The British state’s war on UK rights and justice to protect Israel continues. Jewish protesters are demonstrating outside an event to sell stolen Palestinian land to colonisers today, 14 June 2026. But the Met Police is already arresting peaceful protesters — and appears to be targeting Jewish protesters for violent repression:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @jewish_antizionist_action

The protesters have been loud, but entirely peaceful — Met Police are out of line:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @jewish_antizionist_action

The event had already changed location trying to avoid the protests, after the first venue withdrew:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by PYM Britain (@pymbritain)

The Jewish Anti-Zionist Action group said:

Our protest was Immediately met with violent and disproportionate policing and counter demonstrations.

The outrageous sale of Palestinian land and property, including in illegal settlements in the West Bank, is not welcome in our Synagogues, or anywhere else.

We stand proud alongside over 100 other organisations, public figures and politicians, to demand that the Government take urgent action aganist this outrageous event, that very likely breaches UK and International law.

We know that during this same event in New York City only last month, land sales in Kfar Eldad, Karnei Shomron and other Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were advertised.

We will not stand by whilst this criminal activity now takes place in London.

Advertisement

The use of a synagogue for these events, as an attempt to shield themselves from rightful criticism and protest, is inexcusable, and as anti-zionist Jews we will defend our Synagogues from this exploitation.

We reject the use of our faith and culture as a justification for occupation, war crimes and the ongoing genocide.

We refuse the idea that our safety lies in the seizure of Palestinian land and the destruction of Palestinian life.

As British Jews we will resist any attempt to recruit us to the Israeli settler colonial project.

Advertisement

We affirm our rightful place here in the UK, standing in solidarity with our neighbours, and fighting for Palestinian and collective liberation.

END ALL LAND SALES NOW, FREE PALESTINE

The situation continues to develop. Solidarity with the people of Palestine and all those protesting peacefully against the theft of yet more of their land.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

According to former ministers like Al Carns, the UK is facing the imminent threat of war. In a sense, this is always true, because the UK and the US regularly initiate conflict. And while we could simply stop committing ourselves to these illegal wars of aggression, Labour MPs like Carns and Lisa Nandy are instead proposing a fresh round of austerity:

Nandy: "We've got to significantly increase the amount we're spending on defence"

Over the last several days I haven't seen a single interviewer question this claim. Instead the challenge to politicians making it is, are you increasing it fast enough/by enough? pic.twitter.com/H7OA0MHllf

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Al Carns — Clearly made up danger

In the UK, there’s a cottage industry of ‘defence analysts’ who make the rounds arguing that the UK is on the verge of imminent war with Russia / China / ‘terror’ / etc. The only time they stop making this case is when they’re shilling for Trident, because the argument for nukes is that they’re supposed to make an invasion of the UK impossible.

Al Carns is one of the defence shills who promotes unchecked military expenditure from inside parliament. Carns resigned in spectacular fashion earlier this week, arguing that Britain should be siphoning more money off to the military industrial complex. Carns resignation was pretty much universally praised by the right, because they also want to give endless bungs to defence contractors (in addition to protecting British soldiers from consequences should they commit war crimes):

The focus today is on defence funding. It's clearly mental the PM won't cut welfare to fund our military.

But don't miss what Carns says about Northern Ireland.

The Government's Troubles Bill will see veterans dragged through the courts. If they had any shame, they'd scrap it. https://t.co/2yen2uViDK

— Katie Lam (@Katie_Lam_MP) June 11, 2026

People on the left had criticisms:

How about we owe them not to die in a trench in a foreign country, in a war with no end, and to no end? https://t.co/0POzmA1U5O

— Stop the War Coalition (@STWuk) June 11, 2026

Aaron Bastani of Novara argued your average voter is now mostly deaf to the sabre rattling that successfully riled people up during the Cold War or the War on Terror:

We spend £66 billion on defence, and £18 billion on policing.

Ask the average voter – in Al Carns’ or John Healey’s seat – which is in dire need of more money. Westminster journalists may be surprised! https://t.co/kv32v1H7wA

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) June 11, 2026

Advertisement

At this point, the cat is out of the bag. People increasingly understand that the government is a machine which transfers wealth from the masses to corporate shareholders. They also know that every military conflict we’ve embroiled ourselves in over the past several decades has been a miserable embarrassment of avoidable slaughter.

We don’t need to spend more money on offshore military bases and deadly weapons; we need to stop pretending we’re a significant global power, because it’s coming at the expense of us being a functional mid-sized nation.

Austerity 3.0

If you’re wondering where the money for more war will come from, the answer is a fresh round of austerity:

Carns is asked where the extra £ for defence should come from.

".. I think there are places, such as moving welfare from hand outs to hand ups"

Describing welfare as hand outs tells us all about Carns politics & who he wants to target – the sick, disabled, low paid, pensioners pic.twitter.com/bfHscrkzCv

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

What’s the point of defending the country if it’s literally just an empty shell?

Carns also bragged about the UK military seizing control of a Russian tanker. As Saul Staniforth notes, we’re very opposed to this sort of thing when Iran does it:

Freedom of navigation must be protected, they say, the Strait of Hormuz must be re-opened, they demand.

Meanwhile in the Channel: pic.twitter.com/6L1yRk8ERl

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

WATCH: The moment Royal Marines board a shadow Russian oil tanker in the English Channel pic.twitter.com/6uLGfcqsl8

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) June 14, 2026

Lisa Nandy was also at it:

Lisa Nandy boasting that Starmer cut the aid budget to fund more 'defence' spending & confirms we need to increase spending even more to "meet this moment"

The UK is already the 5th highest military spender in the world (only the US, China, Russia and Germany spend more than us) pic.twitter.com/cLCxwEKMEV

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

By population, the UK is the 22nd largest country in the world. Do we really need to be the fifth biggest spender on arms? How does that benefit us?

Let’s not forget, as much as these people cry about ‘defence’, we don’t use these weapons defensively; we use them offensively – and the reason we do so is to create an excuse to buy more weapons.

As Staniforth highlights, it’s austerity which is driving voters to the right. Labour’s solution to this is to implement more austerity:

Lisa Nandy condemns the nasty & divisive politics of Farage & says living standards haven't improved for too long & people want better, along with hope.

Moments before she was confirming the govt is going to make cuts across departments to fund more 'defence' spending. pic.twitter.com/dXtvAvVeFh

Advertisement

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

End of Empire

America and China aren’t laughing at us because we’re no longer a serious military power; they’re laughing because of guys like Al Carns who think we still could be.

Amazingly, this is all happening as Iran has shown you can counter the West’s endless military expenditure with much cheaper technology. And that’s the real threat, isn’t it? Because if you can outclass a multi-million pound missile with a £10k drone, the defence industry suddenly looks much larger than it has any right to be.

This is why the shills are going to scream louder, and why their protests are going to grow ever more ridiculous.

Featured image via Leon Neal (Getty Images) / Christopher Furlong (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

In a letter to Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch has urged Keir Starmer to enter into a pact with her Conservative Party. Her plan is to inflict more austerity on the British public for the sake of giving handouts to greedy defence contractors. And as she notes, Tony Blair is urging Starmer to do the same thing:

Our Armed Forces cannot defend Britain on empty promises and delayed plans.

Keir Starmer’s Defence Ministers resigned as his plan falls short. Their warnings are extremely serious.

I’ve written to the PM offering the support of my MPs to vote to cut welfare to fund defence. pic.twitter.com/aBTSVdOeV8

Advertisement

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) June 14, 2026

The question is this: will Keir Starmer agree to work with the worst of all people for the worst possible reasons, or will he be kicked out of office before he gets chance?

Always money for war

By population, the UK is the 22nd largest country in the world; by defence spending, we’re the fifth. This is clearly a hangover from our time as a globe-spanning empire; a hangover which lumps us with a massive bill for unclear benefits. ‘Unclear benefits’ for the public, anyway. Obviously there’s a massive benefit to the arms companies – companies which use their ill-gotten gains to push for more bloodshed – bloodshed which stains the hands that sign the cheques which finance operators like Blair.

Appealing to Starmer, Badenoch penned the following:

Today’s world is more dangerous and threatening than we have known in our lifetimes. Britain and our allies are confronted by authoritarian states who want to destabilise and divide us. Yet in the space of 12 hours your Defence Secretary, Armed Forces Minister and two key Defence Department aides resigned from your Government. They raised extremely serious concerns about our national defence readiness, and the funding of our military. The former Defence Secretary repeated the warning that “if it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030”.

Let’s tackle these points in order:

Firstly, the world is definitely “more dangerous and threatening”, and while Russia has contributed to that, let’s not forget our ally Israel’s actions – whether it’s the genocide in Gaza, the war on Iran, or the ethnic cleansing we’re seeing in Lebanon. Buying more weapons won’t stop Israel from dragging us into conflict; it will simply encourage and reward them – especially as we buy from Israeli defence contractors like Elbit Systems.

Secondly, Russia is failing to win against Ukraine – a single nation which is not a nuclear power. The idea that Russia will be powerful enough to attack NATO and then survive the nuclear fallout is ridiculous, whether they attack us in 2030 or 2130.

You are not a serious person if you think otherwise.

Badenoch — The stench of Blair

Badenoch also said:

It is time to get serious. We cannot have our military inadequately funded at a time of growing threats. The funding must also not be backloaded, when the pressures are urgent.

I have made several offers to work with you in the national interest to reduce benefit spending so we can invest more in our defence. Sir Tony Blair, the longest serving Labour Prime Minister, has urged you to accept them.

Gee, we wonder why the disgraced war criminal Tony Blair would view endless conflict as more worthy than the welfare of British citizens?

Lest we forget, Labour didn’t back down on the welfare cuts because Starmer grew a conscious; it backed down because targeting sick and disabled people disgusted the public.

Keir Starmer would have to be entirely devoid of intelligence to sign up to a devil’s pact with Kemi Badenoch and Tony Blair. And that’s the problem; he is entirely devoid of intelligence, and so it seems is his most-likely replacement:

NEW | Andy Burnham confirms he will cut welfare benefits to pour billions into war spending.

The aspiring PM said “I am not squeamish about saying that the plan would be to reduce the welfare bill", insisting he'll slash benefits to "support people into work"

Advertisement

(Via @TheTimes) pic.twitter.com/5NDMVE9hmy

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) June 13, 2026

Paradoxical

Iran has shown that it’s possible to counter endless Western military expenditure with cheap and cheerful tech like drones, fast boats, and mines. This is an existential threat to the arms industry, because if missiles that cost millions apiece are now redundant, we don’t need to be spending so much on weapons, do we?

To counter this, the war cries are becoming ever more shrill and ever more preposterous.

In other words, expect to hear a lot more from Tony Blair and his apparent fangirl Kemi Badenoch over the coming months.

Featured image via Chris Somodevilla (Getty Images) / WPA Pool (Getty Images) / Carl Court (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Two Middlesbrough women who set a car on fire in the street, stole property and intimidated innocent local people during far-right riots received jail term of 20 and 22 months. They are already back out on the streets. Anti-genocide protesters who damaged weapons used to murder Palestinian civilians have been jailed for 6 years or more despite being found to have no violent intent. They were held in prison for longer before trial than Megan Davison was sentenced to:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Scott (@thebearded_skot)

Far-right snowflakes

The far-right loves to moan about ‘two-tier policing’. It thinks its the victim. But the victims are those slaughtered and purged by the Israeli colony — and those the British state targets for opposing Israel’s crimes.

Featured image via Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Israel has struck the Dahiya area of Beirut, after Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, called for the IOF to flatten the suburb.

Israeli terrorists just attacked southern suburb of Beirut.
As usual, before any ceasefire gakes place, they do their worst to sabotage it, as it is a main goal for them to continue this genocide agaisnt our people.
No details abiut casualties yet.
Last strike on Dahiyeh 2 weeks… pic.twitter.com/rzjkLEa8qq

— Hadi Hoteit | هادي حطيط (@HadiHtt) June 14, 2026

This was in response to Hezbollah drones striking an illegal Israeli military zone in the Northern occupied Palestinian territories early on Sunday.

Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine

Smotrich called for the IOF to use the ‘Dahiya Doctrine’ — an explicitly genocidal doctrine. This is Israel’s policy of using overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilian areas to “deter attacks”. It was named after a suburb of Beirut, which the IOF flattened in 2006.

Smotrich called on Netanyahu to:

implement it with determination and force and to demolish buildings in Dahiya today as well.

We are in critical days of shaping the space for many years to come.

As the Canary previously reported, Paul Rogers, emeritus professor of peace studies, explained Dahiya in the context of Gaza in December 2023. When looking at the early devastation, he described the horrors as:

a specific Israeli way of war that has evolved since 1948, through to its current Dahiya doctrine, which is said to have originated in the 2006 war in Lebanon.

Rogers said:

In July of that year, facing salvoes of rockets fired from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah militias, the IDF fought an intense air and ground war.

However:

Neither succeeded, and the ground troops took heavy casualties; but the significance of the war lies in the nature of the air attacks. It was directed at centres of Hezbollah power in the Dahiya area, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, but also on the Lebanese economic infrastructure.

It was there in Dahiya that Israel’s genocidal impulses mutated into a new policy of annihilation.

Disproportionate force

Rogers explained:

This was the deliberate application of “disproportionate force”, such as the destruction of an entire village, if deemed to be the source of rocket fire.

One graphic description of the result was that “around a thousand Lebanese civilians were killed, a third of them children. Towns and villages were reduced to rubble; bridges, sewage treatment plants, port facilities and electric power plants were crippled or destroyed.

Advertisement

In short, Israeli policy goes far beyond fighting ‘terrorists’ and aims to destroy the very means of life.

Israel jeopardising the ceasefire

Iran had warned that any attack on Beirut would trigger an Iranian response, which could reignite full-scale war across the region. Importantly, though, this is what Israel does. Whenever Iran and the US are close to a ceasefire agreement, Israel drops more bombs and screws it up.

Ahead of a potential U.S.-Iran deal, the Israelis do exactly what everyone expects them to do. Bomb Beirut’s southern suburbs. https://t.co/ejkRiNe3kb

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) June 14, 2026

Israel knows that its goal of a ‘Greater Israel‘ cannot be achieved if it actually adheres to a ceasefire, so why would it?

Iran has emphasised that the ceasefire must include Israel’s illegal attacks on Lebanon. This means a strike on Dahiyeh could complicate Trump’s efforts to finalise the ceasefire.

‘Self defence’

Two Israeli fighter jets struck a residential building in Beirut at least four times.

Footage of today’s Israeli strike on a residential building in Beirut, Lebanon.

2 fighter jets were involved, 4 munitions dropped. pic.twitter.com/4cyCaSPDxQ

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Of course, Israel claims the strike on Dahiya is self-defence. But no such thing under international law.

Once again lsrael claims to have bombed Beirut in “self-defense” following Hezbollah rockets/drones launches towards invading Israeli forces & northern settlements.

*Hezbollah has been responding to Israel violations of the ceasefire & invasion by firing rockets/drones towards… https://t.co/yfTtuf0mxa pic.twitter.com/Ve9enDdvsD

— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) June 14, 2026

On the other hand, anyone living under illegal occupation has the legal right to armed resistance and self-defence, under international law.

You cannot invade and illegally occupy sovereign territory and expect the native population to just roll over.

Israelis are living in an alternate reality. One in which Arab lives don’t matter, and actions don’t have consequences.

Feature image via Ryan Murphy/Getty Images

By HG

Source link

Today, 14 June 2026, the Jewish Anti-Zionist Action (JAZA) group and others protested outside the so-called “Great Israeli Real Estate” event at Edgware United Synagogue. The event is selling off yet more stolen Palestinian land to would-be colonisers.

JAZA has joined hundreds of protestors from a variety of justice groups, including the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), in peaceful protest outside Edgware United Synagogue in London. The event was moved to the synagogue after a first venue pulled out.

Protesters held a prayer service in the street and held a banner stating ‘war crimes out of our synagogues’. Despite the peaceful, even sacred, nature of the demonstration, protesters were still attacked and violently arrested by the Met Police.

The event has generated widespread public opposition, along with condemnation even among MPs. Human rights organisations, legal experts, community groups and elected representatives called for its cancellation and for authorities to immediately investigate the legality of the event and those associated with the event under UK domestic law.

The group said, before beginning its protest, that it was “proud” to participate:

Alongside the more than 100 civil society organisations and the more than 100 MPs that have publicly opposed this event, we are proud to join the peaceful and public protest against the event this Sunday.

Jewish Anti-Zionists reject any attempt to provide a Jewish pretext or justification for these activities and refuse the use of our synagogues to legitimise them. JAZA are appalled that Edgware United Synagogue is hosting this event in the midst of the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. That a synagogue would openly engage in enabling the further colonisation of Palestine by giving the event religious and cultural credence is unconscionable. We refuse to allow support for settlement expansion and land theft to be presented as a Jewish communal interest and we reject the conflation of Judaism with a political project built upon the dispossession of another people.

UN figures show that since October 2023, over 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, 213 of whom were children, have been killed by Israeli settlers and military forces. Settler violence and access restrictions have also led to the displacement of over 1,750 Palestinians this year alone.

JAZA — Starmer targeting Jews

Following the usual pattern of the Starmer regime and its Israel lobbyists, anti-Zionist Jews were disproportionately targeted for arrest. Their prominent presence at anti-genocide and anti-apartheid protests disrupts the Israel lobby’s narrative that all Jews support Israel and its colonisation of Palestine.

Settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under international law, and have been found by the ICJ to be in breach of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its civilian population into occupied territory, constituting a war crime.

JAZA’s Talia Woodin said:

As Jews, we are disgusted that companies involved in marketing and developing properties in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are hosted by a synagogue. These settlements are outposts of extreme violence and exist to terrorise Palestinians and eliminate the possibility of a future Palestinian state.

We are here to fight the false narrative that dangerously conflates Judaism and Zionism, and seeks to weaponise antisemitism to suppress peaceful protests.

We stand in a long tradition of Jewish anti-Zionists who refuse to stand idly by as stolen Palestinian land is occupied, sold and promoted, from protests against settlement-linked property fairs in New York and Toronto to campaigns here in Britain. We are proud to uphold that tradition by joining the protest against the Great Israeli Real Estate Event.

Advertisement

Jewish Anti-Zionist Action is a group of UK-based anti-Zionist Jews acting in solidarity with the wider Palestinian liberation movement by taking direct action to dismantle Zionism.

Featured image via Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A massive crowd of around 20,000 people turned out in Belfast on Saturday June 13 to show support for people driven from their homes by racist mobs earlier in the week. The rally, entitled Together Against Hate, was organised by United Against Racism (UAR). Speaking on Instagram, the group said:

This was the biggest anti-racist mobilisation Belfast has ever seen. It reflects the revulsion felt at the 3rd consecutive year of racist pogroms.

Speakers from the trade union movement, community groups, anti-racist organisers and political parties addressed the crowd.

The riots that took place this week were encouraged by those at the top of society. The likes of Elon Musk and Nigel Farage were happy to stoke the flames of racism.

As we’ve already pointed out, the north of Ireland’s problems aren’t caused by immigrants and people of colour. They’re caused by billionaires and the politicians they are able to purchase under a grotesquely unequal and undemocratic political and economic system. UAR concurred, saying:

Migrants did not cause the housing crisis. Migrants did not cause the fuel crisis. Migrants did not defund the NHS. The government is responsible for these failures, and we should not allow ourselves to be fed misinformation which scapegoats the most vulnerable members of our society.

Activist slams PSNI response to pogroms

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) must also account for their failures. Assistant director of Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) Marissa McMahon slammed the police for their response to the wave of ethnic cleansing. She described how a list of houses that were targets of the far-right had been seen online:

On Wednesday as many people know, a list of people’s addresses were circulated widely on the internet.

Rather than get people out, she said the PSNI simply called at people’s doors to:

…tell them that they weren’t safe. Vulnerable people left to fend for themselves.

McMahon went on to describe the heroic efforts of Belfast activists throughout the week, who did the police’s job for them. They entered loyalist areas where the violence was centred, then:

At absolute personal risk to themselves they went into houses, they got families out through back doors and into cars.

She described how PPR:

…worked with the likes of Unison, the Irish language community, the travelling community. These communities who know all too well what discrimination and persecution looks like. And with their help we were able to safely house over 200 families.

McMahon also said authorities should have foreseen the violence. She said PPR had been “mapping this racist violence since 2024”. This means a third summer in a row of racist pogroms should not have come as a surprise. The Guardian recently covered how the Accountability Project Northern Ireland, which tracks far-right activity:

…sent dozens of reports to the PSNI between November 2025 and June 2026.

The police service did not act on these, resulting in the carnage of the last week. Union leaders and political parties also spoke at the demonstration. Alliance, the Green Party, People Before Profit, the SDLP and Sinn Féin all sent representatives. No unionist party provided a speaker to denounce the shocking crimes committed by bigoted thugs.

Belfast Loyalist gang tortured man whose stabbing triggered riots

In other news related to the loyalist-driven riots, a judge refused bail for racist far-right agitator Stephen Baker. He was:

…among four men who appeared at Belfast Magistrates Court in connection with public disorder.

District judge Steven Keown had unusually strong words for Baker. He inverted the racists’ narrative by suggesting that it is the likes of Baker that need to go, rather than the immigrants his ilk want to purge:

People who involve themselves in this or support or encourage these outrageous attacks on our community, and including, as we’ve all seen, outrageous attacks on hard-working and valued members of our society, from all backgrounds and cultures, need to be removed from our society because they pose an existential threat to all of us.

Additionally, the Belfast Telegraph reported that Stephen Ogilvie, the victim of the knife attack which triggered the latest wave of white violence, had previously been tortured by a gang headed by loyalist hoods. The Telegraph says:

Gang member David McCleave ended up being jailed for 14 years for spiking the Rathcoole man [Ogilvie] with a date rape drug and putting lit cigarettes between his toes.

Ogilvie was then stripped, beaten with a baton, had aftershave poured on him and then set on fire.

Shankill Butcher William Moore was also connected to the gang. The Shankill Butchers were among the most notorious killers of the ‘Troubles’. In the 1970s and early ’80s they kidnapped Catholics around Belfast. Using bladed weapons, they subjected their victims to horrific torture before killing them.

The far-right have attempted to portray the attack on Ogilvie as an aberration in Belfast, a form of savagery “alien” to its culture. In reality, it turns out Ogilvie was already tormented by the very people who have always wielded barbaric violence for a supremacist agenda.

Featured image via Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Source link

According to one Labour politician, a Reform MP said the following about Makerfield candidate Rob Kenyon:

Chatting to a loose lipped Reform MP today who tells me that they've given up on Makerfield.

"An absolute sh*t candidate and no real understanding of how to tackle a by-election".

— Mike Reader MP (@mike_reader) June 13, 2026

Advertisement

On the one hand, Mike Reader would have every reason to lie about this. On the other, Reform MPs would have every reason to call Kenyon a “sh*t candidate”, because he is.

“No real understanding”

What is it that makes Kenyon such a bad candidate?

Firstly, there are the many controversial statements he’s made in the past that he’s refused to apologise for. As Reform Party UK Exposed summarised:

Rob Kenyon has still not apologised for his homophobic or sexist comments.#Makerfield pic.twitter.com/zg91qJf7eT

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) June 9, 2026

When they say he’s a “sexist”, they say that because Kenyon referred to himself as a “sexist”. He also speculated that:

the majority [of abortions] are for vanity purposes like unwanted pregnancies.

The second problem Kenyon has is that he’s not very good at speaking about or even understanding Reform’s policies:

This might be the worst performance from a political candidate I have ever seen in my life. pic.twitter.com/Kku1RecFJ0

— Ali Milani (@AliMilaniUK) June 2, 2026

This is a problem, because the worse your policies are, the better you need to be at selling them.

The third problem for Kenyon is that he seems to be clueless in general:

Hi @RobKenyonReform, Ashton Library was already saved thanks to the Labour MP Josh Simons (you might of heard of him) and Councillors.

Being that you’ve not bothered to even sign the paperwork for being a councillor, let alone attending your first meeting, it’s no surprise you… pic.twitter.com/kHFkM7zaNi

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) June 2, 2026

Hands and knees

Kenyon’s sexism seems to be a particular problem for voters. As it turns out, many women don’t want to vote for a guy who is prejudiced against women. And in an attempt to counter that, Reform is now begging female voters to get behind Mr Patriarchy:

An important letter to the women of Makerfield. pic.twitter.com/F9ohFne2uT

— Sarah Pochin MP (@SarahForRuncorn) June 13, 2026

Pochin’s post has provided an opportunity to share more of Kenyon’s past comments:

These are the statements you would get if you asked Chat GPT: ‘please provide the top 5 misogynistic comments spoken by dull men who have nothing to offer besides repeating the comments of other dull men‘. His opinions are so stereotypical, in fact, that it reads like he’s playing sexism bingo.

In the final push for Makerfield, Kenyon has also given voters new reasons to suspect him of sexism. Here he is with his “hero” Ant Middleton:

Great to have the endorsement of one of my heroes @antmiddleton pic.twitter.com/zoEq5gU90c

— Cllr Rob Kenyon (@RobKenyonReform) June 12, 2026

This is besides the point, but if you’re a 40-year-old man, your hero shouldn’t be another 40-year-old man; it should be someone you grew up admiring like Keanu Reeves or Mr Motivator.

Middleton is famous for spreading online misinformation — either on purpose or because he’s easily fooled:

Ant Middleton, who wants to be the next mayor of London, shared this AI slops. It's incredible how thick he is. pic.twitter.com/SKguHZy4xw

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) December 5, 2025

Ant Middleton is spreading misinformation and claimed that a church in Yorkshire was attacked.

What actually happened is that, during marches held in March in Mexico to mark International Women’s Day, three churches were vandalised because protesters opposed the Catholic…

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) May 20, 2026

To be fair to him, he has also spread facts; the problem is they were facts he wasn’t supposed to be spreading:

The Ministry of Defence is suing Ant Middleton for spilling secrets about the special forces on a series of social media posts. pic.twitter.com/N8JVqYGszY

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) October 10, 2025

The reason we’re bringing up Middleton in a conversation about sexism is because of his conviction for assaulting a female police officer:

.@UKLabour I would STRONGLY suggest that you remove this post immediately as your statement of myself ‘assaulting’ a female officer is highly misleading and completely false as I’ve never laid a finger on a woman let alone a female Police officer! However doesn’t Labour allow for… https://t.co/FVp4j9MHkZ

— Ant Middleton (@antmiddleton) June 12, 2026

Providing further context on the above, retired solicitor Clive Wismayer explained:

Learn some law. Common assault does not require contact. As I just saved you about £200,000 I’ll invoice you for half.

Also, I read that you later secured employment without disclosing your criminal convictions. If true, you may have committed the offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I suggest you surrender to the police & make a full confession. I’m only charging fifty quid for that.

Providing more detail on common assault, the Sentencing Council wrote:

A person is guilty of common assault if they either inflict violence on another person – however slight this might be – or make that person think they are about to be attacked.

They do not have to be physically violent – for example, threatening words or a raised fist could lead the victim to believe they are going to be attacked – and that is enough for the crime to have been committed. Other acts like spitting at someone may also classed as common assault.

So Middleton may not have ‘lain a finger’ on a female police officer, but he did do something akin to the above, and this was considered ‘assault’.

Reform — Not what they say they are

Reform wants you to believe that it’s pro-:

• Women.
• Defence.
• Policing.

The fact that they’re hanging out with Middleton shows the party is none of those things.

The fact that Kenyon is the candidate, meanwhile, shows Reform especially doesn’t care about women.

Featured image via Ryan Jenkinson (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

13 min read14 min

May’s local elections meant more councils than ever ruled by more than one party. Zoe Crowther investigates what might be a sign of things to come for Westminster. Illustration by Tracy Worrall

Advertisement

In the election for Birmingham City Council, no party came close to the 51 seats needed for a majority. Reform UK ended up with 23 seats, while the Greens have 19, Labour 17, the Conservatives 16, the Liberal Democrats 12, and a group of independents under the umbrella of ‘Better Birmingham’ has seven councillors. And yet, while Reform emerged as the largest party on the council, every other party ruled out working with them – leaving them effectively unable to govern. Labour, meanwhile, decided not to seek to form an administration, with the group leader ruling out joining a governing coalition.

That left the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Better Birmingham to strike a deal, forming a coalition-style administration made up of 38 councillors – but still short of a majority. Lib Dem councillor Roger Harmer has become council leader, but the Greens will take over the leadership in 2028 under a rotation agreement. All three groups will be represented on the council’s cabinet.

Birmingham is the prime example of a phenomenon being seen across the country, with 23 councils of the 136 up for election this year pushed into no overall political control. Where rainbow coalitions have emerged to lead these councils, the trend is clear: rather than share power with Reform, almost every other political group would prefer to co-operate with one another.

Advertisement

You can broadly split the multi-party arrangements on English councils into different categories: the ‘anyone but Reform’ coalitions; the ‘anyone but Labour’ coalitions; and the ‘necessary to govern’ coalitions, where parties have been forced to accept the support of other parties or independents to govern effectively.

With the national polling looking as fractured as it does on a local level, political parties are scratching their heads over what the implications of these forms of local co-operation might have for the political picture in Westminster.

According to Green and Lib Dem councillors, the directives coming from their national parties on striking arrangements with other parties have been relaxed. Sources in both camps describe themselves as “bottom-up” and “democratic”, meaning local party groups have widely been allowed to organise their own negotiations without input from the national parties. And both the Greens and Lib Dems see blocking Reform from local power as a key priority.

In Newcastle, the Labour vote collapsed but the Liberal Democrats and Greens formed a confidence-and-supply arrangement that locked out Reform, despite it being the second-largest party. Lib Dem council leader Colin Ferguson and Green councillor Nick Hartley claim the reaction from Newcastle residents to the arrangement has been “overwhelmingly positive”. They insist that people want more “grown-up politics” that crosses political divides.

Advertisement

Hartley says they want the arrangement to show a way of “doing things differently” and suggests there could be “lessons learned for parliamentarians” going into a future general election.

The Greens appear more open to multi-party arrangements than any of the other parties. Green MP Siân Berry says increasing numbers of councils are demonstrating that parties can work together when no one commands a majority. She tells The House she plans to keep in contact with Green leaders who have made power-sharing arrangements on councils to learn from their experiences working with other parties.

Berry rejects the idea that such arrangements are “back-room deals”. Still, she admits the party would have to consider the extent to which Green voters would tolerate further arrangements between the Greens and other parties, including Labour.

The Local Government Association Green Group has just been established, which plans to put together a set of principles to guide Green-led councils around the country to ensure national cohesion on policy and negotiations with other parties.

Advertisement

Both the Greens and Lib Dems want to see a voting system with proportional representation introduced before the next general election, with Berry saying that under first-past-the-post, the “risk of Reform getting a majority on a tiny percentage of the vote at Westminster is very, very high”. She adds: “And then there is no possible way that making arrangements between the other parties can help us.”

The Lib Dems have benefited from the fragmented two-party system in local elections. The Lib Dem identity is partly built around being anti-Labour in some areas and anti-Tory in others. This dual identity plays out in the sort of multi-party deals that it does across the country.

The flexibility helps explain why the Lib Dems are leading councils where they do not have the most seats. In the case of Birmingham, where a Lib Dem councillor is leading the council, the party is in fact the fifth-largest group.

And yet deputy Lib Dem leader Daisy Cooper tells The House that these local-level coalitions and arrangements cannot be considered as a predictor of how a national coalition in Westminster might take place.

Advertisement

“It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how these things work,” she says. “Different political parties have been in different coalitions in local government for decades, and it’s the nature of local politics, because local authorities are less partisan because they have fewer powers… That’s really quite different from the cut and thrust of what happens in Westminster.”

But she did admit that “people are desperate to try and stop Reform”.

“But I genuinely think that if you look back in just recent years, and historically, voters hate it when they think there is a stitch-up,” Cooper says.

This is a sign of things to come

Advertisement

Asked whether the Lib Dems have to start being more transparent about a potential future coalition, Cooper says: “It’s going to be incumbent on political parties to be really transparent with the public about what they themselves are offering and about what their priorities are.

“But the idea that we should be wasting our time and our energy right now, you know, indulging in that kind of naval gazing about who we might work with and what deals we might do, and what the red lines might be… We’ve got no idea where the country is going to be in six months, let alone in another three years.”

Increasingly, councils are also seeing the rise of organised independent groups, community alliances, resident associations, and former Labour and Conservative councillors who left their parties or were suspended – all sitting under the independent banner.

Advertisement

In many cases, they have slotted in to provide the numbers for multi-party arrangements headed up by other parties. The seven-member Better Birmingham group, which has formed part of the Birmingham coalition, includes councillors such as Harris Khaliq and Nosheen Khalid, who were backed by Jeremy Corbyn’s Your Party.

In other areas, smaller parties have joined together to block Labour from staying in power, for example, in the London boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth.

In Southwark, the Greens and Lib Dems joined together to form an administration, with Green Party councillor James McAsh (formerly the council’s Labour leader), now leader of the council, with Lib Dem councillor Victor Chamberlain serving as deputy.

They claim Southwark Labour was uncooperative in the run-up to the elections when they were approached to discuss the possibility of making an arrangement.

Advertisement

Both McAsh and Chamberlain tell The House they want to push their national parties to continue to support these arrangements happening more often, and be more transparent about preparing for a national coalition.

“This is a sign of things to come,” Chamberlain says. “We are very firmly in multi-party politics in London. This is something that we can hopefully push our national parties to be more aware of and more inclusive… It’s in the interest of residents that parties should work together.”

For Labour and the Conservatives, approaching multi-party arrangements, even on a council level, has proven more complicated. Both the Tories and Labour are very wary of any perception of backroom deal-making, and see formal arrangements with the smaller parties as potentially detrimental if the mainstream parties begin to be seen as the minor players.

Labour blocked its councillors in Brent from making a deal with the Green Party, and the Labour minority administration has therefore had to make a deal with the Conservatives in order to stay in power.

Advertisement

However, elsewhere, Labour councillors have been permitted to enter rainbow coalitions, like in West Sussex, where the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Labour and an independent councillor agreed a partnership to run the council.

The House understands, from speaking to multiple Labour sources, that the Labour leadership is generally hostile to the idea of any pacts or deals with other parties, not least because they believe the majority of Labour MPs would also be hostile to the idea. A senior source who worked for Starmer in opposition, confirms to The House there was an informal, unspoken accommodation with the Lib Dems in some areas ahead of the 2024 general election, but only where the Lib Dems were not directly contesting Labour for seats.

The political landscape looks very different today, with the Greens, independents, and sometimes the Lib Dems fighting Labour in areas they considered ‘safe’ just two years ago.

For Labour, advocating for multi-party deals to stop Reform makes little electoral sense when the other parties are often trying to win seats from the Labour Party. As Prime Minister Keir Starmer set out at Labour conference in the autumn, the Labour strategy will continue to set out the next general election as a Labour vs Reform fight.

Advertisement

For the Conservatives, their red lines have started to become clear. CCHQ has accepted a broad range of multi-party deals between Tory councillors and other parties, including Reform and Labour. According to multiple Tory sources, the one party that CCHQ will not accept deals with under any circumstances is the Green Party.

In Worcestershire, this caused tensions between the national party and its local councillors. Although Worcestershire County Council was not up for election this year, the council has been embroiled in a row over the emergence of a new four-way arrangement involving Conservatives, Greens, Liberal Democrats and independents to keep Reform out of power, after some Reform councillors quit and left their group short of a majority on the council.

The Conservative Party, with direct intervention by leader Kemi Badenoch, suspended the Tory group leader Adam Kent for attempting to form this arrangement, with Badenoch’s team arguing they had made clear that a deal of this kind was not authorised. Kent is now threatening legal action against the party.

The remaining Conservative councillors have withdrawn from the power-sharing arrangement, though The House understands they did so reluctantly. Many local Conservatives felt the deal was justified because Reform’s administration had become unstable and difficult to work with. This hints at a growing divide between the national Conservative position and what some Tory councillors are actually doing on the ground.

Advertisement

Nigel Farage is a realist, and he will know that the only way the left is going to be gone is if the right actually works together

In the remaining coalition, Green councillor Matt Jenkins is serving as council leader. He believes the larger national parties are “just living in the past” where they used to have clearer-cut majorities on councils.

“I don’t think people really understand that two-party politics went a few years ago, and now it is really multi-party politics,” he says.

Advertisement

According to Jenkins, the feedback from Worcestershire residents so far has been that they are glad that the Greens are working with any party, “as long as it’s to stop Reform”.

While Reform made huge gains in these elections, the fractured vote and strong anti-Reform turnout meant many councils were pushed into no overall control, leaving Reform unable to govern by itself.

In some councils, like Hartlepool, Reform has had to enlist the support of independent councillors to run an administration. In other areas, such as Redditch, Reform has had to enter informal arrangements with the Conservatives.

After the May elections, Labour was left short of a majority on Redditch Borough Council. Despite the Conservatives only holding four of the council seats, compared to Reform’s eight, the right-wing parties agreed on a confidence and supply arrangement where Conservative councillor Matthew Dormer has been appointed as leader and Reform councillors have been given largely ceremonial roles. The deal was directly approved by CCHQ.

Advertisement

Dormer tells The House that Reform reluctantly agreed to work with the Tories as they were “just hell-bent on getting Labour out”.

He says that while some voters backed his party to keep Reform out, he believes that Conservative supporters are broadly tolerant of such an arrangement, while many in Reform are less pleased.

“Nigel Farage is a realist, and he will know that the only way the left is going to be gone is if the right actually works together,” he says. “That has to happen, whether they want it or not.”

Reform sources see this confidence-and-supply arrangement as a necessary one to give the town a stable budget, though one senior party insider says they are aware that Reform’s supporters are “wary” of such deals.

Advertisement

“Many left the Tories because they felt let down,” one senior Reform insider says. “They elected us to govern, not to posture. Value for money, an end to non-jobs, and lower waste. Deliver that, and the arrangement vindicates itself.”

Reform voters and Tory voters are generally very hostile to the other party, and the national parties are acutely aware of this.

“No pacts, no deals,” a Reform spokesperson says. “Reform UK is focused on delivering for voters, not propping up the broken establishment parties.

“As we’ve previously seen in places like Bradford and Worcestershire, where ideologically different Tories and Greens have colluded, other parties will go to desperate lengths to block Reform. We will focus on delivering for the British people instead of betraying voters for the sake of political convenience.”

Advertisement

A Reform insider says the party’s focus in local government will be on delivery rather than “setting the world alight”. They agree there is “plainly” an establishment effort to block Farage’s party.

“Every other party is now prepared to run a rainbow coalition against us, combining for one purpose: keeping the largest party out,” they say.

They add that agreements made on local councils amounted to “working relations” between parties rather than “pacts”. “A pact is a carve-up. A working relationship is the ordinary business of passing a budget and running services.”

They believe that Reform will not work with the Greens or the Liberal Democrats under any circumstances: “I cannot conceive how we could; there is no common ground. Otherwise, the test is good faith and delivery, not the rosette.” 

Advertisement

 

Advertisement

Source link