Keir Starmer and his government have been roundly despised since the very beginning of his time in No.10. His approval tanked like few PMs in living memory.

It’s not hard to see why:

• Disability payment cuts
• Refusal to negotiate on the Birmingham bin strikes
• Abandoning pensioners in a winter energy poverty crisis
• Providing military intelligence and diplomatic support to Zionist genocide war-crimes
• Racist scapegoating
• Appointing Jeffrey Epstien’s “best friend” to ambassador

The list goes on…

Now, add to that Starmer’s general treachery and disregard for honesty and public wellbeing, and we’re left with a clear picture of widespread contempt. It’s fair to say that few will miss him, across the political compass.

As Starmer appears set to exit, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is touted as a sensible, moderate replacement for PM — if only he can navigate a sinister NEC.

The ‘Big Burnham’ push

Burnham is considered by many to be on Labour’s “soft-left,” somewhat removed from Westminster bubble thinking, and representing a popular, alternative vision of Labourism. With his routine floating as PM replacement for months now, it almost feels like a done deal.

But now it’s really happening. His Wigan-based colleague, journalist intimidator Josh Simons MP, stepped down and publicly told him to run for the top spot.

This might be a welcome turn of events for some on the left — less right-wing is always better, no? Novara Media are hard-soft-backing Burnham; no doubt the Guardian will anoint him Keir’s heir. He is floated as the only positively-rated politician in Britain.

But I suggest that Burnham should not be considered a progressive or any-type “left” voice. I first had doubts about Burnham when he refused to comment on the bloody business dealings of Gulf oligarchs whose money he gladly funnels into Manchester (see circa 0:33 mins):

Video excerpt from an August 2022 episode of Pod Save the UK — via PSTUK / YouTube

That Man City’s owner is now under intense scrutiny for funding atrocities in Sudan.

Why Burnham is not in the ‘Mainstream’

Barely a year into Starmer’s premiership, a new political organisation named Mainstream was co-founded within Labour. Burnham and Clive Lewis were co-founders alongside others committed, at least in pixels, to a “democratic socialist future.”

So far, so good? Sure — it would be swell if Labour was less ragingly right-wing. Fewer drab Starmer Speeches would be welcome. Clive Lewis offering to sacrifice his own seat to achieve that suggests a degree of principle I won’t scoff at.

But I simply don’t think Burnham will deliver that future. To understand why I’m poo-pooing Burnham, who is no doubt popular across much of Greater Manchester. That said, Reform UK are now too.

Much of what he supports, or has historically supported, is in fact widely unpopular — even if the man himself is well liked. His historical record in office makes my case.

Andy Burnham voted for the Iraq War, an illegal war that killed over a million people.

As Health Secretary, he helped drive NHS privatisation.

He joined Labour Friends of Israel, opposed BDS as “spiteful”, praised Israel as a “democracy”, and called the Balfour Declaration… https://t.co/ceBjp9kdgw

Advertisement

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) May 14, 2026

Burnham’s burning record

In 2003, Burnham voted to declare an entirely and foreseeably disastrous war on Iraq. He also backed the notoriously debunked UN Security Council resolution pressuring the country to disarm weapons it didn’t have, three weeks prior.

That war killed at least one million Iraqis, triggered societal collapses, enabled endemic corruption, and cost the lives of many British soldiers and civilians alike. Oh, and he also voted against the inquiry into that war.

He’s not alone in that, having joined Labour Friends of Israel. He wasn’t quiet about his “friendship”, labelling the peaceful, righteous BDS movement “spiteful” and praising the Balfour Declaration. Incredibly, he called Israel a beacon of democracy with “a long history of protecting minorities and promoting civil rights.” Yeah, right (-wing).

He’s made conciliatory statements around Palestine  — Middle East Eye makes a more sympathetic case for him. But he hasn’t, for example, pressured Greater Manchester Pension Fund to divest its many millions from Israeli genocide and apartheid, like it did against apartheid in white-dominated South Africa.

Burnham was even criticised by arch-neoliberal Cameron’s government for “posturing” against NHS privatisation, while supporting it during the Blair-Brown years. Not to mention he’s remained comfortably prominent through Blairism, Corbynism and now Starmerism (if something so definable exists), suiting himself to each guise.

Never trust a shapeshifter

I’m not deluded enough to think that Burnham isn’t popular and he would be better than Starmer – it’s not a high bar. If Burnham wins and gives us all proportional representation, I’ll eat my words. But I don’t trust Burnham’s promises.

How can I trust someone who votes for an illegal, murderous war based on lies, flip-flops between both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian coloniser-colonised dynamic, and backs NHS privatisation.

It’s clearly not just me that mistrusts Burnham — or, at least, I hold actual knowledge about Burnham’s record against his constant aura-branding. The public shouldn’t based on his record, like him as much as much as they do. How can we forget the millions who marched against the Iraq war — millions marched against the Iraq War, most Britons dislike Israel, and 84% support a publicly owned, socialised NHS.

Covering the Gorton and Denton by-election in February, I met Labour-gone-Green and Labour-gone-Reform voters alike. Many said they would’ve voted for Burnham if he wasn’t blocked. Many cited his well-branded ‘Bee’ bus network and capped fares, his Covid-era posturing or his supposed personal charisma/brand/vision. Some liked his so-called “Manchesterism.”

But we’ve seen where Labour’s fluid, PR-branding politics gets us — exactly where we are today.

When Burnham tried and failed to stand against Jeremy Corbyn for leadership in 2015, he did so on a vacuous platform of “big change” — sound familiar? It’s almost as if the Starmer script was written in advance by the Blairite-Mandelson core, and they tried to run it sooner but failed. Now, it seems, they will fail again.

Burnham might be a shot better than Starmer, sure. But don’t be fooled into thinking he can be trusted. Why trust a man who’s shape-shifted so often throughout his career? He’ll only shift again.

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

The fake Scottish political party ‘Independent Green Voice’ (IGV) once again confused Scottish voters on 8 May and has deprived Scottish Greens of another MSP seat.

IGV is run by a group of ex-UKIP and ex-BNP activists, alongside climate change denialists and holocaust deniers, and has no manifesto nor policy platform.

Despite the real Scottish Green Party making history – doubling their total MSPs in Holyrood, winning their first two constituency seats in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and electing the first two openly trans Scottish parliamentarians – IGV blocked at least one Green from winning in the Mid Scotland and Fife region.

Given the alphabetised ballot list and IGV’s logo – a leaf with GREEN in bold letters – their intention was quite obviously to deprive progressive Greens of an MSP. Their fake electioneering swung the vote by one point and kept a Tory MSP their job.

Taken from X @GerryHassan

What actually happened?

Throughout the recent Holyrood elections, IGV had next to no presence online nor in person, yet won 2490 votes in the Mid Scotland and Fife region, or 0.9% of the vote.

In the same region, Scottish Greens won 36,286 while the Scottish Conservatives won 37,155, leaving a gap of just 0.3% of the total regional vote share.

Speaking to the National, a Scottish Greens spokesperson said:

They were listed above us on the ballot, took almost 1% of the vote, and our count teams saw clear evidence of confusion, including crossed-out ballots, double votes and difficult adjudications.

If even a third of those votes had gone to the actual Scottish Green Party, pro-independence candidate, Mags Hall, would have been elected. Instead, Reform have taken two regional seats and Mark Ruskell MSP is left as the only pro-independence regional MSP out of seven.

Advertisement

This cannot be brushed off. Independent Green Voice are not Green, not progressive and not connected to us.

Hence, a pseudo-political party successfully split the progressive, pro-independence vote.

Who is behind IGV?

According to the National, Scottish Greens have previously labelled IGV a “fascists’ front” and denounced the Electoral Commission for allowing “blatant electoral deceit”.

IGV stood candidates, albeit with very little public presence, across all eight regions.

IGV is run and was founded by Alistair McConnachie, who was kicked out of UKIP for Holocaust denial after working as a Scottish UKIP branch organiser. If he’s too bad even for UKIP, you can bet he’s not the progressive or ‘green’ type.

Another far-right organiser behind IGV is former treasurer Max Dunbar, a unionist ex-BNP activist and ‘Friend of Israel’. Dunbar stood in the South Scotland region in 2021.

McConnachie and Dunbar are joined by John Robertson, another former BNP organiser.

Given the presence of reactionary unionists, Zionists and far-right agitators in IGV, it’s easy to see why they’d feel threatened by the pro-independence, pro-Palestine and generally progressive Scottish Green Party. Especially now that the Greens are winning big.

Former UKIP member Alistair McConnachie, founder of IGV

Not for the first time…

The Electoral Commission allowed this fascist front organisation to run in 2026 after having stood in 2021. Last election, IGV deprived the real Scottish Greens of at least one MSP, likely two.

Laura Moodie, now elected as MSP for South of Scotland, lost her chance in 2021 by only 115 votes. On her campaign for the successful 2026 election, she told the Canary:

So, essentially, a far-right collection of individuals saw an opportunity to use the electoral system – not to win themselves, because they know they can’t win themselves – but in order to achieve their aims, they stopped a Green from being elected in South Scotland, and likely Glasgow as well.

In 2021, the National reported from an FOI to the Electoral Commission that the EC received over 280 formal complaints about IGV. Many dozens concerned the name and logo specifically, while eight called for an official investigation.

This year, IGV stood on Scotland’s regional list ballots across the eight regions, at a cost of at least £4,000 (the cost of standing being £500 per ballot space).

Speaking to the Canary before the elections, Moodie said:

It was so successful for them last time – I mean, two deposits, that’s £1000 stopping two progressive MSPs … Hopefully this time they won’t be successful.

Sadly, while Moodie was rightly elected this time, she still remains one colleague short.

Still no action from the Electoral Commission

Scottish Greens denounced the UK’s Electoral  Commission over inaction after the EC was repeatedly criticised back in 2021 and warned consistently in 2026.

Responding to the National, the EC said simply that there are “clear and sufficient differences” between the two parties’ appearances, despite voters writing to state the exact opposite. The EC has said:

We assess applications for party names, descriptions and emblems against the criteria set out in law, including the requirement to ensure that in our opinion voters would not likely be confused between two parties as a result of how their identity marks look on a ballot paper. If a party’s application meets the legal criteria, it must be registered.

The Canary will be contacting the EC shortly for a follow-up and to hold them accountable.

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

The number of billionaires in the UK since 2010 has doubled while the rest of the country’s living standards have been squeezed. That’s according to new analysis the Trades Union Congress has published in response to the latest Sunday Times Rich List.

While the number of billionaires has doubled:

• Real wages have stagnated. Real pay grew by 4.5% since 2010 or 0.3% a year.
• The huge numbers in poverty have barely changed, rising to 13.4 million (2024/2025) from 13.0 million (2010/11).
• The number of those in insecure work has exploded, increasing by 800,000 from 2011 to 2024. The proportion of the wider workforce in insecure work also went up from 10.7% to 11.7% in the same period.

The analysis comes as the Sunday Times Rich List is published, which reveals those with the highest amount of wealth in the UK. And it follows the release of figures showing the ever-growing pay gap between workers and bosses.

TUC analysis shows the average Sunday Times Rich List wealth is over 7,600 times higher than average household wealth.

157 UK billionaires

There were only nine billionaires when the list began in 1989 and there are now 157.

The TUC says it’s time for those who’ve hoovered up the most wealth to pay their fair share in tax. And it’s calling for an increase in capital gains tax and a windfall tax on banks.

The union body says while there have been some positive steps forward to alleviate poverty and improve living standards – like the Make Work Pay agenda and lifting the two-child benefit cap – more is needed to turn living standards around which is why taxing wealth is important.

Recent TUC polling shows these measures are hugely popular up and down the country and across the political spectrum.

Polling from Patriotic Millionaires found that three quarters of UK millionaires would be willing to pay more tax to remain in the UK.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

We need an economy that rewards work – not just wealth.

Under the Conservatives, the wealthiest were allowed to feather their nests while working people suffered an epidemic of insecure work and the worst pay stagnation in two centuries. Clearly wealth has not trickled down – it has been hoarded by those at the top.

This isn’t right. With ordinary people struggling to pay the bills, it’s time for billionaires to pay their fair share in tax to protect households and firms from the effects of Donald Trump’s illegal war.

People have had it with a system where those with the broadest shoulders don’t pull their weight.

Advertisement

On taxing the rich, Nowak said:

It’s ridiculous scaremongering to talk about a so-called ‘exodus’ of the super-rich when the number of billionaires has skyrocketed over the last 14 years.

The wealthiest people in our society largely understand the need to contribute to their communities.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Disgraced MP and former Labour Together bigwig Josh Simons has explained why he’s making way for Andy Burnham to return to parliament. But it’s a load of rubbish. Because the only true reason is to keep the party’s centrists in power.

Simons: I'm resigning as an MP because I'm frustrated at trying to get things done

Simons, parachuted in after running 'Labour Together', which ran a smear campaign against journalists investigating its role in bringing Starmer to power, & who then had to resign as a minister pic.twitter.com/H5rIZME2OW

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) May 15, 2026

Advertisement

Simons is out, but his right-wing mission continues

Simons’s career was already over when he had to resign as a cabinet office minister because Labour Together had paid people to spy on journalists on his watch. And with prime minister Keir Starmer captaining a sinking ship, Simons seems to think Andy Burnham might be the man to take over from Starmer and keep the Labour right’s project alive.

There could be an aspect of revenge at play because Starmer threw him under the bus. But the Labour right has shown time and again that it cares more about the goal than how you get there. So Starmer was always going to be at risk if he endangered the mission (by, for example, becoming the least popular prime minister ever).

As a reminder, the millionaire-funded Labour Together did its utmost to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and the left from 2017 onwards, and to anoint Starmer (the fraud) as the new leader of the Labour Party.

Labour Together has known for months that the clock is ticking for Starmer. And Simons, as former Labour Together secretary, is absolutely committed to keeping the right-wing dream alive.

Simons got his job as Makerfield MP in 2024. A £47,000 donation from key Labour Together donor Martin Taylor helped him on his way, as did money from fellow Labour Together donors Francesca Perrin and Trevor Chinn. Former Tony Blair-era press officer Michael Craven (also a Labour Together board member) backed Simons too.

For good measure, Simons reminded people in a 2024 email:

I f****g hate Jeremy Corbyn

And it seems Burnham also got a lot of support from people on the right who hated Corbyn and the left in general.

Labour: Burnham is part of the same rot

Alongside numerous other corporate donors, Burnham has received money in the past from:

• Labour Friends of Israel.
• Charlie Parsons, who also gave a lot to former Corbyn challenger Owen Smith, Starmer’s local party, and Starmer’s Labour in general.
• David Garrard, who had been a massive Labour donor before Corbyn but then funded Owen Smith, the Liberal Democrats, and countless Labour right-wingers including Rachel Reeves, Tom Watson, Ian Austin, David Lammy, Pat McFadden, Luciana Berger, Joan Ryan, and Ivan Lewis.
• Waheed Alli, who has been a major donor to Starmer and the party under his control, along with Owen Smith, Wes Streeting, David Lammy, and Liz Kendall.
• Ecotricity (a donor to Labour Together).

Finding himself in such right-wing company, it’s no wonder even the odious Wes Streeting has nice things to say about Burnham. And it’s no wonder someone like Simons feels comfortable backing him.

Andy Burnham
thinks he'll turn'em.
Though he's got quite a name
he's probably just more of the same.

— Michael Rosen NICE 爷爷 (@MichaelRosenYes) May 14, 2026

Andy Burnham voted for the Iraq War, an illegal war that killed over a million people.

As Health Secretary, he helped drive NHS privatisation.

He joined Labour Friends of Israel, opposed BDS as “spiteful”, praised Israel as a “democracy”, and called the Balfour Declaration… https://t.co/ceBjp9kdgw

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) May 14, 2026

Even by 2010, @AndyBurnhamGM had no regrets about voting for the criminal UK attack on Iraq 7 years before

By then, a million people had been killed

“I don’t back away from the original decision,” he said

He added that he was “proud” to carry on Tony Blair’s legacy

Advertisement

Pure evil pic.twitter.com/so5vZO5Lxw

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) May 14, 2026

The guy they think will save the Labour Party… pic.twitter.com/BOdnS5k7yP

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) May 14, 2026

.@AndyBurnhamGM was praised by the Conservatives for how effective he was at privatising the NHS while serving as health secretary

And, no, he hasn’t changed. Same suit, same opportunist

Advertisement

Labour is dead pic.twitter.com/asAYXcg4A0

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) May 14, 2026

Burnham left Westminster after losing the 2015 leadership contest.

Having abstained on the Tories welfare bill and having supported Blair down the line, he saw no future in remaining an MP under Corbyn. It was a career move, NOT a protest against "the national political system."

— Steve Howell (@FromSteveHowell) May 14, 2026

Labour Together and the Labour right in general may be seeking to rebrand. But whether it’s Simons, Streeting, Starmer, or Burnham, it’s the same old rot. And we must keep exposing them all to the light of day.

Labour Together has rebranded.

“It is a new organisation, with new leadership, a renewed mission and a fundamentally different approach to what went before.”

Do these people really think we’re that stupid? We still need an independent investigation into the activities of LT. https://t.co/lotTW1Le7D

— Kim Johnson (@KimJohnsonMP) May 14, 2026

Advertisement

There needs to be a full inquiry into Labour Together, its donations and its role in Labour’s internal democratic processes.

Those involved in the Labour Together scandals cannot be simply allowed to resign, but must be made to answer serious questions and face consequences. https://t.co/V7WlIvjduW

— Peace & Justice Project (@corbyn_project) May 15, 2026

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Looks like this, apparently.

Category
analysis, scottish politics

Trackback: trackback from your own site.

Source link

The ‘new’ right-wing Labour think-tank ‘Think Labour’ has launched with a claim that it’s not just a rebrand of Labour Together. Its CEO Alison Phillips told LabourList that:

ThinkLabour will be an open, collaborative organisation with no interest in factions.

Right.

Labour Together was – and, really, still is – the factional sabotage outfit that used the antisemitism scam and other manoeuvres to throw the 2019 general election and topple Jeremy Corbyn. To fund this, it used massive, undeclared donations from Israel lobbyists.

A ‘unique’ organisation?

In an X post, the group claims that it is:

a unique political organisation dedicated to helping Labour govern confidently, win elections, and deliver lasting change.

But the same thread notes that it is “built out of” Labour Together:

ThinkLabour is built out of Labour Together – but this is much more than a new logo or a change of name. We have a new leadership team, a renewed mission, and a fundamentally different approach. We are open, collaborative, and entirely outward-facing.

— ThinkLabour (@ThinkLabour) May 14, 2026

So it’s not that unique. Nor is it built very far. In fact, it’s exactly the same entity as before. Its website’s ‘privacy’ section hasn’t even been amended and still calls it “Labour Together”. It also notes that its company number is 09630980:

‘Clean skin’?

A search for “Think Labour” on Companies House returns no results. A search for the company number does, however – and it returns a company that is still called… “Labour Together”:

The entity is unchanged – literally, at least so far. What about the people? Boss Alison Phillips, for example. Phillips told LabourList that she was:

delighted to have been made the first CEO of ThinkLabour.

But she was chief executive of Labour Together before the rebrand, and even planned it, so she simply remained CEO rather than being ‘made’ anything – particularly as Think Labour is still, in every legal sense, still Labour Together.

Unlike previous Labour Together directors, Phillips has a relatively low profile regarding Israel – a ‘clean skin’. She’s not quite so clean, however, concerning Labour Together’s scandal of spying on and trying to discredit journalists who were investigating it.

Phillips took over after that scandal and claimed to be “horrified” at it. However, in the same breath, she then amplified claims that the previous management didn’t realise the company it paid to spy on journalists was going to spy on journalists:

As a former journalist and editor, it should come as no surprise that I was horrified that investigators hired by Labour Together would look into the background and sources of reporters even if I am assured that this was not the intention.

Not a ‘clean skin’

But if the CEO is a relatively clean skin on Israel and the antisemitism scam so loved by Labour Together, the same can’t remotely be said for its chair.

Nick Forbes is a former Newcastle council leader resoundingly deselected in 2022 by party members frustrated at rarely seeing him in the ward. His supporters painted the deselection as a “Muslim plot“.

Forbes is an ardent opponent of pro-Palestine protests and called for the police to “throw the book at” anti-apartheid demonstrators. The protesters had dared to call on Newcastle city council not to adopt the grossly unfit, so-called ‘IHRA definition’ of antisemitism. The ‘definition’ doesn’t define anything and is designed to prevent criticism of Israel – which is why Israel supporters demand it everywhere. Including Forbes.

And Forbes didn’t stop there. He was also – alongside Tom Watson and other right-wing, friends-of-Israel horrors – behind a move to make it easier to expel Labour members accused in the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam.

Forbes’ record is at odds with the re-skinned group’s “no interest in factions” claims, too. In 2018, when the party was led by Corbyn, unions planned to democratise the party and give Labour’s overwhelmingly pro-Corbyn membership the power to elect their Labour council leaders, instead of councillors selecting them. Forbes, then also on Labour’s NEC, was among leading opponents of the plan. He dismissed it as “unworkable”, “possibly illegal” and guaranteed to spark “endless infighting”.

Infighting for factional control has been Labour Together’s reason for existence. That does not seem set to change.

Atlantic Council

Another of the ‘new’ group’s directors is Ed Owen. Owens is a ‘senior fellow’ at NATO front-group, the Atlantic Council, which is also closely linked with US intelligence.

Owen has something in common with notorious Labour Together alumnus Morgan McSweeney – they both thought it was a great idea to make Epstein pal Peter Mandelson ambassador to the US. In January 2025, Owen wrote for the Atlantic Council that “big, serious” Mandelson “brings a wealth of experience and expertise”, and was a “bold statement of intent from a British government”. The ‘slug’ for the article states that Mandelson might:

be just what the US-UK relationship needs at this moment.

Serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein first became a convicted paedophile in 2008. Mandelson’s continued close friendship with Epstein had been a matter of public record for years. It received no mention in Owen’s analysis.

Nothing but…

Other directors include a visiting fellow at the security-service aligned King’s College London; a former Bank of England monetary policy official who then moved to a capitalist consultancy; a former Big Finance and Big Pharma staffer who then worked for a right-wing Labour MP. Most worked at Labour Together before the rebrand.

None of this seems to align with the “fundamentally different” organisation to bring “radical” ideas that it’s supposed to be. Not in any good way, anyway. Alison Phillips claims that ‘Think Labour’ is not just a rebrand of Labour Together. Based on the evidence, it seems to be nothing but.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi urged the BRICS countries to condemn the US-Israeli attack on his country.

The BRICS are a group of emerging ‘global south’ economies. In their own words:

The BRICS is a group formed by eleven countries: Brasil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. It serves as a political and diplomatic coordination forum for countries from the Global South and for coordination in the most diverse areas.

Aragchi was speaking at a conference for the bloc in Delhi. Aragchi also called out the UAE for its own attack on Iran.

A tense meeting

The 14 May meeting was marked by considerable tension. Al Jazeera said this was the first time Iran and US-Israeli ally UAE had shared a room since the war began.

Aragchi told attendees Iran was a:

victim of illegal expansionism and warmongering.

He said:

Iran therefore calls upon BRICS member states and all responsible members of the international community to explicitly condemn violations of international law by the United States and Israel.

He also took a direct swipe at UAE, telling the conference that the Gulf state was:

directly involved in the aggression against my country.

The Guardian reported on UAE’s secret attacks on Iran on 12 May:

The UAE assault on Iran, which was undertaken as retaliation for Iranian attacks on its facilities, included a strike on Iran’s Lazan Island just before the 7 April ceasefire was announced.

US-Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

The US has achieved none of its original war aims. Iran predictably closed the Straits of Hormuz, a vital oil channel, once attacked – creating a global energy crisis. Far from being defeated, Iran has said the war will continue until:

the enemy’s inevitable and permanent humiliation, disgrace, regret, and surrender.

Trump came to power on an anti-war ‘America First’ ticket. He now faces worldwide humiliation.

BRICS divided between empire and Iran

Al Jazeera reported that an Indian minister condemned a recent attack on shipping:

India’s Ministry of External Affairs also condemned an attack on an Indian-flagged ship off Oman on Wednesday as “unacceptable” – with all sailors rescued safely by Muscat.

The minister said:

We deplore the fact that commercial shipping and civilian mariners continue to be targeted.

The minister did not name the country or forces which attacked the ship.

In a separate media interview another Iranian foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, appeared to criticise India. India is a close ally of Israel and the US and sources around half of its oil through the straits of Hormuz.

We want India’s BRICS chairship to be successful. It is not a good approach to send a signal to the world that the BRICS is divided.

The official theme of the meting was sustainability, cooperation and innovation. In reality, it was always likely to centre on the war – especially given several of the participants have close ties to the either Iran or the Trump-Netanyahu axis of empire. And none of the participants can ignore the reality that the failed US-Israel attack has re-ordered global energy politics.

Featured image via Al Jazeera

By Joe Glenton

Source link

At the local elections this month, On Thursday afternoon, Labour MP Josh Simons announced that he would be “giving up” his Makerfield seat for Andy Burnham, the Labour Friends of Israel-veteran currently being paraded as the saviour of the party.

For decades, Westminster has overseen the managed decline of towns like mine. We have talked big, then acted small, stuck in a politics of incrementalism that cannot meet the moment. We have lost the trust of those our party was built to serve.

It is my unwavering belief that…

— Josh Simons MP (@joshsimonsmp) May 14, 2026

Simons was forced to resign from Keir Starmer’s cabinet after revelations that, whilst serving as a director of Labour Together, he ordered private investigators to go after journalists looking into Morgan McSweeney.

How Simons was selected for Makerfield

Before considering the democratic implications of an MP essentially attempting to donate their seat to the mayor of Greater Manchester, it is worth reminding ourselves of how Simons secured the Makerfield constituency in the first place.

At the time, Simons said that he was “honoured to be selected”, but no selection contest ever took place. Indeed, when local publication the Manchester Mill contacted Jenny Bullen, then the deputy mayor of Wigan council, her response was curt:

Makerfield constituents want a local candidate and have made that abundantly clear. Nothing else to say, bye bye.

No easy win for Burnham

Despite the desire for a quick coronation, Burnham will not face an easy ride in Makerfield.

At the 2024 general election, Reform UK increased their vote share by 18.7%.

Labour lost all 22 of the Wigan council seats they were defending at the local elections this month. Reform gained 24 seats.

At the last by-election in Greater Manchester, held in Gorton and Denton in February, Labour’s vote share dropped by 25.4%; they came third, behind the Green Party and Reform.

Simons’ links to the Israeli lobby

Like Burnham, Simons has his own links to the Israel lobby.

In February, it was revealed that he had failed to properly declare a donation from Trevor Chinn, the former Labour Together director and funder who, after being nominated by Labour Friends of Israel, received an Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor for “skills and work to the benefit of the State of Israel”.

In 2013, Chinn told an LFI meeting:

I’ve spent my entire life working for Israel, for a better image for Israel, for success for Israel.

At the 2024 conference of the Jewish Labour Movement, Simons spoke alongside former Israeli spy Assaf Kaplan at an event that promised to teach the audience “how to run a good campaign”.

Simons’ other funders

Last June, Simons received £5000 from Mike Craven, a former press officer for Tony Blair. Craven, still listed as a director of Labour Together Limited on Companies House, has previously attacked Jeremy Corbyn “and the far left” for not recognising the Israeli state’s “right to exist”.

In October, Simons received £30,000 from Francesca Perrin, a Labour Together donor who also served as a director until her resignation three weeks ago.

Simons is a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Israel, which states its purpose in the following terms:

To create a better understanding of Israel and to foster and promote links between the UK and Israel; to unite parliamentarians from across both Houses who are proud to be friends of Israel; and to make the case for Israel and for the UK’s bilateral relationship with the Jewish state.

The Israel APPG’s co-chair is Damian Egan, a vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel lobby group. Egan is married to Yossi Felberbaum, a former IOF soldier who used to recruit officers from the deadly Unit 8200.

Simons has previously mentioned having “friends and family in Israel” – a state with compulsory military service – and in a parliamentary debate with Conservative MP Kit Malthouse last June, he asserted his “right to claim citizenship in Israel”.

Two months later, Simons was part of a group of “Labour Friends of Israel-affiliated MPs” who confronted National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell in a “testy and emotionally charged conversation”, regarding the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state.

No ‘redemption’ for Simons

Some have posited that Simons may be giving up his seat for Burnham as a way of seeking “redemption” for his actions at Labour Together. Perhaps there is also a desire to avoid the fallout from recently released Subject Access Requests from Labour Together, which relaunched with the new name “Think Labour” (but the same company number) this week.

On Thursday, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had his Subject Access Request, which came in at a whopping 583 pages, returned to him. We learn that in January 2024, whilst serving as a director of Labour Together, Josh Simons sent an e-mail to an unknown recipient:

I f***ing hate Jeremy Corbyn.

All in all, sounds like a lovely guy.

Featured image via Josh Simons

By Jody McIntyre

Source link

Zionists are losing their shit over a New York Times (NYT) article called “The Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” written by journalist Nicholas Kristof. As is commonplace with Zionists, a protest has broken out in New York where a group gathered outside the NYT’ Manhattan office not to condemn sexual violence against Palestinians, but to attack the newspaper that published an article detailing violence against Palestinians prisoners by Israeli settlers, soldiers, and prison guards.

A Times of Israel journalist posted a video of the protests outside the NYT’s office.

Several hundred demonstrators outside the New York Times to protest Kristof column pic.twitter.com/20K0KNzXTf

— Luke Tress (@luketress) May 14, 2026

Zionist butcher threatens to sue the NYT

The butcher of Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu, also spoke up on the NYT article, saying he would take legal action over the article.

Netanyahu’s post said that he had instructed legal advisers to consider the “harshest legal action against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof.” He blustered:

They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers.

Under my leadership, Israel will not be silent. We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law. Truth will prevail.

Israel’s systematic rape of Palestinians is widely documented.

The ICC wanted-war criminal, who has previously threatened to sue the NYT wants truth to prevail. The NYT itself has its hands soaked in Palestinian blood. Just because it is now reporting on one of the Zionist entity’s vile crimes does not absolve it of the role it has played.

“As Israel now continues to carry out a uniquely horrific crime in Gaza with the firm backing of the global superpower (the US), Bret Stephens’s genocidal journalism [for the New York Times] is also uniquely horrific.”

— #AJOpinion by Belén Fernández https://t.co/mFBr0tIVFn

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 25, 2025

The organisation called Writers Against the War on Gaza recently published  a “dossier” which exposed the “material and ideological ties to occupation and apartheid held by many high-ranking editors, journalists, and executive officers at the Times.”

So, this tussle between Netanyahu and the NYT is no more than right-wing infighting.

Pattern of behaviour

In late July 2024 a similarly unbelievable protest broke out in Israel. The protest was to protect rapists. Hundreds of far-right Israeli demonstrators, including masked and armed soldiers from the IDF’s Force 100 unit, gathered outside the Beit Lid military base. They were demanding the release of ten of their colleagues who had been arrested on suspicion of raping a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman military base.

According to Physicians for Human Rights  the victim had been hospitalised with severe injuries to his rectum.

These two protests reflect the attitude of Zionists and their perceived impunity from crimes of sexual violence against Palestinian detainees or hostages in Israeli prisons.

Palestinian testimonies reveal the use of sexual violence

The Canary has covered the extensive use of sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli prisons:

More documented evidence of Israel’s use of sexual violence in Palestinian prisons

Palestinian testimonies reveal the use of sexual violence, including rape, as a means of torture inside Israeli prisons. @alaashamaly on @MiddleEastEye‘s investigation: https://t.co/a70HdbFOMO

Advertisement

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) December 22, 2025

In testimonies published by Middle East Eye, two former Palestinian prisoners gave shocking accounts of sexual assault and physical and psychological torture inside Israeli detention centres.

They emphasised that what they experienced cannot be classified as isolated incidents, but rather part of a systematic policy practised against prisoners, especially during the initial phase of detention, known among detainees as the “welcome party.”

Euro-Med Monitor has also met with hundreds of Palestinians released from Israeli detention. The organisation recently said:

Their testimonies reveal at least 40 forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Eleven of those are

• stripped searches and forced nudity
• urinating and spitting on detainees
• breaking bones and teeth
• forcing detainees to imitate animal sounds
• humiliation by making detainees wear diapers
• rape and sexual assault
• threat of rape
• filming detainees and bringing Israeli civilians to watch their torture
• deprivation of sanitation pads for women
• deprivation of performing religious practices
• electric shocks

Over the past two years, Euro-Med Monitor has met hundreds of Palestinians released from Israeli detention.

Their testimonies reveal at least 40 forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

In the thread, we highlight 11 of these practices pic.twitter.com/kYXmZJST5S

— Euro-Med Monitor (@EuroMedHR) May 14, 2026

Israelis are carrying out a systematic policy of sexual violence on detainees with impunity, enabled by a government that rallies around accused rapists rather than holding them accountable.

A tale of two protests reflects the attitude of Zionists and their perceived impunity from crimes of sexual violence against Palestinian detainees.

Featured image via X

By The Canary

Source link

The Labour Government’s proposed reforms to the water industry – via its Clean Water Bill, announced in the King’s Speech – have been met with widespread criticism from environmentalists and campaigners.

In his speech to parliament, written by Keir Starmer’s government, King Charles said: 

My Government will improve critical infrastructure with legislation to clean-up the water industry.

Alongside the speech, the government published much more detailed briefing notes explaining its plans for each area of planned legislation.

Uncertain plans

Challenges to Keir Starmer’s leadership, following Labour’s reckoning at the local elections earlier in May, mean that there is huge uncertainty over whether those plans will come to pass.

Regarding the Clean Water Bill, the notes said:

This once-in-a-generation Bill will shift the sector away from a system where water companies mark their own homework by putting in place stronger, active supervision and oversight through a powerful new regulator capable of integrated management of the water system.

They went on to say: 

The Bill will strengthen confidence in the water sector – restoring the public’s trust, giving investors the stability to back long-term upgrades, and providing the clarity needed to support economic growth. It will ensure the sector plays its full part in delivering clean water and a healthy environment.

The briefing also said that the Bill would:

put consumers firmly first with a new Water Ombudsman to ensure complaints are taken seriously and resolved quickly.

And it would:

create a new, independent and integrated water regulator by bringing together the relevant functions of Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England.

Somewhat surprisingly, the government’s own notes acknowledge the failings of the water sector, which it linked to privatisation. 

The notes said: 

The water industry in England and Wales was privatised in 1989, water supply and sewerage are delivered by 16 private companies. However, unlike most markets, water companies are regional monopolies with limited competition. 

England and Wales are unusual in having a fully privatised water system, whereby companies own the assets, infrastructure, and operation of water services.

The water system, regulation and the regulators have failed customers and the environment. In the 37 years since privatisation the population has grown by 11M, climate change and aging infrastructure has created unprecedented demands on the water system and reform is now needed. 

Advertisement

This has been compounded by a failure of regulation, with a system that relied too heavily on water companies marking their own homework.

It added that:

water companies are not delivering what is expected of them, both by regulators and the public.

And said:

transformative change is therefore needed to secure a system that will work for the long-term. This Bill delivers that change.

The Bill was heavily criticised by democratic ownership campaigners, environmental non-governmental organisations and anti-sewage pollution activists.

British Steel nationalisation shows water sector could be renationalised too – campaigner

We Own It lead campaigner Sophie Conquest told the Canary:

This government’s proposed reforms for the water industry are a gift to shareholders. 

The water white paper sets out plans for a ‘tailored approach’ for each water company, giving them even more scope to bend and break the rules for profit. Measures like ‘constrained discretion’ will give polluters more room to dodge fines.

Regulation of the water sector has been a decisive failure. Despite this government promising to be tough on polluters, the EA hasn’t completed a single prosecution for sewage dumping committed in the past 5 years.

The Labour Government has been in power since 2024, before which the Conservatives were in government from 2010. 

While our pockets empty and our rivers fill with sewage, this government is busy handing over even more power to the polluters. The public have had enough.

This government’s decision to bring legislation to nationalise British Steel shows that they absolutely can nationalise key infrastructure. And they can do it quickly.

They must now do the same for water. Under public ownership, we can ensure that households’ money is being used to fix infrastructure and lower bills.

Thames Water is already in breach of its licence, and has buried itself in a mountain of debt. It has wrought havoc on our seas and rivers, all while charging households eyewatering bills for the privilege. It’s outrageous that the utility has not yet returned to public hands.

This government should be acting in the interests of the 82% of us who want to see water in public hands, starting with the collapsing Thames Water.

Advertisement

Privatisation has ‘failed’ – campaigner

Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP) founder Ash Smith told the Canary that the Clean Water Bill is based on a review whose independence he questioned, and said the Bill did nothing to address the evidence that privatisation of the water sector had “failed”.

Smith was portrayed by David Thewlis in Channel 4’s docudrama, Dirty Business. 

The Canary previously reported that the public responded to Dirty Business – which exposed the damage done by the sewage scandal – with “widespread praise”, whereas discussions on social media about water companies, the regulator and public bodies was “overwhelmingly negative”, according to the government’s own analysis.

Smith said: 

The water regulation changes proposed are based on the instantly accepted report from the Cunliffe Commission, which far from being the independent review it claimed to be, was designed, directed, administered, and reported on by Defra – the government department responsible for water industry regulation and its failure. Cleverly, in classic ‘Yes, Minister’ style, it investigated itself.

Its terms of reference directed Sir Jon Cunliffe to make regulation more attractive to shareholders and to dismiss taking water into public ownership, despite the compelling evidence that privatisation has failed.

We regard it as a massive retrograde step that, rather than addressing regulatory capture and corruption, makes compromise more likely with a single body. This vital aspect was ignored by the review, which was being steered by Defra into a forward-looking approach, thereby burying many serious issues that have arisen over the years, some of which were exposed in Dirty Business.

Smith added that the Bill proposes to make regulation of the sector “supervisory” which would mean that responsibility for “criminal pollution” by water companies will be for the regulators to resolve. 

He added: 

It is time people woke up before it is too late. Ironically and cynically, even contemptuously, one might say, the environmental champion, King Charles, has been made to usher it in, no doubt reassured by the major NGO’s usual weak challenges.

Bill is ‘an insult to every community impacted by sewage pollution’ – anti-sewage campaigner

Surfers Against Sewage CEO Giles Bristow said:

The government’s self-proclaimed ‘once-in-a-generation’ reforms will do little more than prop up a broken industry built on pollution for profit. The Clean Water Bill is an insult to every community impacted by sewage pollution and and every bill-payer forced to fund rising water bills while shareholders continue to profit.

The reality of this Bill is that the Government is choosing to keep the profit motive and ignoring alternative ownership models for the water industry. Regulation alone cannot fix a system that rewards pollution and failure. Only a fundamental reset of the water industry will. 

It’s clear from last week’s election results and the Prime Minister now fighting for his job that the same old tweaks around the edges of this broken system just don’t cut it.

This weekend, people across the country will take to beaches, rivers and lakes to demand better. The public mandate for bold action is undeniable.

Advertisement

Concerns about independence of water commission, which ‘avoided’ underlying problems

River Action CEO James Wallace told the Canary: 

River Action welcomed the new Government’s decision to review the failing water industry and the performance of environmental regulators. However, we are deeply concerned that the Independent Water Commission has failed to be truly independent and has avoided addressing the underlying structural problems around water company ownership, governance and investment.

While we remain hopeful that the forthcoming Water Reform Bill will deliver a far more ambitious and effective regulatory regime, the Government continues to ignore the fundamental damage caused by a wholly privatised water industry.

Until water companies are owned and operated for public benefit and environmental protection, rather than shareholder profit, no amount of regulatory tinkering will stop polluters from continuing to pollute for profit. 

We are also concerned by the continued lack of meaningful action on agricultural pollution, which is one of the biggest sources of river pollution. Any serious attempt to restore our rivers must tackle not only sewage discharges, but also help farmers tackle the unchecked runoff of slurry, fertilisers and other agricultural waste into our waterways.

Advertisement

The chaos at the top of the Labour party makes it less likely that the government will be able to successfully pass all the bills it proposed in its King’s Speech, but public anger over the state of the country’s water companies is unlikely to subside any time soon. 

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

Source link