW in 2022, I was given a handbook that said an ASW doing notetaking was eligible for writing up time. I agreed to take on casual notetaking sessions from September to January, but a week after taking on these sessions, the terms of my work changed.

    I was only eligible for writing up time in ambiguous and undefined ‘exceptional circumstances. This amounted to a 33% pay cut, done without consultation of ASWs or students, and no consideration of how this might impact us or the quality of our work.

    I was not surprised when they cut my pay as an ASW, but I did feel angry and disgusted about the pattern of callousness towards staff and students. Senior management did not care at all about what support disabled students wanted, didn’t care that ASWs were low paid casual staff often struggling to do PhDs on poverty-level stipends in a cost-of-living crisis.

    The whole SMT have shown that they are bureaucratic bean counters that could not care less about education and well-being.  

    Moving forward?

    It is hard to understand what the long-term plan of Brighton University’s SMT is. In my opinion, I do not think it has one.

    Since May, these continued cuts are short-term solutions to an endemic problem within UK higher education. It is understandable to blame management teams like Brighton for not prioritising staff. However, the marketisation of education is the root cause of the problem. The UK government is not putting enough money into the sector, and this marketisation has made university funding too volatile to function properly.

    We need proper government funding and not increased student debt. If this does not change soon, more cuts will inevitably come. 

    If you have a moment to sign the petition against management’s target of UCU representatives, please follow the link here. There is also a fundraiser to support staff on strike, which can be found here. 

    Featured image via Alexei Fisk

    By Kathryn Zacharek

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Latest analysis shows that the billionaires have more control of the media than ever before

    A new report has revealed the extent to which the corporate media dominates the UK’s news landscape – and the outlook for any improvement is currently bleak.

    Three companies controlling the entire press landscape

    Campaign and research group the Media Reform Coalition (MRC) has published its latest report into media ownership in the UK. It follows on from the group’s previous analysis in 2021 – and represents a worsening in some areas. As the MRC said:

    our updated findings indicate that the endemic crisis of concentrated media ownership in the UK has worsened, with even fewer companies controlling larger shares of the media landscape.

    Overall, the MRC found that three companies still control much of the print and online media landscape in the UK. These are:

    • Daily Mail Group (DMG) Media – owners of the Daily Mail and MailOnline, Metro, and the iPaper.
    • News UK – owners of the Sun and the Times.
    • Reach – owners of the Mirror and the Express.

    This trio own 90% of the UK’s national newspaper market. They also have 40% of the total audience share of the top 50 online news brands. This means that DMG, News UK, and Reach essentially control most of the corporate media in the country. On top of this, Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev owns the Evening Standard, and has the largest shareholding in the Independent.

    The situation may get even worse. As the MRC report said:

    The forthcoming auction of the Telegraph titles and Spectator magazine risks further reducing the already pitiful diversity of voices in the UK’s national press. With potential bidders including the Daily Mail General Trust and a co-owner of GB News, the sale could merely transfer ownership of these titles from one set of offshore right-wing oligarchs to another.

    Local news: not local at all

    Local news fairs no better. The MRC found that six companies control 71% of local outlets. In this, Reach (again) and a company called Newsquest own 41.5% of the 1,189 local outlets – around 494 titles. In April 2022, Reach owned the entire top 10 most-read online local news sites.

    The MRC report said of local news:

    Local journalism is in peril, as the collapse of print advertising and persistent job cuts by the largest publishing companies have deprived local communities of news made for and about them. 2.5 million people live in areas without a single local newspaper, and across print and online publishing more and more local titles are being closed or consolidated into generic ‘hub’ websites, producing little to no news in the areas they claim to cover. Despite the launch of a number of independent and hyper-local outlets, the absence of sustainable funding and support for local public interest journalism means the sector remains shackled to the commercial imperatives of a few apathetic publishing giants.

    However, not only is the entire media landscape in the UK sewn up by a few rich billionaires, but other rich billionaires control how we access this corporate news as well.

    Tech giants: controlling what we read

    The MRC found that:

    Online intermediaries (OIs) such as social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), search engines (e.g. Google, Bing), news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Apple News) and video-sharing websites (e.g. YouTube, Vimeo) play a pivotal role in how news content is distributed, curated, discovered and monetised online. 64% of the UK public regularly uses an OI to access news, and many of the most popular online sources are controlled by a handful of global ‘Big Tech’ corporations…10 of the top 15 websites, apps and platforms used to access news are owned by just three companies: Meta, Alphabet and X Corp. Across all UK users who access news online, 72% use services controlled by Meta and 71% use services owned by Alphabet.

    Staggeringly, the MRC overall found that on top of this:

    • 40% of people access news via Google or Facebook.
    • Google has over 93% of UK search engine use.
    • Three out of four internet users are active on social media sites owned by Meta (Facebook) and Alphabet (Google).

    Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, broadcast media is no different either.

    The BBC: having it all sewn up

    The MRC report found that the BBC still dominates our TVs, with it having a 31.5% monthly viewing share – ahead of:

    • ITV at 21.4%.
    • Sky at 10.9%.
    • Channel 4 at 9.6%.
    • Channel 5 at 7.3%.

    Despite its claim, the BBC is not a ‘public service broadcaster’. As the Canary has documented, the broadcaster’s news service is merely an agent of the state. The MRC report noted that:

    Although the BBC remains the dominant player across TV and radio, its founding public service mission has been undermined by licence fee freezes, political interference and a questionable strategy to find its digital future.

    So, what’s to be done?

    Corporate media’s power must be curbed

    The MRC said that:

    We want to see independent media that are able to hold power to account and to serve their audiences and the public in general as opposed to shareholders, proprietors or politicians.

    It says this should be done through robust regulation, funding for independent media, and action on the monopoly that exists in corporate media. The MRC summed up by saying:

    At a time of intensifying political instability and widening economic inequalities, we urgently need a programme of genuinely progressive reform aimed at creating a freer, fairer and more accountable media. And if we want to lay the foundations for a media system that serves and represents the full diversity of the UK population, its opinions, its communities, its constituent nations and indeed its divisions, then we need to take action now to curb media power.

    Unfortunately, given both the Tories’ and Labour’s cosiness with the corporate media, none of this is likely to happen.

    The UK’s so-called ‘democracy’ does not work – and the problems with the media are central to this. So, the MRC’s report is a crucial insight into the functioning of the corporate press and online publishers. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely you’ll read about this in the Sun, Daily Mail, or Mirror, or hear it on the BBC – which is, of course, the point.

    Featured image via gofundme – Simon Harris

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer’s Labour conference: former Tory MPs, private health companies, right-wing think tanks, and GB News

    The first few days of the Labour Party conference were a right-wing shitshow to say the least – with former Tory MPs, private healthcare companies, and right-wing think tanks as headliners. Oh, and GB News. Meanwhile, the party was removing left-wingers from the stage, and trying to block democracy at a local level.

    Buy now, pay later sponsoring Labour: an apt metaphor?

    First, it emerged that a London Labour Party regional event at the conference was sponsored by ‘buy now, pay later’ firm Zilch:

    As journalist Solomon Hughes pointed out, Zilch threw money at both the Tory and Labour conferences – presumably to buy influence within whichever one forms the next government:

    This is because the Tories have brought forward draft legislation to regulate the buy now, pay later sector. However, the Treasury has reportedly “stalled” that regulation. Funny that – when Zilch pays for a party at the Tory conference.

    Meanwhile, Labour had pledged just in September that it would bring in “consumer protection regulation” if it was elected – saying “millions [were] at risk” from “bad actors” in the buy now, pay later sector. Now, the party has exposed itself as not really caring that much – as it lets Zilch sponsor it.

    Even former Channel 4 News journalist Michael Crick spotted the problem:

    Oh well – maybe if Crick hadn’t spent the majority of 2016-2019 bad-mouthing Jeremy Corbyn he wouldn’t need to point things like this out now. Of course, the former Channel 4 News hack is a corporate journalist – so we’d expect nothing less. Speaking of corporate journalists, there were plenty of those at conference, too.

    Courting the far-right corporate media

    Labour had allowed GB News a stand:

    The alleged ‘broadcaster’ is currently under multiple investigations by regulator Ofcom – essentially for being a party political broadcaster for the Tories, and allowing hosts to spout hate speech. Of course, this is now Labour’s target audience. Why would it try and give hope to the near-third of people who didn’t vote in 2019 when it can dogwhistle at far-right voters instead?

    This shouldn’t come as a surprise, after charlatan Starmer came out recently saying he’d happily “work with”, “write for”, and “do interviews for” the Sun. What also shouldn’t come as a surprise is that elsewhere at the Labour conference, party honchos were shutting up members who were speaking left-wing views.

    Security removed a member of affiliated group the Socialist Health Association. It was after he stood on the podium and started talking about NHS privatisation:

    Admittedly, it appears the guy hadn’t been listed to speak. He’d just taken the opportunity to grab the mic. However, it’s hardly a shining example of Labour values when one of the party’s delegates is not allowed to do an impromptu speech and is removed. Ring any bells?

    All a bit Tory-esque

    The Labour conference was ringing more than just a few Tory-sounding bells. Former grim reaper at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank the Centre for Social Justice was hosting fringe events on Monday 9 October:

    This is the think tank that created the terrible Universal Credit, on the basis that poverty was poor people’s fault, and that to stop them being poor you should cut their benefits to force them to get a job. Given Labour’s current welfare policies, having a right-wing think tank which hates chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people is completely on brand.

    Then, a private, Belgium-based pharmaceutical company and its Swiss private healthcare counterpart were hosting Labour MP Jess Phillips’ unsubtle privatisation-laden rhetoric around the NHS:

    Just to complete the Tory-esque shenanigans, there was even a former Conservative MP hosting a fringe event:

    Just give it up already

    Amid all this, mainstream charities like the Trussell Trust were paying for billboards to call out Labour’s lack of plans on things like poverty:

    And the party machinery is trying to remove the voting rights of minoritised officers in constituency parties:

    So, it seems the right wing’s recapture of the Labour Party is complete. Anyone at conference who is of a left-wing persuasion should think carefully about why they’re there. If they seriously believe they can change Labour from within, then carry on – because that went so well under Corbyn. Otherwise, the last remaining socialists should evacuate the party at the earliest possible opportunity – and put their time and energy into something that might actually achieve something.

    Featured image via the Labour Party – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer has ‘drained the swamp’ in Labour, says Jeffrey Epstein’s associate

    Lord Peter Mandelson – an associate of the late international paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – has expressed his confidence in the Labour Party under Keir Starmer. His intervention has once again prompted people to share pictures of him with his criminal associate:

    As Mandelson is obviously an excellent judge of character, we should take his opinions on Starmer very, very seriously.

    Lord Mandelson – paedophile associate

    Mandelson’s association with paedophile Epstein has been known for some time. Just this year, however, a report from JPMorgan Chase suggested that Mandelson was closer to Epstein than we previously knew. As reported by the Independent:

    Labour peer Peter Mandelson’s “particularly close relationship” with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein has been detailed in a shock report by JPMorgan Chase.

    The dossier laid bare the senior political figure’s ties to the late paedophile – who was close enough to the former Labour cabinet minister to call him “Petie”.

    The report also suggests that Lord Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s New York home in June 2009 – when he was still Gordon Brown’s business secretary and the financier was serving 18 months in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

    Mandelson also allegedly called Epstein for a favour in 2009 when the infamous paedophile was in a Florida jail for committing crimes of a paedophilic nature. There’s nothing to suggest that this favour had anything to do with Epstein’s crimes, although Epstein would have been the man to ask, as he was a famously successful paedophile.

    The Independent reported that Mandelson’s spokesperson said:

    Lord Mandelson very much regrets ever having been introduced to Epstein.

    However, it’s not clear if this regret hinges on Epstein’s crimes or the increased public awareness of them, as the JPMorgan report suggests that Mandelson continued to associate with Epstein well after he was convicted of paedophilic crimes in 2008. The paper went on to report that:

    The emails also show that in January 2010 – only months after Epstein was released from prison – he set up a meeting between Lord Mandelson and Mr Staley at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

    The emails in JPMorgan’s report also show Epstein saying “Petie” was with him in Paris on two occasions after Mandelson left office, in November 2010 and January 2011.

    A spokesman for the Labour peer would not confirm or deny that he stayed at Epstein’s homes in New York and Paris.

    And Mandelson’s spokesperson added:

    This connection has been a matter of public record for some time. He never had any kind of professional or business relationship with Epstein in any form.

    It’s a strange statement in a sense, as it would arguably be better to claim the dealings were purely professional. If they weren’t professional, then that only leaves pleasure. The pleasure of associating with a paedophile.

    You have to laugh

    People had some choice words for Mandelson’s latest intervention:

    ‘A whole range of people’

    Starmer is also a man of good judgement, as the Telegraph reported in June this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer will continue receiving advice from Lord Mandelson, despite accusations he maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein

    The same article notes:

    Yesterday Sir Keir’s spokesman said there were “a whole range of people that Keir Starmer talks to” including “people who were part of the last Labour government including Peter Mandelson”.

    It is important to invite advice from “a whole range of people”. One range you can probably avoid, however, is those who associate with sex criminals and those who don’t. Just speaking to the latter should be fine. You don’t need to associate with people who associate with paedophiles – people like Peter Mandelson, associate of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

    Featured image via public interest

    By Canary Workers' Co-op

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Victoria Derbyshire just skewered Starmer’s ‘business first’ agenda

    With Laura Kuenssberg once again taking the weekend off, we were treated to a Sunday with… show hosted by Victoria Derbyshire. Her guests included one Keir Starmer – leader of the Labour Party and purveyor of a ‘business first’ political approach. In their interview, Derbyshire highlighted one of the issues with Starmer’s agenda:

    Mr. Nothing

    On the show, Starmer was shown a word cloud covering what people think he stands for:

    While it’s funny that most people think he stands for “nothing”, it really isn’t true. Starmer stands for corporate interests, and Derbyshire’s questioning helped highlight that.

    Referring to a pledge to not borrow money to fund the NHS, Derbyshire said:

    as you’ve just said this morning a number of times, ‘the way to fund the public services is through growth’. If you don’t get that growth, that means there will be no money – extra money – for public services, correct?

    Starmer – who’s looking increasingly like a wax puppet of himself – responded:

    I’m confident we can get the growth… we have worked through a plan that tells you how we’re going to get the growth; the people that we need; the skills that we need – we’ve set out a policy on skills just this morning to get the skills in the right area.

    After repeating the word ‘skills’ over and over, he highlighted:

    the partnership with business – this is crucial – this will not be state-controlled; it won’t be pure free markets – it will be a partnership with business.

    Starmer smirked when he said “this will not be state-controlled” as if the issue in Britain is that the government has too much control over its brief. For reference, you know the HS2 project in which we’re building half a stretch of railway over several decades? That’s the result of the government essentially just leaving the process up to hundreds of private companies. This is what China has achieved in considerably less time:

    Opinions will differ around HS2 and the socialist credentials of China, but one thing is certain – China’s refusal to become subservient to business interests means it can actually get things done. Copying everything China does would be a bad idea (imagine Starmer with the unfettered power of Xi Jinping), but clearly businesses shouldn’t be partners in the running of a country.

    After Starmer waffled on about the importance of business some more, Derbyshire said:

    Let me come back to my question if I may. If you don’t get that growth, that means there’ll be no extra money for public services – yes?

    Starmer once again assured her of his ‘confidence’. An exasperated Derbyshire eventually said:

    Confident? That’s like crossing your fingers.

    Starmer’s approach has problems beyond the wishy-washiness, however. Specifically, his agenda makes two key assumptions – both of which have been proven repeatedly wrong throughout history (including very recent history):

    1. Funding public services is a drain on the economy.
    2. The economy is a measure of how well the country is doing.

    Let’s look at both now.

    Are public services a drain on the economy?

    The act of de-funding public services to benefit the economy is called austerity. Austerity doesn’t work. How do we know it doesn’t work? Because whenever we implement it, it doesn’t work. As Raoul Martinez wrote for Novara Media in 2017:

    When the [2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat] Coalition came to power, neither history nor mainstream economic theory provided any support for the claim that cuts were the only way to reduce the deficit. Cutting spending in a recession has been tried many times and – without exception – failed. For instance, in the aftermath of the First World War, the US, Britain, Sweden, Germany, Japan and France all adopted austerity policies with devastating impacts on their economies. President Herbert Hoover’s austerity response to the 1929 economic crash was followed by the Great Depression.

    The historical failure of austerity as a response to economic crises resulted in a widespread consensus among academic economists that, since recessions are caused by a reduction in demand (and when there is no room to offset cuts by reducing interest rates), cutting spending only makes the situation worse. The textbook response to economic downturns, as any student of the subject knows, is to increase spending. By spending more in the short term, a government can reduce public debt faster because smart spending creates jobs, increases tax revenues and releases more people more quickly from dependency on the state.

    However, as governments began to embrace austerity, a handful of economists produced research telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.

    This is something Starmer understands too, as he said this in 2021:

    The first thing I’d say is don’t make the mistake we made in 2010 after the financial crash, which was to think that the way through this is to go for austerity and really severe cuts to public services.

    That was a complete mistake in my view, it stripped away our public services, stripped away our local authorities and what they could do, increased inequality massively.

    He also said (emphasis added):

    I think not only did that create a lot of inequality and make inequality a lot worse for people, it also didn’t allow the economy to recover and put us in a bad position for this pandemic.

    He additionally said this – showing that he knows his current arguments about economic balance are drivel:

    The old argument that you need to balance the books as quickly as possible just isn’t right anymore.

    Starmer knows that not funding services directly will be worse for the country. So, what changed? Well, for a start the amount of money coming into Labour from big business has rocketed, as reported by openDemocracy. And, as it turns out, businesses can do very well even when a country is failing.

    Does the economy measure how well a country is doing?

    If you watch, read, or listen to the news, you’ll know that ‘gross domestic product’ (GDP) is used as a measure of how well the country is doing. But does it measure how well the country is doing, or does it actually show how well the rich are doing?

    Between 2010 and 2019, GDP went up every year. Do you know what else went up?

    • Child poverty.
    • Child deprivation.
    • In-work poverty.
    • The number of foodbanks.
    • Homelessness.
    • Pensioner poverty.
    • Disability poverty.

    You know what went down?

    • Wages.
    • Disposable income.
    • Savings.

    So if the economy went up but overall poverty increased, who benefitted? The New Economics Foundation reported some startling figures on that in 2022:

    Importantly, you can see that while most people in the UK suffered through austerity, the wealthy enjoyed pretty much constant growth:

    And how much wealth do they possess exactly? Enough to solve all our current problems and then some:

    Crucially, the New Economics Foundation highlights that GDP has become increasingly detached from the material conditions of regular people:

    Starmernomics

    So, if the economy primarily benefits the rich and funding public services will boost the economy, why wouldn’t Starmer just fund them if he is indeed in the pocket of these people? Because there’s something else you need to bear in mind. The wealthy did so well under austerity because it was used as cover to transfer the public good into the hands of the private few. As Labour List wrote of a 2016 Tory budget:

    The Budget contained spending cuts amounting to £9.6bn over the life of the parliament including cuts to the most vulnerable – although Osborne was subsequently forced to perform a u-turn on disability cuts.

    At the same time the was a £3.3bn net giveaway in tax cuts for businesses. The actual content of austerity could not be clearer. It is in reality a transfer of incomes from poor to rich and from ordinary people and workers to business.

    Starmer is clearly angling for the same sort of transfer now. The economy – i.e. businesses and the rich – must come first, and once they’re satisfied, the rest of us will get a taste. It’s ‘trickle-down economics‘ essentially, but as we all know – wealth doesn’t drip down; it gushes up.

    Coming after several austerity-pushing Conservative government’s, Starmer’s mission is clearly to normalise this as the default political position. In other words, Business First Britain will be here for the foreseeable future if Labour wins the next election.

    Featured image via BBC – screengrab

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Former EHRC staffer claims the equalities watchdog is ‘colluding’ with the Tories over race and gender

    A former senior staff member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) accused the organisation of suppressing discussion on race. She made the allegation during an employment tribunal. On top of this, she also claimed that the commission is now an “agent of the Conservative government”.

    EHRC ‘colluded’ with the Tories

    Preeti Kathrecha was a senior associate of the EHRC, and race-protected characteristic lead until 2021. She is now suing the organisation for racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. In a statement she made public via a crowdfunding page, Kathrecha said the EHRC “vilified, silenced and punished” her for “speaking up about race”, and that her continued attempts to speak up about racism resulted in work-related stress.

    Kathrecha added that the EHRC was “colluding” with the Conservative Party to deny the existence of systemic and institutional racism. In particular, structural racism was downplayed in the commission’s reports on higher education, the Metropolitan Police, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

    However, she accused the organisation of partisan attitudes towards more than just race. In a statement to the employment tribunal, Kathrecha said:

    The commission, which was supposed to be independent and impartial on race and other forms of discrimination, was politicised on some areas, such as race (and, more recently, the trans debate).

    By politicised I mean that the board increasingly acted as an agent of the Conservative government and against parties or organisations which the government were opposed to, or were in conflict with, rather than impartially and independently, and in accordance with its statutory duties … It is being used as a political weapon in a cultural race war.

    The Canary has covered ongoing criticism of the watchdog’s position on trans people. This included allegations of transphobia against its chair, Kishwer Falkne,r and the EHRC’s attempts to redefine the legal definition of ‘sex’.

    Denial of institutional racism

    When she quit in 2021, the Guardian reported that Kathrecha had described the EHRC’s actions as “racial gaslighting”. She expanded on this in her tribunal statement. The Guardian reported on 1 October that, while Kathrecha had found “clear objective evidence of structural and institutional racism” during an inquiry into health and social care, the watchdog told her that there “would never be a finding made on these terms”.

    In her public statement, she added that:

    The EHRC “began to deny the existence of ‘institutional racism’ as an objective fact, and to outlaw such findings in its reports”, placing pressure on staff to do the same.

    This culture of ignoring race issues was allegedly inherent within the workplace, too. She told the tribunal that while the organisation provided “empathy, compassion and… support” for the “mostly white” female staff following Sarah Everard’s murder, it didn’t do the same for Black and Brown staff following the murder of George Floyd.

    As a result, in her 2021 resignation letter, Kathrecha wrote:

    Not only am I experiencing structural and institutional racism, I also have to try to fight it, all while the government and now the EHRC tell me that it doesn’t exist.

    Antisemitism and Islamophobia

    One particularly explosive admission by Kathrecha concerned the EHRC’s handling of antisemitism in the Labour Party. The report, published in October 2020, said it found the party under Jeremy Corbyn was guilty of “unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment” towards Jewish members.

    Kathrecha didn’t disagree with the commission’s findings. However, she said its choice to focus on this issue over others was politically motivated:

    In my claim I also comment that politics was behind the decision to investigate alleged antisemitism allegations in the Labour party but not those of Islamophobia within the Conservative party, despite there being greater evidence of the latter, nor – until after the 2019 general election – whether the Home Office unlawfully discriminated against the Windrush generation.

    We asked for a cross-party inquiry into racism within political parties but were ignored. “Although there was evidence of racism in the Labour party, it was found to be far more pervasive in the Home Office (but we ignored it) and was said to be far more pervasive in the Conservative party (but we ignored it),”.

    The EHRC dropped a planned investigation of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party in May 2020. The Tories had announced they were launching their own independent investigation of the issue, leading the EHRC to state that its own inquiry wouldn’t be proportionate.

    The Muslim Council of Britain said at the time that the move was a “facade”. When the Conservative Party published its report in May 2021, it allegedly found no evidence of institutional racism in the party.

    Not the first critic of the EHRC

    The latest allegations against the EHRC likely come as a surprise to absolutely nobody. Back in 2021, former head of the EHRC David Isaac voiced similar criticisms. Isaac, who was Falkner’s predecessor, said the government was pressuring the commission to administer its ideology.

    Meanwhile, the organisation has faced criticism for its appointment of a new disabilities lead. Disability News Service reported that Kevin Shinkwin was the second Tory peer in a row to hold the position.

    Bert Massie, who headed up the Disability Rights Commission before it was folded into the EHRC, and who then become an ENRC commissioner, said Shinkwin wasn’t the strongest candidate. As a result, Massie added, it made the appointment “look political” and described that as “a worry”.

    In February 2022, a coalition of more than 20 LGBTQ+ groups called for the EHRC to lose its ‘A status’. They claimed the body was no longer independent from the government or “fit for purpose as a National Human Rights Institution”.

    Kathrecha’s latest allegations support that claim, building the body of evidence against the watchdog. As such, the end of her tribunal on 24 October could be a major blow against the organisation.

    Featured image via Logovectorseek

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Jury delivers not guilty verdict for activist who occupied Grenfell cladding company factory

    A jury has found an activist who occupied cladding company Arconic’s offices not guilty. The company produced the cladding and insulation for Grenfell Tower. Arconic also makes parts for fighter jets Israel uses against the Palestinian people. So, the defendant’s victory was a victory not only against Arconic, but also Israel’s ongoing apartheid.

    Shutting down Arconic for Grenfell and Palestine

    On 14 June 2021, activists from campaign group Palestine Action occupied and shut down Arconic’s factory in Birmingham:

    As Palestine Action noted in a press release:

    Arconic manufactured and supplied the cladding and insulation system in the Grenfell Tower, which Fire Expert Witnesses have found “substantially to blame for the tragedy and that the panels were “the primary cause of upward vertical fire spread, downward vertical fire spread, and lateral fire spread”. 72 people were killed in the preventable fire.

    Over two days, activists began dismantling the site:

    The local community also came out in support:

    The police response was predictably violent:

    However, the fire service refused to assist the cops in removing protesters from the roof. Eventually, police arrested two activists:

    One of those activists was Sohail Sultan. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charged him with criminal damage, and his trial began on 2 October.

    Enough flag waving: direct action is needed

    On Thursday 5 October, the jury unanimously found Sultan not guilty of criminal damage against Arconic. As Palestine Action said in a press release:

    They took 3 hours and 25 minutes to deliberate on whether the action taken which cost Arconic over £500K was done to protect property in Palestine and/or in necessity to save lives.

    Specifically, on top of Arconic producing the Grenfell cladding, the company is complicit in Israel’s apartheid against the Palestinian people. Palestine Action noted:

    On top of this unsafe cladding, Arconic manufactures components and materials for Boeing Apache Helicopters and Lockheed Martin F-35 Fighter Jets. Both of these are routinely deployed by the Israeli military in aerial assaults on Gaza, including in the May 2021 bombardments which killed 230 Palestinians including 65 children. One of Arconic’s major shareholders – Elliot Investment Management – was founded by Paul Singer, who has funnelled money into Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the ‘friends of the IDF’, and anti-BDS organisations.

    During the four-day trial, Sultan said:

    It’s one thing to stand on the ground, wave a flag and hope it makes the news, it’s another to stand on a roof and stop the production of F-35 fighter jets that kill innocent people.

    Clear, Sultan and his fellow activist’s motivations resonated with the jury. As Palestine Action noted:

    The not guilty verdict was reached after the jury deliberated on whether or not Sohail’s action was taken to immediately protect property in Palestine and in necessity to save lives.

    A bittersweet victory?

    Palestine Action said that the verdict was:

    A monumental victory not only for a principled actionist, but for the campaign against companies who profit from massacring people in Palestine and Grenfell. The verdict strongly suggests that the public agree it is Arconic who is guilty for their crimes in Palestine and Grenfell, not those who take action against them.

    The case follows on from a similar trial of two Palestine Action activists whom the CPS charged with obstructing the highway. It was over them blockading an Elbit Systems-owned company which makes drone parts. In their case, the judge acquitted them on the basis that their actions were proportionate.

    However, these cases contrast with a judge jailing Palestine Action activist Mike Lynch-White for over two years. He was involved in the occupation and shutting down of another drone part manufacturer that supplies Israel. So, while Sultan’s victory is to be celebrated – it’s worth remembering that not all activists standing up to oppression have been so fortunate.

    Moreover, as always, all this pales in comparison to what the people of Grenfell have been, and continue to go, through – and likewise, the Palestinian people.

    Feature image via Palestine Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Starmer managed to insult the people of both Liverpool and Ireland in just 24 hours

    Ahead of the Labour Party conference, you’d think Keir Starmer would be looking to ensure there was no additional drama prior to kickoff – given that he’s already infuriated the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and its supporters. However, the Labour leader clearly doesn’t care – as he managed to insult the people of both Liverpool and Ireland in the space of a few hours.

    As the Canary previously reported, the Labour Party has banned the use of the word “apartheid” from all its promotional material related to the conference. PSC are obviously angry, Human Rights Watch has weighed in, and trade union ASLEF has condemned Labour’s move. Not to be stopped, though, Starmer has now shown his colonialist credentials against Irish people.

    Starmer: I’ll decide what Irish people want

    In an interview with BBC News NI on Thursday 5 October, Starmer discussed Irish reunification. Specifically, regarding the question of a referendum about the issue, the Labour leader said:

    I don’t think we’re anywhere near that kind of question… It’s absolutely hypothetical. It’s not even on the horizon.

    This shouldn’t come as a surprise from the avowed ‘yoon’. Starmer previously said of Irish reunification:

    I believe in the United Kingdom and I will make the case for a United Kingdom.

    The Labour leader’s latest clumsy intervention was branded “laughable” by former Unite leadership candidate Howard Beckett noted:

    The Good Friday agreement itself is wishy-washy on the issue. As think tank the Institute for Government wrote:

    As part of the Good Friday Agreement, an explicit provision for holding a Northern Ireland border poll was made in UK law. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland”, the Secretary of State [for Northern Ireland] shall make an Order in Council enabling a border poll.

    However, the think tank noted that “it is not clear exactly what would satisfy this requirement”.

    Meanwhile, opinion polling in June found that 48% of people supported the North of Ireland remaining in the UK, while 31% supported reunification – the latter up from 14% in 2015. So, some people pointed out that Starmer could have been merely following the rules:

    However, others noted that the Labour leader’s attitude is a problem – like it’s ultimately his decision or something:

    Then, also on 5 October, Starmer threw the entire city of Liverpool under the bus, too.

    Throwing Liverpool under the bus

    The Sun has been widely boycotted in Liverpool since the Hillsborough disaster. As the Canary previously reported, this is because – at the time – the right-wing shitrag:

    accused Liverpool supporters of robbing victims, urinating on policemen and beating them up. It sought to alleviate police responsibility by blaming ordinary people. But the claims began to unravel 6 months after the front page ran, as they were entirely fabricated.

    So, you’d think any Labour leader with a shred of empathy would boycott the Sun, too – particularly given that the city will be playing host to his own party’s conference. But not Starmer. He’s previously happily written for, and spoken to it. Now, he has reconfirmed his commitment to the Sun in an ITV Granada Reports interview – saying:

    I’m very happy to work with the Sun, to write for the Sun, to do interviews for the Sun…

    The predictable onslaught followed:

    Moreover, people were pointing out that during his Labour leadership campaign, Starmer promised not to give interviews to the Sun:

    A Labour government will be no cause for celebration

    Clearly, Starmer doesn’t care about the people of Liverpool. He also clearly doesn’t care about the free will of the people of Ireland. Moreover, both these incidences and the party’s banning of the word ‘apartheid’ show that it has become a right-wing, colonialist, capitalist entity.

    Also on 5 October, Labour won the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election – taking the seat from the SNP, and seeing the Tory vote collapse in the process. Under any other circumstance, this would be celebrated as a victory for the left wing. However, Starmer’s stance on Ireland, Liverpool, and Palestine show that the party winning the by-election, and probably the general election too, is no cause for celebration. At this rate, a Labour government will be little different to the Tories.

    Featured image via ITV Granada Reports – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Campaign group Liberty is dragging Suella Braverman to court over anti-protest laws

    The High Court has announced that human rights group Liberty can take home secretary Suella Braverman to court over anti-protest laws. Liberty says that her actions were unlawful – as she pushed through changes which parliament already rejected, in what the group calls the Tories’ latest “power-grab”.

    Braverman’s draconian Public Order Act

    As the Canary previously reported, the Tories brought in the Public Order Act earlier in the year:

    The draconian Public Order Act was given royal assent on 2 May, dramatically increasing police powers to arrest protesters. The Home Office has already cited the new Act in threatening letters to anti-monarchists. The campaign group Republic received intimidating letters this week, listing the arrest powers under the new Act. Extinction Rebellion has also received similar threats.

    In fact, the Guardian reported that one ‘senior’ insider, who knew about the discussions between the police and the government, confirmed that the Act had been brought into force early, ahead of the coronation on 6 May.

    The new Public Order Act powers include penalties of a year in custody for blocking roads, railways and airports. In addition, protesters who use the tactic of locking-on could face up to six months in prison.

    However, during the passage of the law through parliament the House of Lords rejected parts of it. Specifically, it refused to sign off on Braverman reducing the threshold of what constitutes “serious disruption” caused by protesters. This is the level at which police are allowed to try and stop demonstrations.

    So, instead of accepting the House of Lords’ decision, Braverman pushed her changes through via the back door. In June, after the Public Order Act became law, the home secretary used secondary legislation to change it. This is where a minister can make changes to existing laws without having to get parliament to vote on it.

    Groundbreaking – but not in a good way

    At the time, Braverman’s move caused outrage. The cross-party House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said of her actions:

    As far as we can ascertain, this is the first time a Government has sought to make changes to the law by making those changes through secondary legislation even though those same changes had been rejected by Parliament when introduced a short while before in primary legislation. This raises a constitutional issue as to the appropriate use by Government of secondary legislation, particularly as it arises in the context of an area of law which is important and attracts controversy.

    As the Guardian reported, Labour’s home affairs spokesperson in the Lords – Vernon Coaker – said:

    It is an absolute fundamental constitutional outrage, what has actually taken place. Primary legislation was defeated. So what does the government do? It doesn’t bring forward new primary legislation; it tries to sneak through, in an underhand way, secondary legislation without proper public consultation. They undermine the workings of our parliamentary democracy and, as such, it is shocking.

    Of course, Labour’s outrage is performative – given it failed to support Green Party peer Jenny Jones’s fatal motion in the Lords which would have stopped Braverman.

    So, the home secretary’s changes are currently law. The real-world implications of this are that police now have almost free rein to stop whatever protests they like. This is because the change Braverman made means they can now stop demonstrations even if they only cause “more than minor” disruption – whatever that may mean.

    Liberty: see you in court

    However, Liberty are not having it – and the High Court has agreed. It has said the group can bring a legal challenge to Braverman’s changes. Liberty said that:

    the Home Secretary was not given the powers by Parliament to take this action, making her actions a serious overreach which violate the constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected by Parliament.

    Liberty’s interim director, Akiko Hart, said:

    This is just the latest power grab from this Government, which has shown it is determined to erode the ways people can hold it to account, whether that’s in Parliament or on the streets. The Home Secretary’s actions give the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the Government doesn’t agree with – and the way she has done it is unlawful.

    We are taking legal action to make sure those in power are not allowed to put themselves above the law. Our message to the Home Secretary is clear – see you in court.

    Katy Watts is the lawyer leading Liberty’s case. She said:

    The Home Secretary has side-lined Parliament to sneak in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the power to do so. This overrules Parliament who voted these same proposals down just a few months ago – and is a flagrant breach of the separation of powers that exist in our constitution.

    The wording of the Government’s new law is so vague that any anything deemed by police to cause ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the Home Secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.

    It’s really important the Government respects the law and that the Home Secretary’s decision is reversed immediately.

    Dwindling democracy

    Braverman’s move was hardly surprising – given that the current crop of Tories are some of the most authoritarian in recent memory. As the Canary‘s Joe Glenton previously wrote:

    Under the Tories, a range of authoritarian bills have passed into law. And they have brought with them the sense of democratic space narrowing before our eyes.

    With the Spy Cops Bill, the Policing Bill, the Overseas Operations Bill, and the Snooper’s Charter, it is evident that many of the basic rights which have been won over many years are being stripped back

    As such, if Liberty can navigate the courts to stop at least one aspect of the Tories’ current assault on all our rights, then that would be a win for everyone.

    Featured image via the Telegraph – YouTube and Liberty – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK arms exports doubled in 2022 as Britain continues to fuel global conflict and misery

    A new report by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has revealed that UK arms exports nearly doubled in 2022 to £8.5bn. This is the highest level of Single Issue Export Licences (SIELs) since records began. CAAT said its report should be a moment for political parties to reflect on Britain’s role in fuelling global conflict – however, the Labour Party is unlikely to heed CAAT’s concerns.

    UK arms exports: dealing in repression and violence

    In 2022, the number of people killed globally in war or conflict reached a 28-year high, at 237,000 people. The UK government plays a role in this, as Britain supplies weapons to some of these conflicts. For example, as the Guardian reported:

    At least 87 civilians were killed by airstrikes from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen using weapons supplied by the UK and US between January 2021 and February 2022

    Now, CAAT has released its latest report into UK arms exports – and it makes for grim reading. You can read the full report by downloading it here. The group said in a press release that, while much of the information it based the report on is publicly available, the UK government still needs to enforce:

    a greater level of transparency… to ensure companies are compelled to provide accurate data on the financial values and quantities of actual transfers.

    The report shows that the highest levels of arms exports were to countries with repressive regimes and poor human rights records. It states that:

    • The largest recipient of SIELs by value was Qatar, at £2.7 billion, mostly from the licence for the delivery of 24 Typhoon combat aircraft issued in May. Eight aircraft were delivered in 2022.
    • The second largest recipient was Saudi Arabia at £1.1billion, mostly missiles and components for bombs.

    Regarding Saudi Arabia, the report further detailed that:

    The UK supplied £1.1b worth of air-air missiles, air-surface missiles, and components for bombs to Saudi Arabia in 2022, thus replenishing its arsenal following the heavy use of such weapons in the devastating Saudi-led war in Yemen.

    Then, CAAT found that, of the larger volumes of licences:

    The next three were the USA (£860m, including large amounts of small arms), Türkiye (£424m, mostly a £250m licence for technology for tanks and armoured vehicles), and Ukraine (£401m).

    The report noted that the £401m worth of SIELs to Ukraine did not include equipment the UK government gifted to the country.

    Overall, CAAT’s report made clear where most of the UK’s SIELs allowed military equipment to be sent to: the Middle East:

    SIEL values by region

    CAAT: various concerns

    CAAT said in a press release that:

    Ukraine is also cited as a country of concern in the report due to the UK government not putting any measures in place to safeguard weapons when the conflict ends. This is in contrast to the EU and the US, both of which have additional regulatory mechanisms in place to address end user concerns in Ukraine.

    Small arms sales to the US are also highlighted as problematic due to a licence issued for 28,500 sniper rifles for a commercial end user. This raises concerns that weapons exported by the UK could contribute to gun violence, or be smuggled to Mexico and Central America where a large proportion of the guns used by criminal gangs originate from the US.

    Then, the report also looked at the UK’s major conventional weapons (MCW) dealings. These are things like aircraft, missiles, and ships – but not small arms and light weapons like guns or bullets. CAAT found that:

    • The largest recipients of UK exports of MCW over 2018-22 were the USA (20.4%), Qatar (16%), Saudi Arabia (7.6%), India (6.9%), and Ukraine (6.3%).
    • Of the rest, 14.9% were to other Asia Pacific countries, 10.6% to other countries in Europe, 10.2% to South America, 7.0% to others in the Middle East, and 0.2% to Africa.

    Britain: complicit in ‘appalling human rights violations’

    CAAT’s media coordinator and former Canary editor Emily Apple stated:

    The Annual Report gives a clear picture of how the UK is complicit in fuelling conflict around the world. Billions of pounds of arms are exported to dictatorial, or near-dictatorial regimes that commit appalling human rights violations with a disturbing lack of transparency.

    As we move closer towards a general election, it is vital that all political parties take CAAT’s recommendations seriously and commit to taking urgent action over these deadly sales.

    Of course, the general election will make little difference to the UK’s fuelling of conflict around the world. The Labour Party under Keir Starmer is now as militaristic as the Tories are. So, while CAAT’s report is crucial, whether or not it will make a difference to UK policy remains to be seen.

    Featured image via Flickr/Alisdare Hickson, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY 2.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Labour Party conference is already shaming itself – and it hasn’t even started yet

    The Labour Party conference is happening in Liverpool from 8 to 11 October. You’d be forgiven for thinking that after the Tories’ disastrous annual gathering, Keir Starmer’s party couldn’t make conference season any worse. But ‘hold my pint’, the Labour Party has decided to say – it’s already caused outrage before the conference has even begun.

    Labour conference: don’t mention apartheid

    Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has kicked off about Labour putting restrictions on a fringe meeting it’s organised at the conference. On Tuesday 10 October the group is holding a meeting called ‘Justice for Palestine: End Apartheid’. However, the Labour Party is not happy about it.

    PSC said in a press release that party honchos have taken the decision:

    not to allow PSC to use the word apartheid to describe their annual conference stall or fringe meeting in Labour printed or online brochures. When asked for a justification of its decision, the leader Kier Starmer’s office said Labour would not publish content that “…we believe to be detrimental to the party”.

    Now, the Israeli state committing apartheid against the Palestinian people is not something that PSC alone is claiming. The groups Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem have all stated that what is happening is apartheid. As PSC noted in its press release, at its fringe event on 10 October:

    The keynote speaker will be Saleh Hijazi, Apartheid Free policy coordinator at the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) National committee. Saleh Hijazi was also co-author of the seminal Amnesty International report, one of several in recent years by leading human rights agencies, confirming the reality Palestinians have attested to for years – that Israel is practising apartheid.

    This is defined under the Rome Statute 1998 as “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime” – and is a crime against humanity.

    Clearly though, this dose of reality is too much for increasingly right-wing Labour Party – not that that should come as a surprise.

    ‘Airbrushing’ reality

    In February, Starmer forced Labour MP Kim Johnson to apologise to parliament because she quoted from the Amnesty report labelling Israel as an apartheid state. She also called Israel’s current far-right government “fascist”. Many people would probably agree with her – with even the BBC report on the incident noting that:

    Israel’s new government, formed after elections in November [2022], includes senior ministers from the ultranationalist far right.

    Moreover, as PSC noted:

    Israel has this year elected the most extreme far-right Government in its history, with a minister who is a self-proclaimed proud fascist. It has made overt its commitment to hugely expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, with policies which legal analysts are describing as a clear plan to annex the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.

    If this isn’t apartheid, then it’s not clear what is.

    People on X were quick to point out the awfulness of Labour’s decision to censure PSC:

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s Peace and Justice Project also weighed in to the debate:

    As did Corbyn himself:

    One user pointed out that Labour is flying in the face of its own members:

     

    Other voices have also made clear their concerns.

    ASLEF’s general secretary Mick Whelan is also a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee. He’ll be speaking at the PSC fringe meeting. Whelan said in a press release:

    You cannot tackle an injustice unless you are prepared to name it. Solidarity with Palestinians means addressing the reality of the system of apartheid under which they are forced to live.

    UK director of Human Rights Watch Yasmine Ahmed said:

    Human Rights Watch’s findings were clear: Israel is committing the crime of apartheid. Unless and until governments and political parties acknowledge the systematic and severe discrimination that Palestinians face, then claims of promoting peace will ring hollow. There can never be peace without human rights.

    As cynical as it gets

    Just as this article was being written, Israeli forces killed another two Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank. As of August, over 200 Palestinian civilians and 30 Israelis had been killed. This includes Israeli forces killing at least 34 Palestinian children.

    The disproportionate nature of the situation in the Occupied Territories and Gaza cannot be dismissed. It is clearly apartheid – and for Labour to try and deny this is as sickeningly cynical as it gets.

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • If Sunak scrapping the Northern leg of HS2 while keeping Euston was satire it would be too on-the-nose

    On 4 October, Rishi Sunak scrapped the Northern section of HS2, confirming reports that the axing was on the cards. Addressing the Conservative Party conference – which happened to be in Manchester – Sunak said HS2 would no longer run to the city.

    To add insult to injury, the PM also confirmed that the Old Oak Common to Euston leg of the high speed rail would go ahead.

    Yup, you read that right. The North gets snubbed, and London gets yet another shiny new transport link. If it were satire, I’d think it was a little too on-the-nose.

    HS2: Keeping it on the doorstep

    Back in July, the government paused construction of HS2’s Euston station for a minimum of two years. This shifted the predicted end date of the project to a (distinctly hesitant) 2042.

    Passengers would instead have to get off at the new Old Oak Common station in Acton, and change for the Elizabeth line. The Elizbeth line itself officially opened in 2022, and was a brand new feather in the cap of the South’s transport network. It connects the East and West of England – via London, of course.

    However, it appears that building a high speed train between Birmingham and London’s suburbs would be too embarrassing even for Sunak. Instead, his government are taking over construction in Euston from the wildly overbudget HS2 bosses. The PM also announced that the government had found £6.5bn in savings, and promised that:

    The management of HS2 will no longer be responsible for the Euston site. There must be some accountability for the mistakes made, for the mismanagement of this project.

    This miraculous cost-cutting measure is almost blindingly simple – if trains don’t go to Manchester, then fewer people will want to get on them. If fewer people want to get on the train, then the station doesn’t need to be as big. As such, only six of the eleven platforms from the original designs are actually going to be built. Truly exceptional logic, right there.

    Well the North has roads, doesn’t it?

    But what, you might ask, about the North? After all, HS2 was previously at the forefront of the government’s grand scheme to ‘level up’ the economy by providing better infrastructure to the North.

    HS2’s costs had almost trebled to more than an estimated £100bn from £37.5bn in 2013. That was even before taking into account recent ballooning inflation, making it one of the world’s most expensive lines. Then, back in 2021, faced with mounting costs, the government pulled the plug on the northernmost route linking Birmingham to Leeds.

    Well never fear – Sunak also announced the diversion funds for the improvement of existing transport routes up North. The government plans to spend the £36bn saved by scrapping the Manchester leg of HS2 on improving current road, bus, and rail networks.

    The PM stated:

    I am cancelling the rest of the HS2 project and in its place, we will reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands, across the country.

    Much as with the Northern sections of HS2 itself, I shall believe it when I see it.

    ‘How little he really cares’

    The Northern leg’s cancellation might just have come as cold comfort from an environmental perspective. After all, a 2020 Wildlife Trusts report showed that the line’s full route would partially or completely eliminate:

    • 108 ancient woodlands.
    • Five wildlife refuges of international importance.
    • 33 Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
    • 21 local nature reserves.

    But wait right there. The PM also announced that his government would perform major upgrades on key motorways such as the M6, serving central and Northern England.

    Greenpeace UK’s head of politics, Rebecca Newsom, highlighted that Sunak’s decision:

    to divert the money into over 70 road schemes shows how little he really cares about tackling air pollution, traffic and cutting carbon emissions.

    While investment in Midlands and Northern rail may provide better value for money, the full £36 billion… should have been redirected to public transport to truly help level up the UK, protect children’s lungs, and help cut household costs.

    Money would be spent also on faster train journeys between Manchester and other northern cities, including Bradford, Hull and Sheffield under a scheme named ‘Network North’.

    First train out of here

    So there you have it. Far from ‘levelling up’ the North, HS2 has become a lengthy debacle which fizzled out into a fast-track between Birmingham and London. As usual, money is promised to everywhere outside the capital – but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting, if I were you.

    It’s almost fitting that Britain’s only completed high-speed line is the Eurostar, bearing passengers out of London and into France. European companies own most of the UK’s rail lines anyway – it makes sense that the real money is on getting out of the country as fast as is humanly possible.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.

    Featured image via Youtube/StopHS2

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tories attack ‘woke ideology’ at party conference- though you’d be forgiven for not knowing WTF that actually means

    It’s always going to be a fun day when you wake up to see ‘woke’ trending on Twitter. On Wednesday 4 October, this was – once again – thanks to the usual suspects. The Tories staged their party conference this week, and on 3 October they officially announced as part of their platform that they plan to ‘kick woke ideology out of science’. Einstein wept.

    ‘Stop stoking a stupid culture war’

    It’s predictably hilarious – but probably also dangerous in equal measure – that there are voices on Twitter and elsewhere which unironically support such a policy. However, people who actually know something about science, and/or the term ‘woke’, reacted with anger as well as disbelief.

    Professor Christina Pagel from the Independent SAGE said in a tweet:

    And as founder of the Black Economists Network Felicia Odamtten noted:

    War on woke

    The word ‘woke’ seems to have had a steady presence at this year’s Conservative Party Conference – and home secretary Suella Braverman has especially developed a fondness for it. As PinkNews reported:

    Braverman claimed that the UK would “go properly woke” under Keir Starmer with “highly controversial ideas” like “gender ideology, white privilege, and anti-British history.”

    So wedded are the Tories to defending Braverman’s nonsense arguments that security removed senior party member Andrew Boff from the conference for criticising them. Boff, who is openly gay, called out Braverman’s comments as “transphobic and homophobic”.

    Even the senior Tory politician stated that “There’s no such thing as gender ideology”. Why, then, is the party establishment so keen on making a common enemy of the pro-LGBT ‘woke’ agenda?

    Stay woke

    Of course, this is an age-old tactic. The Tories in particular love to turn powerless groups of people – whether they’re migrants, trans people, or families on benefits – into scapegoats in order to distract from the horror that is their own governance.

    They’ve u-turned on climate pledges and allowed raw sewage to be dumped into our waterways. They’ve decimated the NHS with chronic underfunding and privatisation. They’ve consistently vilified striking workers, passing anti-strike legislation and denying the need for pay rises in line with inflation. That’s not to mention the creeping fascism they’ve introduced via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act 2023.

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If I were to list every mean-spirited, anti-working class policy of this government, I’d be here all day. What’s important is that we make clear to politicians like Braverman that we see through their divisive rhetoric.

    For a great many people, the world in general – and the UK in particular – is becoming an increasingly difficult place in which to live. We can only survive by sticking together. We need to support one another against powerful people whose primary aim is to defend the interests of the 1%. Realising this and not falling for the rhetoric of those in power is, in fact, closer to the original meaning of being ‘woke’ – which is probably why it’s become a term politicians are so afraid of.

    Featured image via Pexels / FPD images – cropped to 770 x 403 pixels

    By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Boris Johnson called Long Covid ‘bollocks’ – sadly, this was entirely predictable

    Long Covid is a post-viral illness. People develop it after contracting coronavirus (Covid-19). However, according to former prime minister Boris Johnson, the disease is “bollocks” and doesn’t even exist. The revelations have come out of the ongoing Covid Public Inquiry, and show that the government has blood on its hands for allowing so many people to contract Long Covid.

    However, just why Johnson believed this is actually fairly obvious – because people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) have experienced this dismissal of their disease for decades.

    Long Covid is ‘bollocks’, apparently

    As the Independent reported, Anthony Metzer KC is the barrister representing the groups Long Covid Kids, Long Covid SOS, and Long Covid Support. During the opening day of the second module of the Covid Inquiry, he presented on behalf of the groups – and made a staggering revelation. Metzer told the public inquiry:

    In October 2020, while the Department of Health and Social Care [DHSC] was publishing guidance on Long Covid and called for recognition and support for people with long Covid, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson scrawled in capitals that long Covid was ‘bollocks’.

    Mr Johnson has admitted in his witness statement that he didn’t believe Long Covid truly existed, dismissing it as ‘Gulf War Syndrome stuff’.

    He summed up by saying:

    The UK’s senior most decision makers were dismissing, diminishing and disbelieving the very existence and risk of Long Covid.

    However, Long Covid is very real. As the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures estimated, 1.9 million people in the UK had the disease as of 5 March 2023. Of these, 1.3 million (69%) caught coronavirus at least a year before, and 762,000 (41%) at least two years previously.

    The pandemic has exacerbated an epidemic of chronic illness. Johnson’s dismissal of the threat of the disease has helped compound a nationwide disaster. So, the reaction from people living with Long Covid and their advocates to Metzer’s revelations has been understandably angry.

    ‘Unheeded and unanswered’ warnings over Long Covid

    Long Covid SOS has been an integral part of fighting for justice for patients. A spokesperson told the Canary:

    Deep-rooted scepticism at the very top of government may explain why the millions damaged by Covid-19 have faced huge struggles to have their illness recognised and to get the care they so desperately need.

    Letters to government warning of the likely consequences of allowing the SARS-CoV-2 virus to spread unchecked went unheeded and unanswered. Appearances in front of the APPG on Coronavirus and the Health and Social Care Select Committee did not lead to any changes in policy.

    The UK Government did not appear to want to take the risk of Long Covid into account when making policy decisions on steps to manage the pandemic. The condition is now… causing the lives of so many to be radically altered, possibly permanently.

    However, Johnson’s comments and the government’s intransigence are not surprising. A spokesperson campaign group for Long Covid Advocacy told the Canary:

    It is clear from Johnson’s statement that the narrative that certain illnesses are made up is still hitting the highest levels of government. This pernicious, unjust, and factually untrue belief has condemned a tsunami of people to be abandoned to a new devastating reality of disability.

    The psychiatric agenda that has pigeon-holed Gulf War syndrome as having psychosomatic factors needs to be firmly kicked out of the park.

    Long Covid is real and it is preventable. Yet the evidence from the inquiry shows that it was not thought real enough to influence policy. This is a travesty of social justice.

    However, the most damning part of this entire catastrophe is that many people knew that Long Covid was coming – yet the government still failed to act.

    An entirely predictable epidemic of chronic illness

    Metzer noted during the Covid Inquiry session that:

    The possibility of long-term viral illness was well known…

    He went on to say that Sir Patrick Vallance, the then-government’s chief scientific advisor, knew this. Metzer continued, saying other doctors pointed to:

    lessons from previous corona[virus] pandemics, SARS and MERS, that should have been learned… It was foreseeable that there was going to be long-term sequalae from Covid-19, extrapolated from previous coronavirus pandemics, and previous knowledge of post-viral syndromes… a running thread of concern for this inquiry was that long Covid was foreseeable, so why was it not foreseen?

    Sadly, it was foreseen. However, the problem is too many people believe some physical illnesses are psychomatic, like Johnson did. Long Covid’s seriousness was wilfully ignored – as with many post-viral illnesses. A pertinent example of this is ME.

    ME and Long Covid

    As the Canary previously wrote:

    Some people refer to ME as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). It is a debilitating and poorly-treated chronic, systemic neuroimmune disease that affects every aspect of the patient’s lives. You can read more about ME symptoms here. The disease has been at the centre of various scandals for decades. These include medical professionals saying it was a psychological illness – that is, that it’s ‘all in people’s heads’.

    ME is generally a post-viral illness, like Long Covid. Like that and Gulf War syndrome, because of – yet often also in spite of – the lack of knowledge on just why people get it, many medical professionals have psychologised ME. Parallel to this you have the fact that nearly 50% of people with Long Covid meet the criteria for ME as well. So, Long Covid patients having to endure medical professionals and the state dismissing their illness was sadly predictable.

    The Canary wrote in November 2020 that:

    Long Covid patients may get a similar whitewashing of their illness as people with ME historically have.

    ME Foggy Dog is a social enterprise that works to bring about change for the ME community. Its founder Sally Callow told the Canary:

    Since the very start of the pandemic, as an ME campaigner and social entrepreneur, I have been unsuccessfully fighting for the ME community to be included by this government in their Covid-19 planning and for the DHSC to acknowledge that Covid-19 could potentially cause ME/post-viral illness.

    Now, it’s become very clear that not only did the government know all this already (Vallance), but they were deliberately choosing to ignore chronic illness as a factor and outcome of the pandemic. Johnson’s scrawled word simply demonstrates the level of ignorance within government. Long Covid is a re-run and re-branding of how ME has always been treated by governments.

    A ‘sickeningly low blow’

    The real-world consequences of all this are borne out in the lives of people living with post-viral illnesses.

    Natalie Rogers is a founding trustee of campaign group Long Covid Support. She told the Canary:

    The enduring suffering of nearly two million UK citizens whose lives have been devastated by Long Covid is the inconvenient legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic. Our paused lives sit uncomfortably at odds with the prevailing ‘living with Covid’ narrative. To learn that the uphill struggle for recognition of this debilitating condition was thwarted from the outset at the very highest levels of government is a sickeningly low blow.

    Ondine Sherwood is co-founder of Long Covid SOS, and lives with the disease. She told the Canary:

    Departmental officials and even at times ministers were receptive, understanding and gave us the impression that something would be done to improve the lives of the many people with Long Covid. We hoped that the Government would at last take the issue seriously. However it became clear that a barrier existed to progress and now we know that scepticism permeated the corridors of power

    Ultimately, Johnson’s government has helped ruin the lives of millions of people. All this comes at a time when people with ME have been dying in the UK – or left to die without NHS support.

    So, what’s to be done?

    Communities need to come together

    At the root of much of this is the psychiatric profession’s interference with, and manipulation of, physical illnesses. This practice, which has been going on for decades, will not easily be undone. Many politicians (like Johnson) clearly believe the worst, as do much of the media. Charities are often are flaccid or ineffective. As such, the ball is in the court of patients and their advocates to begin to affect change.

    However, this can only be successful when chronically ill people sing from the same hymn sheet. The first step in ending the psychologisation of post-viral illnesses is unity between patient groups. People must start working together to end this prejudice and stigma.

    Johnson’s labelling of Long Covid as “bollocks” is exceptionally upsetting for those affected, when their lives have been ruined. The ME community are acutely aware of this – as they’ve lived it for decades.  Without working together, both the Long Covid and ME communities will be consigned to further years of neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.

    Featured image via Bloomberg – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Net zero split is under the magnifying glass at the Conservative party conference

    At the Conservative party’s annual conference, talk on the green energy transition has been all the rage. The agenda is packed with over 20 fringe events discussing plans for reaching ‘net zero’. As a result, the conference has put the party’s division over the target under the spotlight.

    Net zero roll-backs

    As the Canary previously reported, the government has shelved a number of its net zero targets. The Tories slid back on their plans to phase out petrol and diesel cars in 2030. On top of this, they also watered down targets on gas boilers and home energy efficiency for private landlords.

    However, the net zero row-back has drawn intense criticism – not least from greener-leaning figures from within the Conservative party itself. At the time of the announcement, Zac Goldsmith – who resigned from his post as environment minister in June over government inaction – told the Guardian that the prime minister’s move was a “moment of shame”.

    Green energy champions at the Conservative party conference?

    This environmental rift within the Tories has only continued to grow at their party conference. At a fringe event organised by the Conservative Environment Network, Theresa May championed the net zero targets adopted under her stint as prime minister.

    As the BBC reported, May argued that the UK has the opportunity to lead “the green revolution” and stated that net zero should not be viewed as an “act of economic harm”. Evidently, May hopes to flaunt her supposed green credentials – and we’re not meant to think of this as a desperate ploy for political rehabilitation.

    Conservative MP for Waveney Peter Aldous also appeared to come out on the side of net zero:

    Meanwhile, former secretary of state for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Chris Skidmore promoted the energy transition in the context of green jobs:

    In addition, Alex Stafford spoke on net zero in a positive light at another event:

     

    An unholy anti-net zero alliance

    By contrast, the conference has thrown up a smorgasbord of anti-net zero talking heads. Right-wing mouthpiece the Spectator hosted a panel discussion asking ‘Will the public ever get on board with net zero?’

    Of course, prolific climate change denier Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke at the event:

    Of course, this talk of the outrageous cost of climate measures is a common Conservative talking point. Right-wing thinktank Civitas recently released a report calculating the cost of net zero to be many trillions of pounds. However, the group withdrew the study on 2 October after people pointed out some glaring factual errors – like estimating the cost of wind power 10,000 higher than it actually is. Why let mathematical accuracy get in the way of a good old climate delay drivel?

    Meanwhile, one MP was worried that the UK might accidentally do too much to tackle the climate crisis (spoiler: it won’t):

    Hollinrake clearly hasn’t quite got the memo that the UK is no longer a ‘climate leader’. In reality of course, it never was. The UK has ploughed ahead with fossil fuel projects at home, and outsources its consumption-based emissions to poorer countries. None of that is even to mention that it hasn’t come close to addressing its historic responsibility for the climate crisis.

    Sucking up to the fossil fuel industry

    Regardless of where politicians came out on net zero however, the conference events showed the Conservatives are firmly in the pocket of big polluters.

    Guardian environment journalist Helena Horton highlighted the gas industry sponsorship at the Spectator’s event:

    Another event was titled: ‘Can fossil fuel companies play a role in the energy transition?’. It was hosted in collaboration with (checking my notes here) oil and gas major Chevron.

    If you didn’t fancy sipping gin and tonic while musing the merits of net zero with Rees-Mogg and company, plenty of alternative climate deniers and polluters were also available:

    Yes, the same BP that scaled back its climate targets in February amidst booming profits.

    Unsurprisingly then, some Conservatives had clearly been lapping up oil and gas majors’ bullshit regarding the industry’s climate action:

    Ultimately, the conference attendees were just splitting hairs over the best way to bolster the profits of their private sector benefactors. They can dress up their green credentials with warm words on the energy transition, but when their party is greenlighting gargantuan fossil fuel projects and inviting polluters to lead the discussion, it’s all just patently hot air. Net zero or no, climate-wrecking industries will always be the biggest winners in Tory Britain.

    Feature image via Sky News/Youtube screengrab.

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Corporate media cave to legal threats and delete Dan Wooton Met investigation story

    The Guardian, the Mirror, and other corporate media outlets have published –  and then promptly deleted – the news that the Met Police is investigating Dan Wooton over alleged sexual offences. Independent outlet Byline Times originally published the story, and has so far held firm. However, the situation raises serious questions about the “toxic culture” in the corporate media.

    Dan Wooton: Byline Times investigates

    Byline Times has been investigating allegations against journalist and broadcaster Dan Wooton. He works for GB News, but was recently suspended following an on-air incident involving far-right commentator Laurence Fox. Previously, Wooton worked for the Sun and the Daily Mail – the latter only recently cancelling his contract, again over the incident with Fox.

    However, Wooton’s career has been dogged by allegations of sexual offences. As Byline Times reported:

    On 12 July, criminal claims started to emerge on social media, with posts rapidly attracting more than 18 million views. On 27 July, Byline Times started publishing a series of stories examining 40-year-old New Zealander Wootton’s personal and professional conduct.

    The article noted that there have been:

    allegations that Wootton staged a 10-year-long campaign to ‘catfish’ men using the online alias of ‘Martin Branning’ to persuade them to film sexual content which was then, in at least one case, allegedly used for blackmail.

    Byline Times claimed it:

    has extensive evidence to show that, between June 2008 and 2018, Wootton – who is gay – posed as a fictitious showbusiness agent called “Martin Branning” to offer sums of up to £30,000 “tax free” to his targets, many of whom were heterosexual men.

    Among them are a very senior executive at Rupert Murdoch’s News UK alongside at least six other staff at The Sun newspaper – one with close links to News UK CEO Rebekah Brooks – friends, Facebook associates and users of the dating apps Grindr and Gaydar.

    National media falls into line

    Now, the Met Police has confirmed to Byline Times it is investigating the allegations. You can read the Met’s previous statement here.

    National media picked up on the story, with outlets including the Guardian, LADbible, the Mirror, Birmingham Live, and also the independent Scottish outlet the National all publishing versions of Byline Times‘s original scoop.

    However, one by one the outlets began deleting the stories:

    Now, every article has been deleted – except, as of 12pm on Tuesday 3 October, LADbible‘s version. Fortunately, the internet doesn’t always forget. There’s still a cache of the Guardian‘s article here, stating that Wooton:

    has not directly denied the allegations but says he is the victim of a smear campaign by unknown forces who want to shut down his political views.

    Journalists from Byline Times were unimpressed by the national media’s action:

    Founder Peter Jukes made it quite clear why he thought the national media deleted their stories: Wooton’s lawyers had got involved. He shared a copy of an email from them, which he said was sent to another media outlet:

     

    A ‘toxic culture’ pervades the national media

    On the issue of privacy, legally until a court either issues a summons or police arrest a defendant, then the media can report whatever they want on a case – especially if it’s classed as being in the public interest. We can compare and contrast the Wooton story with that of Russell Brand. Countless media outlets have reported on the police investigations into him. The Times even claims it investigated him because it’s “legitimate and important public interest journalism“.

    Yet a very similar situation arises with Wooton – and suddenly the national media cannot speak up, as Byline’s Matharu pointed out:

     

    Overall, it seems her wish for the corporate media “to be brave” didn’t come true:

    Byline Times says the Wooton story is part of a “toxic culture” in the national media – which is exactly right.

    Corporate outlets deleting their articles (when they haven’t done so in other cases) once again shows that the sector has no real care for ‘public interest journalism’. If it thinks it can get away with something (that won’t cost it money or ruffle the wrong feathers) then it will. And when the corporate media thinks it can’t get away with reporting on a case about of one of its own, it would rather stay quiet than have to reflect on the toxic culture it perpetuates.

    Featured image via the Guardian – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • London Underground workers suspend planned strikes – but rail stoppages will go ahead

    On Tuesday 3 October, workers on the London Underground suspended their latest round of strike action over pay and conditions after a breakthrough in talks.

    Tube staff had been due to walk out on Wednesday 4 and Friday 5 October. This threatened to disrupt travel for millions of passengers, as the industrial action would have coincided with similar stoppages on the rail network – which are still set to go ahead.

    London Underground breakthrough

    The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said the strike by 3,000 of its members had been suspended after “significant progress” in negotiations with bosses. Talks to resolve the long-running dispute have been taking place between RMT negotiators and London Underground Limited (LUL) representatives, with the help of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service service (Acas).

    RMT announced in a press release that it:

    has managed to save key jobs, prevent detrimental changes to rosters and secure protection of earnings around grading changes.

    The significant progress means that key elements have been settled although there remains wider negotiations to be had in the job, pensions and working agreements dispute.

    ‘Unity and industrial power’

    Unions across the country have held frequent strike action since last year to push for better pay and conditions. On 3 October alone, there were strikes by bus drivers, hospital doctors and radiographers, train drivers, and refuse collectors.

    The Conservative government, which is holding its annual conference this week, has insisted that union demands are unaffordable. However, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch hailed London Underground workers’ victory as a vindication of the power of unity and industrial action.

    Lynch stated that:
    I congratulate all our members who were prepared to take strike action and our negotiations team for securing this victory in our tube dispute.
    Without the unity and industrial power of our members, there is no way we would have been able to make the progress we have.

    Despite the recent breakthrough, the threat of further action still hangs over the heads of LUL bosses. The RMT remains in pursuit of a settlement, with disputes over pensions and working agreements still ongoing.

    Likewise, UK rail passengers will still face disruption this week. Wednesday 4 October’s rail strike is going ahead, with no trains running on most routes in England. This will mark the 14th day of action from Aslef – the train drivers union – since June 2022, and coincides with the final day of the Tory Party conference.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse. 

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Steve Eason, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.