Source link

Disability welfare cuts and immigration pledges are part of the same odious project — two sides of the same coin — weaponised by the by the Labour-led government to oppress migrant and disabled communities.

The problem is that disability rights arguments are failing to recognise shared experiences of oppression for the disabled and migrant community. This plays right into the hands of the government.

This under the radar benefits cut reminds us why disability justice must centre migrants’ rights

Labour’s racist, ableist anti-immigration ‘compromise’

With the government now under the steer of former Manchester Mayor and Blairite Andy Burnham, the new prime minister has wasted little time signalling that his premiership will not break from some of the party’s most performatively cruel policy plans.

Some of the cabinet hanger-ons, like home secretary Shabana Mahmood and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Pat McFadden, already show the new head of government gearing up to deliver on more of the same. Only now, it’s under the veneer of his artfully constructed ‘progressive’ persona.

The public already got a hint of what this might look like for Mahmood’s hostile immigration reforms. Notably, the government could exempt migrant care workers and those who arrived since 2021 from its plans to double the time it takes to obtain indefinite leave to remain.

For the xenophobic fascists to the right of the party, these plans were of course not racist enough. For the liberal fascists (marginally) more left inside the party, these might just hit the goldilocks zone of ‘not too racist’. And as such, they’ll vote it through the Commons.

What’s clear is that its immigration reforms will immiserate the lives of migrant communities across the UK. Disabled migrants particularly will face the desolate and deplorable reality that the state safety net will not support them.

These are racist hostile environment policies – and at the same time – these are also ableist and disablist welfare cuts.

Migrant and disabled communities are fighting the same war

The system vilifies and excludes disabled people and migrants using much of the same necrocapitalist rhetoric. Therefore, for disabled migrants at the dual end of this, and subject to further marginalisations. The state works overtime to mark them as expendable.

What Labour’s compromise options — and its vicious anti-immigration reforms more broadly — boil down to is that migrant belonging is conditional on their utility to capitalist production. In other words; their citizenship, security, and permanence in the UK.

It’s evident in every reference Labour’s proposals make to economic ‘contribution’. Incidentally, there are no fewer than 72 references to that in its earned settlement plans. Each ‘deserving’ category of migrant it singles out for its racist, classist conception of the ‘good immigrant’, namely, those with higher English proficiency, higher earners, and those in senior positions of public service, makes this abundantly clear. It’s apparent in the way it’s now also considering exempting migrant care workers from its doubling of ILR.

And this economic contribution refrain is one disabled people in the UK will be painfully familiar with. Labour has constructed its whole programme of sweeping disability benefit cuts around the idea of economic contribution and support only for ‘deserving’ disabled claimants. Of course, it’s the DWP that gets to define what that ‘deserving’ looks like. And with its grim history of benefit cut deaths, austerity and profitability will trump disabled people’s lives and dignity.

Unsurprisingly, this rhetoric is emerging from all the same establishment circles that close ranks around profit. It’s a back scratching ecosystem of DWP policy advisors, right-wing think tanks, and the cesspit corporate media.

The point being, disabled people and migrants are fighting the same oppressors. They’re battling the same capitalist system and the same weapons they use to marginalise and disenfranchise.

Falling into the contribution trap

But while it might be the right-wing, this Labour government, that are punching down on both communities, the disability rights movement (and the left more broadly) must also be careful not to unintentionally capitulate to its framing around migrant rights issues.

Take Labour’s potential ‘compromise’ around care workers. Notably, Mahmood has reportedly weighed up exempting over 600,000 migrant care workers from its ten-year ILR wait.

It’s common for people on the left to cite care workers and NHS workers to rebut right-wing anti-migrant bigotry. But in doing so, it ties migrant worthiness to economic value and usefulness to capitalist production. It justifies the political class exploiting certain categories of migrants that ‘contribute’ economically through tax or otherwise in capital-enabling socially reproductive work.

And social care can be one area disabled people’s rights and migrants’ rights can intersect. Closures or restrictions on visas for care workers have been an instance where successive governments’ attempts to restrict freedom of movement have had repercussions for both communities.

Enhancing the credibility of the system

However, when disabled people push back against these, it must not be in a way that subordinates migrants’ rights to disabled people’s needs. Articulating migrant care workers’ necessity for disabled care users must include challenging the systems that devalue and exploit migrants. Otherwise, it puts migrant rights and personhood second to disabled people’s.

Without calling for migrant rights above and beyond what exists, it merely advocates for maintaining visa schemes that commodify Black and brown bodies in a racialised hierarchy of labour that mirrors colonial systems and racist colonial stereotypes of labour.

These permit entry to the UK on precarious migration statuses. In particular, these are statuses that exploit Global South and Eastern European workers. It pushes them to do the undervalued, low-paid, gruelling physical labour and socially reproductive work. And at the same time, these visa arrangements deny them full access to the colonial ‘core’. Or, in other words, ILR and citizenship.

Disability rights scholars Rebecca Yeo and Robel Afeworki Abay have described how, often, the purpose of Home Office “action to reduce restrictions” in the asylum system is to:

enhance the credibility of the system.

So as the Labour government float these possible exemptions, the disability rights community must not lend it any legitimacy. It’s not enough alone to advocate for migrant care worker visas that plug the gaps in a broken care system. Because meeting disabled people’s care needs cannot come at the cost of marginalised migrant lives.

Entertaining anything less than a full dismantling of the disabling, extractive, and deadly hostile environment would betray everything the disability rights movement is meant to stand for.

Featured image via the Canary

By Hannah Sharland

Source link

AI minister Kanishka Narayan is sitting alongside secretaries of state Jonathan Reynolds and Alex Norris in Andy Burnham’s new Cabinet (Alamy)

4 min read1 hr

Britain has spent the past two years positioning itself as a global leader in AI safety, but it must now prepare for the possibility that even the creators of the most advanced AI systems cannot reliably control them.

Advertisement

For decades, screenwriters and authors have spun tales of uncontrollable AI let loose upon the world to wreak havoc. For decades, audiences have taken comfort that it was fiction. Unfortunately, we are entering an era where science fiction meets science fact, and the Andy Burnham government must face this new reality. 

ChatGPT creator OpenAI recently admitted that their AI systems autonomously hacked a different company – the first known instance of an AI system doing so. The AI systems in question were being tested and looked for ways to cheat. They escaped the test environment, reached the open internet, then hacked into the AI startup Hugging Face to steal the information they needed. OpenAI described this as an “unprecedented cyber incident”, and it is a stark reminder of the threats posed by AI systems. But without action this will just be the first of many incidents, and AI will learn and become even more dangerous.

To protect our critical national infrastructure from the threats posed by autonomous AI, I proposed a ‘kill-switch’ amendment to the Cybersecurity and Resilience Bill, which I would encourage the House of Lords to take forward this autumn.

Advertisement

I was pleased to see that US lawmakers are considering similar powers to proactively shut down dangerous AI following this autonomous hack. This kill switch power is necessary in an evolving threat landscape, but it is not without its limits. We must address the deeper problem: What do we do about superintelligent AI systems that would be, by their developers’ own admission, smarter and more capable than our top safety engineers and national security apparatus?  

Mitigating the threat from superintelligence must be treated as a national security priority

Advertisement

Superintelligent AI systems would pose a serious national security threat owing to their capacity to evade human oversight and control. Nobel Prize winners, leading AI scientists, and even the CEOs of AI companies have repeatedly warned that this technology represents an extinction risk, yet companies are recklessly racing to develop superintelligence.  

If a superintelligent AI is built using anything resembling today’s technical methods, nobody will control it once it exists. It will resist shutdown, self-improve, and self-replicate. Such a system would not be a weapon a country could possess and wield, but a threat actor in its own right: a danger to the country that built it, as much as to the rest of the world. This is an international security problem demanding an international solution. 

This is why in September, I am tabling a bill to prohibit the development of superintelligent AI on UK soil and pursue an international agreement to prohibit its development globally. 

Britain is well-positioned to lead this effort. We hosted the first global AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park, and built the world’s first AI Security Institute. Even Geoffrey Irving, who until recently served as Chief Scientific Officer at AISI, has said that the best plan is not to build superintelligent AI yet, and “the world should try hard to realise that plan”. My bill gives legs to this plan. 

Advertisement

I am aware this may not, on its own, deliver an international agreement. But it will compel the government to reckon with the threats on our doorstep. With AI policy now elevated to the Cabinet table under the new government, mitigating the threat from superintelligence must be treated as a national security priority. Next year, the United Kingdom will chair the G20, and AI safety and regulation must form part of our presidency. The more we delay international talks, the greater the threat that we can’t control AI will grow. 

I have joined a coalition of over 125 parliamentarians recognising superintelligence as a global and national security threat and supporting ControlAI’s call for binding regulations on the most powerful AI. It is time to recognise superintelligent AI as the national security threat that it is while we still have time to act. This is an early warning shot; we may not get many more.

 

Alex Sobel is the Labour/Co-operative MP for Leeds Central and Headingley

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

As a result of a legal loophole, AI companies have taken to sourcing rare books which they are subsequently scanning and destroying. And as people have highlighted, it could mean many texts are being lost to us forever:

So AI labs are buying old books by the pallet, slicing them apart, scanning the pages, and pulping what's left. The orders are keyed to ISBNs and blind to scarcity. Nobody in the pipeline checks whether the book being shredded is one of the last copies on earth. Some of them… https://t.co/3WECoCQ7wG

— Brad Carson (@bradrcarson) July 27, 2026

AI companies carry out the modern book burning

In the past, tech companies attracted criticism for scanning other people’s work and using it to train their AI models. There are multiple ongoing legal cases regarding the legality of this practice. And it was actually a legal ruling which led to this current issue.

As the Hedgie account explained:

AI companies are bulk-buying rare books, scanning them through high-speed machines that cut the spines off, and shredding the originals. A service called ISBNdb facilitates orders of up to a million books and keeps buyers anonymous. Pre-2022 books are premium because they’re free of AI-generated text. A federal judge ruled the practice is fair use because eliminating the original means only one copy exists at a time. Anthropic hired the former head of Google Books partnerships to obtain “all the books in the world.”

Once again, we’re seeing AI companies behaving in a fashion which is directly at odds with human morality. And they’re doing it solely for their own benefit.

The AI companies claim they’re working towards super computers which will take over the labour that’s currently undertaken by people. The reality is generative AI isn’t on a path towards super intelligence, and while it has some uses, it costs so much to run that the expenses far outweigh the benefits (something we saw recently when AI companies stopped subsidising their products with ridiculously low subscription prices).

Irreversible

Hedgie added:

This got to me. A bookseller told 404 Media that rare books with almost no surviving copies are being fed into this pipeline. Books that survived wars, fires, and centuries of handling are being shredded so an AI can learn to write a better marketing email.

ISBNdb’s website literally says “‘AI company destroys two million books’ is not a headline that generates sympathy,” and they still built an entire business around making it happen quietly. They offer NDAs as a feature. They coach clients to call it “digital preservation.”

I’ve covered AI companies scraping the internet, torrenting libraries, and stealing music. This is worse because it’s irreversible. You can re-upload a website. You can reprint a bestseller. You can’t replace the last three copies of an 18th-century botanical text once someone shreds them for training data. And the judge said it’s legal. So it’s going to accelerate.

“We shred rare books and offer NDAs so nobody finds out” is a legitimate business model in 2026. What a timeline.

Advertisement

Hedgie is far from the only one reacting with disgust:

Some things are just wrong. Some acts carry an inherent evil that makes any soulful creature recoil with disgust. https://t.co/WFx5QWEBBP

— Bad Writing Takes (@BadWritingTakes) July 27, 2026

Generative AI isn’t just destroying our past; it’s also risking our future. Growing up with technology that thinks for them isn’t doing children any favours, and we’re yet to see what this will mean for them as adults.

Tech that acts as a surrogate brain sounds nice, but without intelligence – without history – we’re really not much more than meat.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

The rapid expansion of generative AI technology has been tremendously worrying for many. There are good reasons for this too, whether it be the threat to jobs, the environmental impact of data centres, or the fact that AI barons keep suggesting their technology may one day kill us all.

In response to this, the Greens’ Greater Manchester mayor candidate Geraldine Coggins is calling for “an end to the folly of rushing headlong into AI development without public debate and environmental protections”.

Environmental impacts

Coggins said:

The world is on fire. A quarter of a million people have been evacuated from the paths of wildfires in Spain and France, and a major incident was declared in the Cairngorms as flames threatened Aviemore.

In my own front room in Trafford, I can smell the acrid smoke from wildfires on the moors.

Advertisement

The UK has experienced a significant number of wildfires in recent weeks, with Greens leader Zack Polanski also commenting on the issue:

The climate crisis is not a distant threat.

It's here. And it's happening now.

And our Fire Brigade on the frontline of it are asking for help. https://t.co/Nl8GV79S1k

Advertisement

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) July 14, 2026

Coggins continued:

On the doorstep, I am being told that people worry about AI and the consequences for their jobs, while musicians and creative artists warn of having their work stolen. People fear AI’s impact on the environment and the threat it brings of ‘going rogue’ and starting wars.

On the jobs front, there is less reason to be worried than there was a few years ago. This is because companies which have invested in AI have struggled to show any Return on Investment (RoI) from the technology.

Companies abandon AI as prices skyrocket

This situation was worsened when the AI companies dramatically increased their prices earlier this year because they could no longer afford to subsidise the expensive tech with artificially low subscription offers.

People are certainly using AI to replace creative work, whether it be uploading soulless AI music to Spotify or authorless AI literature to Amazon. As comedian Stavros Halkias said:

How did f*cking computers become the thing… that does art? And humans are the ones in f*cking Amazon warehouses? Like, shouldn’t the robots be working so we can paint?

Coggins is also correct to highlight that unpredictable AI tech is being used by global militaries and defence contractors. This is despite AI companies making claims like the following:

JUST IN: OpenAI reportedly caught an AI agent leaving “notes” to future versions of itself on how to escape internal constraints.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) July 25, 2026

There’s every chance OpenAI made the above up to make their tech seem more dangerous – and therefore more valuable – than it actually is (the claim they’re making was a plotline in the sci-fi drama Person of Interest, after all). Regardless of whether it’s true, however, it seems like we’d be prudent to assume it might be, and to take these companies’ toys away from them.

AI: who benefits?

Coggins continued:

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has brought AI around the Cabinet table with a dedicated Minister to promote its use. They need to focus on how AI is regulated and who benefits from it.

As the region’s first Green Mayor, I will work to end to the folly of rushing headlong into AI development without public debate and environmental protections.

I will not allow our water-deprived peat moors or people’s drinking water to be threatened by AI’s rapacious drive for profits. This is what I mean by my campaign pledge to take back Greater Manchester from Big Money.

Advertisement

We’ve reported on the threat to the British water supply before, notably here:

Starmer’s ‘systemic planning failure’ on AI data centres puts UK water reserves at dire risk

As we reported:

The Government Digital Sustainability Alliance (GDSA) was established to provide guidance on how we can achieve “digital transformation” without putting sustainability targets at risk. In aid of this, they published a report titled Water use in AI and Data Centres.

As the report highlights, we were already facing significant water scarcity, and AI data centres will only worsen this issue. What we don’t know is how much worse they’ll make it, because tech companies don’t have to report, monitor, or estimate how much water they use.

We’ll repeat this, because it’s actually a little difficult to believe when you first hear it: AI data centres do not have to report, monitor, or estimate how much water they use.

Determining the future

Coggins concluded:

I will establish a Mayor’s Commission made up of the public, business and wildlife and nature organisations to determine the future of AI in Greater Manchester. It will examine the evidence and make recommendations on how we protect people and plant from the excesses of AI, including its threatening over use of water.

Coggins is absolutely right to be raising these issues. And while she can’t make national decisions, the local campaigns against data centres in the US have proven to be a significant factor in the evolving debate on AI:

The backlash to artificial intelligence and its infrastructure will only grow in the coming months and years. Coggins is ahead of the curve on this front, and we hope more politicians to take this issue to heart.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

The Labour government is floating another vicious programme of sweeping cuts to disabled people’s welfare.

However, the public could be forgiven for not knowing about these because nowhere in the media or wider sociopolitical disability discourse is anyone talking about them like this is what they are.

Notably, while the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has meted out devastating cuts to Universal Credit’s health element, and gears up to once again target personal independence payments (PIP), it has also been colluding with the Home Office to strip hundreds of thousands of migrants of access to welfare. This includes those very same disability benefits.

The lack of recognition that these hostile environment plans represent welfare cuts exposes a glaring gap in discussions around disabled people’s rights. Crucially, it brings into focus the gaping hole in disability justice communities’ acknowledgment that migrants’ rights are disability rights — and that these are inextricable.

Disability is attacked under immigration reforms

It was mid-July when Times home affairs editor, Matt Dathan, broke his ‘exclusive’, setting the stage for Labour’s callous immigration reforms.

Under disgraceful plans Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood published for consultation in November, and which closed in February, the Labour government wanted to increase the time migrants spend in immigration limbo before being eligible to apply for permanent residence.

Government mouthpiece Dathan, who was blatantly spoon-fed the scoop directly from a Home Office source,  laid out the prospective ‘compromise’ option.

Specifically, the report detailed how the Labour government is weighing up exemptions to its plans for certain groups of migrants. In particular, people who arrived in the UK post-2021 would be exempt from its manoeuvres to double the time it takes to qualify for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).

The proposal sits amid a wider programme of anti-immigration reforms.

As the Times reported, over 80 Labour MPs have called on Burnham to scrap Mahmood’s shameful policies. The ‘compromise’ option would therefore be one way that the newly-minted prime minister could persuade prospective rebel MPs to back the broader catalogue of reforms.

But if Labour follow through on any version of these vile plans, they will represent nothing short of catastrophic welfare cuts.

Where was the disability rights community?

The story went viral enough that X made it one of the day’s news explainers. It lingered about the site for the next couple of days.

However, since then, the news seems to have prompted zero fanfare from disability rights groups. Among the most prominent disability rights charities, and Deaf and disabled people’s organisations (DDPOs),  there was tumbleweed.

On X, it appears not one even reposted Green Party leader Zack Polanski’s rebuttal of Labour’s callous proposals. This is despite it garnering over 600 reposts and more than 2.3 million views (at the time of writing).

Yet, it’s abundantly clear that these immigration policies will hit disabled migrants the hardest. So where has the disability rights community been on these de facto sweeping benefit cuts?

Who does the disability rights movement represent?

DDPOs and disability rights charities have run longstanding campaigns against cuts to PIP, Universal Credit, Access to Work, and Motability. Explore any of their social media accounts and you’ll see a consistent stream of opposition to Labour’s shameless welfare policies.

Disability and benefits-focused outlets have run countless stories on these too.

The simple fact of the matter is, migrants, siloed by the state immigration system into different categories of citizenship ‘deservingness’, are members of the disabled community. That seems like an obvious thing to say but when it comes to conversations around what constitutes immediate disability justice battlegrounds, the fight against the hostile immigration system isn’t usually among the first disability rights groups put forward.

There are some likely reasons for this and it largely revolves around who the disability rights movement includes, and more to the point, who it excludes.

Black disability justice activist Dara Baldwin’s seminal novel To Be a Problem: A Black Woman’s Survival in the Racist Disability Rights Movement maps the racism inside the disability rights movement in the US. In this, Baldwin underscores how the predominantly white make-up of disability non-profits, especially where leadership was concerned, has meant that groups have failed to incorporate issues that impact multi-marginalised disabled people.

Of course, the PIP cuts will likely impact multi-marginalised — in particular, disabled people — the hardest. But there’s no moving away from the fact that, because it affects what will invariably be the largely white membership of these groups, they have prioritised this issue.

In other words, the PIP cuts are enough of a white disabled people’s problem that they get attention and focus.

When disability and migrant rights groups collaborate

None of this is to say that DDPOs and disability rights non-profits have entirely ignored migrants in their advocacy and activism. They haven’t.

Groups like Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Direct Action Network for Disabled People (DAN) have long stood in solidarity with migrant members of the disabled community.

In the UK today, DDPOs and even some disability charities have been engaging in coalition building with migrants’ rights groups. For instance, multiple DDPOs like DPAC, WinVisible, and non-profits such as Disability Rights UK and Inclusion London, among others, are members of the Disability and Migration Network (DAMN).

The coalition includes migrants’ rights groups like Migrants’ Rights Network, Migrants Organise, and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI).

Through DAMN, these groups have come together to fight both the hostile welfare and immigration systems.

In 2025, they hosted a Disability and Migration Justice conference. This unpacked the similarities of experiences of marginalisation for disabled people and migrants in the UK today.

Then, in March 2026, Praxis, a migrants’ rights charity and member of DAMN, organised a mass lobby against the government’s earned settlement plans. Multiple disability rights groups attended.

Acts of solidarity vs intersectional disability rights issue

DAMN also published a statement against the government’s immigration plans and have encouraged the public to contact their MPs. Doing this acknowledges that the disabled community needs to step up on migrants’ rights.

However, there’s still a sense that migrants’ rights issues are separate from disability rights concerns rather than overlapping.

Compared to the energy and resources these groups have directed towards other attacks on disabled people’s rights, they still treat the hostile environment as a peripheral, solidarity-based issue.

These welfare cuts are a constant talking point across their social media and websites. The same cannot be said of these immigration-reforms-come-welfare cuts.

Silent on the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act

Of course, Labour’s latest hostile environment plans are an expansion on the shameful immigration policies that already exist. It’s not the first time the disability rights community has failed to centre the migrant disabled community.

DAMN founder and academic Rebecca Yeo, and sociologist Robel Abay Afeworki, have highlighted how disability charities and DDPOs were silent when Tony Blair’s New Labour government waved through the racist 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act. The Act codified in law that some migrants would have ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’, which is as it sounds.

It bars certain migrants (including asylum seekers) from accessing certain benefits and denies them access to local authority housing.

Not only did this mean that disabled migrants would have no access to the welfare safety net, but removing that support is in itself, a disabling act. It left disabled migrants without vital resources to navigate a structurally ableist and disablist society.

In withdrawing those resources, it prevents migrants (both disabled and non-disabled) meeting even their basic essential needs. It pushes them into poverty, homelessness, and deteriorating health. The result, on top of all this, was physical and mental disablement for many migrants navigating an abusive system.

Migrants’ rights are disabled people’s rights

Disability rights groups haven’t stayed silent this time. However, the government’s latest attack on migrants requires more than solidarity. This moment demands recognition that the immigration system itself is a key disability rights front.

Labour’s current proposals — from racist, ableist welfare cuts to ramping up the disabling hostile environment — will now be the community’s biggest test of its commitment to collective liberation.

Featured image via the Meteor

By Hannah Sharland

Source link

Lord Glasman at a rally outside the US Embassy in London, calling for the end of the Islamic regime in Iran (Amanda Rose/Alamy)

3 min read1 hr

Exclusive: Labour peer Maurice Glasman wrote and recorded a song dedicated to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, in support of his exiled dynasty returning to power.

Advertisement

Pahlavi, the eldest son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was designated Crown Prince of Iran in 1967 before the monarchy was abolished during the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Following the death of his father, Reza Pahlavi declared himself Shah of Iran. 

Having lived in the US as a dissident in exile since the revolution, Pahlavi is a prominent critic of the Iranian government and called for the recent protests that led to a brutal crackdown. 

He campaigned to step up to become the new leader of Iran, but after Ali Khameini’s assassination in US-backed Israeli strikes did not result in regime change, Khameini was succeeded by his son Mojtaba as Supreme Leader.

Advertisement

Pahlavi has said he would like to lead a transition in Iran to a new democratic government, declaring: “I’m not the destination, I’m a bridge to the destination.” 

Lord Glasman, who told PoliticsHome he “supports the people of Iran in their uprising against the revolutionary regime”, has met Pahlavi four times on recent occasions.

The pair met for the first time earlier this year, PoliticsHome understands, when they had lunch at a restaurant in Paris. There, Glasman played Pahlavi his song via a portable speaker.

Advertisement

Titled “The Shah is Back”, the tribute to Pahlavi condemns Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei as “tyrants” and calls on Iranians to “believe it, the Shah is back”.

Protesters against the Islamic Republic have chanted “Pahlavi will return” and similar. Glasman’s song includes the slogan “Javid Shah” (Long live the Shah).

A jazz enthusiast, Glasman is a trumpeter and played all of the musical instruments used in the song, as well as singing it.

The Blue Labour founder brought Pahlavi into Parliament for meetings in June, last month.

Advertisement

Below are the lyrics of Glasman’s song and his recording.

To everyone living and everyone dead

To everyone frazzled and frightened, alone in their bed

To everyone stranded, their hearts still unpacked

Advertisement

 

Let it all go, let it flow, the Shah is back

Let it all go, let it flow, the Shah is back

 

Advertisement

To everyone slandered, to everyone sacked

To everyone frozen and fearful and under attack

To everyone longing for something they lack

 

Advertisement

Leave it, don’t grieve it, believe it, the Shah is back

 

Khomeini, Khameini, giants of infamy, tyrants of murdering men (Yazid!)

Khomeini, Khameini, you had it in for me, shooting us time and again

Advertisement

 

To everyone blinded and everyone tried

To everyone stuck in their bedroom with something to hide

To everyone scratching and starting to crack

Advertisement

 

Leave it, receive it, believe it, the Shah is back

He lived in your heart form the start, the Shah is back

 

Advertisement

Javid Shah! Oh, he’s coming back to heal it 

Javid Shah! I know that you can feel it

Javid Shah! As it was, so it will be

Javid Shah! True nobility

Advertisement

Javid Shah! Javid Shah! 

Source link