Bernard Argente writer, student, and parliamentary researcher who assisted Richard Tice and his staff.

“It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times” is the opening line of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

Similarly, the Labour Party appears to be a tale of two Keirs; Keir Hardie founded the Labour Party and Keir Starmer desolated it.

Regarding a comparatively minor scandal to Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle, especially with the release of documents that show the PM knew, the Beergate investigation “risks looking like hypocrisy,” Henry Hill posited on GB News three years ago. Now, the Prime Minister has inebriated himself with hypocrisy, and because he lacks the humility to resign or perhaps because he is so intoxicated by hypocrisy that he is unable to effectuate his resignation, his party is going through a political exodus of support.

To have your then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who bore a resemblance to Augustus’ political adviser Maecenas, ‘resign’—yes, with quotation marks—is a clear indication of a desperate attempt to save one’s skin.

McSweeney, the figurative ventriloquist that makes puppets speak, had said, “I take full responsibility” regarding the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The mastermind who pioneered the machination to bring Starmer in has become a sacrificial lamb. Sir Chris Wormald, former cabinet secretary, had also been “thrown under the bus,” conceivably because the prime minister had binge-watched Yes Minister and was taking on the persona of Jim Hacker, treating Sir Humphrey Appleby as a scanty prosopopoeia for Wormald.

To put this aside, how does Starmer’s party view the economy? And would Labour’s economic prism be enough to save him?

Well, it is a misnomer to classify Labour’s economic policy as right-wing. Not only would Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman all be rolling in their graves hearing that, but Starmer has not shifted the Overton window at all. Keir Hardie’s left-wing politics and pacifism made him so unpopular that the British people, sometimes his own constituents in Merthyr Tydfil, sang the national anthem in protest against his stance on the First World War. This clearly wasn’t optimal for the Labour leader. Nevertheless, Keir Hardie founded the party. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has adopted a radical centrist stance compatible with Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey’s philosophy that aligns with the obsolete Tory doctrine, “one-nation conservatism,” which believes the state has a noblesse oblige to support its people. So, it is understandable how one can misconstrue Keir Starmer’s policy as being right-wing when Starmer could potentially be viewed as an aspirant one-nation Tory, certainly now when his actions mirror those of the old Conservative Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden, as both refused to resign.

Former Prime Minister Anthony Eden, a centre-right Tory whom the Liberal Democrats likely idolise off the record, faced a severe backlash from the United Kingdom and its people for mismanaging the Suez Crisis in 1956. In spite of this humiliating failure, Eden refused to resign at first and finally resigned on 9 January 1957, when the United States threatened to cripple the pound. Eden did not claim the reason for his resignation was because of the United States; instead, he said it was because of health issues from traveling to Jamaica.

If it were not obvious already, this is comparable to Keir Starmer’s current issue. The 58th Prime Minister has a track record of U-turns, notably his U-turn on Chagos after President Donald Trump called it “a great act of stupidity.”  and then refused to let America use the same base, before U-turning on that. So, this begs the question: if President Trump puts pressure on Starmer to resign in the way Eden was pressured, would he follow suit?

Keir Starmer’s unwillingness to resign could be due to his own vanity. During Prime Minister’s Questions, when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are vis-à-vis, both loom over their designated dispatch box and signal authority. Could it be that Keir Starmer has a feeling of antipathy toward Kemi Badenoch’s authority and that compels him not to resign?

It appears that Starmer takes on the role of a pugnacious lecturer in PMQs when speaking to Badenoch, ridiculing her for the substance of her questions rather than answering them. He constantly reminds her of his time as Leader of the Opposition and how he would ask questions to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. By somewhat underestimating the Leader of the Opposition, he leaves himself open to attack. Mistaking kindness for weakness is what the Greeks at first did to Hector in the Iliad, and Badenoch has dismantled Starmer’s party piece by piece, spotting their flaws from Angela Rayner to Mandelson. Spotting hypocrisy is the Conservative Party ideal, similar to how they criticised Lord Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, for stating he had ‘failed in life’ if in five years there were not fewer journeys by car yet owning two Jaguars for transport.

Starmer may not be able to stand Badenoch asking better questions than he did as Leader of the Opposition. Kemi Badenoch at the despatch box quintessentially embodies the quote from Lady Macbeth in the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare: “Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t.”

The Conservative Party points out the irony of the Labour Party, which Labour loathes. Keir Starmer, like Sir Anthony Eden, will have to accept Kemi Badenoch as his emblematic executioner, and if not, he risks taking his entire party down with him, though there is scarcely any party left to bring down after the Mandelson appointment faux pas. A spokesperson for 10 Downing Street attempted to dispel any thought of Starmer wavering about staying at the highest office, and yet even a layman not au fait with British politics would question if that would be a sign of pride or imprudence.

It is fair to say Starmer should resign of his own accord instead of losing it all, as Sir Anthony Eden did. Whether the pressure comes from Kemi Badenoch or an external force like America, he must exit his comfort bubble and make the “tough decisions” as he promised to do, and resign. His resignation would be the most definitive action he could take after all his broken promises to the British people.

The Freedoms Committee of the Palestinian Journalist’s Syndicate documented 122 crimes by the Israeli occupation against Palestinian journalists and media institutions throughout February 2026.

Relentless attacks on journalists

According to the Committee, media crews are “systematically targeted” by the Zionist regime, which, as they noted:

prevents field coverage, and fires live ammunition as well as tear gas and sound grenades towards them.

Arrests, court orders, and various punitive measures continue to be used to obstruct the truth and restrict media freedoms.

There are 52 documented instances showing journalists being prevented from covering stories or detained, particularly in the context of military raids or settler attacks. In February alone, 17 cases were recorded showing journalists being arbitrarily banned from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex. This is part of a broader policy to restrict media coverage in Jerusalem and at Al-Aqsa.

The report also details 8 incidents where tear gas and sound grenades were fired towards journalists. There were also six cases of direct gunfire at press crews during field coverage.

The Freedoms Committee claims arbitrary legal procedures are being used as a tool to pressure journalists and restrict their work. It also documented the arrest of seven journalists, the court appearances of six, and summons and interrogation of six others.

Blockading truth

Since the start of the month, Israeli occupation forces have raided the homes of five journalists and blocked five more online news sites.

There were also four cases of journalistic equipment being confiscated or destroyed, three instances of physical assault, two journalists fined, and one reportedly banned from travel.

The work of journalists is essential for pulling back the curtain on Israeli crimes, which would otherwise remain out of public view.

In the occupied Palestinian territory, “Israel” intentionally targets journalists, in an attempt to prevent the documentation of its many atrocities to the world, so its crimes of genocide, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing may continue unabated, without any accountability. These violations are occurring amid the continued policies of restriction and direct targeting of journalistic work.

Targeting journalists is a violation of international humanitarian law, and international conventions that guarantee freedom of journalistic work and protection of journalists when working.

According to the Freedoms Committee, these documented figures:

Reflect a dangerous escalation in the pace of violations against Palestinian journalists.

As the situation intensifies, the international community must take decisive action to protect Palestinian journalists. Their lives are no less valuable than those of their counterparts in London or Washington. Words only affect change when backed by action — the time to act is now.

Featured image via the Canary

Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are reportedly contributing to a rapid collapse of the genocidal so-called ‘Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) in Sudan.

UAE-backed RSF militia feel the sting of war

The RSF, funded and armed by the UAE and Israel, had been making gains up to February 2026. It has murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan. Rapes, sexual torture and executions have been common and almost 400,000 people are in starvation.

However, Sudanese government forces have achieved a string of military victories that appear to be turning into a rout.

With UAE shipments rerouted from the Hormuz Straight and the UAE to Saudi Arabia due to Iran’s counterattacks of shipping, the UAE economy, and it’s global financiers, have been dealt a major blow.

Meanwhile, Sudanese forces are targeting RSF arms and supply depots, crippling front-line RSF troops by cutting off ammunition, fuel, and essentials.

Iran dismantling UAEs economy is also starving the RSF and freeing Sudan. https://t.co/TkNVOrnbW0

— Ashok Kumar | 🇵🇸 (@broseph_stalin) March 11, 2026

Featured image via the Canary

In a video published by Al Jazeera, a reporter confronts President Trump about a New York Times report revealing U.S. responsibility for the missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab, Iran – to which Trump responds:

I don’t know about it.

President Trump denied knowledge of a US military investigation that has reportedly found the US responsible for the deadly strike on the Minab girls’ school in Iran. pic.twitter.com/4a3uT8NKPG

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 12, 2026

The strike killed around 175 primary school children in southern Iran on February 28th.

Trump does know about it

The Guardian reported that, according to the New York Times, the US military investigation has found that the strike on the elementary school building was the result of a targeting mistake by US military planners. The Guardian said:

According to the New York Times, quoting unnamed US officials and others familiar with the initial findings, the investigation has concluded that the strike on 28 February on the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school building was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military planners.

According to the report, the inquiry – which has yet to be completed – has found that officers at US Central Command created the target coordinates for the strike using obsolete data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib responded forcefully to the confirmation of U.S. culpability, calling for Trump’s impeachment.

After lying about it, the Trump Administration confirmed that they bombed a school in Iran—killing 175 people, mostly girls.

Trump should be impeached. Hegseth should be fired. And the Administration must be held accountable in international courts for their heinous war crimes. pic.twitter.com/AqsNhPprEq

— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) March 11, 2026

Advertisement

UK culpability

🚨Breaking: A preliminary inquiry has found the US at fault for the strike on an Iranian school, killing over 150 children.

It was a “deadly Tomahawk missile strike”, the inquiry said.

A factory in Scotland produces key parts for Tomahawk missiles.
👉https://t.co/UYl3D5GgMj pic.twitter.com/K12V3v9Y4a

— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) March 11, 2026

Campaign Against Arms Trade also tore into the UK’s complicity:

On 28th February, the United States bombed Shajareh Tayyebeh school in southern Iran and killed at least 180 people – mostly children.

It is likely they used Tomahawk missiles to bomb 3 times.

Components of the missiles are made in Raytheon’s factory in Glenrothes, Scotland. pic.twitter.com/NRnC9gBGWr

— Campaign Against Arms Trade (@CAATuk) March 10, 2026

For the children of Minab, for their families, for anyone watching: in the unaccountable US regime, run by the Epstein class, accountability seems far away while the habitual liar Trump will probably move on to his next falsehood.

Featured image via the Canary

Jack Rankin is the Member of Parliament for Windsor.

As I write this, bombs are flying over the Middle East. War is raging in Eastern Europe. An increasingly revanchist China is threatening its neighbours. And across the world, national governments are realigning their geopolitical stances to adapt to this new world we find ourselves in after decades of relative peace.

Britain should be doing the same.

Our departure from the European Union saw an opportunity to rethink Britain’s place in the world – now, the increased unpredictability of our relationship with a United States, presents another challenge. We should use these opportunities to strengthen relationships with countries that share our institutions, our outlook, and out strategic interests. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are the obvious places to begin – with the goal being a new bloc with the four nations named CANZUK.

As the Member of Parliament for Windsor, the home of our shared monarchy, I am constantly reminded of the close ties Britain holds with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. His Majesty is one symbol of those ties, with shared institutions and culture being others. Our close relationships were proven last week, when the Conservative Friends of CANZUK (of which I am vice-President) hosted Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, for a CANZUK drinks reception. The following day at the Centre for Policy Studies’ Annual Thatcher Lecture, Mr Poilievre expanded on his particular CANZUK vision.

But this phenomenon doesn’t just exist on the Centre-Right though. Britain appointed Mark Carney – a Centre-Left figure in Canada – as Governor of the Bank of England. How many countries would accept a foreigner as governor of their national bank? Not many I’d wager – but we don’t really see Canadians are foreigners, do we? It is unlikely that Brits would have approved a non-Brit holding this position unless they came from a country with such deep ties to Britain as someone from a CANZUK nation.

With the Canadian Leader of the Opposition was in London, the very same Mark Carney, now Canadian Prime Minster was signing a new critical minerals agreement with his Australian counterpart. That is not nostalgia – that is very real twenty-first century geopolitics. In New Zealand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been calling for CANZUK for almost a decade.

The foundations of CANZUK are historical as well as strategic. Our ties are deeper than being purely diplomatic.  In the First World War, British forces fought on the Somme, Canadian identity was being forged at Vimy Ridge, and Australians and New Zealanders at Gallipoli. Our armed forces have fought alongside each other for more than a century. Constitutional traditions across the nations are closely related, with legal systems all rooted in English common law.  English is our common language, and we share a Head of State. These factors already mean we have a lot more in common with CANZUK nations than the vast majority of European nations, making a deeper partnership all the more sensible.

Defence is at the core of today’s political debate. The world is becoming a more dangerous place, and the assumptions that Britain previously worked on are becoming increasingly invalid.  Britain and Australia already work together through the AUKUS security partnership alongside the United States. Canada plays a key role in defending the Arctic and the North Atlantic. Britain remains a maritime power with global responsibilities. We should commit to recognising and enforcing Canadian sovereignty over their internal waters in the Northwest Passage. A deeper CANZUK partnership would ensure that Britain’s areas of strategic interest are better defended.

And what about the economy? The combined GDP of CANZUK stands at approximately $6.5 trillion, making it the third largest in the world only behind China and the United States.  Unburdened by the self-imposed regulatory barriers of the European Union, CANZUK nations have massive growth potential which would only see the bloc strengthened in the future.  Australian lithium, British tungsten, and Canadian uranium could supply a wave of reindustrialisation that the West is crying out for. A skilled mobility framework – which works for the benefit of the people of each member state rather than big corporations – would boost labour productivity across the bloc and deepen our cultural ties. The potential economic benefits of CANZUK are plentiful and only require each nation’s leadership to grasp the opportunities at hand.

As Kemi Badenoch is now arguing: “Our four nations have shared strengths in goods, services, and defence. By working more closely together, we can combine these collective strengths to boost our economic growth and our national security.” The British Conservative Party joining our brothers in the Canadian is under-appreciated strategic news, a key campaign win for Conservative Friends of CANZUK.

CANZUK will now be in our manifesto, and it will be at the top of our agenda when we are next in government. This is a monumental moment in post-Brexit foreign policy. Since 2016, EU-nostalgic politicians have been unable to mask their contempt for Brexit, and our foreign policy has been hindered as a result. Under new leadership, the Conservative Party has finally broken itself free from these figures, and if in Government, would take serious steps to ensure CANZUK becomes more than just an idea.

In an increasingly uncertain world, we need to stand with our closest allies. It is time for CANZUK.

Journalist Owen Jones has scored a major victory in his legal fight against BBC editor and Israel fanatic Raffi Berg. Berg was suing Jones for libel after Jones accused Berg and the BBC of bias against Palestinians in coverage of Israel’s Gaza genocide.

Berg, who has gushed about an award from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, has been accused of collaborating with the CIA and Israeli intelligence. The BBC has deleted documentary evidence of Israel’s crimes and their impact on Palestinians. The corporation routinely downplays the murder of Palestinians and parrots Israeli propaganda. But Berg took exception and launched legal action for damage to his “professional reputation as a journalist and editor”, to the delight of Israel lobbyists.

But today, 12 March, the High Court has ruled against Berg on key issues in his legal action, judging that Jones was expressing an honest opinion based on stated evidence – one of the key defences against libel action.

Owen Jones said:

I am delighted that the High Court has ruled in my favour on the key issues in the libel case brought by Raffi Berg. The court rejected the claimant’s interpretation of the article and ruled that it expressed an opinion based on stated material.

I stand by my journalism and, if Mr Berg decides to continue the libel claim, I look forward to defending my article in court. I would like to thank my legal team at RPC Legal, my barrister Aidan Eardley KC, and Drop Site News, which published the article and has stood by my journalism throughout.

Berg now has to decide whether to continue the case, but his lawyers may well advise him to drop it as the risk of losing – and of a costs award against him – is now much higher.

Featured image via the Canary