Americans are largely tolerant of scandals among politicians. But nobody is more willing to stick by an embattled candidate than a MAGA voter.

The POLITICO Poll finds President Donald Trump’s MAGA supporters are the most loyal of any group of voters — with majorities saying they would stick by GOP candidates confronted with an array of scandals, from a DUI conviction or accepting lobbyist gifts to more serious accusations including domestic violence, sexual assault and antisemitic social media posts.

Two-thirds of self-identified MAGA Trump voters say they would continue supporting a GOP candidate accused of sexual assault — 13 percentage points higher than the share of Trump 2024 voters writ large, which include those who do not identify as MAGA. By comparison, 40 percent of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 would continue backing a Democratic candidate accused of sexual assault.

Seventy-two percent of MAGA Trump voters say they would stick with a GOP candidate accused of domestic violence, more than 10 percentage points higher than the overall share of Trump 2024 voters who would back a GOP candidate (61 percent). Thirty-nine percent of Harris voters say they’d stick with a Democrat accused of domestic violence.

Scandal in American politics is not new, but the poll results help underscore how Trump has helped reshape partisan loyalty. Across every hypothetical scandal tested, MAGA Trump voters were more loyal than the rest of the electorate.

The president has displayed a remarkable ability to withstand controversy himself, from the Access Hollywood tape to his four criminal indictments, and a willingness to back other MAGA-aligned candidates, boosting them to victory even if they have past controversies. Three of four of Trump’s criminal cases were thrown out or dropped once he returned to the White House, while the fourth, his conviction in the Manhattan hush money case, is under appeal.

That’s true in some of the most pivotal races of the 2026 midterm cycle, which has been defined by scandal on both sides of the aisle: Democrats stood by Graham Platner in Maine’s Senate race throughout a series of scandals until abandoning him following a sexual assault allegation, which he denies. The GOP has rallied behind embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Republican voters in Arizona also recently selected former Arizona sheriff Mark Lamb as their nominee in a House race amid allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of power. Lamb has denied the allegations.

In both cases, Trump was a decisive factor propelling them across the finish line.

“Scandal doesn’t mean what it did 15 years ago. The rules have changed, and Republican voters know it,” said longtime Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “Republicans, particularly MAGA voters, have learned that Queensberry rules don’t win in modern politics. Today it’s a full-contact fight, more UFC than civics class, and anything goes.”

Americans on both sides are willing to tolerate scandals — up to a point.

The POLITICO Poll, conducted by independent U.K.-based polling firm Public First, tested a dozen hypothetical scandals and found near-majorities of voters across the political spectrum would stand by candidates with DUI convictions or accused of using tax loopholes, concealing a terminal illness or exaggerating their military service.

None of the hypothetical scandals caused MAGA voters to abandon a GOP candidate, with majorities across every scenario tested saying they would stick with the candidate, including through accusations of domestic violence or sexual assault. Trump’s 2024 voting coalition as a whole was also generally more likely to continue voting for the GOP candidate, even after a scandal, with the exception of when a candidate made antisemitic comments.

Harris 2024 voters, however, drew a line. Facing some scandals, such as a Democratic candidate accepting gifts from lobbyists or accused of domestic violence or sexual assault, more Harris voters would either stay home or vote Republican than stick with their party’s nominee.

That dynamic has played out on the campaign trail. In Maine, Platner weathered months of controversy, including over past Reddit posts and a tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol, and only dropped out of the race after POLITICO’s report that a woman said he forced her to have sex with him, an allegation he denies.

“In hindsight, knowing what we know now, the Reddit posts alone probably should have been enough …. The tattoo should have been enough. The initial New York Times story on troubling behavior should have been enough,” former top Platner adviser Morris Katz recently told the New York Times.

The survey also found that principled opposition to scandal shifts when voters face practical realities.

To test those considerations, the survey presented respondents with candidates from different parties — and found a significant partisan gap. Democrats were slightly more willing to say that Republicans should drop out than Democratic candidates should, to the tune of about a five-point difference. But across nearly all scenarios, Republican voters were significantly more likely to say the Democrat should drop out over the same scandal than the Republican should.

For example, 71 percent of Republicans said a Democratic candidate accused of sexual assault should drop out of the race. Asked the same question about a Republican candidate, that fell to 52 percent.

“For most voters, scandal is one ingredient among many in a partisan calculation, it is no longer a standalone verdict,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston who has researched political scandal.

Source link

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has given FIFA members until September to accept the plans or lose funding. (Alamy)

5 min read29 July

There is growing cross-party anger in British politics over a highly controversial plan by the head of the world’s most senior football body to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors.

Advertisement

The shadow culture secretary and head of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Football have both told PoliticsHome that Gianni Infantino should no longer lead FIFA. 

Earlier this week, The Financial Times reported that FIFA President Infantino wants to sell off stakes in its competitions via associates of US President Donald Trump. According to the report, the move would be led by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and could raise $20bn from private investors. 

The story escalated on Wednesday when Infantino wrote to all 211 member associations of FIFA, presenting them with an ultimatum of accepting the proposals and each receiving $40m in additional funding by September as a result, or failing to offer support and receiving instead recieving a significantly smaller amount. 

Advertisement

UEFA, which represents football in Europe, has reacted furiously to the proposals, warning that “FIFA cannot continue to use our sport to enrich themselves and their friends”. 

In its latest statement on Wednesday, UEFA said that “having held discussions with many stakeholders across the game, UEFA knows there is significant and growing opposition to FIFA’s scheme. FIFA cannot continue to use our sport to enrich themselves and their friends.

“We can grow the game correctly. It’s time to prioritise associations, clubs, leagues, players and fans.”

Advertisement

UEFA member nations are set to meet this week to discuss how to respond to the move, including the possibility of a European boycott of the World Cup.

On Tuesday night, Prime Minister Andy Burnham, an avid football fan, publicly criticised the Infantino plan, putting the UK government on a collision course with the world’s most powerful footballing body.

In a statement, he said: “Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.

Advertisement

“Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will.”

Figures across the political spectrum have joined the chorus of outrage on Wednesday.

Caroline Dinenage, Conservative MP and chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, likened the Infantino plan to the “ill-advised” attempt by elite clubs in 2021 to set up a breakaway European Super League, in which teams would have been guaranteed spots regardless of domestic performance. The plan quickly fell apart following widespread backlash among fans and senior figures in the game.

“These plans worry me, and I think they set the future of international football on a trajectory that fans will find deeply troubling,” said Dinenage, who added that her committee would “certainly” discuss it when Parliament returns in September.

Advertisement

Richard Parker, Labour mayor of the West Midlands, told PoliticsHome the World Cup “doesn’t belong to private investors” and praised the Prime Minister for his condemnation of FIFA, saying he was “absolutely right to speak out”. 

“Villa Park [home stadium of Aston Villa] hosted the World Cup in 1966, and in two years’ time it’ll be welcoming international football again for the Euros. So people here in the West Midlands have a real stake in this,” said Parker. 

“I’d say to Gianni Infantino: come to Birmingham. Stand on the Holte End on a matchday and see what football actually means to people. It’s families going to the game together. It’s a grandad taking his granddaughter to her first match. It’s local kids dreaming that one day they might pull on the shirt themselves.”

The shadow culture secretary, Tory MP Nigel Huddleston, said he had lost confidence in Infantino to continue leading FIFA, saying that this episode is the latest case “that calls into question his judgement and his ability to do the right job”.

The FIFA President came under intense pressure during the recent tournament after it emerged that Trump had asked him to look again at a red card given to US player Folarin Balogun before FIFA decided to reverse the subsequent ban.

Advertisement

Clive Betts, Labour MP for Sheffield South East and chair of the APPG on Football, endorsed UEFA’s “hard line stance” as the World Cup is reliant on participation by European countries.

“That’s where the resources are, that’s where the money is, and that’s where the heart of the essence of the game is around the world,” said Betts.

He also said he hoped that football bodies in the UK get fully behind UEFA, and like Huddlestone said, he no longer has confidence in Infantino to lead FIFA.

 

Advertisement

Source link

The First Minister of Scotland, SNP leader John Swinney, has announced an aid package of £500,000 to Palestinians. Swinney stated online that the aid fund aims to:

support access to food, healthcare, clean water and shelter.

The funding will come in addition to £600,000 already provided last year. This has reportedly assisted over two million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. In times of an unprecedented genocide, in Gaza and beyond, any amount of such valuable aid is desperately needed.

First Minister @JohnSwinney met Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Dr Husam Zomlot and discussed the situation in Gaza and the West Bank.

During the meeting, the First Minister announced a further £500,000 funding to support access to food, healthcare, clean water and shelter. pic.twitter.com/tIZAsd6zhx

Advertisement

— First Minister (@ScotGovFM) July 27, 2026

SNP’s aid pledges

While any help is no doubt appreciated, more than £53bn is needed to rebuild “only part of what was destroyed” amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Still, that must start somewhere. Where better than from another small, sympathetic nation ruled from beyond its borders?

The ongoing “wide-scale military operation” across the West Bank, ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, intensified on 26 July. Settlers are marauding through villages and attacking Palestinians, according to Al Jazeera. Hundreds of civilians have been murdered by settler militias and IOF alike.

Swinney told Scottish paper the National:

In Gaza and the West Bank, civilians are still being killed by Israeli forces, families are still living in fear, and millions of people are still in urgent need of humanitarian support. The UN warns that the Israeli military has intensified its attacks in Gaza in recent days, killing and injuring dozens of Palestinians – including women and children.

This additional £500,000 contribution reflects the Scottish Government’s continued commitment to helping people affected by this humanitarian crisis.

Through the Occupied Palestinian Territory Humanitarian Fund, the extra financial support that I am announcing today will help deliver vital assistance including food, healthcare, clean water, shelter and protection services, reaching people most in need while supporting local organisations working on the ground.

Burnham ‘not willing to consider’ Scottish independence referendum

‘Proud’ Scotland pulls weight internationally

Scotland’s government appears committed to helping nations desperately in need of aid assistance.

The present SNP government is committed to increasing Scotland’s International Development Fund by 25% over the course of this Parliament.

In addition to its £500,000 and £600,000 aid commitments to Palestine, Scotland’s government pledged a quarter of a million to assist Venezuela following the nation’s disaster earthquakes. The double earthquakes took at least 5,270 lives and possibly dozens of thousands more remain unaccounted for.

Funding from the Scottish Government of £250,000 was given to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC). Again, it is to support access to shelter, food, water and medical care in the worst affected areas.

Alongside aid funding to Venezuela, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services (SFRS) sent three firefighters to assist the South American nation. They served as part of the UK’s international search-and-rescue response, which includes staff from 14 different fire services.

International Development Minister Simita Kumar said that Scotland owns a historic, “proud tradition” of standing with other communities in their “darkest hour”. She stated:

My heart goes out to everyone in Venezuela who has lost their loved ones or their home in the wake of these devastating earthquakes. The scale of suffering is immense, and I am deeply concerned for everyone caught up in the crisis, including the hundreds of thousands of children who most urgently need support.

Scotland has a proud tradition of standing with communities in their darkest hours and will play its part in supporting the international humanitarian effort in Venezuela. This funding will help get vital assistance to those who need it most.

Advertisement

The ‘interim’ Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez awarded Cuban rescue servicemen and women for their efforts. Meanwhile, US SOUTHCOM withdrew its troops, and there was great discontent over the presence of a Zionist emergency contingent on Venezuelan soil. In relation to the Israeli presence, formally expelled from Venezuela since Hugo Chavez’s rule, one Chavista movement leader stated:

Venezuela does not need that humanitarian aid. Simply lifting the sanctions and unfreezing our resources would be enough. We do not need handouts from anyone. Venezuela has sufficient resources.

Venezuela remains sanctioned internationally, is being brazenly robbed of its oil revenue by US corporations, and still has £2bn of its gold reserves locked away in the Bank of England.

As Starmer cuts overseas aid, remember countries like the UK already plunder billions more than they pay back

‘Alarming’ London pulls back internationally

In this context, the UK government has been rolling back its international aid budget. This is despite its repeated decision to continuously enable illegal wars and genocide — typically at Zionists’ behest.

What international aid cuts began under the Sunak-Tory government continued, worsened even, under the Starmer-Labour government. As with warmongering, Burnham doesn’t seem set to change track.

The UK government is still taking what Oxfam describes as a “sledgehammer” to overseas aid. It already cut from 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to 0.5%. Now it plans to further cut it to 0.3% by 2027…

Kumar, the same Scottish minister, slammed in particular the confirmed 90% cut to the UK’s aid budget for Malawi. Kumar labelled the unexplained aid cut an “alarming” move. She has said:

The newly published UK aid allocations are deeply concerning. The scale of the reductions now confirmed for Malawi is particularly alarming.

A cut of almost 90% over three years represents a fundamental change in the UK’s development relationship with one of Scotland’s longest-standing international partners. Similar reductions are planned for Rwanda and Zambia.

At a time when these countries continue to face significant economic, social and climate-related challenges, cuts of this scale risk undermining hard-won progress and will be felt most acutely by vulnerable communities.

We strongly urge the UK Government to reconsider the scale of these reductions and to set out clearly how it intends to maintain meaningful support for countries facing significant development challenges.

To make matters worse, the UK government still refuses to inform the Scottish government about whether its airports might be facilitating illegal US-Zionist bombings. No amount of aid can fix that…

Westminster won’t admit Scotland’s involvement in illegal Iran war

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

The Democratic Party’s fight over Israel is returning to where it began. Jewish Democrats are warning the results could push them out of the party entirely.

In Michigan, where grassroots anger over the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza gave rise to the “uncommitted” movement in 2024, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s main super PAC, United Democracy Project, has spent a record $30 million — more than double its next-highest spend ever, according to AdImpact data — to keep progressive and staunch Israel critic Abdul El-Sayed from defeating pro-Israel Rep. Haley Stevens in the state’s hotly contested Democratic Senate primary.

And in Missouri, AIPAC is spending $2 million to block Israel-critical Cori Bush’s comeback bid. This comes after the group uncorked $9 million last cycle to unseat her.

“There’s a high level of discomfort in the Jewish community,” said Sam Lauter, founding member of Democratic Majority for Israel, which has endorsed Stevens and Bush’s opponent, Rep. Wesley Bell (D-Mo.), but hasn’t spent money on advertising.

If El-Sayed and Bush score victories, he said, “it does mean that my community is going to have to reassess how we’re approaching this battle, reassess our role in the party itself.”

Tuesday’s primaries represent a fork-in-the-road moment for pro-Israel Democrats. Groups like AIPAC and DMFI have waded into Democratic primaries this cycle with mixed results. Progressives have scored wins in New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Illinois in part by capitalizing on voters’ negative attitudes toward Israel, in some cases toppling longtime incumbents who were more Israel-friendly, while also falling short in some races.

Michigan and Missouri mark one of progressives’ last opportunities to cement a foothold in the party ahead of November. If Stevens and Bell lose on Tuesday, some Jewish Democrats worry their defeats could represent a tipping point for the Democratic Party, completely reshuffling the political landscape ahead of a general-election fight in which both chambers of Congress hang in the balance — and rendering many pro-Israel Democrats politically orphaned.

“It makes it very uncomfortable for elected Jewish Democrats like myself to wonder, when every other thing is about, you know, Israel and Jews, what’s my place in this party?” said Michigan state Rep. Noah Arbit, founder of the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus. “Can I see myself in this party? Can I continue to feel comfortable being elected on the Democratic Party line?”

Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for United Democracy Project, insisted pro-Israel Democrats “are here to stay.”

“We are not going to let pro-Israel voices in the Democratic Party be silenced,” he said. “We are going to make sure that pro-Israel voices are heard in the primary process, this year and in the future.”

The race for Michigan Senate and Missouri’s 1st District quickly turned into referendums on the party’s once unwavering support for the longtime U.S. ally and AIPAC’s highly controversial interventions in Democratic primaries. Bush’s campaign has accused Bell of “abandoning” Missourians and “jetting off to Israel with AIPAC,” while El-Sayed has attacked Stevens for aligning herself“with AIPAC and Republicans to continue to fund a war machine.”

Bush’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, El-Sayed campaign spokesperson Roxie Richner said the campaign has sought to unify Michigan residents “from all walks of life — across ages, races and faiths — around getting money out of politics, money back in pockets, and Medicare for All.”

Both races are a callback to earlier fights over Israel that have divided the Democratic Party and that accelerated in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. Nearly 60 percent of Democrats believe the party is too supportive of Israel, an AP-NORC survey from June found, an increase from 45 percent of Democrats who felt similarly in January 2024.

Bell’s primary win over Bush in 2024 was one of AIPAC’s biggest wins last cycle. Israel-critical Democrats in Michigan, meanwhile, hammered Biden and later Vice President Kamala Harris for not prioritizing Gaza in their campaigns.

“That felt like people were upset with the war in Gaza,” Andy Schor, mayor of Lansing, Michigan, and one of the highest-ranking Jewish elected officials in the state. “Now it feels like these candidates are anti-Israel.”

Richner countered that El-Sayed “has continuously emphasized the importance of differentiating between criticisms of the Israeli government and Judaism and the Jewish people.”

“He understands that the fights against antisemitism and islamophobia are intertwined, and as Michigan’s next U.S. Senator, will work to stamp both out,” she said in a statement.

The Michigan race also marks a unique litmus test for pro-Israel Democrats in a purple state that is poised to have an outsized role in selecting the party’s next presidential nominee and, eventually, the next occupant of the White House. The Democratic National Committee put forward a proposal earlier this month to make Michigan one of six early contests in 2028.

Dennis Bernard, the Jewish Federation of North America’s national chair of government relations, said an El-Sayed victory would be the most compelling evidence yet that “there is a strong anti-Israel, antisemitic streak within the Democratic Party, and it’s growing, and it’s growing outside of just hard blue states.” Bernard, who has historically supported politicians on both sides of the aisle, is backing Stevens in Tuesday’s primary.

Still, Michigan’s Senate race has divided the Jewish community. Some leading Jewish activists are backing El-Sayed — including progressive former Rep. Andy Levin, who lost a primary to Stevens in 2022 that was a proxy war between rival pro-Israel groups J Street and AIPAC.

“I think that Abdul El-Sayed feels that he has an opportunity and a responsibility to be a leader in the United States of the movement for Palestinian rights, and so he modulates his politics around this very carefully,” Levin said.

Arbit, the Michigan state representative, said he’s resigned to Israel’s diminishing relevance in the party ahead of the next presidential primary, regardless of how Tuesday’s primaries play out.

“I find it very hard to imagine that we’re going to have a candidate who is quote-unquote pro-Israel. I don’t know how that works,” he said of the 2028 presidential primary. “I just think the party grassroots is so poisoned against the state of Israel.”

Shia Kapos contributed reporting.

Source link

Supermarket in 2026 (Alamy)

4 min read37 min

Andy Burnham has promised “a cost of living government” as he enters office. Along with energy bills, rising food prices are one of the main ways households have felt the impact of inflation most acutely.

Advertisement

In April of this year, over 90 per cent of those who reported an increase in their cost of living cited food being more expensive as one of the reasons. Prices for food and non-alcoholic drinks have risen 38 per cent since 2020, a greater increase than overall inflation (31 per cent), and some experts think we could see this become a 50 per cent cumulative increase by the end of this year thanks to the war in Iran.

Food inflation is not just a result of geopolitical shocks disrupting supply chains and raising energy costs. It’s also driven by more persistent factors like climate change – with the UK losing the equivalent of a year’s supply of bread for every person due to the impact of extreme weather on domestic wheat harvests. This means the government’s task is not just to help people with the present crisis but also to tackle long-term problems in our food system to bring prices down.

One policy that would have the greatest immediate impact is targeted income support. Higher food prices are felt most acutely by the poorest households, who spend a greater proportion of their income on essentials. Recent research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that five in six low-income households on Universal Credit struggle with food and bills. They propose an “Essentials Guarantee” – an uplift in benefits that would eradicate this issue.

Advertisement

Another option to combat food poverty is ramping up public provision of free and low-cost meals. This should include universal free school meals to help the 3.8 million children who currently live in food insecure households, but schools are not the only setting where meals could be publicly provided. An economic adviser to Burnham recently supported calls for a National Food Service, a network of community kitchens and diners providing free meals, and the Autonomy Institute has suggested that local authorities could repurpose “dark kitchens” (which cook for delivery platforms rather than a front-of-house restaurant) as community-owned kitchens cooking affordable food.

In the longer-term, the government needs to ensure our domestic food system is more resilient and produces more of what we consume. The UK currently imports around 40 per cent of its food, though this rises to around 50 per cent of vegetables and 80 per cent of fruit. These longer supply chains are more vulnerable to the effects of global shocks, with countries like Italy and Spain which produce more of their own food seeing lower price rises after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine than the UK did.

Government support for local agriculture should focus on transitioning to more ecological and climate-resilient practices, including moving away from fossil-fuel based fertilisers. It should also seek to diversify the ownership of food production and retail. Rather than the rising number of environmentally destructive “megafarms”, we need more community and co-operative ownership of land, more grants for small-scale urban farming, as well as community-owned bakeries and food markets.

Advertisement

The four largest food and drink retailers in the UK (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Aldi) control two-thirds of the grocery market. While a Competition and Markets Authority investigation didn’t find evidence that this level of market power has led to excessive price rises for consumers, the imbalance of power between supermarkets and food producers can lead to supply chain unfairness that threatens the sustainability of UK agriculture.

Andy Burnham has signalled from his first days as Prime Minister that his economic strategy will involve finding ways to put money in people’s pockets now while also developing a long-term plan to transform the UK. His approach to the food system should be no different.

People need help to weather periods of crisis, but long-term trends are also putting upward pressure on prices that cannot be left unchecked. The government has trailed plans to help people afford their utility bills – now they need a bold plan to help people afford their food shop too.

Eleanor Shearer is a senior research fellow at Common Wealth think tank

Advertisement

Source link

Source link

The destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system has placed reproductive health under unprecedented threat. Israel has decimated hospitals and healthcare infrastructure, and restricted access to reproductive and maternal care. This has left Palestinian women without the support they need to sustain life.

The war on reproductive health has been allowed to continue under the farcical “ceasefire” announced in October 2025. Meanwhile, women have nowhere to turn.

Reproductive violence

Pregnant women are moving between overcrowded shelters, sleeping in tents, or damaged buildings. Nothing is guaranteed, not even their next meal or when they may go into labour, and epidurals are largely unavailable. Ultimately, there is no safe pregnancy in Gaza.

The very few maternity wards that exist are overwhelmed; tackling dwindling fuel supplies and severe medicine shortages. Even basic items such as laboratory equipment and surgical tools are absent. These are withheld by the occupation whose punitive mindset dictates what enters the Gaza Strip.

The situation has become indescribably difficult for pregnant women. They are increasingly vulnerable in the face of circumstances far beyond their control. Women who should be receiving routine antenatal care are barely able to survive. In addition, they can barely access a maternity ward on foot or by vehicle. 

Describing the macabre situation, a new report, Pregnancy Under Siege, states:

the line between survivable and lethal has been erased by deprivation.

The Palestinian Return Centre (PRC)-commissioned report added that complications which are entirely treatable are now becoming fatal. This is because there is no possibility of treatment.

4,000 miscarriages in just six months

The first six months of 2026 witnessed 4,000 miscarriages and the destruction of 1,825 health facilities. Hospitals have been brought to their knees. Only 20 of 37 hospitals remain partially functional, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) has reported.

Pregnancies are risky enough without a live-streamed genocide. Making matters worse, Israel has targeted roads leading to and from hospitals. Moreover, ambulances are repeatedly targeted despite their protected status under international law.

Travelling to hospitals has become a life-threatening risk under such violence, daily and unrelenting. Many women are going into labour without skilled medical assistance, and routine pregnancy monitoring has largely disappeared for expectant mothers.

Without early diagnosis, conditions that are normally manageable can claim both the mother and baby’s life.

Cesarean sections make up half of all deliveries

Almost half of all deliveries in Gaza are now by caesarean section. This is exceptionally high is compounded by the fact that women are arriving at hospital dangerously late. Often, they arrive in critical condition if at all.

The challenges rarely end with delivery. Women recovering from c-sections are often discharged within hours because hospitals urgently need beds, Amnesty International has found. Many return to overcrowded camps with no privacy, limited access to clean water or postnatal care. As a result, the risk of infection and other complications increases.

Newborns also face severe risks. Around 70 percent are born prematurely or underweight, placing enormous pressure on hospitals already struggling with shortages of incubators, oxygen supplies and specialist equipment. Persistent shortages of medicines and repeated disruptions to essential services further undermine their chances of survival.

The dangers are not only physical. The PRC report warns that the psychological toll of Israel’s actions in Gaza may have lifelong consequences for both mothers and their children.

Constant fear of air strikes, repeated displacement and the trauma of losing loved ones place extraordinary psychological strain on pregnant women. Research has consistently linked prolonged maternal stress with higher risks of miscarriage, premature birth and restricted foetal growth. These are outcomes that Gaza’s healthcare workers confront daily.

60 percent of Gaza’s pregnant women are anaemic

Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, intentionally manufactured by the Israeli occupation, has left pregnant women severely malnourished. Almost 60 percent have developed anaemia due to poor nutrition. This is further exacerbated by worsening health conditions and a lack of supplements.

According to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) analysis, Gaza remains at critical risk of famine, with around 25,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women expected to require urgent nutritional support.

Recent UN figures show that 1.9 million of Gaza’s 2.1 million people are displaced and exposed to ongoing health and environmental risks. Up to 70 percent of the population cannot access even six litres of water a day. As part of its well-planned genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, the Israeli occupation has damaged or destroyed nearly 90 percent of water and sanitation infrastructure. This has left families reliant on small quantities of contaminated or untreated water.

Widespread environmental contamination, the spread of disease and the lack of clean water are now major concerns. For those who are pregnant, dehydration and poor sanitation increase the risk of urinary tract infections, kidney complications and other serious illnesses.

So much for ‘special protections’ under international law

International humanitarian law affords special protection to pregnant women and infants during armed conflict. So why are the reproductive rights of Gaza’s female population being systematically disregarded? They aren’t treated humanely, and Israel actively deprives them of the care they need.

The impunity stinks. Hospitals have been destroyed, newborns have died from preventable causes, and pregnant women have been denied life saving care, with little meaningful accountability.

When hospitals are reduced to rubble, ambulances cannot reach women in labour, and food, water and medicine are withheld, it is not only Palestinians who are under attack—it is the principles of international law itself.

The evidence points to a war on reproductive health, one in which accountability remains painfully absent.

Featured image via the UNFP / Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

Greater Manchester Green mayoral candidate Geraldine Coggins has announced that she would join Green-led London councils in Lambeth and Lewisham in commissioning a review of policing in immigration raids.

Coggins announced the plans at a cost-of-living themed hustings organised by GM Coalition of Disabled People, Acorn Tenants Union, GM Living Income Campaign, and GM Immigration Aid Unit. As mayor, she would also be the Police and Crime Commissioner for the city-region. (Her full manifesto is here.)

Lewisham became the first council to pass a motion pledging not to use council resources or public money to assist with any raids “where legally possible” last Wednesday. This followed Lambeth’s announcement in June that it would commission a review of the council’s arrangements for sharing information and intelligence with immigration enforcement agencies. Both are now Green Party-run councils, as of May’s elections.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has previously called Labour’s immigration policy plans “performative cruelty.” Those plans, hardened under Starmer, appear to be continuing under new PM Andy Burnham.

Labour candidate Bev Craig did not attend the cost-of-living hustings. Green sources say it’s the third such community hustings in a row that she has missed. This has sparked accusations of evading scrutiny and reinforced the idea that Labour feels more comfortable working with developers than listening to local people.

Reform UK’s candidate, mega-landlord Sian Astley, likewise dodged the climate, LGBTQ+, cost-of-living, and Muslim organisations’ hustings. It seems neither Labour nor Reform are eager to show up.

Labour and Reform dodge Manchester mayoral election community hustings

Green Coggins stands by migrant workers

In her announcement, Green mayoral candidate Coggins made clear that Labour is in the wrong:

From speaking to people across Greater Manchester, I’ve heard growing fears about the direction of Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood’s callous approach to immigration.

As Mayor, I will use my Police and Crime Commissioner powers to commission an urgent review of Greater Manchester Police’s role in supporting Home Office immigration raids. Greater Manchester residents should know how often our police are being asked to support Home Office immigration raids, why they are attending and how much officer time is involved.

Immigration raids are often violent and intimidatory and often involve demanding entry without a warrant. This manifests across Greater Manchester as stopping delivery riders under the guise of checking their vehicle license, turning up to shops and demanding to see people’s right to work, or turning up at their door demanding access. Many people have died in immigration detention centres.

INQUEST reported earlier this year that at least 31 detained migrants have died since 2017 in immigration detention centres and prisons. Half of those were never convicted of anything criminal.

It’s not only anti-Labour political opponents who believe that Labour’s approach to immigration has turned unjustifiably vicious. Even Burnham ally Angela Rayner, now his housing minister, criticised Labour’s new hostile environment-style policies and far-right pandering. Back then, though, she was a backbencher.

@TheCanaryUK Greater Manchester Mayoral Elections Hustings 2026

At the ACORN / GM Living Income /Coalition of Disabled People cost-of-living and affordability hustings

Also involved are the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit

Labour + Reform nowhere to be seen

Suspicious! pic.twitter.com/mZ4qfUjYVq

Advertisement

— C.J.Mc. Baillie (@cjmbaillie) July 28, 2026

Green candidate Coggins went on to discuss the broader global picture in her statement:

People want a fair immigration system, not Trump-style immigration raids that pull local police away from fighting crime and damage trust between communities and the police. Our police should be focused on tackling violent crime, modern slavery and organised criminal gangs, not drawn into Home Office-led immigration operations.

I will meet with the Chief Constable in my very first week as Mayor to ensure that policing resources are focused on keeping our communities safe while maintaining public confidence.

I will also work with council leaders and community organisations to explore every lawful option to protect vulnerable people, strengthen trust in policing and ensure victims of modern slavery and trafficking are identified and supported. And on a national level, I will call on the Government to end the routine use of local police in Home Office immigration raids as a matter of urgency.

Advertisement

Greater Manchester is a proudly diverse and welcoming city-region. We will always stand up for safe communities, effective policing and treating people with dignity.

Spain offers Burnham an alternative to Labour’s Danish-style immigration crackdown

Featured image via the Canary / Cameron Baillie

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Northumbria Police have charged Reform councillor Glenn Gibbins. Gibbins attracted attention over his comments relating to Nigerian people, with this controversy having now led to the police’s involvement:

BREAKING: A Reform UK councillor in Sunderland has been charged with posting a grossly offensive comment after writing in 2024 that Nigerians should be melted down to fill in potholes pic.twitter.com/hNcf8QUIQk

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 29, 2026

Reform’s Glenn Gibbins

Gibbins successfully ran to become a Reform councillor in May this year. Reform subsequently suspended Gibbins while they investigated the controversial comments, reinstating him in June. Now, Northumbria Police have released the following statement:

A man has been charged with posting a grossly offensive comment on social media.

Glenn Gibbins, a councillor for Sunderland City Council, has been charged with the offence under the Communications Act 2003.

The charge is in relation to a post from 2024 which referenced the Nigerian community.

We received a report in relation to the post in May this year and carried out an investigation. The Force submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, who subsequently authorised the charge.

Advertisement

The 66-year-old, from the Sunderland area, is due to appear before South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court next month.

We are aware there has already been significant interest in relation to this individual and the social media post and we’d urge people not to speculate both online and in the community in relation to this case.

A Reform UK spokesperson has since said:

The party is aware of the situation involving Cllr Gibbins. We will monitor the verdict closely

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

The UK’s new fund for investing in AI ventures does zero due diligence on whether companies receiving cash use copyrighted work without permission. The revelation comes after a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests by Ed Newton-Rex. Rex is chief executive of ‘Fairly Trained‘, which checks and certifies AI companies’ use of data for training their models.

UK ‘Sovereign AI fund’

In fact, Newton-Rex had to use three FOI requests to praise the admission out of the government. Disgraced former PM Keir Starmer handed the reins of the half-billion pound fund to the daughter-in-law of his idol Tony Blair.

Newton-Rex notes that, at first, the fund claimed it “considered” copyright compliance. However, when he then FOI’d the documents relating to the process, the fund had to admit that it had no such process. Instead, it claimed this is done by the government’s British Business Bank:

I asked what their criteria were when selecting companies to back, particularly regarding copyright. They said “copyright compliance is considered as part of legal execution, including as part of a typical representations, warranties and disclosure process.”

So I asked for the docs they used as part of that “representations, warranties and disclosure process”, so that I could see what they said about copyright. They said they had no such documents, and that the British Business Bank actually carried out the the representations, disclosures and warranties process on their behalf.

Advertisement

But when he asked the Bank for the documentation it uses in that process, it denied doing anything of the sort:

So I asked the British Business Bank for the docs they use in that process. But they replied saying they do no such thing, not for Sov AI or anyone – they let the commercial lead investor sort the reps and warranties.

What does this mean? It means the Sov AI fund is allocating taxpayer money to AI companies without checking whether they train on copyrighted work without permission.

As Newton-Rex pointed out, investing in banks that use copyrighted materials without permission is illegal under UK law:

Why does this matter? Two reasons:

1. I can’t believe the government would actively want to invest in companies that use the copyrighted work of British creatives without permission. Doing so is (i) illegal in the UK, (ii) possibly illegal elsewhere, and (iii) clearly antithetical to protecting its citizens and treating them fairly.

Advertisement

2. There are already signs that companies Sov AI has backed may be planning to do exactly this – e.g. Cosine, which has publicly said it plans to train on datasets that are known to contain copyrighted work.

If Sov AI is going to continue investing UK taxpayers’ money in AI companies, it is imperative that it introduces simple due diligence into whether companies exploit creatives’ work without permission. This would involve virtually no additional overhead, and would help ensure their investments align with the interests of the British public.

Lawless AI

The revelations come as the AI industry has been exposed as buying up huge numbers of irreplaceable rare books, then destroying them after scanning in order to monopolise their information. It comes as the UK government continues to massively expand AI-driven facial recognition around the country with no mandate to do so. And as the US and Israel use AI to drive the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians.

It also comes as experts warn that AI-triggered economic collapse is inevitable if AI companies continue behaving as they have been. There is no sign of change — and no sign that the UK government is even interested in trying to rein in their excesses and abuses.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link