The London borough of Newham will see a direct face-off between Greens and Newham Independents in the 2026 local election. Both parties will seek to eat away at Labour’s longstanding domination in the area, and the council could realistically switch to “no overall control” — a scenario in which no single party secures a majority of council seats.

Double push against Labour in Newham

Newham Independents — who have received an endorsement from Your Party — are currently the main opposition but the Greens are close behind. Both have claimed they’re “the only party” able to defeat Labour locally.

However, in a borough where around 50 percent of residents live in poverty, why isn’t there a progressive coalition to defeat Labour outright? One possible answer is that the area is highly diverse and where the far-right has no chance. Opposition groups are fighting it out to see which challenger to the left of Labour has the best chance of prevailing in Newham.

The BBC reported earlier in April that:

The borough’s directly-elected mayor has significant powers over local services such as housing, including local regeneration schemes and affordable housing targets, planning and waste collection.

The main candidates challenging Forhad Hussain, the Labour candidate, are Newham Independents councillor Mehmood Mirza and Green councillor Areeq Chowdhury.

Mirza and the Newham independents

Mirza, a self-described socialist, has called out Labour’s wastefulness in office, asserting that:

Reform & Labour are two sides of the same rotten system that has been failing residents for decades!

Labour’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and warmongering throughout the Middle East is another burning issue for Mirza, insisting that:

Britain must stand for international law, diplomacy, and democratic accountability

Newham Independents have also emphasised the effort they’ve put into challenging Labour ahead of the vote:

The numbers speak for themselves, we will work tirelessly every day of every week of every month to serve you the people of Newham.

Vote Newham Independents on May 7th pic.twitter.com/31C7IAFp0B

— Newham Independents (@NewhamIndParty) April 17, 2026

They’ve also outlined in a manifesto the priority issues they would tackle if elected, such as:

• Freezing council tax
• Ensuring all secondary school children get free school meals
• Introducing free first parking permits
• Offering “a no-charge bulky waste collection”
• Improving public spaces like parks

Our Little Ilford park is a direct link to crime & antisocial behaviour

Neglected parks often become hotspots for:
   •   Drug use
   •   Vandalism
   •   Intimidation and loitering
This is backed by the “broken windows theory” when an area looks abandoned, it signals that no… pic.twitter.com/yQMzOhTzAf

Advertisement

— Tahir Mirza 4 East Ham (@TahirMirzaPTI) March 31, 2026

A full list of Newham Independents candidates can be accessed here.

Chowdhury and the Greens

Riding the wave of increasing Green popularity across the country, Chowdhury has called the Newham elections “a straightforward choice” between Labour and the Greens. The councillor has also been receiving high-profile support from within the party.

Chowdhury has highlighted a council house controversy surrounding Labour candidate Hussain, and called into question Labour’s reliability after the leak of its manifesto. He has also underrated and ignored the Newham Independents, despite admitting they “will do well in some wards“.

Locally, the Greens have three key missions:

to ensure we have the best possible environment to live in; to root out corruption at Newham Council; and to radically reform Newham’s housing department, so that it serves residents properly.

Their manifesto also insists that:

If elected, Green Party councillors and I will meet regularly with community groups, campaigners, academic experts, and residents to consider further ways to support our communities and achieve the three key missions.

The main plan, it stresses, is to:

alleviate poverty, drastically improve our environment, and tackle the housing crisis

The Green Party's manifesto, published today, sets out our plan to build a Newham we can be proud of.https://t.co/nxL2CpLfZl pic.twitter.com/2fpp3J5Ca1

— Areeq Chowdhury (@AreeqChowdhury) April 16, 2026

Is an anti-Labour coalition possible?

Labour seems to be fully aware of the challenge it’s facing in Newham, sending numerous high-profile figures to campaign in the borough. But it might feel the burn even more if the opposition on the left were more unified and less fractious.

As the Canary has previously reported, it’s perfectly possible for left-wing independents and Greens to collaborate and challenge Labour together via a cooperative alliance. And with some people in Newham predicting a strong result for independents, an anti-Labour coalition would certainly seem like common sense.

Newham Independents and Greens have a lot in common. But for now, they’re competing with each other to end Labour’s domination.

Hopefully, once the election results are in, there’ll be more cooperation across the left to bring the people of Newham the meaningful change they deserve.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Israeli occupation forces (IOF) have been told to kill Lebanese civilians attempting to return to their stolen or destroyed homes in southern Lebanon during Israel’s ‘ceasefire’ with Iran.

The IOF: blaming the civilians it has displaced

According to Israeli media coverage, this is the fault of the desperate civilians, and their attempts to return home threaten the supposed ‘ceasefire’ – not the murderous actions of the occupation:

Despite IDF warnings, civilians in southern Lebanon are trying to cross into their villages, raising questions about the future of the ceasefire.

The IOF command’s orders to its troops are explicit:

IDF: ceasefire only applied North of the Litani River

This latest effort appeared to be directed at deterring Lebanese civilians who may have remained in or penetrated into southern Lebanon from nearby areas where the IDF is establishing new positions and clearing out Hezbollah weapons.

Advertisement

Although the IDF has given general orders to open fire within southern Lebanon even if an approaching unidentified person is not armed, based on the idea that there are no civilians left in southern Lebanon, this approach may be difficult to maintain over time.

Rather than denouncing it as a war crime, Israeli reports claim killing civilians is merely ‘controversial’. The IOF invaders have listed at least seventy villages in southern Lebanon where it will kill any civilians attempting to approach their homes.

Israel continues to breach the ceasefire – its classic ‘you cease, we fire’ crime – by bombing and shelling defensive Lebanese militia positions that have stood down in honour of the agreement. Israel had massively escalated its attacks on Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, to sabotage Trump’s supposed two-week truce with Iran.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A Green Party councillor in Reading has highlighted how his party pushed for a 10:1 pay ratio, but the Labour council found a way to avoid it.

In Reading we forced the Labour council to implement this for council employees, but now they circumvent it by hiring employees like cleaners through contractors as though they don't count. Still claim to be a 10:1 employer though. Cannot be trusted. https://t.co/UldMrmqL6x

— Cllr Dr Dave McElroy (@DaveJMcElroy) April 19, 2026

And of course telling us that they're sorry, but it's pretty much out of their control when we raise it.

— Cllr Dr Dave McElroy (@DaveJMcElroy) April 20, 2026

The Green Party is pushing for:

the introduction of a 10:1 pay ratio which would help increase wages for those on lower incomes while limiting the salaries of high-paid executives.

The party wants this popular measure in order to:

end the ‘normalisation’ of food banks and tackle the ‘affordability crisis’.

Other measures include energy bill support, free school meals, rent controls, and a customs union with the EU.

The High Pay Centre and Equality Trust have previously insisted that a 10:1 pay ratio would help:

to tackle an economy that prioritises excessive rewards at the top over sustainable investment and fair wages

New Economics Foundation project Change the Rules, meanwhile, has said such a ratio is necessary because of the:

toxic levels of inequality which damages people and imposes significant costs on society.

Green Party ‘leading the way’ in opposition on Reading Council

In 2025, Reading Council Green Party leader Rob White said in a letter that his party had “led the way” on this issue because it:

successfully pushed for the council to agree to a 10:1 pay ratio. That means the top council officer cannot earn more than ten times the lowest-paid worker. This is about fairness, respect, and recognising the contribution of every worker.

As “the main opposition party”, the Greens made a difference. And the council website states that:

We aim to maintain a ratio of no more than 1:10 between our lowest and highest paid staff.

But as Green Councillor Dave McElroy said the Labour council avoids implementing this properly:

by hiring employees like cleaners through contractors as though they don’t count.

This is a tactic Greens elsewhere in the country are familiar with too:

Yeah Labour here outsourced the toilet cleaners, longer hours and shite pay.

When we took administration out Cllrs brought them back in house and raised their pay.

— Alexander Louis Sallons (@sallonsax) April 20, 2026

McElroy stressed that the pledge to back the 10:1 pay ratio is very popular, apart from among people intent on:

leaping to the defense of the masters

This 10:1 palaver is triggering all the right people and giving hope to the rest of us.

Always stunned by the amount of people leaping to the defense of the masters they seem to love more than they love themselves. pic.twitter.com/ZxFvgxRWra

— Cllr Dr Dave McElroy (@DaveJMcElroy) April 15, 2026

Advertisement

And with a long list of Green candidates from Reading and beyond also pledging to oppose austerity at a local level, the Greens really are outflanking Labour from the left.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

According to new polling from Ipsos, more than half of Londoners are considering a switch to the Green Party. This is good news for it, but it’s also a sign that they need to keep fighting to earn every vote.

Excl: Half of Londoners are considering voting for Zack Polanski's Green Party in the upcoming local elections according to new polling by @Ipsos, shared with the @NewStatesman pic.twitter.com/p1O0lJ0kwk

— megan kenyon (@meganekenyon) April 21, 2026

And this isn’t the only positive poll for the Greens either.

The Green Party on the up

As Kenyon notes, the Gorton & Denton by-election proved to voters that the Green Party aren’t a wasted vote. That by-election showed us something else too; namely that polling tends to underestimate the Green Party.

The following was the final tally in Gorton & Denton:

Gorton and Denton by-election result:

Grn: 40.7% (+27.5)
Ref: 28.7% (+14.6)
Lab: 25.4% (-25.4)
Con: 1.9% (-6.0)
Lib: 1.8% (-2.0)

Green GAIN from Labour (26.5% swing) pic.twitter.com/s49MGW8Uom

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) February 27, 2026

In the runup to election day, some polls had the Greens in the lead, but they didn’t have them outperforming the runner up by 12 percentage points:

Final estimate for Gorton and Denton:

Grn: 31% (+18)
Ref: 28% (+14)
Lab: 27% (-24)

Green GAIN from Labour (+/- vs GE2024) pic.twitter.com/xO5zyhef02

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) February 26, 2026

While the latest poll is good news, leader Zack Polanski is urging his fellow Green Party members to keep up the energy:

This is all really promising – but there's no space for complacency at all. Nothing is certain.

We will be out campaigning for every single vote in the next couple of weeks.

Join us: https://t.co/Q27Jy5eX7z https://t.co/2MqpRPGOlW

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 21, 2026

The Greens have had other favourable polls too:

There’s a scenario here where the Greens gain more seats than reform on May 7th??

That would be absolutely wild. More in common polls don’t even usually put the Greens as high as other pollsters. https://t.co/iyf8mb8tMP

— Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) April 21, 2026

Advertisement

In full, the post Gardner is replying to reads:

More in Common Locals Seat Projection Scenarios:

Low Estimate:
Reform: +1,273
Green: +573
Lib Dem: +148
Labour: -1,867
Conservative: -692

Middle Estimate:
Reform: +1,437
Green: +926
Lib Dem: +327
Labour: -1,738
Conservative: -627

Advertisement

High Estimate:
Green: +1,741
Reform: +1,603
Lib Dem: +503
Labour: -1,597
Conservative: -368

Source:
@Moreincommon_
May 7 Briefing

In other words, the Greens could do well in May, or they could do really well, or they could do really, really fucking well.

The poll story

Of course, polls don’t actually predict the future, and not every poll is brilliant for the Green Party. As we reported earlier today, the latest YouGov poll presents a favourable picture for Reform, but they also had positive predictions in Gorton & Denton.

The Greens are clearly persuading voters that they’re worth considering, and that’s a victory regardless of how many seats they ultimately win.

We deserve better.

And we can vote for it on May 7th. https://t.co/SLQItLk61O

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 17, 2026

Advertisement

Featured image via Barold

By Willem Moore

Source link

In the retrial of six activists charged under the ‘Filton 24‘ case, the defence begins its case on 21 April. This comes after jurors have seen images of the damage caused to Israeli military equipment and weapons in the Filton site.

The prosecution alleges that the six activists caused millions of pounds’ worth of damage during an August 2024 ‘raid’ of the premises. The site is owned and operated by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons firm.

The images form part of the jury bundle, and are viewable here.

Together, the pictures demonstrate the extent of damage caused to Israeli military drones and drone controllers, computer equipment, and facilities.

After a prior trial from November 2025 to February 2026 returned acquittals on nine charges and no verdicts on ten, the retrial commencing this week is on a reduced list of charges.

Speaking in the previous trial, defendant Zoe Rogers described having seen footage of Elbit’s ‘THOR’ drone model deployed in Gaza. This is the same drone which is shown damaged after the action at the Elbit factory. Rogers spoke about how Israeli forces use these drones in Gaza to drop explosive grenades, which shoot out pellets which bounce around in bodies, ripping through multiple organs.

The activists are facing trial on charges of criminal damage. In the first trial, all six were acquitted by jury of aggravated burglary, and three of violent disorder, with the CPS subsequently acquitting the other three of the charge. One defendant, Samuel Corner, faces an additional charge of GBH with intent for which no verdict was returned previously.

Featured image (enhanced) supplied

By The Canary

Source link

Ten years ago, Leicester City commenced building its status as the club with the most strident and uplifting story in modern football.

This sports entity that had once been marooned in League One rose through the divisions, built a team of improbable champions, and produced a Premier League title that felt like an act against the sport’s natural order. Their performance became a moment that seemed to rewrite what was known as possible in football.

Leicester wasn’t just winning; they were redefining the landscape.

Now the story is changing direction. The club that once seemed unstoppable through its ability to redefine gravity laws is now learning how fast things can fall apart.

Leicester, relegation and 2023

Leicester City’s struggle commenced with relegation from the Premier League in 2023 and having to stumble through the Championship with the weight of financial strain and a lack of institutional direction. To further the doom, they now face the unthinkable: back-to-back relegations and a drop to the third tier, marking an ending few thought would come this soon.

This is not a collapse that presented itself in a vacuum. Instead, it is the product of years of eroding circumstances, some visible and some hidden, all converging at once. Prompting the theory that Leicester’s decline is due to a series of small fractures that eventually split the club open.

The first signs of trouble surfaced in the years after the title. Leicester maintained an attempt to grow into a club built for Europe, but the margins were thin. Recruitment, which once was their greatest strength, began to misfire, causing the stream that delivered Kanté, Mahrez and Vardy to run dry.

It became a vicious circle as their success raised expectations, expectations drove spending, and spending increased the risk. When the Champions League income disappeared, their model began to falter.

Arguably, the pandemic years accelerated the decline. Leicester doubled down on a squad that was ageing, expensive and increasingly brittle. With the club’s wage bill having ballooned and margins shrunk, the slide further inclined leading to an inevitable dip in results. The entire structure felt exposed.

Prem League expectations, Championship weaknesses

By the time the 2022–23 season unravelled, Leicester became a club caught between eras: too talented to be in a relegation fight, yet too fragile to escape one.

Dropping into the Championship was meant to forward their reset. It offered the club a platform to rebuild their identity, refresh the squad and rediscover the clarity that once defined them. Instead, the second tier became a trap as financial restrictions tightened. The squad remained uneven and the pressure to return immediately became suffocating. As the season wore on, the club’s once defining confidence evaporated.

Many overlook that the Championship is a brutal environment to clubs who arrive with Premier League expectations but Championship vulnerabilities. Leicester were caught in that in-between: top-flight infrastructure, second-tier doubt. For their entity, each defeat weighed more, each error cost more, and the aura that once shielded them subsequently vanished.

What makes this moment so striking is the symmetry of the events.

Will the Foxes save themselves before they slip?

Leicester was in League One in 2008–09, emerging from administration and years of poor management. Despite predictions, they rebuilt with purpose, rose with belief and reached heights few thought possible. That climb was not incidental and was prompted by a deep sense of clarity surrounding who they were, and who they were meant to be.

The current slide feels like the opposite. Not a collapse of effort but a collapse of direction. A club that once moved with certainty now moves with hesitation. Decisions feel reactive rather than strategic. The identity that once made Leicester unique — aggressive recruitment, fearless football, a unified structure — has blurred.

If Leicester drop into League One again, the consequences will be profound: a sharp financial blow, a broken-up squad, and long-term plans torn up and rewritten. Yet it would prompt a new chance to clear the slate, return to basics and rebuild their identity with the same clarity that once carried them forward. Because beneath the noise, Leicester remain a club with real potential: a strong academy, a loyal fanbase, a stadium that can still spark and a history of resilience.

They have rebuilt before and faith must be preserved in their ability to do it again. However, the next rebuild will demand what’s been missing in recent years: alignment, patience and the honesty to accept where they truly are.

Now, with the club on the edge of another drop, the tale feels less like a fairy story and more like a lesson where it is reaffirmed that in football, nothing lasts, neither success nor failure, not even miracles.

Featured image via PA/ Yui Mok

By Faz Ali

Source link

The post Can Reform stop Britain’s decline?, with David Frost appeared first on spiked.

Source link

On 19 April, the Guardian ran an interview with Kezia Dugdale, the former Scottish Labour leader turned new chair of Stonewall. Somehow, the article contained even more pathetic ‘both sidesing’ on trans rights than the phrase ‘Guardian article about an ex-Labour leader’ would suggest.

As we await the biggest rollback of queer rights in the UK since Section 28, let’s take a look at the quiet capitulation of the head of the world’s biggest LGB(TQ+) organisation.

‘Uncompromising position’

Regarding Dugdale’s appointment to Stonewall’s commanding role, the Guardian explained that:

Dugdale, who led Scottish Labour from 2015-17, will take up the unpaid position in six months. She takes charge after a turbulent period in which Stonewall lost more than half of its income and had to make dozens of staff redundant, in large part because of its uncompromising position on transgender rights.

The article that the Guardian linked to there doesn’t support this argument. Rather, it highlights the impact of Trump’s attacks on Diversity, Equality and Inclusions (DEI) funding, along with Stonewall’s internal restructuring.

In fact, it specifically cautions against blaming Stonewall’s support for trans causes. This framing, experts stated, “misses the wider context”. So, we must ask: what exactly is the thinking leftist’s transphobic rag of note setting us up for?

‘Not top of the list’

Let’s start with the Guardian asking Dugdale about Scotland’s gender self-ID laws. Dugdale stated that “I believed in it; I still do”. However, she also stated that self-ID was “not top of the list” of priorities for Stonewall. She added:

We are an LGBT organisation, of course we’re going to be there for trans people, so that’s integral to who we are and what we do. But our priorities now are very much focused on things like securing justice for military veterans and compensation for what they’ve endured. We’re currently working very hard to ensure that there’s a ban on conversion therapy in this country, which is incredibly important.

It’s worth bearing in mind that Holyrood passed its self-ID law. The then-Conservative Westminster government then intervened to block the legislation.

It doesn’t exactly bode well that Stonewall are allowing Tories to dictate their priorities, but whatever – at least they’re still opposed to conversion therapy.

It’s ‘possible’ that things could go backwards?

The article also quoted Dugdale stating that:

I think we have to be really careful not to think that all progress that we’ve made in recent times is cemented and absolute and that all we’ll ever get is progress.

It’s completely possible in this country that things could go backwards and there are now a lot of political actors that want to take us backwards. So a bit of my motivation comes from a place of fear and a bit comes from the place of hope, knowing that these battles can be won.

‘Completely possible’ that things ‘could’ go backwards, is it? So, did Dugdale miss the UK government implementing a bathroom ban for trans people? Is that not backwards enough to count? Do we not mind, so long as it’s ‘only’ trans, intersex, butch and gender-non-conforming people being targeted?

Dugdale told the Guardian that:

I feel myself just getting slightly more nervous about holding my wife’s hand or being affectionate in public or wondering what other people’s reaction to us is going to be, and I don’t like that feeling.

This, sadly, isn’t an unfamiliar sentiment. However, that hostility against lesbians has actively increased because of the turn against trans people in UK politics.

Transphobia and homophobia are both bigotries against people who reject the social script of out assigned sex – whether in who we love or how we present ourselves. Opposition to those forces must also be united, or it is doomed to failure.

On JK Rowling

The utter tone-deafness of Dugdale’s comments makes a good deal more sense when taken in the context of the praise she heaps on occasional writer and hobbyist bigot JK Rowling.

The Guardian asked Dugdale whether she understood trans people’s characterisation of Rowling’s rhetoric as “cruel and dehumanising”. The newly minted Stonewall chair replied:

I understand that and I’ve also heard JK Rowling and other people who hold a different position on these issues to me describe with a similar rawness how they’ve experienced being opposed for their views. And I just think, the days of these culture wars, about sitting in polar extremes from each other, should be behind us now.

If you listen closely, you can actually hear the Overton window shifting. Is the chair of Stonewall planning to decry the ‘rawness’ felt by homophobes next? Isn’t it terrible that Anita Bryant got a pie in the face just for calling gays “an abomination of god”?

Asked about JK Rowling’s opposition to trans rights, Dugdale said:

I have a huge respect for JK Rowling. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting her before and I think her story and how she came to be this prolific, incredible children’s writer in this city as a single mum writing in a cafe is phenomenal and an inspiration to so many women across the world.

I think she’s been a really powerful political advocate [for] improving the lot of single mums, making a case for tackling poverty and inequality in all its forms, and there is absolutely a place for her in public life to share her experiences and tell her story and make a difference.

LG(B)(…TQ+)

Rowling is actively funding anti-trans groups and lawfare against trans-inclusive organisations. So that ‘tackling inequality in all its forms’ is only true if you don’t give a shit about trans inequality.

Likewise, it’s not just trans people that Rowling has targeted. She’s also posted vehement tirades against asexuals and Intersexuality Awareness Day, as reported in Them: 

Rowling denigrated the day of awareness – founded by community advocates in 2021 – as “International Fake Oppression Day” while sharing an image in recognition of the day from the U.K.-based LGBTQ+ support line Switchboard. In replies to her supporters, Rowling proceeded to describe ace folks as “straight people who don’t fancy a quickie,” wondered at how an asexual person would know if they are gay (it’s almost like sexual and romantic attraction are different things, Jo!), and “joked” that she would like to observe an international “Bored of This Shit Day.”

Similarly, Rowling has made a habit of attacking sportswomen over their perceived trans or intersex status.  Algerian boxer Imane Khelif filed a complaint against Rowling for one such harassment campaign. Rowling repeatedly called the boxer “he” and insinuated that she enjoyed brutalising women.

Rowling is only a warrior against inequality if you consider the trans, intersex and asexual communities she has attacked as being beneath your notice. This is precisely the kind of shit we’ve come to expect from Labour politicians, but it’s deeply disappointing from the chair of fucking Stonewall.

Stonewall, at least in theory, is an LGBTQ+ advocacy organisation. Dugdale would do well to remember that there are more letters after the first couple – and that we’re stronger when we stand together, in full voice.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

PM Keir Starmer stood in the House of Commons on Monday 20 April as he attempted once again to wiggle out of responsibility for his highly dubious decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.

However, Starmer seemed to expose himself as operationally inferior to Foreign Office officials. According to the PM, those officials decided that the UK’s highest office holder did not need to know about the failed vetting and the red flags attached to Peter Mandelson. This is yet another highly concerning development when accounting for his friendship with convicted paedophile and Zionist stooge, Jeffrey Epstein.

Secondly, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) have attracted significant scrutiny in light of its lofty funding contributions to the pro-Israel Dinah Report, to which it awarded the large majority of its annual budget. Officials commissioned the biased Dinah Report as propaganda for Israel to wage its’ genocide against the indigenous Palestinian population, casting serious doubt on the motives of those within the FCDO.

Finally, this raises serious questions about whose interests these officials actually work for. In turn, a serious long-felt concern is brought to the forefront: is the UK government occupied by Israel?

The key points from Keir Starmer's Mandelson statement https://t.co/RHXBPKU9Jj

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) April 21, 2026

What we know over Starmer and the FCDO

Official documents show that Keir Starmer received clear advice to make all appointments contingent on security vetting. Nevertheless, former Permanent Under-Secretary Olly Robbins told MPs this morning that the FCDO operated in an “atmosphere of pressure”. This was apparently the case before the appointment and the start of the vetting process. Specifically, he suggested that pressure from the government pushed him to overlook serious concerns.

In fact, Robbins went further and suggested that cabinet office officials had previously attempted to block vetting entirely. Arguing that Mandelson’s extreme privilege as a member of the House of Lords at the time and a privy councilor made him exempt from scrutiny, those with most responsibility to the electorate decided his shady history with a convicted paedophile was of no concern.

"Just fucking approve it."

Emily Thornberry recites Morgan McSweeney's call for the Foreign Office to approve Peter Mandelson's appointment as US Ambassador. pic.twitter.com/i4hzCUEXFd

— PoliticsJOE (@PoliticsJOE_UK) April 21, 2026

Advertisement

Given reports that Epstein and his kompromat files were integral to the settler-colonial project of Israel, this decision to place such a shady figure in the White House carries – like ‘Petie’ himself – major red flags.

Moreover, Foreign Office officials reportedly told Robbins, after the failed security vetting, they had sufficiently identified the risks. They also claimed that those risks could be “mitigated”. Duty bound, Robbins then used his unique authority to wave through security clearance for the disgraced former ambassador. That raises obvious questions about how the FCDO thought it could manage these serious concerns around Peter Mandelson’s past while sending him to deal directly with Donald Trump in the United States.

Those questions only grow when you factor in Trump’s close alignment with Israel, suggesting the government may have seen those same connections as a political edge to play.

This leads to a very urgent question that must be answered: is the British government and the FCDO working on behalf of Israel’s interests or our own?

"You could have got away with it two years ago, you can't anymore."

The British public are no longer buying media and government misinformation on Israel's genocide in Gaza, @seannhickey explains. pic.twitter.com/3pRtJ1lVIU

— PoliticsJOE (@PoliticsJOE_UK) October 6, 2025

Advertisement

Dinah Report and the Israel lobby under Starmer

We already know that the FCDO awarded a large majority of its annual budget to the coordinated, politically charged Dinah Report. This is thanks to Freedom of Information requests filed by Novara Media to the FCDO. Many have argued that this report aimed to legitimise the barbarism of Israel. Especially due to its explicit purpose to establish that sexual violence was indeed used as a weapon of war on October 7.

It is important to note that no credible evidence supports these claims, according to any independent officials who have reviewed the available material.

We wrote at the time:

This blatant bias and conflict of interest should come as little to no surprise. Ever since October 7th, we have seen a concerted push by Israel and its lobby groups to manipulate data, grief and material facts in their own interest. All whilst conveniently and simultaneously demonising Palestinian resistance. If we have learned anything through this horrific 2.5 years, it is the reminder that every life matters and civilians should not pay the price for the sins of the powerful.

Going further, we have also learned in the most disgusting way that the saying ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ applies all the more in times of conflict. Especially when we consider Israeli and western tactics to manufacture consent for what has been one of the most brutal bombing campaigns the world has ever seen. On the backs of the lack of condemnation afforded by the UK government for crimes against Palestinians, our governments complicity in Israel’s crimes cannot be ignored.

It is for this reason that it is essential we as ordinary people work only from verified, factual information

As a result, significant donations from Israeli lobby groups to MPs and political parties appear to buy political allegiance and diplomatic cover for Israel. This is only evidenced by the International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants outstanding for senior leaders in Israel for genocide and war crimes. Warrants which the UK has repeatedly violated, welcoming war criminals to our shores. In fact, David Cameron even threatened ICC prosecutor Karim Khan to block warrants in the first place.

This development provides further evidence that our so-called democratic process faces repeated undermining by a colonialist and violent Zionist project.

NEW: The UK Government’s Foreign Office quietly gave £90,000 to fund an Israeli report that described sexual violence on October 7 as “systematic” and “premeditated” — a characterization not substantiated by UN or Amnesty investigations, and
central to Israel’s public case for… https://t.co/nYCflDaUXq

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 2, 2026

Cabinet office in the pocket of Israel

We have also reported heavily on the donations received by MPs and the Labour Party in the run up to the general election, including Starmer himself, writing:

Before becoming an MP, Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions. In June 2011, there is a record of a “meet and greet” with the only foreign state attorney Starmer convened with whilst leading the Crown Prosecution Service: the Israeli state prosecutor, Moshe Lador. Lador gave Starmer a “book on places & history in Israel”, but in response to a subsequent Freedom of Information request, the CPS claimed not to have any records of:

“planning documents, briefing notes, communications relating to the meeting, and minutes from the meeting.”

Three months after meeting with Lador, Starmer blocked an arrest warrant for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who was visiting the UK. Starmer’s e-mails on the Livni case have been redacted, but the UK government changed the law to ensure that a repeat would not occur.

Starmer’s history of protecting Zionists has been well documented. That leaves one cabinet official we know who favours Israel and is complicit in genocide.

Nevertheless, he is not the only one.

This can only underscore how deep the Zionist rot goes, as Chris Williamson of Palestine Declassified posted on X:

Sir @Keir_Starmer's Labour Party is desperate. Here's @SteveReedMP, one Starmer's key lieutenants, resorting to bogus anti-Semitism smears against @TheGreenParty activists. The same smears that were used to destroy Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. But it won't work this time and it… https://t.co/V0C4tWGskc

— Chris Williamson (@DerbyChrisW) April 16, 2026

Of particular note is the murky, misaligned interests at play with Reed and those like him in the cabinet. Williamson specifically pointed out:

In addition to Steve’s obvious desperation, there are some other factors that put his bogus anti-Semitism allegations into context.
︎ Steve is a supporter of Israel.
︎ Steve has participated in @_LFI delegations to Israel.
︎ Steve is on record saying he has a “longstanding commitment to Labour Friends of Israel”.
︎ Steve has received donations from pro-Israel lobbyists.

Again, not the only MP and cabinet minister:

NEW — 'Our Friend': How the Israel lobby spent £30,000 on Wes Streeting

by @kennardmatt

Advertisement

Labour’s shadow health secretary has a long history of supporting Israel going back to his days at the National Union of Students – and has been rewarded for it.https://t.co/y8sJNyA3CJ

— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) June 4, 2024

The FCDO isn’t the only department apparently working to protect and champion the murderous interests of Israel.

The UK’s department of education is also implicated, as Double Down News pointed out:

This is the shocking story of how the British Department for Education has been captured by Israeli forces.

It's time to ask ourselves, who do our politicians actually work for?@BobbyVylan pic.twitter.com/uAQT4vgWhm

— Double Down News (@DoubleDownNews) April 21, 2026

Advertisement

We are occupied

We’re all used to the mainstream media pushing fear-driven narratives about threats from Russia and China. Stories much of the electorate has come to accept. After all, fear of the “other” has always been a reliable tool for governments to rally support and manufacture unity against a supposed enemy.

But look a little closer at the decisions made by UK officials, and a different picture starts to emerge. It’s not Russia or China that appear most embedded in our political system. Instead, Israel, along with its lobbying networks and strategic interests, seems to run consistently through both our domestic politics and the mainstream media.

All the while, Israel and its occupation forces are murdering thousands upon thousands of people. Since 2023, Israel has waged wars of aggression on multiple territories with Trump’s full support. Furthermore, allegations have also been made that Israel has used false flag attacks to further its murderous ambitions.

Taken together, this raises a serious question: why isn’t this dangerous influence being examined more openly? If there are nefarious networks of power shaping decisions behind the scenes, they should be subject to scrutiny like anything else in a functioning democracy.

At the end of the day, most Britons would rather stand against genocide than directly arm and enable it.

MPs would do well to remember that.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Four senior Labour figures are being charged following a criminal investigation into vote-rigging allegations in Croydon East. The allegations against them centre on irregularities in the Labour candidate selection process for the constituency.

The Standard named the individuals involved as ex-Croydon councillor Carole Bonner, Unison organiser and prospective candidate Joel Bodmer, Shila Bodmer, and Gabriel Leroy.

All four face charges of conspiracy and computer misuse. Joel Bodhmer is also being charged with perverting the course of justice over suspicions that he tampered with phone records.

The Labour Party has immediately suspended all four individuals.

‘A whole new level’ of (alleged) dodginess in Croydon

Back in 2023, Labour Party members in Croydon East filed complaints about their contact details being altered. Somebody had apparently falsified their phone numbers and email addresses. This, in turn, meant that some of the potential parliamentary candidates couldn’t vote in the selection process.

Eventually, Labour had to temporarily call a halt to the selection process. Some of the injured parties levelled allegations of targeted vote rigging.

Joel Bodhmer withdrew from the race, leaving Natasha Irons to win both the selection process and the Labour safe seat.

At the time, the Morning Star quoted investigative journalist Michael Crick stating:

there are suggestions that this could be part of a much wider campaign that involves senior party figures, a systematic programme of data protection offences and interference in Labour’s supposedly democratic procedures.

Notably, Crick found evidence of current and former members being registered to vote online without their consent or knowledge. However, the charges announced today don’t appear to relate to these potential offences.

The Morning Star also alleged that:

Conspiracy and cyber-crime

In March 2024, the Metropolitan Police launched its official investigation into the Croydon East allegations.

On 21 April 2026, a spokesman for the Met stated that:

The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised charges against four people after an investigation by the Met’s Cyber Crime Unit into allegations that a Labour Party database was manipulated to increase a candidate’s chances of selection in Croydon.

The individuals have been charged with conspiracy to commit an offence contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act relates to unauthorised acts “with intent to impair” the operation of computer.

Frank Ferguson, leader of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, announced:

Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring this case to court and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings.

We have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police Service as it has carried out its investigation.

We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against these defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial.

It is vital that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

‘We cannot comment further’

The four defendants from Croydon East Labour are scheduled to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday 19 May.

A spokesperson for the Labour Party said:

These are incredibly serious charges.

When complaints were first raised with the Labour Party we conducted a thorough internal investigation and we referred the matter to the police as soon as potential criminal wrongdoing was identified.

We cannot comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.

This latest scandal will come as unwelcome news for Labour. Earlier this year, the PLP faced allegations of blocking Andy Burnham’s candidacy for Gorton and Denton because he posed a threat to Starmer and the party’s right wing.

Likewise, on 17 April, we learned that Peter Mandelson failed the vetting for his position as ambassador to the US. However, Starmer and/or other senior Labour figures reportedly pressed through Mandelson’s appointment in spite of his name appearing in the Epstein files.

Alongside these recent scandals, vote rigging allegations would appear par-for-the-course for Starmer’s Labour.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link