Politics
Andy Burnham is not the answer
With Keir Starmer in meltdown mode, Andy Burnham is being presented as Labour’s saviour. Last time he stood for leader, in 2015, Burnham promised that his first trip overseas would be to the Israeli settler-state. This would be his third attempt at securing the top job at Labour, but does Burnham really represent a change from the failings of Starmer, or simply more of the same?
Burnham’s Friends of Israel
Whilst serving in the last Labour administration, Andy Burnham’s principal adviser was Jennifer Gerber. In 2010, Gerber was appointed director of the lobby group Labour Friends of Israel, which she went on to lead for the next decade.
In 2016, then Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham was one of the Labour MPs who “flocked” to support Labour Friends of Israel under Gerber’s leadership. He was joined by then Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry; Jess Phillips, now sitting on a wafer-thin majority in Birmingham Yardley; and Dan Jarvis, amongst others.
Gerber previously led Progress, a Labour Party pressure group reportedly founded by Epstein-associate Peter Mandelson. The group received millions from David Sainsbury, a major backer of the infamous Labour Together think tank, and were also funded by pharmaceutical company Pfizer.
In 2021, Progress merged with Policy Network, another Peter Mandelson operation, and changed their name to Progressive Britain. The group is currently led by Adam Langleben, a former national secretary of the Jewish Labour Movement.
When Jennifer Gerber stepped down from Labour Friends of Israel in 2020, she praised Keir Starmer for “[committing to] fully rooting out the … Israel obsession in the party.” In his first meeting with LFI as party leader, Starmer pledged to travel to Israel with the group.
At the time, Keir Starmer thanked LFI for “the crucial role they play in the Labour Party”. Now, Andy Burnham, a parliamentary supporter of LFI who voted for Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq, seeks to depose him.
Past leadership bids
Burnham has tried to become Labour leader twice before. In 2015, his leadership bid was supported by Dan Jarvis, another parliamentary supporter of Labour Friends of Israel. Jarvis has previously been funded by Martin Taylor, a major backer of Morgan McSweeney’s Labour Together, who also gave £95,000 to Keir Starmer’s 2020 leadership bid.
Andy Burnham’s 2015 leadership campaign received over £130,000 in private donations. One of his funders was Michael Sternberg, who has also financed Labour’s current Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman. Sackman, a key supporter of David Lammy’s proposals to restrict jury trials, previously worked as a judicial clerk at the Israeli Supreme Court.
Sternberg also gave £5000 to Labour’s current Middle East Secretary, Hamish Falconer. Falconer received another £5000 from Labour Together Limited, and £13,900 from Mike Craven, a former press officer to Tony Blair and current Labour Together board member.
Falconer also received £4600 from a group called “SME 4 Labour”. In the run up to the 2024 general election, with a view to helping Keir Starmer secure a parliamentary majority, SME 4 Labour held a fundraising dinner in London with Jeffrey Epstein’s “best pal” Peter Mandelson.
For the 2024 election, SME 4 Labour had identified Scotland as a “crucial” target. Labour’s parliamentary candidate (and now MP) for Rutherglen Michael Shanks received £4000 from Sternberg. Shanks was also one of several Scottish Labour MPs who received £10,000 from Labour Together to fund their electoral campaigns.
Another funder of Burnham’s 2015 leadership campaign was Howard Borrington. For 22 years, ending with his retirement in 2024, Borrington was Director of UK Government Affairs at arms firm MBDA, the self-declared “world leader in missiles and missile systems”. Before that, he spent almost 16 years at BAE Systems.
Burnham won’t mop up the bloodbath
In 2010, Burnham stood against Ed Miliband and lost. In 2015, Burnham promised that, if he won, he “would involve Jeremy [Corbyn] in my team from the outset.” As recently as February, he was publicly backing Keir Starmer. Burnham will say anything to get into power.
After the bloodbath of last week’s council, Scottish, and Welsh elections, it is clear that Keir Starmer has lost any mandate to rule, but do not expect any stronger moral fibre from Andy Burnham.
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
Starmer’s attempt to save his premiership – speech in full
Keir Starmer vowed to prove his “doubters” wrong in a make-or-break speech on Monday morning.
The prime minister warned of “very dangerous opponents”, alluding to insurgent political forces on the right and left, and pledged to embrace a closer relationship with Europe.
Read Starmer’s speech in full.
The election results last week were tough, very tough. We lost some brilliant Labour representatives; that hurts and it should hurt. I get it, I feel it, and I take responsibility. But it’s not just about taking responsibility for the results; it’s about taking responsibility to explain how, as a political and electoral force, we will be better and do better in the months and years ahead.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
Because we are not just facing dangerous times but dangerous opponents – very dangerous opponents. This hurts, not just because Labour has done badly, but because if we don’t get this right, our country will go down a very dark path. So just as I take responsibility for the results, I also take responsibility for delivering the change we promised for a stronger and fairer Britain that we must build.
I take responsibility for navigating us through a world that is more dangerous than at any time in my life, and I take responsibility for not walking away – not plunging our country into chaos, as the Tories did time and again, chaos that did lasting damage to this country. A Labour government would never be forgiven for inflicting that on our country again.
I know that people are frustrated by the state of Britain, frustrated by politics, and some people – frustrated with me. I know I have my doubters, and I know I need to prove them wrong, and I will. So let me start on a personal note.
Like every prime minister, I’ve learned a lot in the first two years in the job. In terms of the policy challenges that our country faces, incremental change won’t cut it. On growth, defence, Europe, and energy, we need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times.
And this is a political challenge just as much as it’s a policy challenge. Delivery is, of course, essential, but it’s not sufficient on its own to address the frustration that voters feel. We’re battling Reform and the Greens, but at a deeper level, we are battling the despair on which they prey – despair that they exploit and amplify. And so analysis matters, but argument matters more. Evidence matters, but so too does emotion. Stories beat spreadsheets. People need hope.
So we will face up to the big challenges and we will make the big arguments – the Labour case – that only Labour values and Labour policies can ensure our country not only weathers these storms but emerges stronger and fairer. And the Labour case: that neither Nigel Farage nor Zack Polanski offers our country the serious progressive leadership these times demand.
Of course, like every government, we’ve made mistakes. But we got the big political choices right. I mean – if we had listened to the advice of other parties, right now we would be stuck in a stand-off with Iran, having been dragged into a war that is not in our interest, and I will never do that.
We invested in our public services, in people, and in the pride of Britain’s communities; difficult decisions funded that. But now, NHS waiting times are coming down, child poverty is coming down, and immigration is coming down. We are rebuilding from the ground up. They were the right calls.
And most of all, we stabilised the economy. The fundamentals are sound – and that matters because it puts us in a much better place to come out of the conflict in Iran stronger and fairer, and for living standards to improve after two decades of stagnation. But that’s not enough, clearly. No, for the British people, tired of a status quo that has failed them, change cannot come quickly enough. And truth be told, I’m not sure that they believe that we care. I’m not sure they believe that we see their lives.
And that’s tough to say. When you come from a working-class background like me, it’s hard to hear that because I do know what it’s like to struggle and to strive. But what I take from it is that I have spent too much time talking about what I am doing for working people and not enough time talking about why, or who I stand for. Because I can see how hard life has been during these decades of crisis; I can see that very clearly. My late brother, Nick, spent all his adult life going from one job to the next; the status quo did not work for him.
My sister is a carer, working long hours on low pay, year after year after year. She didn’t even get sick pay in the pandemic; the status quo did not work for her. For too long we’ve ignored people like that, and there are millions of people in that boat – millions of people who don’t get the dignity, the respect, or the chance that they deserve to go as far as their talent and effort should take them. Millions of people are held back because the status quo in this country does not work for them. I am fighting for them; we are fighting for them.
I am their Prime Minister and this is their Government because I know whose side I am on. I’m on the side of working people, just like my sister – people who work harder and harder but who worry about the cost of living. They’re not asking for the world; they just want to do the best for their kids. They want their town centres, the places they care about, to thrive; their public services to work; and people in power to see their problems.
And right now they’re worried sick. They turn on the TV and see bombs falling. They go to the petrol station and see prices rising. And they think: how is this happening to us again? They say, “How can I be paying the price for a war thousands of miles away that I don’t support, that Britain isn’t involved in?” And it’s not a new feeling, is it?
For two decades our country’s been buffeted by crisis after crisis: the 2008 financial crash, the Tory austerity that followed it, Brexit, Covid, and the Ukraine War. On and on it goes, and the response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to the status quo – a status quo that failed working people time and again. Our response this time must be different – a complete break. We must make this country stronger. Take control of our economic security, our energy security, and our defence security. And we must make this country fairer. Strength through fairness; that is my compass in this world. It is a core Labour argument, and in the coming days, you will see those values writ large in the King’s Speech. And you will see hope, urgency, and exactly whose side we are on reflected in everything we say and everything we do.
Let me give you three examples today, starting with British Steel. Because what we did in Scunthorpe last year is one of the proudest things we have done in Government. That plant was hours away from closure, and that is thousands of jobs gone, an entire region decimated, and Britain’s security exposed. And so we acted. Parliament was in recess, but it didn’t matter. As a united Labour Party, we passed emergency legislation and we took control. We must bring that same urgency to everything now, starting, appropriately enough, with Scunthorpe. Because steel is the ultimate sovereign capability. Strong nations, in a world like this, need to make steel. That’s why we’re backing steel in Port Talbot and across the UK. But in Scunthorpe, we’ve been negotiating with the current owner. A commercial sale has not been possible, and a public interest test could now be met.
So I can announce that legislation will be brought forward this week to give the Government powers – subject to that public interest test – to take full national ownership of British Steel. Public ownership in the public interest; urgent Government, on the side of working people, making Britain stronger with the hope of industrial renewal. That is a Labour choice.
Second example: Europe. And I’m sorry, but I need to take a bit of a detour on this because I want to remind you what Nigel Farage said about Brexit. He said it would make us richer; wrong – it made us poorer. He said it would reduce migration; wrong – migration went through the roof. He said it would make us more secure; wrong again – it made us weaker. He took Britain for a ride and – unlike the Tories, actually, who at least had to face up to it – he just fled the scene. And now, he’ll talk about almost anything other than the consequences of the one policy he actually delivered. Because he’s not just a grifter, he is a chancer.
So, at the next EU summit, I will set a new direction for Britain. The last government was defined by breaking our relationship with Europe; this Labour Government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe – by putting Britain at the heart of Europe. Because standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values, and our enemies – that is the right choice for Britain; that is the Labour choice. And for our young people, also something more. Because Brexit snatched away their ability to work, to study, and to live easily in Europe. That’s why I am proud we restored the Erasmus scheme.
But I want to go further. I want to make a better offer for our young people, restore that hope and that freedom, and that sense of possibility. And so I want an ambitious Youth Experience scheme to be at the heart of our new arrangement with the EU so that our young people can work, study, and live in Europe. A symbol of a stronger relationship and a fairer future with our closest allies; that is the Labour choice.
And third: the greatest hope, the hope every parent has of a better future for their children. I want parents to feel that this is shared by their Government. Now – my parents… don’t worry – I’m not going there! But they didn’t have a lot of money, and my Mum was seriously ill for most of her life. But when they were in their later years, reflecting on what gave their life meaning, I could see that, as well as their hope in us, their kids, what comforted them was the idea that they had contributed to a Britain that was getting better for young people – that kids now had better opportunities than they did.
And so I have always been driven by the idea that every child should go as far as their talent or effort takes them. It’s a beautiful idea, shared widely across this country. We tell ourselves stories about it, don’t we? Stories not unlike mine, about the working-class kids who do make it. And I don’t blame people for telling those stories; it’s important to tell those stories. But it’s not everyone, is it? So when I say every child should have the opportunity to go as far as their talent or effort takes them, I mean every child.
I mean the kids who are growing up in poverty, the kids who have special educational needs, the kids who can’t get a job, and the kids who are ignored, frankly, because society often only puts those who go to university on a pedestal. We don’t see anything else as success, and that’s wrong – deeply wrong.
So we will go much further on our investment in apprenticeships, in technical excellence colleges, and in special educational needs. We will make sure every young person struggling to find work will get a guaranteed offer of a job, training, or a work placement. And we will go much further with our pride in place programme; we will back the millions of people who give their time and effort to young people in their community – we will back them, not just with money, but with power. And we will make sure that kids whose talent lies with their hands, kids who go to college, kids ignored by the status quo because politicians’ kids don’t go there – they will finally get the respect they deserve in a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the Labour choice. These are just a few examples, but they show the urgency and hope in our direction. They show the Labour values we will be guided by. And they show, frankly, the lessons that we will learn.
Now, other parties will draw different lessons. In fact, they already are. They want more grievance politics. More division. More pointing at Britain’s problems, looking not for solutions but for someone to blame. Now that’s fine if it’s me, if it’s politicians – that’s the job. But increasingly, it’s not; it’s other people in this country. And I don’t think that’s British. That is not the decency and respect we are known for. But it’s here; that politics is with us now, and you’ll see it again on Saturday at a march designed to confront and intimidate this diverse city and this diverse country. That is why this Government will block far-right agitators from travelling into Britain for that event, because we will not allow people to come to the UK, threaten our communities, and spread hate on our streets. This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we win it. Because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens; we can only win as a stronger version of Labour – a mainstream party of power, not protest.
But I also want to be crystal clear on this: because I will never stop fighting for the decent, respectful, and diverse country that I love. And I will never give up on the hope we can unlock in this country – the hope of renters for security in their home, of workers for fairness at work, of public services freed from austerity, the hope of European solidarity, of community pride, and of the people who paint over the graffiti that is racist. A country taking control of its future; our spirit unchanged, our resolve unbroken. The hope of a country that can and will become a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the hope I am fighting for, that is the hope we are fighting for. That is the Labour choice. Thank you.
Politics
The Town That Wouldn’t Die: A View from the Streets of Bint Jbeil
If you want to understand the soul of Bint Jbeil, you don’t look at a map. Instead, you look at the Israeli artillery left in our town square – a sign of liberation from the occupation after the year 2000.
Our town centre was a graveyard of Israeli hubris. We kept the rusted skeletons of Israeli armored carriers and cannons right there in the open, turning the engines of an ‘invincible’ occupation into a playground for our children. To the world, these were war trophies; to us, they were the physical receipts of a decades-long debt paid in blood. We are a people of the ‘Thursday Market,’ a town where intellectual defiance was traded as freely as grain, and where every stone house was built with the silent understanding that it might one day have to become a fortress.
“Israel is weaker than a spider’s web”
I speak to you as a descendent of that town. I saw how my town stood its ground in 1948, in 1978, and in 1982. We have proven time and again that Israel cannot govern a people who recognizes its presence only as a temporary shadow. When Hassan Nasrallah, former secretary general of Hezbollah, stood in Bint Jbeil’s municipal football field, he stated in his famous Liberation Day speech that:
Israel is weaker than a spider’s web.
It is a statement that, until today, Israel wanted to retaliate against, by taking over the football field and raising its flag in it.
Forward to 2006, Israel’s July aggression back then failed to fulfil any of its announced goals. The military announced in the last two weeks of the war that their sole goal was raising the Israeli flag in Bint Jbeil’s city centre. They failed to do so after sporadic clashes. They couldn’t even reach the square, which is roughly 5km away from the nearest border point.
Now, in 2026, the most bitter truth of our history is that Israel destroyed the whole town after failing to occupy it.
Lebanon’s “Stalingrad”
After weeks of failing to break our spirit in house-to-house combat, the occupation realized they couldn’t actually take Bint Jbeil. They couldn’t even settle for more than a couple of hours in its centre.
The town became a “Stalingrad” of southern Lebanon. Yet again, Bint Jbeil resisted an occupation and an aggressor, fighting for the safety of the entire mid-south of the country.
Nevertheless, Israelis waited for the ceasefire, as they had done in the 2024 war with the border towns. They waited for the world to look away, and then they used the silence of the ‘peace’ to systematically level everything to the ground. The buildings that they didn’t destroy, they stole, burnt, or committed their usual psychopathic acts, as they’ve done in the previous “ceasefire”.
But they didn’t defeat us; they simply erased the geography because they were too afraid to stand in our streets while the walls were still standing.
A confession of failure
This erasure was a confession of failure. For 33 days, the most advanced military machine in the region pounded against Bint Jbeil’s perimeter, only to find that high-tech warfare is useless against a geography that breathes.
Israel has turned the districts into a maze, where armor became a liability and specialized training meant nothing against a man defending his own front yard. The world called it a ‘stalemate,’ but for those of us who know the weight of Bint Jbeil’s soil, it was a victory of the spirit. The Lebanese resistance didn’t just hold the line; it proved that a town built on centuries of southern Lebanon’s identity cannot be intimidated by the optics of power.
Then came the ‘cessation of hostilities.’ As the ink dried on Resolution 1701, the strategy shifted from combat to spite. It was during those final hours, and the fragile days of the so-called ceasefire, that the real catastrophe unfolded. This was no longer about military objectives; it was about the psychological demolition of a symbol.
Israel brought down our marketplaces, our historic centres, and the very homes that had housed generations of resistance; our intellectuals, politicians, key figures, artists, businessmen, expats, journalists, historians, philanthropists, and others. They did this not because they were ‘targets,’ but because they were witnesses. They sought to create a ‘victory’ out of debris, standing atop the dust of our heritage because they could never truly stand on our streets while they were whole.
Reconstruction as an assertive geopolitical statement
In Bint Jbeil, the act of reconstruction is not merely an urban planning project; it is an assertive geopolitical statement.
When the stones of the neighborhoods were leveled in 2006, the intent was to dismantle the “intellectual market” that had long anchored the South. However, the occupier failed to realize that our geography is not just made of mortar and rock, but of a collective memory that remains immune to bombardment.
To rebuild a home on the exact footprint where it was destroyed is to reinforce a psychological barrier that says:
You may have stood on this dust for a moment, but you never owned the ground.
By restoring the ancient stone facades and reopening the Thursday Market, the locals have ensured that the physical environment continues to mirror their internal defiance. The architecture of Bint Jbeil serves as a permanent witness, proving that while buildings can be murdered, the social contract of a people rooted in their land is indestructible.
A stark, living contradiction
Yet again, my town stands as a stark, living contradiction to the paralysis of the Lebanese central government.
The “Spectator State” in Beirut often remains a passive observer to regional storms, bound by institutional deadlock and unable to project sovereignty over its own borders. Even though PM Nawaf Salam has visited the town during the previous ceasefire to assure the people that they’re under the government’s safety, Bint Jbeil has historically functioned as its own sovereign sentinel.
The town has been forced to cultivate a localized, grassroots strength precisely because the national state could not provide a shield. In the absence of a robust state defense, the town’s social fabric and its heritage of resistance became the actual border of the country. This creates a unique geopolitical phenomenon where a single town maintains a psychological and military barrier that the state it belongs to cannot physically uphold, transforming Bint Jbeil from a mere border town into the primary guardian of a sovereignty that the centre has long since abdicated.
Now that the town has been taken over by the Israelis, during an imposed ceasefire after IOF failed to occupy it in combat, the entirety of the southern Litani river is being bombarded with relative ease. Earlier today, on 11 May 2026, Salam declared that Bint Jbeil “has become a version of Gaza.” With no government military presence whatsoever to impose security, our officials scramble to negotiate peace with a brutal, psychopathic, genocidal machine, as if they have anything in hand to force a complete Israeli retreat from the 35 towns they’ve completely taken over or stopping the attacks on the 82 towns in total.
Featured images courtesy of the author
Politics
Politics Home Article | More Than 50 Labour MPs call for Keir Starmer To Resign

3 min read
Keir Starmer is fighting for his premiership after more than 50 MPs have called on the Prime Minister to resign.
At the time of writing 52 Labour MPs have called on Starmer to set out a timetable for a leadership election to take place.
Former minister Catherine West has emailed Labour MPs looking for names to support a leadership election that would see a new leader in place before September.
The list of names urging for the Prime Minister to resign includes Milton Keynes North MP Chris Curtis, co-chair of the Labour Growth Group, and North Northumberland MP David Smith, a member of the Blue Labour caucus.
On Monday, Starmer attempted to shore up his position with a speech focused on his vision for the Labour Party, saying his government must go beyond “incremental change” and be the party of a “stronger and fairer” Britain.
He promised a stronger youth guarantee for jobs and apprenticeships, to nationalise British steel and move Britain closer to Europe while maintaining red lines.
However, his backbenchers remain far from reassured, particularly those on the soft Left who have been calling for a more left-ward tilt.
At the Communications Workers Union conference, Angela Rayner criticised Starmer and the NEC from preventing the Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham from running as a candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election. She told the audience “it was a mistake that the leadership of our party should put right.”
She also admitted the government’s agenda “isn’t working and it needs to change.”
Some Labour MPs told PoliticsHome Starmer’s decision to reject calls to allow Burnham back into Parliament has been “his greatest misstep”.
“[He] would have come out stronger if he said NEC shouldn’t block Burnham. That single line could have saved his premiership. That could have just been his greatest misstep,” said one.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has also said Andy Burnham would be an asset in Westminster. She told Sky News that Burnham was a politician who “goes out and fights for people and people see it and appreciate it”.
Meanwhile the mood amongst MPs – even those who have not called for the Prime Minister to go publicly – remains febrile, with a number of influential MPs telling PoliticsHome they remained unimpressed with the speech.
A furious northern MP told PoliticsHome: “I’m as pro-Europe as they come, but why is our solution to a Reform landslide (in very Leave areas) when they actually didn’t really breakthrough in Remain areas, to say we should be closer to Europe!? Total two fingers to people.”
“Needed to be back to basics, wages, prices, jobs, boats, security, common sense working class politics and instead it was for Guardian readers.”
Another Labour MP said: “Nothing new to be honest. Same old same old. Rather uninspiring. Note that he’s determined to hang on come what may. Basically no change so the ship continues to sink.”
Those of the soft left of the party were unimpressed by Starmer’s offering too. One told PoliticsHome the Prime Minister is “deluded”.
“Warm bath Keir. He thinks he’s right, but the man is deluded.
Another joked: “A speech so bad that Luke Akehurst has begun recruiting for the impending leadership contest.”
Politics
Gaza: Doctors under Attack wins BAFTA despite BBC censorship only to be censored again
The BBC has once again been exposed as being entirely at odds with the interests of the British public after Gaza: Doctors Under Attack won a BAFTA at the 2026 ceremony.
The previously censored documentary won in the current affairs category — a result that further highlights how biased the licence-funded broadcaster has become in service of a foreign state committing genocide.
After the BBC attempted to block Gaza: Doctors Under Attack from being broadcast, Channel 4 stepped in to ensure it aired.
The BBC justified its decision at the time and said:
We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC.
Nevertheless, the broadcaster showed little willingness to learn and continued censoring large parts of the acceptance speech. More specifically, it removed references to the vast and unforgivable number of Palestinian women and children killed, as well as references to the targeting of hospitals in Gaza.
Gaza documentary winners’ speech censored
However, this is far from the first time BBC executives have made highly questionable decisions that damaged both the corporation’s credibility and its privileged position as a national broadcaster tasked with delivering impartial, honest coverage to licence fee payers.
Its blatant censorship at the BAFTAs earlier this year fuelled unnecessary tensions between disabled and Black communities. It also reinforced the view among critics that the BBC is less interested in reporting current affairs than in shaping them within British society.
Cowardly BBC remove parts of the BAFTA acceptance speech delivered by the team behind "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack", after the filmmakers publicly criticized the broadcaster for refusing to air the documentary. pic.twitter.com/nCsqqzP5mW
— PalMedia (@PalMediaOrg) May 10, 2026
This represents an impressively foolish own goal for the national broadcaster, which licence fee payers continue to fund despite reporting that many believe runs directly against the public interest.
In his acceptance speech, executive producer Ben De Pear challenged the BBC asking whether their acceptance speech would face censorship like this award-winning documentary had been.
Clearly the BBC, this time, wanted to somewhat save face — but still, for good measure, censored anything substantial regarding Israel’s genocide in Gaza. That becomes far easier to understand when we recognise just how prolific pro-Israel bias has become, once again prompting renewed questions over whether this broadcaster should fundamentally change its business model.
After all, it clearly is not working as the BBC confuse, incite and manipulate British audiences.
Navia: ‘We refused to be silenced and censored’
This is the acceptance speech the BBC would have you believe occurred, as in the video above:
Journalist Ramita Navia:
This award means so much to us. These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refused to show. But we refused to be silenced and censored. And we thank you. And we thank Channel 4 for showing this film.
Exec producer, Ben De Pear:
We also want to dedicate this award to Jabba Badwin and Osama Al-Ashi, the two journalists on the ground who made this film for us. So, I’d like a round of applause for them please.
Just a question to the BBC. Given that you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTA screening later tonight? Thank you. Bye.
From Navia’s powerful and principled speech, these sections were omitted:
Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza. So far, Israel has bombed and targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals.
It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and health care workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls the medicide. These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refused to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored.
We thank Channel 4 for showing this film. Right now, there are over 80 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers being held in detention centers that Israeli human rights groups describe as torture camps.
We dedicate this award to them.
What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s no double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?
Westerners, where is your humanity? Cameraman: @aliezzedine7 pic.twitter.com/ntXIwz4s6H
— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) May 9, 2026
Sometimes, it is far better to look at what someone omits than what they choose to say. The BBC is making clear that whilst it cares about saving face publicly, it will always shield the indefensible genocide and expansionist agenda waged by Zionists in Israel.
Gaza: Doctors Under Attack is awarded the BAFTA for Current Affairs — BAFTA (@BAFTA) May 10, 2026
#BAFTATVAwards with @pandocruises pic.twitter.com/jZI9Mrsjx2
The BBC has done this before
Let’s face it, impartiality is pretty much impossible. The BBC makes that pretty apparent.
It may claim its reporting is impartial, but its editorial choices — what it broadcasts and what it omits — makes that partiality increasingly obvious. Instead, wouldn’t it be better if they were at least honest about its Zionist tendencies, and its clear politicised coverage in the interests of war criminals wanted by the International Criminal Court.
The Canary wrote extensively about the BAFTA incident in February this year, making clear that the blame for the harm caused lays firmly at the feet of the BBC. It wasn’t the responsibility of disabled and Black communities to unpick, unravel and make sense of what happened.
‘Sinners’ star Wunmi Mosaku weighs in on what happened to her co-stars, Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, at the BAFTAs last weekend. pic.twitter.com/HLAyitiB7h
— Entertainment Tonight (@etnow) March 2, 2026
The BBC should rely on Zionist funding not licence fee
First, the BBC tried to pit embattled communities against each other and now it stands completely at odds with the public through its shameful coverage of Zionist Israel and its many, many flagrant and murderous breaches of international and humanitarian law.
Therefore, it can no longer be denied that the BBC does not work in the interests of British people. Instead, it works for the establishment which has pushed many of the BBC‘s viewers into poverty, struggle and deprivation.
Consequently, this leaves people feeling hopeless and searching more desperately for honest, accurate reporting. It has also never been more urgent that the public understands who is actively working against their interests.
The BBC has not been living up to its remit for many years. Even when called out for its nefarious censorship as De Pear did yesterday, it still cannot resist cutting pertinent information. As a result, it is time for TV licences to end and the BBC to start earning its funds.
Right now, it is only earning its funding from a country committing genocide, and its Zionist stooges in Starmer’s cabinet.
Featured image via Getty Images for BAFTA/ John Phillips
Politics
The Prime Minister’s new EU clothes
Joël Reland reacts to Keir Starmer’s speech on the direction of the Labour Party following their poor performance in the local elections. He argues that, despite promising to put “Britain at the heart of Europe”, the Prime Minister continues to uphold the status quo on Brexit.
The status quo isn’t working, so here’s some more of the status quo. As an epitaph for Keir Starmer’s administration, his speech today could hardly have been neater.
In the run-up to the speech, it was widely briefed that EU affairs would be at its heart. As a political strategy for a downtrodden Labour Prime Minister, this made intuitive sense. Labour is losing more votes the Greens, Lib Dems and nationalist parties than to Reform and the Conservatives.
As Patrick Maguire wrote in the Times, a bolder offer on Europe is one thing which might give some discontented Labour MPs pause for thought: a unifying vision which suggests their leader has both a plan to boost the ailing economy and to win back the liberal-left voters who are deserting the party in droves.
Some predicted Starmer might even take the opportunity to review his manifesto red lines of no single market, customs union or free movement. A last hail Mary for a Prime Minister with nothing else left to lose.
The early parts of the speech suggested this might be the case. Sleeves rolled up, Starmer laid out his analysis of the troubled state of the UK: “The status quo isn’t working… Incremental change won’t cut it”. He went on, “I will set a new direction for Britain… This Labour government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe, by putting Britain at the heart of Europe.”
Then came the crunch. The moment where Starmer had to set out the detail of this vision, of what Britain at the heart of Europe means in practice. At which point he offered up a single policy, “an ambitious youth experience scheme”, which was already committed to a full year ago and has been under negotiation for most of the time since.
The implications of this are unambiguous. Starmer has no plan to change the status quo. Nothing new was brought onto the agenda, and the Prime Minister’s focus is on concluding the handful of agreements committed to at last year’s UK-EU summit, with a vague promise of new agreements to come at the next summit this summer.
The most charitable reading is that Starmer is laying the necessary groundwork for a successful second summit. The reality is that, if he wants to use that event to announce the conclusion of deals to take the UK closer to the single market (on agrifoods and emissions trading), a deal is also going to have to be reached on ‘youth experience’ – the EU’s number one negotiating interest.
And negotiations on the latter have proved fraught, due to disagreements over participant numbers and the level of tuition fees which EU students should pay. Starmer’s words today may be a sign that the UK is about to compromise on those points so he has some other ‘wins’ to sell at the next summit. That could also open up the space for the two sides to commit to negotiations on enhanced cooperation in a handful of other new areas (perhaps vehicles, medicines or digital policy).
But the problem remains that this is exactly the kind of incrementalism which Starmer so derided earlier in his speech. His plan maintains Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal as its centrepiece: a deal which places the UK not at the ‘heart’ of Europe, but as its appendix – outside of all the key economic and political institutions.
Starmer might hope to improve economic ties in a few limited sectors, but the structural reality of the UK’s position will remain unchanged, and the boost to GDP is likely to be nothing more than a few fractions of a percent by the end of the next decade.
Some commentary has argued that Starmer left the door open to ditching his red lines before the next election, by not explicitly committing to maintain them when questioned by a journalist in the Q&A. But the Prime Minister will not get the chance to drop the red lines unless he can convince his own MPs that he is worth sticking with for the months to come.
And today’s speech will not have helped the case. It speaks to a Prime Minister who lacks the vision – or courage – to take the steps necessary to address the problems which he identifies.
EU policy is not the reason why Labour MPs have lost faith in Starmer and nor, in all likelihood, would a change in approach have been enough to save his ailing premiership. But today it served as a test case for whether an embattled Prime Minister has a plan for how to turn things around. It’s a test which he failed to pass.
By Joël Reland, Senior Researcher, UK in a Changing Europe.
Politics
A historic humiliation for Welsh Labour
‘I ddim ond dweud y gair “Ffarwél”.’ The closing line of Myfanwy, one of the greatest poems in the Welsh language, reads: ‘I can only say the word, “Farewell”.’ It serves as a fitting eulogy to the Welsh Labour Party, which has just been trounced in Welsh Senedd elections.
This is a pivotal moment. The Labour Party has dominated Welsh politics for over a century. It has won a majority of parliamentary seats in every election since the end of the First World War, and has been the largest party in all of Wales’ devolved governments since the Senedd, the Welsh parliament, was created in 1999.
But last Thursday – a day that will go down in Welsh history even more than Llanelli beating the All Blacks in 1972 – not only did Welsh Labour get booted out, but the long-suffering Welsh public also bid a fond farewell to Eluned Morgan, the Welsh first minister. She is the first head of government to lose her seat while still in office in British history.
This was a devastating result for Labour. The Daily Mirror described it as ‘savage’, Labour’s own deputy first minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, admitted that it was a ‘catastrophic result’. Even the Guardian recognised it as a ‘historic defeat’.
Welsh voters were clearly in no mood to wave Labour off without a good kicking. ‘People have had enough’, one voter told me. ‘For years we have been taken for granted if not treated with disdain’, said another. ‘Good riddance to bad rubbish’, said a third.
On a high turnout of 52 per cent, 36 per cent voted for Plaid Cymru, while 26 per cent chose Reform UK, leaving the former with 43 seats and the latter with 34 seats in the 96-seat Senedd. Though falling short of a majority, Plaid Cymru will now lead the Senedd with a significant mandate, and its leader, Rhun ap Iorwerth (born Rhun Jones), the ex-BBC Wales chief political correspondent, will become first minister.
Despite every trick the Welsh Labour government played to strengthen its hold on power, from boundary changes to a lower voting age to EU-style proportional representation, it picked up just nine seats on 11 per cent of the vote.
The magnitude of Labour’s loss cannot be overstated. The voting public has been aware of Labour’s electoral games, not to mention the whiff of corruption, for years, but has excused it because the governing party in Westminster – usually the Tories – was deemed even worse. But now, with a Labour government in Westminster no better at representing voters’ aspirations, the public has turned. After years of being sidelined by English Tories and screwed by Welsh Labour, they have chosen either the nationalist identity politics of Plaid Cymru or the populist anger of Reform.
Plaid Cymru’s success at this election was less a positive vote for Welsh independence than it was a tactical, anti-populist ‘stop Reform’ vote. In many ways, it was a vote to continue Welsh Labour’s technocratic governance in another guise.
Though it didn’t win, Reform still performed impressively. Hitherto, it had only one sitting Senedd member (a result of a defection from the Tories). So its current tally of 34 seats – almost one-third of the chamber – is a remarkable achievement.
But let’s be clear, this was, first and foremost, a slap in the face to Labour. This, lest we forget, was a party rooted in the Welsh valleys and founded by Welshman Keir Hardie in 1900. The Labour movement at the time exemplified and encouraged the autodidactic ambitions of the working class. Education was a way of fighting back against a patronising Westminster establishment. The famous story of Archie Lush, an unemployed miner who travelled to Oxford in 1927 to meet his prospective university tutor at Balliol College will suffice:
‘He gave me a long list of books to read before I came up. When I told him I had read so-and-so, he just didn’t believe me. And he said, “Well, where would you get these books?”… And I said, “Tredegar Workmen’s Library”. Well, that convinced him that I couldn’t possibly [have read them]… But I had read them, and I was able to tell him what was in them…’
But no more. During the 21st century, Welsh Labour has presided over the complete destruction of education in Wales, devaluing and running down the working class in the process. Aided and abetted by Plaid Cymru Senedd members, Labour has delivered the lowest educational outcomes for young people anywhere in the UK. A fifth of primary school leavers in Wales are functionally illiterate.
But then Labour has long since ceased to be the party it once was. It represents the views of metropolitan liberals, not the interests of a diminished trade-union movement, let alone an industrial working class. It has revelled in its distance from its roots. Welsh Labour, like the Labour Party as a whole, is now a party of suits with no connection to their historical base and oblivious to the ‘lived experience’ of those whom Labourites call ‘working people’.
Labour’s estrangement from its roots was writ large in last week’s elections. In Keir Hardie’s constituency of Merthyr Tydfil (now redefined as Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr), Labour won just one seat to Reform’s two and Plaid’s three. In ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock’s constituency of Islwyn (now known as Casnewydd Islwyn), Labour won just a single seat compared with two for both Plaid and Reform. The same happened in Michael Foot and Aneurin Bevan’s old stomping ground of Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni.
This is seismic stuff. And it has been a long time coming. Ordinary people lent their vote to Labour at the last General Election only to see Starmer’s government continue the Tories’ betrayal. And now these two sides of the same lanyard class, which has long held its working-class voters in contempt, are paying the price. Neither the Tories, with just seven seats, nor Labour could get into double figures.
But Plaid Cymru is not the answer. It’s just the Labour Party with added leeks. Don’t ask the party’s leading figures what a woman is (although Rhun ap Iorwerth might translate a word for you), as it has a manifesto commitment to gender self-ID and is ‘proud of [its] record in having led the campaign to establish Wales’s first transgender clinic’.
Now Plaid Cymru faces running a principality that, thanks to Labour, is on its knees. Hospital waiting times are around 65 per cent higher than they are in the UK as a whole; educational performance is below the OECD average and the lowest in UK; GDP per head is around 75 per cent of the national average and child poverty is running at over 30 per cent. The list goes on.
As a minority government, Plaid Cymru finds itself in an invidious position. If it allies with Labour, the very party the public just voted out, to push its policies through, it will inevitably reveal what a bunch of charlatans Plaid Cymru really are.
The olive branch offered by Anthony Slaughter, leader of the Wales Green Party (who is ‘open to conversations’ with Plaid Cymru) might be more appealing. But it will be of no benefit to the Welsh public, who will still feel that its votes have been taken for granted. It should go without saying that the Greens’ preference for restricting growth, reversing Brexit and creating a ‘green jobs’ workforce doesn’t bode well for the people of the principality. Draught-stripping your doors with EU grants isn’t the productivity that Wales needs.
Last week’s results were unquestionably a political earthquake. But the ground hasn’t yet swallowed up the old parties, nor settled enough to allow the new ones to grow. In many ways, Reform has bought itself some time by not winning this time. If it is shrewd enough, it will watch and learn from Plaid’s mistakes as this leeked-up version of Labour tries to impose its unwanted campaigns on an already riled-up public.
Austin Williams is the director of the Future Cities Project. Follow him on X: @Future_Cities
Politics
‘The BBC is doomed’ – spiked
spiked is funded by readers like you. Only 0.1% of regular readers currently support us. If just 1% did, we could grow our team and step up the fight for free speech and democracy.
Become a spiked supporter and enjoy unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content and exclusive events – while helping to keep independent journalism alive.
Politics
The House Opinion Article | What is the Education System for?

4 min read
With 1 in 8 young people Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET), too many young people are being failed by our education system. We must equip young people with the skills to thrive in the modern world.
I believe this is not down to a lack of skill or commitment amongst our dedicated teachers across the country, but due to a curriculum and assessment regime that focuses too much on exams and not enough on empowering a love of learning, and the value of practical and ‘soft’ skills.
You don’t need to take my word for it- teachers agree. 73 per cent believe that the curriculum does not teach the soft skills needed for employment.
Previous curriculum reforms have led to a fixation on learning by rote and exams and have not put enough emphasis on the skills young people need to thrive- like leadership, teamwork, and resilience.
Now is the time to pause and create a modern approach to education to fit the modern world.
High quality careers education and work experience will be key to this. It should be deeply imbedded into the curriculum. Done well, it can break down barriers to opportunity, help tackle NEET, and drive economic growth.
The evidence supports this. Young people in schools and colleges with the highest-quality careers provision are 8 per cent less likely to become NEET. That effect is magnified in the most disadvantaged schools, where the highest-quality careers provision is associated with a 20% reduction in NEET rates.
Young people agree that current careers provision is not sufficient. A recent longitudinal study has highlighted that young people do not feel they are getting adequate careers advice, particularly if they want to pursue non-university routes into work.
Many schools see work experience and careers guidance as additional to, rather than, core responsibilities and too often work experience becomes ‘join your parents at work week’. To maximise the value of work experience, young people must get an opportunity to see environments that truly open new horizons.
The Labour government have talked a good game about the importance of skills – to people, to employers, and to what we want to achieve as a country – and I am proud to have supported some welcome initiatives that have already been introduced.
As Alan Milburn reviews the causes of our NEET numbers, I urge him to consider the role of careers education in tackling youth unemployment.
This could be through practical steps such as making it mandatory for schools to work more closely with colleges or other experts to standardise careers education in the school/college transition. Another practical action the Government could take is the creation of an online platform for young people which clearly sets out who to contact for careers advice, and keeps a virtual record of what they have done so far.
I would also like to see the Gatsby Benchmarks, which are an evidence-based framework that defines good careers guidance, better incorporated into the curriculum, particularly now they are on a statutory footing and a clear focus on soft skills in the new V-levels.
Employers need to have confidence that they can take on young people straight from school. This is particularly vital for increasing opportunities for apprenticeships.
Recent evidence suggests that one of the barriers for employers to take on apprentices is a skills shortage amongst young people. This is particularly stark amongst tradespeople, with 71 per cent highlighting that a skills shortage is stopping them from expanding.
The APPG for Apprenticeships, which I chair, will be looking into this matter further, through an inquiry that will consider if current skills policy is helping to deliver for the industrial strategy.
There is both a moral and economic imperative to act. We cannot write off so many of our young people before they even have a chance to start their careers. And in the long-term, failing to tackle youth unemployment will cost millions through missed tax revenue.
The current system has led to a crisis of NEET young people. There is an opportunity to change the system to correct this – now is the time to act.
Politics
Celtic 3-1 Rangers: Maeda’s overhead kick keeps title race alive
Celtic overturned an early deficit to beat Rangers 3-1 at Celtic Park, with Daizen Maeda producing a moment of real quality — an overhead kick that sealed the win and kept Celtic within a point of the Premiership leaders.
The result hands momentum back to the Hoops with two games to go.
Celtic vs Rangers: How the game unfolded
Rangers started the brighter side, they struck early, with a period of pressure which paid off inside the opening ten minutes when Mikey Moore reacted quickest after a blocked shot to put the visitors ahead. That early goal gave Rangers the initiative and forced Celtic to chase the game.
Celtic respond before half
Celtic steadied and found an equaliser before the break. A well-weighted pass created space on the right, the cutback was finished by Hyun‑Jun Yang to level the score. VAR checked for offside but the goal stood, and the match reset with everything to play for.
Maeda takes over
Celtic raised the tempo after the interval. Kieran Tierney’s work down the left produced a dangerous delivery and Maeda got in front of his marker to prod Celtic ahead.
The game was still in the balance then Maeda produced the moment that will be replayed for weeks. From around 15 yards, he flicked up a partially blocked cross and executed a perfect overhead kick into the top corner, leaving Jack Butland with no chance. It was a finish of great technique and timing.
Rangers search for answers
After going behind, Rangers had spells of possession but struggled to turn control into clear-cut chances. Substitute Bojan Miovski came closest late on when he struck the bar, but Celtic defended the lead without being seriously threatened.
Title race significance
Celtic’s win narrows the gap to the top to a single point. With two fixtures remaining, an away trip to Motherwell and a final-day showdown against leaders Hearts, the title is still very much in Celtic’s hands. If they win both games, they reclaim the crown. The result injects belief and puts pressure back on the teams above them.
Managers and mood
Martin O’Neill’s side showed resilience, coming from behind and scoring at decisive moments. The manager highlighted the team’s effort and the importance of momentum as they head into a crucial mid-week fixture.
Rangers’ boss Danny Røhl acknowledged recurring issues in key moments and stressed the need for defensive sharpness and learning from the run of results. Both managers framed the match as a lesson: Celtic for finishing strongly, Rangers for tightening up in the small moments that decide big games.
Key impacts
Maeda’s moments of magic with two goals, the second an overhead kick that changed the tone of the derby and the title race, gave Celtic all the momentum. This win gives them belief and a clear path, two wins from two would be enough.
Rangers’ problems continue. Having started brightly, their early defensive lapses and then missed chances to respond after going behind. This concludes three straight defeats which underline a season that has petered out.
Close of play
This was a derby decided by a moment of individual brilliance and a team that refused to fold. Celtic leave Celtic Park with their title hopes very much alive. Rangers on the other hand, leave with questions to answer about concentration and consistency. The closing fortnight of the season just got a lot more interesting.
Featured image via PA
By Faz Ali
Politics
Aged ‘Black’ Garlic Could Help To Slow Muscle Ageing
“It’s important to recognise your more annoying traits, and mine is that I keep banging on about sarcopenia, or age-related muscle loss.
In my defence, the process, which begins as early as your 30s, has been linked to a higher risk of falls, dementia, and even a shorter lifespan. It’s part of the reason strength training is so important as we age.
We’re expected to lose half of our muscle mass by 80 if we don’t work to keep the tissue healthy. But a recent study found that a chemical made by old garlic might be a useful addition to your workout routine.
How can garlic help maintain muscle mass?
This study looked specifically at aged, or “black”, garlic.
S-1-propenyl-L-cysteine, or S1PC, which is a compound found in aged garlic, seems to improve communication between mice’s fat cells and their brains. That communication appears to improve muscle strength over time.
This research found that SIPC activated liver kinase B1 (LKB1), which leads to the secretion of extracellular nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (eNAMPT).
eNAMPT is key to creating NAD+, a coenzyme crucial for cell health and metabolism. Greater NAD+ levels have been linked to better ageing.
And eNAMPT can also travel through the bloodstream to reach an area of the brain called the hypothalamus. Once there, it seems to improve muscle function.
This study showed that humans who were given aged garlic-derived S1PC had greater amounts of eNAMPT in their blood. And mice given the same compound saw reduced frailty across 31 health markers.
“We anticipate that S1PC is likely to have a broader anti-ageing effect that warrants detailed investigation,” said study author Dr Shin-ichiro Imai.
The researchers hope this will keep older people stronger for longer
Another study author, Dr Kiyoshi Yoshioka, said: “During my clinical experience as a physical therapist, I was often frustrated to see older adults lose physical function and vitality simply because they had no specific disease requiring medical treatment. This gap in proactive care has driven my research.
“We hope our findings will help improve fitness and muscle strength in older individuals by the simple inclusion of a nutraceutical as part of the daily diet.”
But the journey isn’t expected to end there.
“We have succeeded in expanding the current understanding of how different organs coordinate responses during ageing. Further research is needed to determine improvements in muscle function in humans and to evaluate the long-term effects of S1PC,” said Dr Imai.
“The presence and possible role of LKB1 in the brain also needs evaluation.”
-
Crypto World3 days agoHarrisX Poll Found 52% of Registered Voters Support the CLARITY Act
-
Crypto World4 days agoUpbit adds B3 Korean won pair as Base token gains Korea access
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Marianne Dress
-
Tech7 days agoImage AI models now drive app growth, beating chatbot upgrades
-
NewsBeat4 days agoNCP car park operator enters administration putting 340 UK sites at risk of closure
-
Politics2 days agoPolitics Home Article | Starmer Enters The Danger Zone
-
Business2 days agoIgnore market noise, India’s long-term story intact, say D-Street bulls Ramesh Damani and Sunil Singhania
-
Tech1 day agoAuto Enthusiast Carves Functional Two-Stroke Engine from Solid Metal
-
Crypto World6 days agoUAE Free Zone Deploys Blockchain IDs to Verify Registered Firms
-
Tech8 hours agoGM Agrees To Pay $12.75 Million To Settle California Lawsuit Over Misuse Of Customers’ Driving Data
-
Crypto World4 days agoRobinhood says Wall Street is building onchain
-
Crypto World5 days agoBlackRock CEO Larry Fink Discusses a New Asset Class
-
Entertainment7 days ago
Serena Williams hits Met Gala in metallic dress after GLP-1 reveal
-
Tech5 days agoApple and Samsung are dominating smartphone sales so thoroughly that only one other company makes the top 10
-
Tech5 days agoI tested the Xiaomi 17 Ultra’s camera and I don’t think I’ll ever go back to an iPhone
-
Politics6 days agoMet Gala 2026: Madonna’s Dramatic Red Carpet Look Steals The Show
-
Fashion5 days agoThe Best Work Pants for Women in 2026
-
Sports7 days agoEverton v Man City LIVE: Haaland’s two-word response as visitors collapse to hand Arsenal advantage in Premier League title race
-
Crypto World4 days ago
The FOMO Is Back: Why Bitcoin’s Latest Rally Has Analysts Flashing Warning Signs
-
Tech4 days agoAI agents are missing all the discussions your team is having. SageOX has an answer: agentic context infrastructure

You must be logged in to post a comment Login