Politics
Alex Burghart: The Labour doom spiral begins again
Alex Burghart MP is Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and Conservative MP for Brentwood and Ongar.
After the psychodrama has subsided, how will Starmer’s premiership be remembered? Unquestionably as one that failed to confront or solve the deep problems that continue to destabilise the country. A failure to create growth, a failure to manage public spending, a failure to restore our Armed Forces, a failure to secure our borders, and so on and so on.
The next Labour leader, whoever they are, from whatever wing of the party they hail, will, without doubt, also fail. The decisions that need to be made are not to be found in the Left’s locker. Starmer could have used his majority and early authority to make difficult decisions in the national interest that were counter to Labour’s culture. Instead, he immediately played to the socialist gallery, sending huge amounts of money to the unionised professions whilst hiking business taxes to cover the cost.
The result has been chaotic tax and spend, anaemic growth, inflation, unemployment and cripplingly high borrowing costs. And a Labour PLP manifestly unwilling to cut public spending. A classic Labour doom spiral in which reality and left-wing policy drag the economy into the sewer.
The greatest lie was, of course, that Labour had a plan for growth. The plan, such as it was, was simply to talk about growth whilst doing precisely nothing to achieve it. Indeed almost everything major policy decision worked the other way. Not least the work of Ed Miliband to spend huge amounts of money locking in high electricity prices to the detriment of families, businesses and public services.
But within the lie that Labour had a plan for growth, was the lie that the solution to the country’s problems lay in ‘resetting’ our relationship with the EU. From the outset, Labour was unclear about what it wanted from Europe. Not that this has dimmed its belief that putting Britain ‘at the heart of Europe’ would somehow nullify and neutralise all the harm it has done to the economy.
Thus far the ‘reset’ has been a classic triumph of Labour-led negotiation. The Government signed away 12 years of fishing rights (something deeply prized by our EU neighbours) and received the square root of diddly squat in return. Instead, before the ink had dried on that agreement, the EU gave a two-fingered salute to the UK’s request to join the SAFE defence fund (despite the enormous contribution Britain makes to continental defence).
We are now faced with the bleak prospect of the UK accepting vast tracts of EU law with no say over how those laws are made and paying for the privilege of doing so. And now, as the Labour leadership contest lumbers into life, Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham are flashing their Rejoin credentials, attempting to distract from their terrifying lack of thought-through policy.
The truth is that Labour’s ‘reset’ was never part of a plan to fix the UK economy, it was simply a kneejerk reaction to a new status quo that Labour did not (and perhaps could not) understand. The major structural challenges that face our country cannot be overcome by accepting EU rules. We know this because the economic woes of Germany, France and the like have not been overcome by this means. The EU has become a low growth zone. Becoming subservient to it will not miraculously make the UK a high growth zone.
To resolve the immense challenges facing Britain we will need to acquire cheaper energy and electricity (see the excellent work of Claire Coutinho). We will need to dramatically reduce business regulation (see Andrew Griffiths). We will need to significantly reduce public spending by cutting welfare (see Helen Whately) thereby freeing up money to reduce the deficit and taxation (see Mel Stride). This must needs be coupled to a massive overhaul of the Blairite constitutional settlement so that government and ministers can again take decisions and use a sovereign parliament to make unimpeachable statute. None of this will be easy. It will require tough, consistent, brutally honest leadership. And that, only Kemi Badenoch can provide.
Campaigners from Resist Reform have projected messages onto Millbank Tower in London. It’s the home of Reform UK’s offices and the group is calling out the party’s allegiances to corporate elite and foreign funders.
The projections featured stark messages including “WHY THE £5 MIL NIGEL?” and “WHO IS CHRIS HARBORNE”. They’re referencing the shadowy funding arrangements surrounding Reform UK and its leadership.
Christopher Harborne, a billionaire who made his fortune in cryptocurrency, donated £5m to Nigel Farage directly. Farage justified the sum as a private gift and a reward for his hard work on Brexit and the reason for his failure to declare it.
Overall, Harborne is the single biggest donor to Reform UK, giving over £22m in the last seven years. That’s two thirds of the party’s funding. Resist Reform is a campaign exposing the billionaire funding and elite interests behind Reform UK and organising opposition to its political agenda.
Sam Simons, spokesperson from Resist Reform, commented:
Nigel Farage and his team are running a con operation, taking money from mysterious sources while pretending to represent ordinary people.
They’re funded by the very same oligarchs and wealthy interests that have fuelled the cost of living crisis, yet they have the audacity to present themselves as champions of working families. It’s a complete fraud.
The Fact that Nigel has accepted £5m and has dodged questions about it should ring alarm bells for all of us. He has built its entire platform on misinformation and false promises, accepting large sums from shadowy donors while maintaining complete secrecy about where the money comes from and what strings are attached.
He is swindling the working people by pretending he is the champion of the people. He is not, he is Christopher Harborne’s puppet. He works for billionaires.
Featured image via Resist Reform
By The Canary
As summer approaches, conscientious gardeners might be thinking about how to protect their gardens from yet another drought.
In the past few years, brutal heatwaves and hosepipe bans have become staples of the British summer.
And yes, that means yellowed, crispy-looking grass is becoming an increasingly familiar sight, too.
The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) said that suntanned blades don’t always signal a crisis, though. “In hot summers with little or no rain, lawns can turn brown and stop growing. Although this looks serious, the grass will green up once rain returns,” the society explained.
However, if you have a less-established lawn and/or think your patch’s suntan is a little more serious, you can always try the “tug test”.
What is a “tug test”?
It’s simple: you grab a clump of grass and tug.
Mowing company Hayter explained on its site that the way in which your grass responds to being yanked can reveal whether it’s dead or just temporarily a little worse for wear.
“The most important thing to remember is that brown grass does not equal dead grass. It could instead be a sign of dormancy – the process of grass hibernating to conserve energy during stressful periods,” including dry spells, the mowing experts said.
The test is the “easiest way” to tell if grass is dead, they added.
How do you do a “tug test”?
Gardening experts at Green Meadow Lawncare said “dead grass will have a dead root system and therefore pull up out of the ground very easily”, while dormant grass “might appear brown and dead, but its root system will still be intact”.
So, when you gently tug at a clump of grass:
- Dead grass will pull up incredibly easily, with practically no resistance.
- Dormant grass will remain rooted after being gently tugged.
You can also try a “footprint test”
Though it might not tell you whether or not your grass is officially dead, a “footprint test” is a great way to spot drought in your backyard.
If the imprint of your shoe stays for long after you’ve stepped over your grass, that could be a sign it’s experiencing “drought stress” and is in need of thorough watering.
‘I’m terrified!’; ‘Me – watching my rights fly away because Reforms (sic) winning’; ‘Reform winning is gunna (sic) literally set us back centuries’; ‘That’s all us gays going to prison’ – these declarations are accompanied by either panicked shouting, streaming tears, or the kind of laughter that you hear in films from somebody breaking down a door with a hatchet. They always film themselves vertically, of course, because nothing says ‘I am processing complex election results’ like a juddering close-up from a chaotic bedroom, making you feel like you’re being begged for urgent aid by an earthquake survivor.
Now, I’m not terrified, either of the results or of this smorgasbord of silly sods. But I am disquieted by their demeanour.
This is performance art for the dopamine slot machine. I found it hard to stay the distance of the full selection, a mere 93 seconds. The sheer feralness of the jerky movements, the wild eyes and fluttering hands triggered something primal deep in my own self – a lizard-brain flinch. An atavistic impulse whispered to me, these creatures have not been properly socialised – back away quickly.
It is very hard to settle on the correct perspective for this phenomenon – of apparently deranged youngsters on the socials. Is this a new development at all, or has the internet just given us a front-row seat to the youthful contingent of belfry-battery?
To answer this, I have tried hard to recall my own young life. In 1986, I was 17, with no access to a portable outrage broadcaster. When I was furious, I sulked in my bedroom, wrote screeds of terrible song lyrics for a pop group that would thankfully never be formed or a letter to the NME (thankfully again, these were never printed). Or I popped out for a walk and kicked an empty Coke can. If the space-age tech of today had existed back then, would I too have filmed myself hyperventilating for the clicks of strangers? I like to think not, but if I’m honest, I can’t be sure.
For those of us Gen Xers who never meet teenagers and who hardly ever interact with young people, it’s particularly difficult to get an accurate picture of the extent of the madness among them, despite the concerning stats on their ‘mental health’. I do remember vowing to myself, back when I was the age of these phone gremlins, that I would try, when I get older, never to regard everybody aged 13 to 25 as an indistinguishable, noisy, brightly coloured mass. Because that was incredibly irritating to me. Back in my day, older people often branded my generation as layabout lunatics frothing about ‘Fatcher’ in student unions. But the vast majority of my confrères and consœurs were just like young adult humans of all ages – earthy, daft and lustful. However, even among the nuts, ferals were very rare. Now they’re the main characters in the freak show.
To get a better view of both the wood and the trees, I put the question to a friend in his early twenties, a calm and literate Gen Z specimen. ‘Yeah, you’re not wrong’, he said. He reminded me that Gen Z has higher depression and anxiety rates, and that ‘more time online equals less real-world practice at, you know, talking to people who disagree with you. And lockdown didn’t help. We have been primed to see threats everywhere.’
But then he added an important caveat:
‘But we are not the first terrified cohort. Your lot thought Thatcher and Reagan were about to push the nuclear button. Go on Bluesky right now – many of your generation, supposedly sensible people like Lib Dem councillors and sci-fi novelists, are seriously fuming that Reform are fascists, that trans people are being literally genocided etc. So it’s the same script now, but with better filters and madder eyes.’
He’s right that the unhinged look isn’t entirely age-gated. Watch Loose Women’s Nadia Sawalha do her bit – the unnerving spectacle of a 61-year-old TV presenter whispering ancient racial conspiracy theories to camera in a baby voice. The bizarre video about Israel posted last year by actress and comedian Dawn French, 67, referring to Hamas’s 7 October massacre of hundreds of Jews as ‘a bad fing’ in a similar childish whisper, was deeply disturbing.
My chum raised another point. ‘Remember’, he told me, ‘you’re seeing videos posted to TikTok’. He pointed out that these videos do not show these people’s ‘true selves’ – they are big emotional reactions for the camera. ‘I think the actual big difference between this generation and previous ones is the horrible American influence of “being in your feelings”; making big emotional displays, the more emotional the better.’
In effect, then, TikTok isn’t capturing your ‘true self’ or your precious identity, it’s capturing your best attempt at viral derangement.
It’s a grim picture. So what the hell happened? Pick your poison – smartphones arrived and personality formation got yeeted away from parents and peers and into the cloud. Economic stagnation turned many Zoomers into claimants, reading lurid tales of evil billionaires. Family structures crumbled, bad political ideas found fertile soil in locked-down brains, and maybe – whisper it – there’s something in the water.
Or, it’s all of the above, marinating together into one great big stew pot of boiling neurosis.
Whatever the cause, the result is that a large (or large-ish) chunk of young people have not been fully socialised. I’ll continue to flinch at them. And you should too – it’s the only sane reaction.
Gareth Roberts is a screenwriter, author and novelist, best known for his work on Doctor Who.
Today, the question of the state in Lebanon is raised not merely as a crisis of governance or a systemic malfunction, but as an existential dilemma striking at its foundation and the components of its sovereignty.
In classical political literature – specifically as established by the German sociologist Max Weber, in his famous essay “Politics as a Vocation” – the state is defined as that entity which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a specified geographical territory.
However, this definition, despite its procedural importance, falls short of describing the modern state in its institutional essence, which is supposed to rest upon three structural pillars:
- a rational bureaucracy that manages societal affairs through abstract laws immune to personal whims;
- international recognition that grants it a seat and legitimacy at the United Nations; and
- a social contract representing the dialectical relationship between authority and citizens, whereby protection and services are bartered for loyalty and fiscal commitment.
The bureaucracy of quotas and the fracture of the social contract
Yet, projecting these pillars onto the Lebanese case reveals a profound structural distortion, manufactured with deliberate intent.
Bureaucracy in Lebanon, though superficially resembling an administrative apparatus, is realistically incapable of managing the affairs of society, stripped as it is of its rational character and entirely subjugated to sectarian quotas, confessional balances, regional divisions, and vested interests. It is a “bureaucracy of self-interest”, established by colonialism to serve its purposes and ensure the state remains beholden to non-national power centres.
As for international recognition, in the Lebanese case it is nothing more than a reflection of the domestic state’s image on the global stage. If the state is inherently subservient to colonial will from its inception, its representation in international forums will merely mirror the interests of those foreign powers under fraudulent sovereign labels.
Regarding the social contract, the subordination of authority to colonial will renders its detachment from the aspirations of its citizens inevitable. Here, the state automatically transforms from a custodian of rights into an instrument of coercion and popular suppression, driving the populace to follow the external dictates of major powers. How can the concept of “civic belonging” hold true in exchange for services and taxation when colonialism grips the vital arteries of this state – economically, socially, financially, and politically?
This structural contradiction explains the state of “identity schizophrenia” that has accompanied Lebanon since its founding, where the individual seeks security within their sect rather than their state.
The wound of the Upper Galilee and the legitimacy of self-defence
The deepest legacy left by the demarcation of borders in the “Sykes-Picot” agreement is the bleeding wound in the Upper Galilee, which represents the pinnacle of social and geographical tragedy.
The colonial partition in that region left a social fracture in the purest sense, exposing its inhabitants to killing, pillage, and continuous aggression ever since the establishment of the occupying entity in Palestine in 1948. Despite their repeated appeals to the state – which is supposedly responsible for their protection – the permanent response was ignorance and neglect, at times even escalating to implicit or actual complicity in targeting the people of Southern Lebanon.
Because “survival follows existence”, the people of the Upper Galilee were forced to assume the responsibility of defending themselves, their land, and their property, in light of this deliberate absence of the state. Meanwhile, the authorities practiced the ugliest forms of sectarianism, referencing them as “Metwalis” and other derogatory terms to justify their neglect, while the sectarian representatives in power – appointed by colonialism – plotted the schemes that brought the country to its current state of dependency and collapse.
The politicisation of resistance and the trap of consociationalism
At that time, Lebanon was not split along sectarian lines with the intensity we witness today. Resisters from various sects participated in confronting the occupation, driven by a popular and national authenticity that had not yet been completely corrupted.
This was also due to the presence of regional powers that formed a certain balance against the colonial project. However, through a combination of the decline of anti-colonial regimes, society’s preoccupation with engineered economic crises, and diligent efforts to dismantle national bonds and replace them with wars and strife, the matter culminated in the resistance being confined entirely to the Shia component as a translation of this complex reality.
Although many resisters might argue they were preoccupied with existential defence against the colonial entity to the south, this defence occasionally caused them to overlook the other dimension of the colonial war being waged against them “from behind”, via the formation of an authority working to isolate and eliminate them politically. Indeed, it can be argued that engagement in the sectarian quota system and so-called “consociational democracy” facilitated internal colonial action.
This system solidifies policies dictated from abroad and entrenches the authority of sectarian leaders as agents of major interests, ultimately serving as a counter-veto against any genuine national sovereignty.
The Strait of Hormuz and the fall of petrodollar hegemony
This structural failure leads us to the necessity of linking the local crisis to the major shifts in the international balance of power.
The functional Lebanese state derives its false stability from the dominance of the “imperial system” built upon the power of the petrodollar. From here emerges the strategic blow delivered by the Axis of Resistance today as a catalyst for radical change.
For example, Iran’s ability to impose new equations in the Strait of Hormuz (coupled with the capabilities of resistance forces in other theatres) represents not merely control over a waterway, but a process of deliberate economic strangulation of the arteries feeding imperial power.
The direct threat to energy flows and control over global trade routes strikes at the very heart of the illusionary “finance-based economy” underpinning the dollar. This weakens the instruments used by colonialism to bring nations to their knees through sanctions, blockades, and the funding of both hard and soft wars.
This geopolitical shift opens a historical window for the Lebanese people to decolonise the interior; for as much as the resistance forces succeed in diminishing colonial influence regionally and internationally, the capacity of their local proxies to obstruct the building of a sovereign state diminishes alongside it.
Towards citizenship and the reclamation of comprehensive sovereignty
The decolonisation of the interior is a national duty equal in importance to fighting direct occupation. This is achieved by radically reversing the effects of “Sykes-Picot“: exploiting the current situation and its outcomes to overturn the Lebanese system from one of quotas to a system of citizenship, where allegiance to the state is absolute and direct.
The reclamation of political, financial, economic, and social sovereignty passes inevitably through the struggle to implement the 1989 Taif Agreement, which stipulates the abolition of political sectarianism under Clause C of the political reforms section, and mandates the enactment of an electoral law based on the governorate/single constituency under Clause A of the parliament section.
Furthermore, it may be possible to introduce other amendments to the Taif Agreement once true popular representation is achieved, provided that these modifications serve sovereignty and independence from all forms of colonial dependency, particularly its financial and economic aspects. In this way, the Lebanese voter is liberated from the authority of religious and political feudalism, and the true aspirations of the people to build a state of institutions free from foreign dictation are realised.
The confrontation today is a conflict between “subservient realism” and “sovereign will”. It is a battle that demands a consciousness transcending the borders drawn by the coloniser, allowing us to draw our own borders through our awareness and capacity for historical action, drawing strength from major global shifts that shatter the shackles of unipolarity and herald the era of free nations.
Featured image via the Canary
The level of fraud and error in the benefits system has seen little change in the past year, according to the DWP’s annual report.
Despite the department using the press to demonise those on benefits, its own figures show that the level of fraud and error has pretty much stayed the same. For some benefits, it’s actually gotten better. But this is the DWP, so the media headlines are focusing on the ‘billions’ lost.
While disability benefits in particular take a beating in the press, disability benefit fraud and error have only increased by one percentage point.
The DWP called this a “statistically significant increase” for personal independence payments (PIP). What’s interesting though, is that in other areas fraud has fallen by the same rate or higher, and is, of course, being ignored.
DWP benefit fraud has stayed the same
Across all benefits, fraud and error was at an estimated 3.2% (£9.9 billion) for the financial year ending (FYE) 2026, compared with 3.3% (£9.4 billion) in FYE 2025.
As the report itself says:
The Fraud (2.2%), Claimant Error (0.6%) and Official Error (0.4%) overpayment rates in FYE 2026 have remained broadly similar to FYE 2025.
The report also notes that we should pay attention to the rate, not the money:
Due to each benefit’s expenditure changing year on year, it is recommended that the rates are used when comparing levels of fraud and error over time, rather than the monetary amounts.
By that logic then, today’s 3.2% across all benefits should be regarded as an improvement, so it’s interesting the Telegraph ran with the following headline:
Benefit cheats fuel £10bn in welfare overpayments
Why not affirm that there has been “No significant change reported in benefit fraud rates”? Well, fewer people will rage click on that, won’t they?
Another relevant part of the DWP’s report to highlight is that this is not the full picture. It’s only what the DWP wants us to see as the data is devised from a sample.
The estimates in this publication are based on a sample of benefit claims. As a result, year‑on‑year comparisons are subject to sampling variability.
Universal Credit fraud lower than in Covid-19 peak
For Universal Credit, the rate of overpayment was 8.5% (£6.720 million) in FYE 2026, compared with 9.5% (£6.210 million) in FYE 2025. While the money has gone up, the DWP says this is due to how many people have migrated over to Universal Credit.
But if we’re looking at the percentage, as the DWP has told us to, this is again a significant decrease.
When compared to the COVID-19 peak, the amount of claimants overpaid has decreased even further from 24 in 100 claimants in FYE 2022 to 21 in 100 claimants in FYE 2026. Fewer claimants also lost entitlement in 2026, 7% compared to 12.5% in 2022.
Fraud due to claimants not declaring their earnings correctly has also fallen, but at least this time the DWP admits it’s relevant.
Earnings/Employment (under-declaration of income from work undertaken) remained the main cause of Universal Credit Fraud overpayments but saw a statistically significant decrease to 1.5% in FYE 2026 from 2.2% in FYE 2025.
Tiny rise in PIP overpayments
Leading up to the yearly update, we usually see an increase in disability benefit fraud hate from the rags. PIP fraud is usually minuscule, so they have to drum up hate for a few percentage increases. This year is no exception.
To further this, the DWP is trying to say a one percentage point increase is remarkable. The report states:
This was a statistically significant increase and a continuation of an upwards trend that started in FYE 2024.
That’s right, an increase of a percentage point is “significant” whilst decreases of that or higher aren’t as important. The main reason that benefits were overpaid was people not declaring changes in ‘functioning needs’. This means that the claimant didn’t tell the DWP when their condition had improved.
Though, of course, ‘improvements’ are decided by the DWP, not medical professionals. Anyone with chronic conditions can tell you that conditions have good days and bad days. However, this is the DWP, so that’s not the whole story.
As it lumps fraud and error together, that 2.3% isn’t all fraud. The DWP’s error accounted for 0.2% (£50 million) and 0.7% (£210 million) was claimant error.
DWP manipulates its own stats and the public
Once again, this is a clear case of the DWP manipulating its own data and the public’s perception. It’s true that benefit fraud and error expenditure have risen in monetary terms, but as a percentage of those who aren’t ‘cheating the system’, it’s not relevant at all. This is especially true when we’re talking about disabled people who the press won’t shut up about.
Nonetheless, at a time when the DWP is increasingly trying to limit who can access disability benefits, it’s in the department’s best interests to make disabled people all look like fraudsters.
Featured image via the Canary
Reform UK politicians have been presenting themselves as campaigners against antisemitism. Media outlets have let them get away with this despite the party having blatant antisemites in its ranks. Now, one of these racists has been spotted campaigning in Makerfield for the crucial upcoming by-election.
Canvasing for you in this video, @TiceRichard, why is Adam Mitula back canvassing for you?
He was suspended over antisemitism comments, but now he’s back. You don’t take antisemitism seriously at Reform UK.https://t.co/tm3XhkD7Mn https://t.co/WFgz5uO9Ug
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) May 17, 2026
At this point, Reform UK is really just rubbing it in people’s faces.
The receipts on Adam Mitula
As we reported, Reform UK suspended Adam Mitula after unearthed comments exposed his racism. He was working as Matt Goodwin’s campaign manager in the Gorton & Denton by-election at the time, and the racist posts included this one:
Mitula has also engaged in Holocaust denial, as Manchester’s the Mill reported:
Meanwhile, discussing the number of people who died in the Holocaust in July 2024, he appears to try and play down the statistics, writing: “6 million polish [sic] people including some Jews. They always use Poles to make up the number. And on top of it they claim Poles were killing. Just sick.”
Mitula also posted:
They just make brothers bigger and bigger. N*ggers will always win!
Later, we would learn he was working as an election agent for Reform candidates in the local elections despite his suspension. Not content with working behind the scenes, Mitula would also go out campaigning.
Mainstream media have spent days calling @ZackPolanski an antisemite; why are they silent on Reform's failure to suspend an actual antisemite?
By @willem_moore_uk https://t.co/VlrTrc7R3R
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) May 4, 2026
At this time, the British media and political establishment were going wild accusing Green Party candidates of antisemitism for supporting Palestinian liberation. You’ll notice they seem to have stopped crowing about that now the local elections are over. Did the problem just magically disappear?
Because Reform know they can get away with harbouring antisemites, they’ve deployed Mitula to Makerfield.
The following tweet is from an ITV reporter:
Reform UK members are out canvassing in Makerfield.
Still without a candidate – but the ground campaign is underway.@itvnews | @ITVNewsPolitics pic.twitter.com/cLVigSD5ps
— Lewis Warner (@LewisJWarner) May 16, 2026
Mitula isn’t the only Reform candidate investigators have caught making antisemitic comments.
Ben Rowe posted Islamophobic, antisemitic and racist memes. Reform said it was 'investigating', so how come he's now a sitting councillor?
Via @willem_moore_uk https://t.co/xKyGhLh6TI
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) May 10, 2026
Another Reform activist just got exposed for antisemitism, and once again there's crickets from mainstream journalists and politicians
By @willem_moore_uk https://t.co/Ye7wR92fkd
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) May 7, 2026
How is Reform getting away with it?
What conclusion can we take from this? Well, what conclusion is there other than that neither Reform nor the media give a crap about antisemitism?
We’ve long made the case that Israel and its defenders in the West have used concocted antisemitism smears to defend the Zionist project. Now, this truth couldn’t be more obvious.
What’s really galling is that Reform politicians could do a better job of covering for themselves by simply giving low-tier operators like Adam Mitula the boot. However, they won’t, because they know they have widespread support in the political mainstream.
As the Canary wrote on 30 April (emphasis added):
There are obvious reasons why the British establishment has sought to defend Israel at the expense of its own citizens:
- The UK profits from Israel’s actions through arms deals and partnerships.
- Israel is a key ally of America, and the UK is America’s foremost lapdog.
- The Israel lobby has proven to be very effective at influencing British politicians – particularly through the ‘Labour Friends of Israel‘ and ‘Conservative Friends of Israel‘ groups.
- Once enough people within the establishment hold an opinion, mirroring that opinion becomes the price of entry.
It doesn’t end there
It’s notable that Reform is allowed to get away harbouring antisemites because of the obvious hypocrisy. We shouldn’t forget that the party hosts all sorts of racists, though, and that these people deserve the same criticism as the antisemites.
As Reform Party UK Exposed said to another canvasser in Makerfield:
The internet doesn’t forget Anthony Goodwin. You think you can just set up another account and all your anti-Muslim and Tommy Robinson support will just go away.@reformparty_uk is sending hate up to Manchester. pic.twitter.com/kzx7GLa4dx
— Reform Party UK Exposed
(@reformexposed) May 17, 2026
If Andy Burnham wins this by-election, it’s widely accepted he will become the prime minister. As such, it’s possibly the most important by-election in UK history. Despite this, Reform UK feels like it can send people like Adam Mitula to campaign in public with no pushback from the media.
The scary thing is the party seems to be right about that.
Featured image via ITV
By Willem Moore
Kylie Minogue has opened up about the “profound effect” that her relationship with Michael Hutchence had on her.
The Can’t Get You Out Of My Head singer is currently gearing up for the release of a new Netflix documentary about her life and career, during which she’s set to discuss everything from fame and her personal relationships to her past treatment for breast cancer.
During an interview with The Times published over the weekend, she was asked about her romance with the late INXS frontman, which lasted around two years in late 80s and early 90s.
Asked if she thought her fellow Australian performer was the love of her life, Kylie responded: “Yes, probably.”
“I’ve had lots of relationships, some were love, some were not,” she continued. “My relationship with him, or our relationship at the time, was not for that long, but it had a profound effect on me.”
Speaking to Hello! in a separate interview shared on Monday morning, Kylie said: “It was definitely an amazing point in time and I’ve probably been looking for something like that ever since – and I haven’t got it.”
Andrew Murray/Shutterstock
Elsewhere in her Times interview, Kylie claimed that she is now single, revealing: “I don’t have a boyfriend. I was in a relationship and when that ended I realised I was OK on my own. I’m definitely getting pickier.”
Back in 2014, Kylie told Australian GQ of her time dating Michael: “Let’s just say I was 21 and my eyes were open to the world. You want to experience everything and I couldn’t think of a better person to, you know, take those first steps into the big wide world with.”
During a subsequent TV interview, Kylie was moved to tears when she claimed the relationship had been a “great love” and “true heartbreak”.
After their split, the two remained close until his death in 1997, at the age of 37.
Ncuti Gatwa poked fun at his stint at the helm of Doctor Who during his opening monologue on Saturday Night Live UK.
On Saturday night, the three-time Bafta nominee guest hosted the SNL UK season finale, kicking things off with a monologue referencing his career so far.
“I am so lucky, I have had so many fantastic roles in my career,” he began. “Millions of you watched me as Eric in Sex Education. And then about 12 of you watched me in Doctor Who.”
“Hey, maybe that’s why I kept crying,” he quipped.
In 2022, it was announced that Ncuti would be the first Black actor in history to take over at the helm of the Tardis as the Fifteenth Doctor in Doctor Who.
Regrettably, during Ncuti’s stint as The Doctor, the show was met with something of a backlash from far-right critics upset about the supposed “woke” direction the show was taking, which coincided with a decline in viewing figures.
Later in his SNL UK monologue, Ncuti joked that even he didn’t understand the latest twist in Doctor Who’s most recent finale.
“I have since regenerated into Billie Piper,” he continued before turning to the camera and claiming: “I don’t understand it, either.”
Billie claimed last year of her cameo: “All I can say is I was approached very last-minute, and I can’t talk about in what capacity, but I found it very emotional to film and I think it’s a really great ending.
“I found it quite moving, and it was really fun to film because it had such a sort of ‘cloak and dagger’ feeling about getting it made.
“So, yeah, I have to lie a lot about anything to do with Doctor Who, it seems.”
Showrunner Russell T Davies previously admitted that he doesn’t “don’t know what’s happening yet” when it comes to the future of Doctor Who, though the BBC previously refuted claims that the show had been “shelved”.
It was later confirmed that Doctor Who would return to our screens with an upcoming Christmas special at the end of 2026.
Is the King of the North about to become Prime Minister? Maybe. Will he lead us out of the valley of darkness and into the promised land of milk and honey? I can’t see it.
Full disclosure: I know Andy well. He’s genuinely a nice bloke, and he’s a competent administrator. He is by far the best person to lead the Labour Party from amongst the contenders. And that’s the problem. 411 Labour MPs were returned at the General Election. And they’re having to bring back the king over the water to topple Starmer.
Can there really be no-one amongst the 400 who can deliver social, economic and environmental justice?
A broken party machine
In Majority‘s group chat, I proposed a thought experiment. Imagine I somehow became Labour leader tomorrow. Would I be able to deliver a democratic socialist programme? The overwhelming response was no. John McDonnell or Clive Lewis would fare no better.
The donors, the directorate, the corporate lobbyists who are now Labour MPs, would not allow it. They got a nosebleed when Jeremy Corbyn proposed ending tuition fees.
That was before the Starmer-McSweeney purges. What chance is there for grassroots socialists to organise inside the Labour Party to get socialists selected for Parliament? Or Metro Mayors? Would Andy reverse the expulsions? Change the rules so the NEC can’t block or impose candidates on a factional basis? Neoliberalism is embedded too deeply inside Labour.
Which raises the question: will an Andy Burnham-led Labour government, with minister Wes Streeting, tax wealth and not work? Reverse NHS privatisation? Support the prosecution of Israel for genocide? Reintroduce sectoral collective bargaining? Create a publicly owned zero-carbon energy system? Break up the investment banks from the retail banks? End – not mitigate – child poverty? Will he choose to take on the billionaires? Make Meta, Twitter and TikTok responsible for their content? Implement the Leveson recommendations?
If not, it’s tinkering around the edges with better comms and a more charismatic front man.
Public control or public ownership?
Andy brought the buses under public control in Manchester. Note: control, not ownership. It was the Cameron government that brought in the 2017 Bus Services Act that enables franchising. It’s better than unregulated buses, for sure. But like rail nationalisation, the establishment are happy for rundown, unprofitable sectors to be taxpayer funded on risk-free contracts.
In his recent interview, he said he wanted water and energy under public control. Good. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant public ownership. But what route to public ownership of water? Bail out the shareholders, hand over £100 billion, and make the state take on the debts? Or do it without compensation – strict enforcement of Ofwat standards, force the share price to zero, and use the legal powers to hive off the assets into a debt-free public company?
After all, nationalisation is not always progressive. The National Coal Board was publicly owned throughout the miners’ strike.
An alternative to neoliberalism
I hear people say that stopping Reform is all that matters, and the Greens should stand aside. I have no problem being pragmatic. I worked cross-party for the good of the people of the North East. I worked closely with Andy on transport, devolution and standing up for the North during Covid. He was one of the few Labour politicians who publicly stood by me when the NEC stitched me up. On a personal level, I’d be delighted for him if he becomes Prime Minster.
I don’t believe a Reform government is nailed on in 2029. They’ve have passed their high water mark, and are losing vote share. Personal scandals, bringing in Tories, and incompetence in local government is accumulating. Restore UK is likely to split their vote, too.
Trying to game the electoral system does not cut it for me. The problem’s not Andy. It’s Labour. A party that still has illegal war-starter Tony Blair as a member. Labour Together has not gone – it has simply been rebranded Think Labour.
What is needed is a credible alternative to neoliberalism. The Greens are not there quite yet, at least in the eyes of the public. But they are the closest we’ve got. And they’re winning.
The Green Party
My preferred option is the Green Party become more professional, more serious. Let’s fight and win on the economic arguments. That taxing wealth instead of work would increase public investment. Reversing wealth extraction from utility owners and private equity funds will lower bills. Making the case loud and clear that keeping kids in poverty and adults too ill to work is both a moral and an economic failure. That’s the direction of travel, and it’s starting to work. It’s where I’ll be putting my energies over coming months.
I’ve seen deep inside the Labour Party. There is no one in that cabinet who has any intention of challenging neoliberalism. Half of them are bought and paid for.
Labour MPs are saying the quiet part out loud. It’s not Starmer’s policies. It’s their poll ratings. They voted through Winter Fuel cuts. Voted to arrest peaceful anti-genocide protestors as terrorists. They only acted when their jobs were on the line. Keep out Reform? They’ve aped Reform!
We must abandon the mythology. Andy is not the King of the North who stands between us and the horde of white walkers. He’s one man operating within the confines of a hostile system. There’s no doubt he’s preferable to Starmer or Streeting. But limping centrism on life support is not enough. It’s time to run Britain in the interests of the people who do the work.
Featured image via the Canary
David Lammy has repeatedly refused to say whether the UK should rejoin the European Union as Labour’s Brexit civil war burst back into the open.
The deputy prime minister refused five times to say whether the result of the 2016 referendum should be reversed when asked on Sky News.
Meanwhile, a Labour MP said it was “absolutely brainless” for the party to even be discussing the issue because it would cost them even more support in working class areas that voted to Leave.
Labour’s splits over Brexit reignited over the weekend when leadership hopeful Wes Streeting described it as “a catastrophic mistake” and said the UK should rejoin the EU.
That piled pressure on his rival, Andy Burnham, who wants to be Labour’s candidate in the upcoming by-election in Makerfield, where the majority of people voted for Leave.
Burnham, who told last year’s Labour conference that he wanted to see the UK back in the EU in his lifetime, wants to avoid discussing the issue during the campaign.
Asked on Sky News this morning by presenter Sophy Ridge if he would like to rejoin the EU, Lammy dodged the question and would only say he was “really proud” to have been the first foreign secretary to be “back around the EU table” last year.
Asked a second time, he said: “We set red lines in the manifesto.”
Ridge then asked the same question a third time.
Lammy said: “I’m not going to make a commitment about the next election manifesto process.”
The presenter said: “I’m not asking you to. I’m asking you, David Lammy, would you like to rejoin the EU.”
He replied: “Me, David Lammy the deputy prime minister, am committed to collective responsibility.”
Asking a fifth time, Ridge said: “Tell us what you really think, go on.”
But Lammy would only say: “I am in government delivering for the British people.”
Jonathan Hinder, the Labour MP for Pendle and Clitheroe, said his party was mad to be talking about Brexit again.
He told Radio 4′s Today programme: “To suggest that the solution now is for us to reopen [the Brexit] debate is just staggering and the Labour Party is in an existential crisis, it really is, and the idea that we can reconnect to our working class base by reopening this debate is just a staggering level of out of touch.”
He added: “The priority of the British people right now is not to reopen this debate … and we’re doing that again. It’s just absolutely brainless.”
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
UK’s financial payments network is ready for tokenization, regulators say
“Shrek” voice cast, then and now: See the All-Stars on the animated hit's 25th anniversary
Health board to be grilled over planned changes to Welsh hospital
Manchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Crypto World2 days agoBloFin War of Whales 2026 Grand Prix opens registration for $5M trading championship
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Theory – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World3 days agoE-Estate Announces 1 Year Live: Washington DC Summit as Real Estate Tokenization Enters Its Next Phase
-
Fashion7 days agoCoffee Break: Travel Steam Iron
-
Politics7 days agoWhat to expect when you’re expecting a budget
-
Tech3 days agoTech Moves: Microsoft AI leader jumps to OpenAI; former AI2 exec joins Meta; and more
-
Crypto World5 days ago
Bitcoin Suisse expands with Digital Asset License and Investment Business Act Registration Approval in Bermuda
-
Tech7 days agoGM agrees to $12.75M California settlement over sale of drivers’ data
-
Politics6 days agoPakistan to enter Chinese capital market as war inflation bites
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin Suisse expands with Digital Asset License and Investment Business Act Registration Approval in Bermuda
-
Crypto World4 days agoGoogle’s Gemini AI Predicts Incredible Solana Price by the End of 2026
-
Business3 days agoH&R Real Estate Investment Trust (HR.UN:CA) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Tech2 days agoGoogle reimburses Register sources who were victims of API fraud
-
Sports3 days agoNapoleonic enters 2026 Doomben 10,000 field via Abounding withdrawal
-
Politics7 days agoThe geopolitics behind the UK’s South Atlantic hantavirus rescue mission
-
Politics7 days agoThe Board of Deputies just smeared Polanski to suck up to Farage
-
Fashion6 days agoThe Best-Kept Makeup Secret for a More Defined Face
-
NewsBeat6 days agoComment on Keir Starmer surviving the day as Prime Minister like a turd that wont flush
-
Entertainment4 days agoZara Larsson Has Blunt Response To Chris Brown Diss
-
Tech5 days agoWhy AI is making typography a boardroom conversation
You must be logged in to post a comment Login