Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua remain the two biggest names in British boxing, and talk of finally staging their long‑anticipated fight has resurfaced once again.

The matchup has been discussed, negotiated, collapsed and revived multiple times over the past few years, but momentum is building behind a fresh proposal that could bring the pair together in the ring at last.

Both fighters have repeatedly said they want the fight. Promoters have indicated renewed interest. Broadcasters are open to it. Right now with the heavyweight landscape shifting again, the timing may finally be right.

Fury vs Joshua: Where talks currently stand

Discussions between the camps have restarted, with both sides publicly acknowledging that negotiations are active. No contract has been signed and no date or venue has been confirmed, but the framework being explored is similar to previous attempts: a major stadium event, a joint broadcast arrangement, and a financial package befitting two of the sport’s biggest earners.

Fury has been vocal about wanting the fight sooner rather than later. Joshua, fresh off a run of activity designed to rebuild momentum, has also stated he is ready to agree terms if the offer is right.

The sticking points remain familiar: the purse split, broadcaster alignment, and the order of any rematch clause. This time there is optimism that the gap between the two sides is smaller than in past negotiations.

Why the fight matters now

The heavyweight division is in flux. Titles have changed hands, contenders have risen, and both Fury and Joshua are looking to secure defining victories in the final phase of their careers. A fight between them would settle a debate that has dominated British boxing for nearly a decade: who is the premier heavyweight of their era?

Joshua’s recent run has rebuilt confidence after earlier setbacks. Fury, despite periods of inactivity, remains one of the sport’s most recognisable champions. Bringing them together now would deliver a fight with global reach, commercial weight and genuine competitive intrigue.

Potential venues

Several locations are under consideration. Wembley Stadium remains the leading UK option, capable of hosting more than 90,000 fans and delivering the kind of atmosphere the fight demands. Cardiff’s Principality Stadium is another domestic possibility, particularly for winter dates due to its roof.

International venues have also been discussed. Saudi Arabia has hosted multiple heavyweight events in recent years and remains a strong contender given its financial capacity and interest in staging major fights. The United States is less likely but not impossible, depending on broadcast arrangements.

Any Fury–Joshua fight requires cooperation between major broadcasters. Previous negotiations involved joint pay‑per‑view models and shared production responsibilities. Similar arrangements would be needed again, with both fighters tied to significant broadcast deals.

Financially, the fight is expected to be one of the most lucrative in modern boxing. Gate revenue, global pay‑per‑view sales, sponsorship and international rights would combine to create a package that rivals the biggest heavyweight events of the last decade. The purse split remains a key negotiation point, but both sides understand the scale of the opportunity.

What they Fury and Joshua bring

Fury’s size, awkward style and ring IQ have defined his career. His ability to switch stance, control distance and disrupt rhythm makes him one of the most difficult heavyweights to face.

Joshua, meanwhile, brings power, athleticism and a more structured approach. His recent performances have shown sharper combinations and improved confidence.

Stylistically, the fight offers a clear contrast: Fury’s unpredictability against Joshua’s precision. It is a matchup that has been analysed for years, and one that still carries genuine tactical interest

Timeline

There is no confirmed timeline, but both camps have indicated they want progress made quickly. Negotiations will continue over the coming weeks with the date, venue and financial terms needing to be finalised before any announcement.

If an agreement is reached, the fight would likely land in late 2026 or early 2027, depending on stadium availability and broadcast scheduling. Training camps, promotional tours and media commitments would follow.

Next steps

The proposed Fury–Joshua fight is not yet signed, but discussions are active and the appetite from both fighters, promoters and broadcasters is clear. It remains the biggest event available in heavyweight boxing, and the renewed push to make it happen has brought cautious optimism that the long‑awaited showdown could finally be agreed.

Featured image via Sky Sports

By Faz Ali

Source link

The public argument about electric vehicles has settled into two entrenched positions, neither of which is especially interested in detail. One holds that electrification solves road transport’s environmental problem. The other holds that it is an expensive imposition on ordinary drivers. Both skip past a set of genuinely difficult questions about weight, particulate pollution and who actually bears the cost of the transition, and those questions are becoming harder to avoid as the fleet turns over.

Weight Is the Problem Underneath Several Others

An electric car is substantially heavier than an equivalent petrol one, because batteries are heavy and the range consumers expect requires a lot of them. That additional mass has consequences beyond efficiency. It increases the energy involved in a collision, which matters for pedestrians and for occupants of lighter vehicles. It accelerates wear on road surfaces already in poor condition. And it bears down on the components that connect the car to the road, which is why manufacturers developing electric vehicle tyres have had to reinforce construction and raise load ratings rather than simply fitting whatever the petrol version used. None of this makes electrification wrong. It does mean the environmental accounting is more complicated than the tailpipe comparison suggests.

Exhaust Emissions Are Not All Emissions

The strongest argument for electric vehicles is genuine: removing tailpipe emissions from urban areas improves air quality measurably, and the health benefits of that are real and unequally distributed in favour of the communities living beside busy roads, who have borne the worst of it for decades. What electrification does not address is non-exhaust particulate matter from tyre and road surface wear, which is unregulated, rises with vehicle weight, and now represents a growing share of transport-related particulates as exhaust emissions have fallen. Regenerative braking helps considerably with brake dust. Nothing currently helps with tyre wear.

The Affordability Question Is Not Rhetorical

There is a class dimension to this transition that receives less attention than it deserves. New electric vehicles remain more expensive than petrol equivalents, and the second-hand market that most households actually buy from is still thin and uncertain, particularly around battery condition and replacement cost. Home charging is dramatically cheaper than public charging and requires off-street parking, which a substantial minority of households simply do not have. The result is a transition whose running-cost benefits accrue most readily to people who own driveways, while those charging on street or at public rapid chargers pay considerably more per mile, sometimes more than petrol. That is a policy design outcome rather than an inevitability.

Running Costs Are Not Uniformly Lower

For owners, the picture is genuinely mixed rather than uniformly positive. Fuel costs fall substantially for anyone charging at home. Servicing is simpler with fewer moving parts. Set against that, insurance has been markedly more expensive for many electric models, repair costs after damage can be higher, and tyres may need replacing sooner because of the weight and torque involved. Anyone presenting electric ownership as universally cheaper is being selective, and anyone presenting it as more expensive overall is usually ignoring the fuel saving. It depends heavily on where you charge. That single variable does more to determine the household economics of an electric car than the purchase price, the model or the driving pattern, and it is almost entirely determined by housing rather than by any choice the driver makes. A tenant in a flat and an owner with a driveway face different economics for identical vehicles, which is an uncomfortable finding for a policy built around individual purchasing decisions.

What the Advisory Body Actually Says

This is territory where the official analysis is more nuanced than either side of the public argument. The Climate Change Committee, the independent statutory body advising government on carbon budgets, has consistently identified surface transport as one of the sectors where decarbonisation must accelerate, and its assessments treat vehicle electrification as necessary rather than sufficient, alongside reductions in car use, modal shift and demand management. That framing is worth holding onto, because a strategy resting entirely on replacing every petrol car with an electric one addresses carbon while leaving congestion, road danger, particulate pollution and the space cars occupy in cities entirely untouched.

The Uncomfortable Conclusion for Everyone

If the honest position is that electrification is necessary and insufficient, it follows that the harder measures are the ones that matter: fewer car journeys, better public transport, safer conditions for walking and cycling, and vehicle weight becoming a policy question rather than a market outcome. Those are considerably less popular than swapping one kind of car for another, which is precisely why the debate keeps returning to the vehicle rather than to the system it operates in. It is also why the loudest voices on both sides of the argument end up implicitly agreeing on something: that the car remains the unit of analysis, and that the question is only which sort of car it should be.

What This Means for Drivers Now

For people making decisions in the meantime, the practical points are modest. An electric car remains a substantial improvement on a petrol one for most drivers on carbon and on urban air quality. Whether it saves you money depends almost entirely on where you charge it. It will likely be harder on tyres, which is a real running cost worth planning for rather than a reason to avoid the technology. And none of this is a substitute for the questions about how much driving we need to be doing at all, which will still be waiting whatever is under the bonnet.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

The post Ann Widdecombe murder: what we now know appeared first on spiked.

Source link

‘I’ve never lost:’ Rahm Emanuel makes his case for the White House

lead image

Source link

4 min read6 min

Rebuilding the job market is one of the biggest challenges facing Andy Burnham. But it can be done.

Advertisement

New statistics show that there are still not enough vacancies for those looking for work, and employment rates have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Our new Prime Minister’s early pronouncements suggest he recognises the need for a fundamental change to our education, employment and skills policy, especially for the youngest generations.

Andy Burnham recently called for a “complete rethink of how we support the next generation to succeed.” A rethink is exactly what we need.

Britain’s post-pandemic labour market sets us apart from our international peers. The UK has seen a rise in health-related inactivity not seen in other countries, and the proportion of young people who are NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) is set to rise to over 16 per cent by the end of the decade.

More fundamentally, work has not truly delivered for working people for decades – one reason why Burnham’s diagnosis of the UK being “forty years on the wrong path” has cut through to the public. Despite improvements in minimum wages, in-work poverty has not budged because there aren’t the good-quality jobs, at the hours needed, to give people enough earnings to enjoy a decent living standard from work.

Advertisement

Solving these problems will take a three-pronged approach.

First, Burnham and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should follow an investment-led approach, increasing work opportunities for the people and places who need them most.

For too long, the UK’s labour market policy has focussed on a very narrow range of interventions, founded on the myth that those who are out of work are simply not willing to find a job. This has clearly not worked. Upcoming research from the New Economics Foundation (NEF) will show how the rise of precarious and insecure work is helping drive people out of the workforce.

Advertisement

We invest far too little in re-training and skills for those out of work, with countries like Denmark putting us to shame. And we have done too little to address the systemic and place-based barriers to work – such as a lack of local vacancies in the most deprived job markets.

This needs to change. As a start, there should be a major expansion to the Youth Jobs Guarantee, a state-funded wage subsidy to support employers to place young people furthest from the labour market into work. Delivery of new placements should be devolved locally, as they were with the previous government’s Future Jobs Fund.

Second, investment in skills and training, especially vocational and technical education, needs to be significantly upgraded.

We have fallen backwards on apprenticeship starts since 2010, with those in deprived communities losing out the most. A modest increase in employer Growth and Skills Levy contributions – perhaps as a quid pro quo for lowering firms’ overheads and hiring costs – could reverse this trend. A portion of this funding could then be devolved to councils and integrated within Burnham’s planned local Good Growth Funds.

Advertisement

Firm training investment is much lower than in other advanced economies, and young people are unable to up-skill or retrain due to high up-front costs – making them vulnerable to AI-driven change. Introducing a Skills Tax Credit for firms, or even elements of a ‘Skilling Wage’, could deliver a major upgrade in firm-level investment.

Like France and Singapore, we should give every young person access to their own Individual Learning Account to spend on education and training. This fund could be added to by employee contributions and targeted state top-ups at particular ages.

Finally, the new government should rethink how the state engages with people who are out of work, to re-focus priorities on delivering higher-quality employment opportunities.

The welfare bill is a symptom, and not the cause, of an underlying lack of good work, training and support.

Advertisement

Burnham has signalled a shift towards devolved employment services in trusted grassroots-level settings. This would be a welcome change from the rigid, inflexible and rules-based way that the DWP engages with those out of work – and a nod to the promising outcomes seen in more hyper-local and voluntary council-led engagement, including in Greater Manchester.

To build on this, young people on out-of-work benefits should be assisted in community-based settings outside of Jobcentres, with Youth Hubs devolved to councils.

To rebuild the job market, the self-employed should receive better job security and in-work pensions, and there should be a presumption in favour of worker status for gig economy workers, as the European Union has done.

This change of PM comes at a time of heightened anxieties about the future of work, which goes beyond just the immediate NEETs crisis: the vast majority of people report little confidence in the ability of new technologies to benefit workers.

Advertisement

This presents an immediate challenge, but also – if harnessed effectively, and with the right policy – a major opportunity for the Burnham government.

 

Dr Tom Stephens is a Senior Fellow at the New Economics Foundation think tank and a Fellow of the LSE School of Public Policy

Source link

A motorcycle hitman allegedly killed an Ecuadorian lawyer investigating US drone strikes. Alexandra Bravo and her sister were killed on 14 June 2026 when a hitman “aboard a black motorcycle opened fire”. This may be the latest phase in a renewed US bid to dominate the Americas.

US drone strikes probe

Drop Site News reported:

Upon arriving at the crime scene, officers say they found five 9mm shell casings and Bravo’s injured driver, but no sign of the police detail that had been assigned to protect her. The Police Directorate, which operates entirely under the executive branch, has launched a probe to determine if there’d been an internal security breach.

Bravo represented individuals hit in at-sea drone strikes. They also claimed to have been tortured in US captivity. The US-based outlet said:

Bravo is the 26th member of Ecuador’s justice system to be assassinated since 2020 and the second individual investigating state crimes murdered that week.

Adding:

Besides her usual caseload of homicide and organized crime, Bravo had been working the Fiorella, Negra Francisca, and Don Maca cases—a series of drone attacks on civilian fishing ships exposed by Drop Site in April.

The US has been carrying out drone strikes against vessels it claims are connected to so-called narco-terrorism since early 2026. The US killed 261 people since September 2025, NGO Airwars claims.

US-backed dictator and Trump-allied thug

Ecuador’s president Daniel Noboa is a:

Miami-born billionaire often characterized as a “U.S.-backed dictator”.

Ecuador has become what Drop Site describes as

a central testing ground for Operation Southern Spear, Washington’s extrajudicial bombing campaign purporting to target “narco-terrorists”.

Adding:

There is no evidence that many of the victims, including those in Bravo’s investigation, had engaged in drug trafficking.

Human rights lawyer Fernando Bastias told the outlet:

I can’t make any assertion regarding it being a political assassination, but evidently, when a prosecutor is killed it’s because of the investigation they’re conducting.

Adding:

That’s something we’ve learned from our experience in Ecuador.

A police source told Drop Site, Bravo was

under pressure from her superiors at the Attorney General’s office to treat the U.S. attacks as exclusively “cases of disappearance.”

Bravo’s work was reportedly in the early stages of her investigation.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has reported drone strikes have had no negative impact on cocaine flows into the US:

Military boat strikes haven’t reduced U.S. cocaine supply, DEA assesses

An internal DEA report reviewed by The Washington Post found that U.S. military strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats have not reduced cocaine supply in the U.S., instead prompting traffickers to…

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) July 27, 2026

Donald Trump’s administration intends to bring the Western Hemisphere under American control. The peak so far has been the 3 January kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro by US special forces.  That spectacular raid is to be just the start of renewed US violence in the Americas.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Across Greater Manchester, the last few years have seen a rise in openly racist street activity and anti-Muslim attacks. Unprecedented electoral success for Reform in the recent local elections met and likely spurred this on. This mirrors familiar trends across Britain, wider Europe and internationally.

Open fascism swells in Greater Manchester

The first half of 2026 saw far-right group Britain First call two major national mobilisations on the streets of central Manchester. There, Greater Manchester Police were ‘disproportionately’ hostile towards antifascists and counter-demonstration organisers, rather than countering openly fascist elements. Further evidence, if it were needed, that the British state’s hired muscle cannot be depended on to protect our communities.

Street racists held countless smaller, local protests across the ten boroughs too, targeting migrant accommodation and minoritised communities’ spaces. These accompanied racially-motivated fire-bombings of Muslim prayer rooms and family homes, from Stockport to Bolton and beyond. Both are generally met with the sound of crickets from Britain’s mainstream media.

At the ballot box, Reform made huge gains in May’s local elections, while their more openly racist rivals Restore, a party heavily supported by neo-Nazis, were able to pick up 6.8% of the vote in the recent Makerfield by-election. And, in the May 2026 local elections, Reform won around half (105) of the available seats across Greater Manchester. Prior to 2026, far-right parties had won seats in only five wards.

Blackburn Muslim family’s home firebombed. MSM, politicians silent

Organising for working-class unity

Trade unionists and other community organisers have been out on the streets responding to this. But they know that short-term counter-demonstrations alone won’t be enough.

That’s why, on Wednesday 29 July, Greater Manchester Workers’ and Tenants’ Association (GMWTA) will launch. One of its primary objectives is to bring together people who want to tackle the long-term causes of the rise of the far-right, rather than waiting to deal with the dire consequences.

Edward, a Manchester HMO tenant who’s involved with the newly launched GMWTA, said:

Reform want to pose as a radical alternative to the existing elites, but look at who they’ve announced as their mayoral candidate. Sian Astley is a property developer and a landlord, who owns both houses and Airbnbs. In other words, she buys up properties that could be used for affordable housing, and rents them out to tourists instead, directly contributing to the housing crisis that drives people out of the areas they grew up in.

Reform aren’t an alternative to business as usual, they’re a new set of faces for the same old business interests. Workers and tenants who want real change can’t look to politicians like Astley, we need to be looking to our coworkers and neighbours to stick up for each other instead.

Organisers with GMWTA take particular inspiration from the ongoing struggle against care home closures in neighbouring Lancashire. There, a united campaign by local residents and care home workers — many of whom are migrant workers — managed to force the Reform-led county council to back down on threats to close local care homes. GMWTA organisers see this as an example of how working-class unity can play a crucial role in defending both ordinary people’s jobs and essential social services.

The GMWTA launch event on Wednesday 29 July will feature speeches from historian Taj Ali, author of the upcoming book Come What May, We’re Here To Stay, and by local activists, tenants and trade unionists. These include one worker who was part of the Lancashire care home campaign. There will also be ice cream from the local Ginger’s Comfort Emporium and music by members of local band Brown Wimpenny. There will also be an open discussion about shaping the organisation’s strategy moving forward.

Sign up to attend the GMWTA launch event here. It will run from 5:30–8:30pm on Wednesday 29 July, in a central Manchester location.

“No to Manchesterism built on the backs of renters” — tenants tell Burnham ‘freeze the rents’

Featured image via the Canary / GMWTA

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Horrifying new footage has come to light revealing the real cruelty behind the infamous Scottish Guga hunt. As workers race across the protected gannet colony on Sula Sgeir, wildlife campaign group Protect the Wild shared the video before it was scrubbed from the internet. This damning footage comes just days before NatureScot will decide whether to grant new hunting licenses for the annual massacre of the protected sea birds.

Terrified chicks and bloodied sacks

The now-deleted YouTube video is vile. It shows three men racing through the middle of the breeding colony. The macabre footage shows them using the very sacks intended for collecting the smashed corpses of the chicks. The bottom of the sacks are soaked in blood. It begs the question, who thought that posting that video was a good idea? Come on.

This now deleted video shows a shocking disregard for the welfare of the Gannets. But then again, were the Guga hunters ever going to respect their victims? pic.twitter.com/efy8AQo9Z0

— Protect the Wild (@ProtectTheWild_) July 25, 2026

Advertisement

Adult gannets and chick alike fled in terror as the hunters mindlessly fool around. They evidently don’t give a shit about the birds, or the rules they have to follow to hunt them. Later in the video, we see them run around with sacks full of dead chicks on their backs.

The remote island of Sula Sgeir where the hunt occurs is around 70 miles from mainland Scotland. Far away from the prying eyes of the government and regulation. Because of this isolation, no government observers or animal welfare groups can keep an eye on them. And as a result, this is what happens. Hunters are entirely unsupervised in the wild.

Northern gannets enjoy ‘full’ protection under UK law. Yet the Scottish government permits an annual license to hunters, and it allows the senseless murder of up to 2,000 chicks per year. And this is under the guise of a traditional delicacy, popularised by Gordon Ramsey. Urgh.

Why, in 2026, are ministers allowing people to hunt protected wildlife? It doesn’t make any sense.

Government failure to protect gannets

NatureScot is the regulatory body that issues the licenses to hunt the defenceless gannet chicks. They issue licenses under authority from Scottish ministers. But under strict licensing rules, hunters are told they must take due care and attention to avoid any unnecessary disturbance or damage to the colony. So why the hell are these ghouls racing around in blood-soaked sacks? This footage proves hunters treat the legalities with contempt. They have turned the gannet breeding grounds into an obstacle course, and the chicks are the hurdles.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission previously concluded that the Guga hunt can’t be carried out in a humane way. Yet, despite this, ministers continue to shield the gruesome massacre through a legal loophole in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Protect the Wild has launched a direct action tool demanding NatureScot finally take action. Their demands are simple, suspend all licenses immediately. The Scottish Government can’t claim to champion these birds, whilst allowing this ‘traditional’ torture to continue. Ministers, step up and revoke this outdated and brutal hunt for good.

It’s 2026. We shouldn’t have to watch innocent chicks being harassed and murdered by cruel and mindless hunters. Revoke the licenses.

Featured image via the Canary

By Antifabot

Source link

In Andy Burnham’s first interview as PM, the newly-minted Labour leader spoke about the need to “get really serious as a country” about “getting the welfare bill down”.

And how exactly does he plan to accomplish this feat? Well, Burnham claimed that he didn’t want to “blame” people on benefits, before adding:

It’s about changing the nature of the support, and making some of the support conditional upon people taking opportunities that are presented.

Implying that people on benefits having been taking the “opportunities that are presented” sounds an awful lot like blame, to us.

Blame by another name

The BBC recorded its interview on Thursday 23 July, and plans to air it this evening (Monday 27 July). Toeing the current mainstream media attack line, the show hammered the idea of phantom benefits cheats.

Presenter Laura Kuenssberg asked the PM about whether some people were claiming support they don’t need, in his opinion. Burnham replied:

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily go straight to blaming those people. What I would say is that there are people in the benefits system, young people in their 20s, who have been, I would say, quite seriously let down because the support wasn’t there for them when it should have been there.

So I don’t blame them. I don’t think the support has been there for them in the way that it should have been.

Aww, well that’s nice isn’t it? He’s singling out young people on benefits, but he’s also saying it’s not their fault. That’s some fairness and balance for you right there.

‘Changing the nature of the support’

Kuenssberg pressed the issue, asking if he planned to remove or reduce any benefits from anyone. The PM answered:

It’s about changing the nature of the support, and making some of the support conditional upon people taking opportunities that are presented.

I think it’s a good thing that the government has given guarantees of opportunities for young people. I think we need to continue down that approach. Where mental health support is needed, for instance, it’s provided in work to support people in an opportunity.

Wait a minute, we’re confused. Are people not being supported, or are they being offered opportunities and turning them down in favour of benefits?

Surely, if making benefits conditional on “taking opportunities” would make an appreciable difference, then Burnham is very much blaming benefits claimants. He’s just trying to find a ‘polite’, interview-friendly way of phrasing it (and hoping that no-one listens too closely).

Likewise, making benefits conditional on “accepting opportunities” (like a job, for example) only actually works if the likes of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) can be relied upon to discern whether or not somebody is fit to accept that opportunity. And, naturally, we know for a fact that we can’t rely on the DWP for fairness.

No ‘crude cuts to benefits’

Of course, there’s also another reason why the new PM is tiptoeing around the subject of benefits ‘reform’. His predecessor, Keir Starmer, faced a rebellion from his own back-benchers when he tried to implement cuts of around £5bn to welfare spending in 2025.

As such, Burnham has stated that he doesn’t plan on:

a kind of crude approach, crude cuts to benefits to get the welfare bill down.

Unfortunately, finessed, graceful cuts to benefits are still benefits cuts. He continued:

Often that just pushes people into even more crisis and then even more public spending in another part of the system.

We need a system that sets people up for success rather than pays for failure.

Advertisement

It’s almost as if the people claiming benefits actually need them. So, when the government slashes them, “other parts of the system” have to pay instead. For example, if people don’t have enough money to eat, suddenly hospitals are filled with patients suffering from malnutrition.

If only our shiny new prime minister had enough wherewithal to think how that might pair with his desire to “get really serious” about bringing the welfare bill down. Spoiler: the other government bills go up instead. That’s what happens when people don’t have enough money to live.

Burnham’s “way forward”

Earlier this month, the interim report from the Timms Review into Personal Independence Payments (PIP) acknowledged the benefit’s inadequacy to meet disabled people’s needs.

It also stated that PIP can punish people for coping with their disability, or use the fact that they have a job as evidence that they aren’t disabled enough to need support.

If we want to talk about welfare reform, let’s talk about welfare reform. We can start with working to create a system that truly acknowledges that people need help – and one that isn’t working actively to snatch that support away at the earliest excuse.

And yes, that does cost money. It won’t bring the benefits bill down. Of course, it may save money in other parts of the system, but in a society that actually cared about its citizens, that would be a secondary concern at best.

That’s a system that “sets people up for success”, as Burnham put it. It’s also the exact opposite of making benefits more conditional.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

The White House‘s official X account has posted an image glorifying its racist ICE thugs and its ‘deportation maxxing’ concentration camps. While human beings responded with disgust, many US right-wingers don’t think it was racist enough.

‘Be more racist’

The rabid ‘MAGA’ right responded to the post with a howl of outrage – that the Trump regime is not going far enough in deporting Black and Hispanic people. So-called ‘Christian nationalists’ showed no hesitation in posting blasphemous racist trash:

pic.twitter.com/QIluf4tRy2

— Richard M Masliah B, Sc. LLL. LLB. (@Richard4m) July 24, 2026

So-called ‘reverends’ were no less rabid, accusing Trump of lies and laxity (that’s laxity, he doesn’t need laxatives, allegedly):

LIE!
LIE!
LIE!
LIE!
Like the FAKE number of arrests and the ZERO of the OVER 4MILLION Illegal Immigrants here via VAWA Immigration Marriage Fraud arrested!!https://t.co/SN0VO2HKVThttps://t.co/vkefphgOMG https://t.co/WFzYe3gWmR @NewsNationTV @FoxNews @DLoesch pic.twitter.com/r2NgHs3ekr

— Rev. Dr. Paul P. Waldmiller (@DrWaldmiller) July 24, 2026

Unsurprisingly, Black people were the targets of much of the outpouring of bigoted bile:

Have you seen Canal St??? NYC is invaded by violent African illegals. We need 100,000 NICE to sweep Canal Street @RealTomHoman when?? @SecMullinDHS cordon off Canal no illegal escapes! @JDVance send 20 battalions of @ICEgov ASAP please! https://t.co/LktnKYtcxA

— David Gobaud (@davidgobaud) July 24, 2026

So were brown-skinned people:

Yes, the FLORIDA PANHANDLE. It’s infested with “new foreigners.” I see a lot of women and children, and they are in packs. None of them speak English. Not even the kids.
I feel like I live in a damn foreign country. Can’t even go shopping for the day without having to listen to… pic.twitter.com/BqztiFxfTO

— Paula (@PaulaC_mj1981) July 24, 2026

Advertisement

Some MAGA types moaned that the ‘tip line’ was another Trump scam that prevented people squealing on their neighbours:

pic.twitter.com/airlO1ReIX

— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) July 24, 2026

America-firsters complained that Trump is monkey rather than organ-grinder:

pic.twitter.com/lC8EhspFX3

— America 1st Patriot (@America1st25) July 24, 2026

Advertisement

ICE — The ‘new Gestapo’

But many who still retain their humanity also replied with justified disgust at Trump’s ‘new Gestapo’ (nazi secret police):

pic.twitter.com/6GD8kQK0Ia

— Laurie (@Laurie0801) July 24, 2026

Some thought the Gestapo’s successors, the East German ‘Stasi’, were a more appropriate comparison:

Sounds like STASI has come to the US pic.twitter.com/SO4aS3Scwo

— Citizen By X (@CitizenByX) July 24, 2026

Advertisement

Others pointed to the (way more than physical) similarities between Trump’s chief propagandist and race-theoretician Stephen Miller and the original nazis’ version Josef Goebbels:

pic.twitter.com/0AMeCiAvrE

— MP (@TexasBristolian) July 24, 2026

Some pointed out some of ICE’s best-known murder victims:

Pro-Tip: FUCK YOU ASSHOLES! pic.twitter.com/HSty63mjsS

— Justice For Hedgehogs (@LakeLouise1988) July 24, 2026

Others drew attention to Trump using the concentration camps, like everything else, to fill his pockets:

trump is warehousing people

How is this not a form of human trafficking? pic.twitter.com/OWZyUe42u5

— I TELL IT LIKE IT IS – LIKE IT OR NOT (@DawgzRuul) July 24, 2026

Some opted for a pointed, arguably more humorous approach:

“ICE, I know an illegal immigrant prostitute.” pic.twitter.com/IA8FzUsQsa

— 𝕯𝖊𝖑 Ω (@DownWith710) July 24, 2026

Advertisement

Some pointed to the fact that Trump’s wife Melania reportedly worked as a model in the US while there only on a tourist visa:

pic.twitter.com/kAbIsDAHoV

— Ginger Edwards (@ginged78) July 24, 2026

Others reacted with pure disgust to the Trump regime’s racist deportation focus on people with more skin pigment:

What a disgusting post. pic.twitter.com/xIpV0TkoZ3

— Laurie (@Laurie0801) July 24, 2026

And to the awful calibre of people filling its ranks:

pic.twitter.com/2BBstVlI60

— Martyn Peel #FBPE (@martynpeel) July 24, 2026

And even some on the right were unhappy at Trump’s propaganda about deportations while he squanders billions on endless wars for Israel:

@realDonaldTrump 81 going on 100. Incoherent. Speech slurring. Wearing adult diapers. Smells like SHIT. Needs a NAPPY every hour. Endless wars!! Highest inflation in years. Failing America!!!! We DESERVE BETTER!!!! God Bless the USA!! pic.twitter.com/xy2Sdgj9c2

— Taylor (@TaylorIndiana) July 24, 2026

The nazis modelled much of their ideology and laws on the racist laws of the southern US. The US white supremacist right that inspired them only (barely) masked itself for a few decades and is now free to be its disgusting self again without restraint.

By Skwawkbox

Source link