Connect with us

Politics

Polanski gets the Kuenssberg treatment, poor chap

Published

on

Polanski gets the Kuenssberg treatment, poor chap

Over the weekend, on 28 February, BBC News published an article about how Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage are actually quite similar. If you think about it. Honest.

The Laura Kuenssberg-penned ‘in-depth’ article ran with the headline:

Polanski and Farage don’t agree. But they have more in common than you might think.

Any long-time readers or, indeed, casual observers will know that we at the Canary aren’t exactly massive fans of Kuenssberg. You know, what with her being a mouthpiece for lowest-common-denominator state propaganda and all. However, this article in particular really did take the absolute piss.

Let’s take a read, shall we?

Advertisement

Poor Polanski gets the Kuenssberg treatment

Kuenssberg starts off strong in her introduction, setting the tone for the piece:

Before you scream, burst out laughing, or think I have lost my marbles, of course, there are very big differences between them.

The Greens talk about a climate emergency. Reform UK calls the government green plans, “net stupid zero”.

Are we genuinely saying ‘a climate emergency now? I wonder which climate emergency he’s talking about? Might the overwhelming scientific consensus back him up in talking about it?

We then move on to one of the key parts of Kuenssberg’s argument:

Advertisement

Both parties have been growing incredibly quickly, attracting thousands upon thousands of new members.

In an era when many members of the public are sick of politicians, they are both doing something right, and pulling people in.

They’re… both successful leaders for alternative parties. My Lord, the BBC is really bringing out the big guns. This is the kind of insightful political analysis I don’t pay my TV license for.

Shock links of politics and media

We really get into the thick of it when Kuenssberg notices that politics and the media are closely related:

Having seen them both with members of the public, not just in the TV studio or in Parliament, both men appear to enjoy campaigning. […]

Conveniently for the politicians (and not true for all), they both appear to rather like the attention.

Advertisement

They are both nimble on social media, and their parties spend huge amounts of time and effort on making sure their feeds are pumped full of fresh content.

Sure, I suppose not all politicians enjoy the limelight. However, manipulating that media attention is what being a politician… is. They’ve also learned to do it on the computer, in a way that was only invented three decades ago. Admittedly, that’s fairly quick, in political terms.

Sordid pasts

Both politicians also have histories with other parties:

Both Farage and Polanski like to be seen as disrupters, intent on shaking things up.

But it’s worth remembering they both have histories with other political parties that go back some years.

Advertisement

Once upon a time, Nigel Farage was a Conservative, although he disputes whether he was offered a safe Tory seat or, as others recall, went on the hunt for one.

Zack Polanski wanted to stand as a Lib Dem MP, and was cross when he wasn’t put forward.

See now, this is an interesting point. It’s a shame it wasn’t really enough to create an article without a bunch of pointless filler.

It’s also a shame that Kuenssberg didn’t manage to examine that Farage (and most of his party) came from the same establishment party he’s now criticising. Oh, and then the ruinous UKIP after that, and then the Brexit Party (before the name-change).

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Polanski is at least trying to be an alternative voice – even as part of a bunch of wet Lib Dems.

The apocalypse and immigrants: basically the same

However, it’s when we get to the causes behind the Greens and Reform that Kuenssberg really hits a new low:

And while they’ve both been rapidly building new political forces, they’ve both been based on old architecture that grew out of a single cause.

Again, the Green’s ‘single cause’ is preventing global annihilation. That’s a pretty big one, if you ask me – global, even. Meanwhile, Reform’s (and UKIP’s) centerpiece policies have always revolved around immigrant-bashing.

These two things are not even in the same league.

Advertisement

Beyond that, Kuenssberg tries to equate Reform’s repeated racism and Islamophobia with the Greens statements of fact:

And both Reform and the Greens are willing to push the conventions of what traditional UK politicians would find acceptable – or what they believe would make them electable. […]

That might be Reform talking about wanting a return to what they describe as the UK’s “Judaeo Christian heritage”, one of their MPs Sarah Pochin complaining about TV adverts being “full of black people, full of Asian people”, or focusing on grooming gangs at the start of last year. […]

For Polanski, it’s talking about legalising and regulating hard drugs, or speaking out against Israel’s military action in Gaza, and accusing Labour of being “complicit in genocide”.

So, both parties are handling sensitive issues, are they? On the right, we have some absolute bile about there being too many brown faces on telly. Oh, and hammering the racist conflation of organised rape with migrant communities. Meanwhile, Reform’s treasurer was busy palling around with Epstein.

And on the left, we have… policies based on solid evidence that drug legalisation and regulation will save lives. Then, there’s also the simple acknowledgement that Israel is committing genocide, and Labour are complicit.

Advertisement

These are facts. Unfortunately, BBC News hasn’t really been bothering with facts in recent years, has it? 

We sign off with a final damning indictment:

But Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski have one last thing in common: they are not out to just compete alongside their traditional rivals.

It might sound a stretch, but both say they intend to replace them for good.

Knock me down with a fucking feather, would you?

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Israel fanatic fucked around and found out

Published

on

Israel fanatic fucked around and found out

Hillel Fuld is a notorious and fanatical American Israel propagandist who, in 2025, was denied entry to Australia over his Islamophobic comments. In August 2025, as Israel continued to bomb and murder Palestinians in an already-flattened Gaza, he crowed that this was a case of ‘FAFO’. FAFO stands for ‘fuck around, find out’ – and Fuld was sick of ‘sob stories’ empathising with Israel’s victims:

While such sociopathy is certainly abherrant in human terms, it isn’t for Zionism. And it wasn’t some kind of one-off for Fuld, who responded to the occupation military’s ‘regret’ for killing civilians when it bombed a hospital by saying “People die in war. I don’t understand why we have to apologize”:

Advertisement

Israel fanatic celebrates murder of kids

And Fuld is perfectly happy to extend that murderousness to kids – though he appears to have later deleted the second post:

And he’s certainly very, very happy to celebrate the US and Israel’s murder of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family. This was just one of many nauseating posts on that topic:

So far, so expected.

But Fuld, like is always the victim and he appears to have no more shame than any Zionist. So when Iran retaliated – how dare they – and an Iranian missile hit an Israeli town housing military personnel, Fuld was quick to express his ‘heartbreak’ and say it made him “sick to my stomach”.

The IDF is believed to have shot down the missile and caused it to hit the suburb, but it later denied trying to shoot it down. So either the IDF caused the strike, or didn’t try to stop it. Neither is a good look, but Fuld ignored both possibilities:

The post triggered approaching seven thousand replies reminding him that it’s ‘FAFO’ and pointing out his (and all Zionists’) hypocrisy. Here are just a few of them:

Advertisement

Israel has FA’d. It is now FO. Any civilian death is appalling, but after two-plus years of genocide there isn’t a violin tiny enough to play the lament Israel deserves.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

FIFA aren’t about to condemn the US and Israel any time soon

Published

on

FIFA aren't about to condemn the US and Israel any time soon

It took FIFA only hours to condemn Russia in 2022 and just four days to impose a ban on its teams. But it would be foolish, given their rampant hypocrisy, to expect any such thing after the US and Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran. 

Iran reconsider FIFA tournament participation

Iran’s participation in the 2026 World Cup remains uncertain, according to statements by the head of the Iranian Football Federation, Mehdi Taj, who confirmed in statements to Iranian television that the escalating military tensions make participation “unlikely,” and that the final decision rests with the country’s sports leadership.

Taj said:

It’s not possible to say exactly, but there will certainly be a response. This will surely be studied by the country’s high-ranking sports officials and there will be a decision on what’s going to happen.

But what we can say now is that due to this attack and its viciousness, it is far from our expectations that we can look at the World Cup with hope.

Advertisement

In a move that increases the uncertainty, the Iranian Football Federation announced the suspension of all domestic sporting activities until further notice, leaving open the possibility that the national team will not be sent to the World Cup.

The draw placed Iran in Group G, alongside Belgium, Egypt, and New Zealand. The matches will be held in the United States.

FIFA regulations stipulate that if Iran withdraws, the team can be replaced by another, most likely Iraq or the UAE, to ensure the tournament is completed with a balanced schedule.

FIFA’s Stance and official reactions

Despite the unfolding situation, FIFA has not issued any official condemnation of the attacks or taken a clear political stance. The FIFA Council Secretary General stated that the federation is monitoring events “closely,” emphasizing that the primary objective is to organize a safe tournament for all teams.

Advertisement

This delay in condemnation has drawn criticism from sports observers and analysts, particularly in comparison to FIFA’s swift response in 2022 when it imposed sanctions on Russia just days after the invasion of Ukraine.

The Iranian crisis extends beyond the realm of sports, encompassing global political and security implications.

Tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel are casting a shadow over all aspects of sporting activity. While the United Nations and international organizations have expressed concern about the escalating violence and called for peace, there has been no direct pressure on FIFA to impose sporting sanctions, unlike in previous cases.

No guesses needed as to why.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Spanish football player escapes Iran via land

Published

on

There is no 'liberal' Zionism: Polanski criticised over fluffed LBC interview

Amid the ongoing military conflict in Iran, Spanish-Moroccan player Munir El Haddadi found himself in an unusual situation. His flight to Tehran was canceled due to the closure of Iranian airspace following unprovoked attacks from the US and Israel.

El Haddadi, who plays for Esteghlal FC, was on a plane preparing to return to Spain when passengers were ordered to disembark immediately due to an emergency security situation. This forced him to quickly find an alternative way to leave amidst the chaos at the airport.

El Haddadi managed to secure a land route, embarking on a journey of approximately 16 hours towards the Turkish border. He arrived safely and is now awaiting the completion of procedures for his return to Spain, according to the newspaper Marca.

El Haddadi’s land travel was part of a broader effort by Spanish professionals in Iran to leave the country following recommendations from authorities in Madrid to do so as the conflict escalated.

Advertisement

This situation raises renewed questions about the potential impact on player contracts and their professional stability, particularly in leagues that rely on foreign investment and foreign professionals.

The war has also led to the postponement of sporting activities in some neighboring countries, in addition to the potential impact and absence of the Iranian national team from the 2026 World Cup due to its being held in the United States.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

LIVE: Badenoch Gives Speech in Westminster

Published

on

LIVE: Badenoch Gives Speech in Westminster

Live at think tank Policy Exchange…

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Study finds men struggle more with dating options

Published

on

Study finds men struggle more with dating options

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”0b5ae166-bde5-4c56-a152-f40ff74c8c09″}).render(“69a5d3c6e4b033a04535ffa7”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Parliamentary Staff Furious Over MPs Getting Bigger Pay Award

Published

on

Parliamentary Staff Furious Over MPs Getting Bigger Pay Award
Parliamentary Staff Furious Over MPs Getting Bigger Pay Award

Parliamentary staff are outraged by MPs receiving a larger pay increase than them for the next financial year (Alamy)


3 min read

Parliamentary staff are furious over MPs being offered a larger pay increase their employees, despite staff bearing the brunt of increased casework loads.

Advertisement

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) announced on Monday that MPs’ basic salary will rise by 5 per cent to £98,599 a year from April, while also aiming to move towards a salary of around £110,000 by the end of the Parliament, due in 2029. The MPs’ pay decision for 2026-27 includes a 1.5 per cent benchmarking adjustment, as well as a 3.5 per cent cost-of-living increase.

IPSA chairman Richard Lloyd said the role of an MP had “evolved”, with parliamentarians “dealing with higher levels of complex casework, and abuse and intimidation”.

However, MPs’ staff are only being offered an ‘optional’ 3.5 per cent pay increase, despite months of lobbying by the trade union and some MPs for a substantial rise in staffing budgets due to low pay and unsustainable workloads.

Advertisement

One parliamentary staffer, granted anonymity to speak freely, called IPSA “a bunch of useless bean-counting morons”.

“I can’t tell you the level of fury among MPs’ staff about this announcement from IPSA,” they said.

They called the decision to raise MPs’ salaries to nearly £100k to include a “cost of living” increase “mind-blowingly tone deaf”.

Advertisement

“It’s staggeringly incompetent and makes MPs’ and their staff’s lives harder. In a nutshell, IPSA treats MPs’ staff with total contempt. Not just on this issue, the whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt from scratch.”

PoliticsHome understands that some parliamentary staff were on a call with IPSA to discuss the pay increase last week, with some in attendance feeling that concerns about workload were met with a dismissive response.

MPs also have the authority to block their staff from receiving the pay rise. PoliticsHome understands some parliamentarians, including Labour MPs, signed to prevent their staff from getting pay uplifts last year.

Lisa Gillmore, GMB MPs’ and peers’ staff branch president and senior parliamentary researcher, said: “The GMB MPs’ and Peers’ Staff Branch wants to see a fair pay deal for everyone working in Parliament, but struggle to understand why IPSA think the cost of living is 1.5 per cent lower for caseworkers, researchers and office managers than it is for MPs.

Advertisement

“Staff handle the complex casework and safeguarding issues, and face escalating abuse. Many of those same staff are earning just above the minimum wage.

“MPs’ staff have experienced a pay cut of 14.6 per cent since 2019 based on RPI, while workloads have increased significantly, leading to long hours, stress, and burnout. 58 per cent of our members feel that their salary does not reflect their responsibilities and workload. If rising living costs justify a 5 per cent increase for MPs, IPSA must explain why this does not extend to staff.”

Another parliamentary staffer said: “The most offensive thing about the 5 per cent rise for MPs is that their justification – rising casework, increasing abuse, new demands on time – are all borne first and foremost by staff. 

“We’re the ones who pick up the phone, or read the emails, or go through the social media feeds reading bile and looking for death threats. We’re the ones who, despite a significant increase in casework and demands on time, have to make do with the same budgets and staff numbers.”

Advertisement

Parliamentary staff have pointed out that their pay consistently lags behind the civil service, despite fewer opportunities for growth and promotion. For many junior staff working in Westminster, they now earn barely more than the living wage.

IPSA has been contacted for comment.

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Iran war is illegal, say ex-US military officials

Published

on

Iran war is illegal, say ex-US military officials

US President Donald Trump’s war on Iran is illegal. That’s the view of former senior US military officials. And Keir Starmer and other allies need to adjust their involvement accordingly.

Former air force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham served as chief of international law at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). She told the Intercept on 1 March:

Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

Here’s some of the key legal context:

The United Nations Charter generally restricts the use of force to cases of self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. The Constitution separately gives Congress the power to authorize offensive war.

Clearly Trump and Israel hit first on 28 February. There was no imminent threat. In fact, negotiations with Iran had made unprecedented advances in the hours before the attack.

Advertisement

The Intercept reported:

The War Powers Resolution also requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits how long those forces can operate without congressional approval.

VanLandingham said:

This is an introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities. It absolutely triggers the 48-hour notice requirement.

The US – and now, the UK – are at war with no democratic debate or approval having been established. The fact four US military personnel were killed in Kuwait adds more urgency to the issue:

The fact American service members died in the operation raises further legal concerns, she said, as Congress is intended to decide when American lives are placed at risk in offensive wars.

Trump and unauthorised use of force on Iran

Even Democrats – who haven’t resisted the war, but rather asked to have oversight – have been calling for a vote:

Advertisement

Rep. Becca Balint told the outlet:

Speaker [Mike] Johnson must immediately reconvene the House so we can pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in this unauthorized use of our military and taxpayer dollars.

Retired Air Force special operations member Wes Bryant also spoke to the Intercept. He also served as:

chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.

Bryant warned:

To say there’s no risk to U.S. troops … I wouldn’t call it naive. I’d call it a pure lie.

He was concerned about ‘mission creep’ as the war escalated:

Advertisement

Bryant said the scope of the strikes suggested major combat operations that could quickly tip toward large-scale conflict in a densely populated country, with predictable risks to both U.S. troops and civilians.

Adding:

I’m surprised it’s only been three deaths. It will be more if this continues and we lose the initial shock value.

Former US Marine and State Department official Matt Hoh told the Intercept:

If these reports are accurate, this should be very concerning to U.S. forces. Iranian missiles and drones were able to breach U.S. defenses very early in the conflict.

But what role is domestic ambition playing in Trump’s drive to war?

Domestic politics drives Trump

After the strikes began Trump repeated an old conspiracy theory that Iran had interfered with the 2020 election results. VanLandingham said this was important. Trump’s attack is partly driven by domestic politics and an urge for revenge.

Advertisement

What’s chilling is that he’s tying this attack against another country to domestic politics as a way to further consolidate power over his base and potentially link the use of force to domestic use of force this fall.

She added:

It’s mind-boggling. But when you look at it, it makes rational sense for him to say, ‘I’m doing this because I’m taking out everyone who stood in my way in 2020″.

VanLandingham said:

He is linking it to his own domestic grievances because he is laying the groundwork, I strongly believe, to use the U.S. military improperly.

The Pentagon has confirmed that Iran had no intention of launching strikes prior to the US-Israel bombardment.

The US seems determined to keep bombing for now. And Trump seems determined to use the opportunity to shore up his power at home. The fact that his ambitions have already cost hundreds of lives in Iran, across the region and among his own citizens is unlikely to slow him down.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Hegseth: War Is Hell

Published

on

Hegseth: War Is Hell

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”669b70c2-3215-465c-9c24-156126d7b642″}).render(“69a5b7a1e4b0d383f5045077”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

SNL air heinous Tourette’s ‘jokes’

Published

on

SNL air heinous Tourette's 'jokes'

Hollywood is still hell-bent on attacking a man with Tourette’s. Most disgusting of all was Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) sketch in which celebrities who’ve been accused of various harmful actions ‘jokingly’ blamed their actions on Tourette’s.

Last week was absolutely horrific to witness as a disabled person. In the aftermath of the BBC airing a man with Tourette’s shouting the N word at two black actors, disabled people, and particularly people with Tourette’s, faced off-the-scale hatred.

SNL airs fucking disgusting sketch

Don’t get me wrong, Black people had every right to be hurt and upset about what happened, even though many attacked them for being hurt. And, disabled people were shot down when it came to correcting misinformation. Social media, the papers and TV were full of people essentially saying that people with Tourette’s should not be allowed in public.

Seeing that was bad enough, but then Saturday Night Live aired a fucking horrific sketch.

Advertisement

In the skit, celebrities who are seen as ‘controversial’ speak to the camera in a personal service announcement style. They tell the audience that actually their horrific behaviour isn’t their fault. In the scenario they realised, thanks to the BAFTA incident, that they have Tourette’s.

Firstly, we see a comedian playing Mel Gibson excusing his own behaviour with Tourette’s. Just to remind everyone, Gibson previously said that Jews rule the world and told his ex-girlfriend she should be raped by Black men. This attempts to place intentional racism as somehow comparable to something involuntary i.e. Tourette’s tics. Thus, the ‘joke’ suggests says that John Davidson was intentionally racist.

But it gets worse.

Advertisement

The sketch also features several known abusers, excusing their actions with Tourette’s. Louis CK blaming exposing himself to women on Tourette’s; Armie Hammer excusing mentally and physically abusing women via Tourette’s; Bill Cosby saying he drugged and raped multiple women because he has Tourette’s.

The message is clear: we don’t believe you

By ‘excusing’ intentional abuse, harm, and other heinous actions via Tourette’s, it’s portraying the condition itself as an excuse. As last week has brought to the fore, Tourette’s is not intentional, and people with the condition are often deeply distressed by their tics.

The message to people with Tourette’s is clear: we don’t believe you and think you’re weaponising your disability

But it also sends a clear message to all disabled people who’ve been trying to raise awareness of a deeply misunderstood condition.

Advertisement

It’s bad enough to see a disabled man mocked by the biggest comedy show in the world. But to then have his disability used to excuse some of the most horrific celebrities who have committed the very worst crimes is inexcusable. SNL knew exactly what they were doing. They took a scenario that sparked widespread anti-Blackness and ableism, and made a further mockery of people with Tourette’s.

The video is the very definition of punching down.

Featured image via X

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Greens Attack Farage’s Claim Reform Won By-Election ‘Among British-Born Voters’

Published

on

Greens Attack Farage's Claim Reform Won By-Election 'Among British-Born Voters'

Nigel Farage has been accused of trying to “delegitimise” the Gorton and Denton by-election results with fresh claims about voters in the constituency.

The Green Party’s Hannah Spencer won the hotly contested seat with 14,980 votes – nearly 41% of all the votes cast – while Reform’s Matthew Goodwin came in second, with 10,578.

Green leader Zack Polanski accused his Reform counterpart Farage of being a “sore loser” after the right-wing leader claimed the victors had cheated with so-called “family voting”.

Farage then told a press conference on Monday: “I’m absolutely convinced that among British-born voters, Matthew Goodwin came first in that election last week.

Advertisement

“Of that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.”

A Green Party spokesperson told HuffPost UK that Farage was echoing the words of “anti-democrats through the ages”.

“This is dangerous, racist nonsense from a party who were well beaten, seeking to de-legitimise the election, Donald Trump style,” the spokesman said.

“In a democracy, everyone’s vote is equal and we attracted voters from across all communities, in all areas, including from those who said they were going to originally vote Reform.

Advertisement

“Farage has no idea who did and didn’t vote for him, because as he said, he always knew they were going to lose.

“If you don’t like the results of an election, change the electorate – the refrain of sore losers and anti-democrats through the ages.”

The smackdown comes after the Greens hit back at Farage’s claim last week that they won by “sectarian voting and cheating”.

Independent election observers Democracy Volunteers said they had witnessed “concerningly high levels of family voting” throughout the day.

Advertisement

But, the Greens said: “The scale of our victory shows that the Green Party has picked up substantial support in all parts of the constituency, in all areas, among all people.”

Polanski also said he would back a probe into family voting, telling BBC Newsnight it’s important there’s “full transparency about the democratic process”.

Meanwhile, Farage announced on Monday that Reform would scrap postal voting and ensure only British passport-holders can have a say in elections.

At the moment, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and EU citizens can vote in UK elections.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025