Source link

On 26 May, Scotland’s parliament voted for the powers to hold an independence referendum, while Downing Street has rejected the request.

A “golden opportunity” that would “put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands,” is how SNP leader and First Minister John Swinney described independence.

Members of the Scottish parliament, MSPs, agreed on the second referendum by a strong margin. The motion passing 72 votes to 55. Support from the Scottish Greens gave the SNP enough votes to defeat opposition from the unholy London-centric alliance between Labour, Reform, Tories and Lib-Dems. Keir Starmer said he wouldn’t give Scots what they want.

Pro-independence supporters have gathered outside Holyrood

It comes after the Scottish Parliament voted to call on Westminster to devolve the powers which would allow it to hold a second independence referendum pic.twitter.com/WgRBnYvnxi

Advertisement

— The National (@ScotNational) May 26, 2026

Scotland and the promise of devolution

On 7 May the SNP secured their fifth consecutive election win which — for many Scots — reinforces a pro-independence mandate. Speaking after this week’s vote, Swinney emphasised that Holyrood had:

clearly expressed its view that Scotland should have the powers to arrange an orderly referendum on independence.

But in 2022 the British Supreme Court ruled that any future referendum could only be held with the consent of the UK Government. No consent has been granted, nor does it appear likely.

One Downing Street spokesperson said this week that the British Government neither supports independence, or another referendum.

Speaking to the Canary in early May, now-elected Greens noted that this was not the first time a Scottish constitutional matter has been vetoed a MSPs. Kate Nevens and Q Manivannan pointed to a 2021 child rights motion, blocked when it sought to adopt a UN resolution. This set a precedent for UK courts to slap-down similar efforts.

Scottish voters, particularly pro-independence voters, often point out that England pushed Brexit onto Scotland despite an overwhelming 62% pro-EU majority, north of the border. Some even believe that Brexit may have swayed the independence vote had it happened before the referendum.

This is a bitter point for many given that the ‘Better Together’ — pro-union, Labour- and Tory-led — campaign often touted EU membership as a key reason to remain in the UK. That was dashed just two years later.

Scotland is not alone in their democratic deficit. Wales too, now governed for the first time by pro-independence Plaid Cyrmu, also lacks constitutional means for secession.

However, the North of Ireland retains the Good Friday constitutional right to many referenda when it decides. Ruled by for the first time by anti-unionists Sinn Fein since 2022, they arguably have the strongest hand.

Whether a formal coalition — a union against the Union — will form across Celtic nations remains possible.

Untied Kingdom: anti-unionist parties take power across the Celtic nations

How popular is independence?

At the original Scottish independence referendum in 2014, around 55% of voters opposed independence.

That percentage hovered around there since, although pro-‘yes’ reportedly peaked at 53% in mid-2020 and again in late 2022. Another polling scheme suggests that 2019–2021 saw sustained pro-independence support, hovering between 51-53%, but more recently this dropped.

Pro-independence politicians from the SNP and Scottish Greens suggested to the Canary a major factor in pro-independence sentiment slipping away. They blame an overall material impoverishment caused by the UK’s sustained cost-of-living crisis. Now-elected SNP MSP Kate Campbell, for instance, said:

People are focused on bread-and-butter issues right now. …

Housing, the cost-of-living, making sure people are just surviving and getting through at the moment — that has to be the priority for government.

Advertisement

However, indy support has not dropped below 43% since 2014, meaning that only the unionist camp shrank over time. Pro-unionists consistently hold less strong beliefs than pro-independence counterparts.

Demographic changes since 2014 might suggest that the figure could be much lower now, given that — like Brexit — age demographics reflected voter opinion. Younger Scots largely supported the pro-independence vote and still do, with clear pro-indy leanings for all Scots under 50.

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Monthly support makes the biggest difference. Thank you.

Source link

Source link

At exactly 9:00 AM on 22 May 2026, a digital ping cut through the frantic static of southern Lebanon’s emergency frequencies. It was a message from Ahmad Hariri – a young man who carried both a camera to bear witness to his homeland’s agony and the uniform of the Al-Risala Civil Defense to soothe it. The text was brief, accompanying a photograph he had just captured from the window of an ambulance: a plume of black smoke rising from the village of Deir Qanoun al-Nahr in the Tyre district.

It was the second strike of a calculated “double-tap” bombardment. Sitting alongside his brothers-in-arms, Ali Abboud and Hussein Kassir, Ahmad sent the image to explain the destruction unfolding ahead of them. Believing the immediate danger had passed, the team pressed the accelerator, rushing toward the burning horizon because they believed it was finally “safe” to save lives. They had no way of knowing that the smoke was a trap, or that high above the clouds, the mechanical hum of a terror drone had already locked onto their white vehicle. Seconds later, a precision missile tore through the ambulance, freezing Ahmad’s final message in time and transforming three young saviors into the very victims they had set out to rescue.

Medicide

This devastating strike was not an isolated tragedy, nor was it a mistake of military coordinates. It was a microcosm of a horrifying broader reality: the systematic, intentional execution of medicide – the deliberate dismantling of Lebanon’s humanitarian framework by targeting the very people who document the war and pull its survivors from the rubble.

The killing of paramedics is not a byproduct of overlapping coordinates, but rather a text-book manifestation of this phenomenon. Under the framework of medicide, the objective transitions from fighting an armed adversary to completely dissolving the healthcare infrastructure that allows human beings to survive on their land.

In stripping a territory of its first-responders, the strategy effectively weaponizes aid-denial, leaving remaining civilians with a catastrophic reality: a landscape where the wounded are left to die beneath the debris, because the hands that would have pulled them out have been systematically eliminated.

A deliberate military strategy

The systematic assault on Lebanon’s healthcare framework has evolved into one of the most lethal campaigns against humanitarians in modern conflict. According to data from the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health and the World Health Organization (WHO), Israeli strikes have killed at least 123 healthcare workers and paramedics, and injured more than 260 others just since Israeli aggression brutally escalated on 2 March 2026.

This targeted violence is defined on the ground by tactical aggression: over 100 ambulances and emergency vehicles have been destroyed, multiple hospitals have been forced to close entirely, and rescue teams have been repeatedly subjected to “double-tap” strikes, or hit more than twice, as happened with the Risala Civil Defense team that Ahmad Hariri accompanied.

By converting highly visible civil defense symbols, their gear, and paramedics into combat targets, this campaign transcends individual casualties; it functions as a deliberate military strategy to dismantle the civilian safety net, paralyzing emergency operations and enforcing mass depopulation.

A psychological ultimatum

In southern Lebanon, paramedics and civil defense volunteers are the glue that allows a community to withstand bombardment. When a military systematically hunts down ambulances and kills the very personnel trained to extract families from the rubble, it issues a stark psychological ultimatum to the remaining population: if you choose to stay, and your home is targeted, no one is coming to save you.

The destruction of the rescue apparatus accelerates mass displacement far more effectively than indiscriminate shelling alone, cleansing strategic geographic zones by intentionally removing the civilian safety net. Moreover, the targeting of paramedics creates a psychological fear of the double-tap that extends beyond the strikes’ immediate casualties. It paralyzes the entire emergency response loop, forcing dispatchers to make agonizing calculations about whether sending an ambulance to a fresh strike site is a rescue mission or a death sentence.

Redefining the battlefield

Ultimately, this weaponized denial of aid redefines the battlefield. By treating the high-visibility vest not as a symbol of legal protection, but as indicators of high-value targets, the military apparatus successfully transforms emergency medical care from a humanitarian right into an impossible act of resistance.

Under Article 24 of the First Geneva Convention, medical personnel and those engaged in the search, collection, and transport of the wounded are granted absolute protection. They are deemed neutral actors on the battlefield. Yet, on the ground, this immunity has been entirely neutralized when it comes to terrorizing a colonial entity such as Israel, which has a long history in violating human rights and international agreements.

No accountability in Gaza has given a green light for Lebanon

How does Israel explain these inhumane acts of terror? Simple:

members of Hezbollah are using the civil defense vehicles and centers for military actions against the state of Israel.

It’s the same line used by IOF spokespersons on multiple occasions, as they have done in Gaza <during the genocide. Since the previous “ceasefire” and until today, however, the IOF makes no such excuses. Instead, they deliberately target the vehicles and centers without hesitation, whether it be for the first time, a double-tap, a triple-tap, or even a quadruple-tap, as the world has seen in the Mayfadoun attack in mid-April.

This strategy, carried out with impunity, is a direct extension of the structural blueprint established during the devastating campaigns in Gaza. For months, the systematic targeting of hospitals, the killing of over 150 journalists, and the routine execution of ambulance drivers were met with diplomatic shielding – particularly from the US, the EU, and the UK – and hollow calls for “internal military investigations” by Israel, proceedings that global watchdogs note are quietly closed or left unresolved in most cases. This calculated lack of accountability sent a green light to the theater of war in Lebanon.

It proved that the rules of global humanitarian law could be bypassed without consequence. When the international community – led by the silence and weapon shipments of Western powers – failed to enforce red lines over the bodies of healthcare workers in Gaza, it fundamentally reshaped the theater of war. By failing to protect the high-visibility vest and the “PRESS” helmet, the international community is complicit in allowing these universal symbols of safety to be transformed into literal targets by its colonial extension in the Middle East.

Old strategies with drone precision

Ultimately, the double-tap strike that took the lives of Ahmad Hariri, Ali Abboud, and Hussein Kassir in Deir Qanoun al-Nahr was its intended output. The strategy is as old as conflict itself, yet modernized with drone precision: blind the world by killing the storyteller, and abandon the wounded by executing the savior.

By targeting individuals who possess the dual courage to both pull victims from the rubble and capture the crimes on film, the military apparatus attempts to enforce absolute monopoly over the narrative and the space of southern Lebanon.

Yet, this campaign of intimidation inherently carries the seeds of its own failure. While Ahmad Hariri’s camera was shattered and his pulse was stopped on the asphalt of Deir Qanoun, the final story he documented was his own. The collective grief and fierce defiance displayed during the funeral processions in Tyre and his hometown stand as proof that a community cannot be easily terrorized into oblivion.

Ahmad’s life and death left behind an unerasable record – an indictment written in fabric and digital memory. The rubble may bury the buildings, and precision missiles may claim the medics, but they cannot erase the truth that Ahmad Hariri died ensuring the world would see what happened to his land.

Featured image via Carl Court/Getty Images

By Mohamad Kleit

Source link

Cynthia Erivo is reflecting on the fall-out from an incident that took place at the premiere of the second Wicked film in Singapore last year.

In November 2025, Cynthia and her co-star Ariana Grande were attending the Wicked: For Good premiere when a man leapt over a barrier and grabbed the No Tears Left To Cry singer, before jumping up and down.

Viral footage of the incident showed the British performer stepping in to protect her co-star, which inspired jokes and memes referring to her as Ariana’s “bodyguard”.

However, in a new interview with Variety, Cynthia suggested that these jokes were evidence that society has not yet “come to terms with the insidious nature of how we view Black women”.

Advertisement

“I’m sure people will read this and think, ‘Oh, for goodness’ sake, it’s not about that.’ But it is,” she said.

Cynthia continued: “That’s what was being made fun of. It was my physique; it was my shape; it was the fact that I was bald; it was about what I looked like. And because of that, there was this assumption that I was bigger than my co-star and so I had to be controlling or protecting, and that was my role.

“I would hazard a guess that it would not have been the same had it been the other way around.”

Later in the interview, Cynthia claimed that the incident in Singapore put her off campaigning for an Oscar for her work in Wicked: For Good.

She lamented: “I just felt like my humanity had been bastardised. I felt like something I did instinctively had been made to be something that it simply was not because of the way people see women who look like me, and because of the assumptions that are made, and I just didn’t want to be a part of that, really and truly.”

Advertisement

Cynthia added that people’s preconceptions about the second Wicked film being inferior to the first contributed to her not wanting to campaign for an Oscar.

In the end, Wicked: For Good was completely snubbed at the 2026 Oscars, despite the first film receiving 10 nominations (and two wins) a year earlier.

Speaking to Variety, Cynthia also spoke about the impact that the grueling Wicked promotional tour took on both herself and Ariana.

Read Cynthia Erivo’s full interview in Variety here.

Advertisement

Source link

Labour MP Richard Burgon has spoken out against Ofgem’s price cap rise, labelling it a “total con”:

Ofgem’s so-called energy price cap is a total con. Bills are going up again

We need a real price cap that protects ordinary people, paid for through the profits of energy giants.

We need to replace expensive gas with cheaper renewables.

Advertisement

And energy back in public ownership!

— Richard Burgon MP (@RichardBurgon) May 27, 2026

Ofgem energy price cap

Reporting on the latest Ofgem price hike, the Canary’s Rose Cocker explained:

On 27 May energy regulator Ofgem announced that it will raise the energy price cap for 1 July to 30 September 2026 by a massive 13%. That’s the sharpest hike in household energy prices of any summer in the past four years.

Bill-payers under the cap will now pay the equivalent of £1,862 a year from 1 July to 30 September for gas and electricity. That’s up from the current equivalent of £1,641 a year – an increase of around £18 a month, based on typical use.

Cocker added that Ofgem is blaming Trump and Israel’s war on Iran for the price increase. It should be noted, however, that while most of us are facing price increases, Shell just saw “first-quarter profits surge by 115%”. It’s a similar phenomenon to supermarkets experiencing record profits as the rest of us suffer record prices.

As Burgon notes, public ownership would improve things. Instead of losing money to shareholder profits, we could re-invest money into the network. We could also stabilise prices whenever an event like the current oil shock occurs.

On this topic, Cat Hobbs of We Own It said:

It is also time to rethink the private ownership of our energy grid. Across the sector, energy companies made £23.1 billion in profits last year, at a time when household energy bills were going up, and families were being squeezed on all fronts. Reinvesting profits that are currently being paid out to shareholders into cutting bills could go a long way to cut our energy bills and save people from falling further into fuel poverty.

Burnham to the rescue?

Many are hoping that Andy Burnham is the man to renationalise Britain’s utilities. The problem is that Burnham’s statements on the matter have been wishy-washy and conflicting:

Andy Burnham says we could have a "localised public control option" for Thames Water

What does that mean? Who is in charge? Where do the profits go?

We need nothing less than permanent PUBLIC OWNERSHIP of Thames Water with households, workers and anti sewage groups on the board pic.twitter.com/0s1OT1mMzz

Advertisement

— Cat Hobbs (@CatHobbs) May 23, 2026

As we reported, Burnham has not committed to ‘renationalising’ anything as far as we’ve seen. Instead, he’s talked about putting utilities under “stronger public control”. Burnham also said:

He has also spoken of stronger public control over utility companies. “I use that phrase advisedly. People then shorthand it as nationalisation; it’s not the same thing,” he said, pointing to Greater Manchester’s bus services, which are run by private operators.

When we suggested this means Burnham has no plans to renationalise, he responded as follows:

I’m not doing anything of the kind. Just got to be realistic about how quickly it can be done.

— Andy Burnham (@AndyBurnhamGM) May 24, 2026

How quickly ‘what’ can be done, we don’t know, because he’s still not explained what he has in mind.

Reading between the lines, he seems to be suggesting that ‘stronger public control’ would be a stepping stone to full-on re-nationalisation? We don’t know, Andy — sounds like another centrist half-measure to us!

Hot air

Should Burnham come forwards with a clear plan for renationalisation, we’ll be sure to update you. Until then, we need to keep the pressure up. And this shouldn’t be difficult, because the public is massively in favour of nationalisation:

It’s almost like your average Briton doesn’t like being ripped off by private companies.

Featured image via Christopher Furlong / Getty Images

By Willem Moore

Source link

As was the case with season one, the new episodes follow a group of middle-aged friends over the course of one year in their lives, as they deal with the highs and lows of marriage, parenthood, friendship and grief.

Season one was a huge hit with audiences and critics, and judging by the overwhelmingly positive reviews, the second – which reunites showrunner Tina with Colman Domingo, Will Forte, Kerri Kenney-Silver, and Marco Calvani – looks set to be just as loved.

Here is what critics are saying about the second series of The Four Seasons….

“Poignant, hilarious, loaded with a super-sharp script … the second outing for this midlife comedy is even more fantastic than the first […] This is a dark and difficult world in which good men smash up vintage snack shacks, regrets must be lived with, sacrifices made, childhood traumas kept buried, and people who love each other want completely different things.”

Advertisement

“The freshman season of The Four Seasons worked because it was so willing to pull the rug from under the daily lives of a group of fifty-somethings, but season two, which has less wit and seemingly lower stakes, never quite reaches the breezy, banter-filled charm.

“Yet, with several new locations, including the Italian Alps in all of their winter glory, and a group of utterly talented actors whose chemistry leaps off the screen, the show remains a world very much worth checking out.”

Emily V. Aragones/Netflix

“The writing is tack-sharp and the ensemble is full of underappreciated comic performers – Kenney-Silver, for example, has always been great in shows such as Reno 911! and 2 Broke Girls.

“Writers and cast realise that the humour here comes from the group interactions, not just quirky individuals saying funny lines.”

Advertisement

“When it isn’t making you laugh, The Four Seasons will break your heart, only to put it back together again when the clime next changes.”

“The Four Seasons is a love letter to honest friendships, the one constant in life through the day-to-day grind. Making the time to get together even once a season is a needed reset because sometimes, your friends are the calm amidst the chaos.”

Emily V. Aragones/Netflix

“While it can be unbearably gooey and the characters hugely annoying, their dynamic sucks you in, which is testament to the skill of Fey and her co-screenwriters. In life, friendship groups can feel horribly excluding, especially if you are a stray outlier who is not quite in what Jack calls the ‘core group’.

“But the show has fun with its ensemble, pricks at their failings when it needs to and allows you to care. And while we don’t necessarily come to TV for life lessons, The Four Seasons offers plenty.”

Advertisement

“Like season one, The Four Seasons succeeds because it depicts middle age in ways television rarely attempts. These characters carry decades of friendship, compromise, resentment, and love. They care deeply for one another, but that love does not magically solve anything.

“Season two develops that idea even further, allowing grief and uncertainty to coexist with awkward holidays, disastrous flirtations, and the exhausting messiness of long-term friendship.”

“The ‘Core Group’ is not facing traditional midlife crisis moments, and yet that sword hangs over the cast at all times.

“Forte, Fey, Calvani, Kenney-Silver, and Domingo bring authenticity and empathy to their characters, and enrich the screenplays as a result. With fewer stereotypical moments, we dig deeper into these characters and their struggles. The cast is too good to ignore, and Domingo is poised for another Emmy nomination with his sweet performance.”

Advertisement

Emily V. Aragones/Netflix © 2025

“Fey leads the cast of seasoned pros making it all look easy. Standout turns remain Colman Domingo and Will Forte, with Marco Calvani enjoying a well-deserved push to the front. Erika Henningsen slots in well as new mum Ginny, but doesn’t have that much to do, while spiky, eccentric Anne once again takes a while to warm to but gets there in the end.

Fey is her usual persona at first as Kate, the savvy, sarky, capable New Yorker keeping everything and everyone together. However, such is the quality of the writing, Kate doesn’t stay that way for long. In one brief scene, set in flashback during Covid times, Kate and Danny are both sick. With a couple of sentences, a feverish Kate recalls something from her past that changes entirely how we will look at her from now on.”

“While The Four Seasons doesn’t quite reach the emotional heights of a show like Shrinking, there’s still a warmth to the story that makes it easy to breeze through and be moved by along the way, resulting in a vacation I wouldn’t mind going on again next year.”

Both seasons of The Four Seasons are available to stream on Netflix now.

Advertisement

Source link

Tony Blair is being rightly slammed for his disappointingly common ‘rare’ interventions into British politics. This time, Green Party leader Zack Polanski had a sharp response:

This country has heard enough from Tony Blair. pic.twitter.com/SIC6hzxFEU

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) May 27, 2026

Polanski was far from the only figure in British political life to speak out.

Blair is “grotesque”

In full, Polanski said the following about Blair’s lengthy essay:

I think it was 5,600 words too many. Tony Blair is a former prime minister who dragged this country into an illegal war in Iraq.

I think it’s pretty grotesque to see him selling the future of our children and grandchildren down the river through the kind of climate delay tactics, talking down clean energy and the security that we need.

I just don’t think this is a sensible intervention in a day where we’re speaking in these extreme temperatures, to have someone who should hold a position of responsibility or a former position of responsibility to be speaking like this.

Advertisement

Polanski wasn’t the only Green to slam the slimy toad:

Whatever world Tony Blair inhabits appears to be one without climate change & where UK temperature record for May hasn’t just been smashed by over 2C. How else to explain his extraordinary dismissal of net zero & erroneous claim that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables?

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) May 27, 2026

The idea that “every honest sensible person” agrees that – for example – we should abandon our belief in climate science and drill the North Sea, and that those who don’t say it are all dishonest populists, is just a form of centre-right conspiracy theory. https://t.co/ZAJh0CwqTP

— Adam Ramsay (@AdamRamsay) May 27, 2026

Polanski did receive some pushback from the dead-eyed media shills who fawned over Blair’s rambling right-wing screed:

I’m pretty sure at least nine out of ten randomly chosen punters would agree with the Green Party leader and not the eldritch, night-stalking terror here, but since when did anyone care what they think about anything pic.twitter.com/LffTrU3Gbf

— Flying_Rodent (@flying_rodent) May 27, 2026

And, this is what the man himself looked like when he later defended his call to ramp up fossil fuel production:

really good timing to wheel out this ghoul in the middle of a record breaking heatwave to complain about net zero lmao https://t.co/HfMkXgCPfx

— adam (@resurrecti0ns) May 27, 2026

Media fawning

On 27 May, we reported:

Historically, people in Britain said there is ‘nothing certain but death and taxes.‘ At this point, the third inevitability we can add is ‘disgraced war criminal Tony Blair will stick his oar in, and the media will describe it as an ‘unprecedented intervention.”

You’re not going to believe this, but the mainstream media would spend much of yesterday describing the predictable intervention as being somewhat unpredictable.

how can you be employed as a political editor and write that tony blair having an unsolicited opinion on anything that aligns with his funding sources is 'unusual' https://t.co/Rw1MSDcfP4

— P.G. Chodehouse (@mynnoj) May 26, 2026

Tony Blair: Wow, get a load of AI. We should probably cut welfare somewhat. Also, we should be involved in the Iran War for some reason.

Broadsheet columnist: Say what you like about the man, but the sophistication of his analysis is unparalleled.

— Ben Sixsmith (@BDSixsmith) May 27, 2026

As an alternative, here’s what our analyst William Kedjanyi said:

Tony Blair has staged another intervention, our political analyst William Kedjanyi has read it so that you don't have to pic.twitter.com/posg9Ew5Od

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) May 27, 2026

Kedjanyi explained:

The most important part of Tony Blair’s essay that he wrote on his website yesterday is arguably what he didn’t say. The ex-prime minister accused the current one of having no plan, but he didn’t talk about a massive issue in Britain: housing—something which exacerbates so many of the problems we are dealing with today.

​I thought that was extraordinary, considering the scope of a 5,700-word piece. Now there’s an awful lot to go into, but crucially we have to acknowledge that the lack of housing impacts everything else, and for him to omit it is a very big thing.

Blair really should be talking about this issue too. House prices quadrupled under him, thanks in part to buy-to-let. This left us with permanently expensive housing, because Blair failed to use the housing boom to build more houses – creating a political issue which has hamstrung every PM since.

The shifting centre

It wasn’t just the media fawning over Blair, tbf – there was also the occasional dipshit like this:

Tony Blair is possibly the only person on earth that makes people instantly reach for the dislike button whilst secretly knowing deep inside that he’s absolutely right and no one has come anywhere near his level of seriousness since.

— Brendan May (@bmay) May 27, 2026

Yes, mate – everyone secretly loves Blair as much as you do; it’s not that your supposedly ‘centrist’ ideology is now a fringe belief in British politics.

Making this point in more detail, Scarlett Maguire noted in April that the political ‘centre’ today is not what it was in 1997:

The 'centre' of British politics in 2026 looks a bit different. The median voter:

– distrusts politicians
-wants change
– backs deportations
-wants large reduction in legal migration
– pro wealth tax
– pro wage ratios
-anti big-business

— Scarlett Maguire (@Scarlett__Mag) April 20, 2026

Advertisement

She added that your modern centrist also:

-dislikes rhetoric that seems too inflammatory
– opposes Trump
– worries about an unstable world and doesn’t want a leader that makes that worse
– wants to see solutions over political point scoring

This is all particularly notable in the case of Tony Blair, because he literally just said the UK should be closer to Trump.

Yo, Blair!

Blair’s insistence that the UK should suck up to Trump is grim but unsurprising. After all, this is the PM who let George W. Bush treat him like his manservant.

Activist Andrew Feinstein described Blair as follows:

Tony Blair promotes the corrupt, money-grubbing warmonger Trump because he is a corrupt money-grubbing warmonger & believes the world should genuflect before people like him & Trump so that they can kill & loot unhindered https://t.co/W6LWQXRPeA

— Andrew Feinstein (@andrewfeinstein) May 27, 2026

Zarah Sultana said this about the sweaty war monger:

The only statement Tony Blair should be making is a plea of "guilty" from the dock at The Hague.

He is a war criminal with the blood of over a million Iraqis on his hands. https://t.co/bJ8yOylich

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) May 26, 2026

Advertisement

Diane Abbott said:

Blair has no coherent plan for the country. His policy framework is support every US war, cut welfare and pensions, deregulate and privatise, continue anti-migrant policies.
A hopeless, failed project.

Labour has no coherent plan for country, says Blairhttps://t.co/eHMuyhUvgj

Advertisement

— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) May 27, 2026

Faiza Shaheen questioned why anyone would ever listen to Blair given the gravity of his crimes in Iraq:

.@faizashaheen: "Firstly on Blair, he should be held accountable for what he did with the Iraq War, when he lied to all of us, I just find it shameful that he can come out & expect to give us advice on anything"

Spot on. pic.twitter.com/YJgBYMcaep

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) May 27, 2026

While many have rejected Blair’s Trumpism the British media is trying to sell it as sensible politics:

this is an insane bit of "saying the quiet part out loud"

journalists & the former prime minister openly saying "Britain is not a sovereign state, our democracy is a sham, and we're all lying to you about it… and that's a good thing!" https://t.co/OcC4naM5PY pic.twitter.com/wyYW3yP7fK

— Archie Woodrow (@SamuraiApology) May 27, 2026

AI

If you’re wondering why war criminal Tony was so enthusiastic about AI in his essay, we can name at least 200 million reasons:

sometimes stuff doesn't need a complicated explainer pic.twitter.com/A9WbEFcyuL

— P.G. Chodehouse (@mynnoj) May 27, 2026

Sorry, make that £257 million:

I'm not interested in any coverage of Tony Blair's views that makes no mention of the fact the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) is bankrolled by billionaire Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle.

From 2021-2025, Ellison donated or pledged £257m to the TBI. Of course he's an AI evangelist!

— Aisha Nicole Malik-Smith (@ANMalikSmith) May 27, 2026

Advertisement

Dan Hodges suggested the essay may literally only exist to promote AI, with the non-AI stuff simply there to attract eyeballs:

Someone just pointed out to me, Blair’s article is actually a classic example of “Client Laundering”. He has a number of major AI clients, and if you read the “essay”, it’s peppered with AI references. So he writes an article ostensibly about Labour, gets a huge response, then contacts his clients and says “See, got a really good response to my AI article. All our top lines are in there”.

Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, said the following:

Tony Blair thinks the answer to this country’s problems is AI, welfare cuts and endless spending on war.

Who benefits? Arms companies and tech billionaires.

Once again, Blair is wrong. The answer is a redistribution of wealth and power and the relentless search for peace.

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) May 27, 2026

Phony Blair

Economist Yanis Varoufakis was among those who highlighted what Tony Blair’s real priority is – namely Tony Blair. In his response, Varoufakis noted that Blair’s “real innovation” was:

the financialisation of the ex-premiership itself. The Tony Blair Institute, fuelled by £130 million from Oracle’s Larry Ellison—coincidentally, the largest individual donor to the Friends of the IDF—became a shadow state, brokering governance contracts for autocrats and companies like Palantir that weaponise AI to produce mega-death abroad and full-on surveillance of Western populations.

Many added to Varoufakis’s argument, including Feinstein:

Blair, who Thatcher described as her greatest achievement because he turned Labour into a corrupt, warmongering, neoliberal party just like the Tories, is a war profiteer & at best a sociopath at worst a psychopath who feels nothing for the slaughter & immiseration he has caused,… https://t.co/ONaDX0AK7r

— Andrew Feinstein (@andrewfeinstein) May 27, 2026

Advertisement

Labour MP Ian Byrne said:

It’s crystal clear Tony Blair does not care about the lives of working class people.*

And, this intervention definitely does not speak on their behalf

He speaks for the billionaire class, vested interests and the status quo with the aim of protecting their wealth and power, much like his great friend Peter Mandelson.

Advertisement

His institute are bankrolled by big tech and corporate interests, not the 99% struggling through austerity, insecurity and inequality.

Completion

We’re going to end with the following from Richard Burgon:

Tony Blair once said: “My project will be complete when the Labour Party learns to love Peter Mandelson.”

That quote is worth remembering given The Times is reporting that Blair plans more interventions on Labour’s future.

Advertisement

— Richard Burgon MP (@RichardBurgon) May 28, 2026

This is why Blair’s project will never be complete, and it’s also why he will keep feeling a need to intervene.

The only positive in all this is that the backlash against him only seems to be growing with each new intervention.

Featured image via Pool (Getty Images) / Ryan Jenkinson (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Source link