In the early hours of 25 March 2026, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) and police entered homes in Silwan, in occupied East Jerusalem, escorting settlers as Palestinian families were forced out of their properties in the Batn al-Hawa neighbourhood.

East Jerusalem — evicted after 10 year legal battles with settler organisation

16 Palestinian families, approximately 100 people, who had lived in the area for decades, were forcibly evicted from their homes. Their apartments were then emptied of their possessions. In many of these cases, illegal settlers from the settler organisation Ateret Cohanim moved into the properties immediately after the families were removed.

These evictions come after Israeli occupation courts upheld ownership claims based on pre-1948 Jewish property rights, which had been fought by Palestinian residents since 2016. Since 7 October, 2023,  the Israeli occupation has forcibly displaced 28 Palestinian households from Batn al Hawa. Another 15 families are also expecting to be evicted from the neighbourhood imminently, by the same court order.

A law, known as the Legal and Administrative Matters Law of 1970, exclusively enables Jews to “reclaim” property in East Jerusalem. This is one of the many examples of the occupation’s discriminatory, apartheid policies. The many thousands of Palestinians who were forcibly displaced during the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba, in 1948, have not been allowed to return to their homes.

Since “Israel” occupied East Jerusalem, in 1967, it has expanded its presence and control over East Jerusalem, and attempted to alter the city’s religious identity, history, and demography- to Judaise Jerusalem. It has done this by exploiting its discriminatory laws and policies And through a combination of evictions, demolitions and restrictive planning policies, such as in Silwan, “Israel” is able to dispossess Palestinians of their land and property. .

Israeli occupation demolishing homes in al Bustan for biblical park tourist attraction

Several days after the Batn al Hawa evictions, on 30 March, the occupation’s police, military and bulldozers stormed the al-Bustan neighbourhood of Silwan, to demolish four Palestinian properties. No prior warning was given before the homes belonging to the Awad, Abu Shafaa, and Al-Ruwaidi families were destroyed. Retaining walls, gates and fences were also destroyed, roads bulldozed, and nearby infrastructure damaged,

The demolition of homes in the al Bustan neighbourhood, has been driven by the occupation’s plans to transform the area into public gardens, Torah-related projects, and settlers’ parking. He also highlighted that this neighborhood, located near the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is one of the most affected by Judaization and settlement initiatives.Demolitions accelerated in 2024 and 2025, and by February 2026, the occupation had demolished 35 homes and issued 17 additional demolition orders in al-Bustan. A total of 1500 Palestinians in the area have demolition orders on their homes, so further ethnic cleansing is expected any day.

The Israeli occupation’s interest in Silwan is due to its location, against the southern walls of the Old City and close to al Aqsa, which would allow the zionist regime to cement control over East Jerusalem. Archaeological tourism projects, settlement expansion, and court-backed property claims are all being used to forcibly displace Palestinians, and ethnically cleanse occupied Jerusalem of Palestinians.

Featured image via the author

Mariana Mazzucato, professor at UCL, has shown how Labour should be less willing to simply hand out public money to corporations. Instead, she says that subsidies and grants should come with a guarantee of public benefit.

‘Conditionalities’ — types of public benefit

There are various possibilities for making the most out of public money when it comes to partnering with the private sector.

Mazzucato outlines them in four categories. The first, ‘access’, means requiring that the resulting products or services that the government puts money towards are affordable to the population. The second, ‘directionality’, means mandating that the company follows desirable goals such as green power. The third, ‘profit sharing’ means that the company returns some of the profits to the government. This could go further, with the government taking a stake in company. The fourth, ‘reinvestment’, means that some of the company’s profits are reinvested into socially desirable activities.

Of course, a government could use the mandate and popular support of a manifesto to at least take basic essentials into public ownership, to deliver common good without relying on corporations. But if large corporations still dominate some sectors, equitable partnerships could be the way forward.

Mazzucato — No nonsense approach

The government can already use legislation to ensure companies act in a certain way. Failing that, public-private partnerships can be useful.

Direct subsidies are not the only way the government hands out money to corporations.

22% of The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers receive universal credit (UC). That means the public purse is essentially subsidising the profits of companies like Tesco, which makes £6,150 of profit per employee.

This parliament, the government is providing £2.5bn to the steel industry. And that’s without taking a stake or profit-sharing with steel companies.

Although, the government has said that Tata Steel, which is receiving a £500m grant, will have to transition to Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) to address climate change or share its profits with the government. This is an example of a conditionality as Mazzucato outlines, but alone is quite the piecemeal approach to the neoliberal system.

Featured image via UCL

Today, Thursday 2 April, the Guardian ran an exclusive based on comments from the Prevent assistant commissioner, Laurence Taylor. He claimed that counter-terrorism scheme was being overwhelmed by a massive influx of referrals.

Trends indicate that Prevent will receive over 10,000 referrals in 2026. That represents a 33% increase compared to 2024. However, Taylor asserts that this doesn’t necessarily represent an uptick in the radical ideologies that Prevent was (nominally) set up to combat.

In fact, the majority of these referrals are apparently unrelated to extremist ideologies. Instead, they’re issued over concerns about people becoming interested in violence. As such, Taylor claims that Prevent’s time is being wasted, leaving it less able to deal with actual threats.

We at the Canary might phrase this another way. That is, the UK has invested so much in the very idea that (Muslim) terrorism is the greatest threat to our safety that we’ve actively started to damage the capacity to respond to non-terror threats.

‘Violence-fascinated individuals’

Back in July, interim independent Prevent reviewer David Anderson issued a report which responded, in part, to the scheme’s (mis)handling of the cases of Axel Rudakubana and Ali Harbi Ali.

The teenage Rudakubana murdered three young girls and wounded eight other people during his attack on a dance hall in Southport in 2022.

Ali was determined to have been motivated by Islamist ideology. However, Rudakubana displayed no clear motive, and was determined to have been driven by no fixed ideology. Anderson was appointed to:

identify remaining gaps or shortcomings that require further improvement and assure action to address them.

Released last July, the Anderson report stated that:

Several years before the attacks, both the perpetrators had been referred by their schools to Prevent … Prevent’s Channel programme for early interventions had the capacity to address concerns of the kind that were raised in these referrals. But in neither case did it do so.

In fact, Prevent declined to take on Rudakubana’s case three times. As such, Anderson recommended that Prevent’s remit be expanded radically to include non-terror threats. Alternatively, he also suggested that the government create a separate scheme to deal with non-ideological ‘violence-fascinated individuals’ (VFIs).

Prevent — ‘Overwhelmed with referrals’

Another report into the Southport attack is scheduled for release later this month. It’s expected to provide a damning indictment of local authorities, health services, and of course, Prevent itself.

After the attack, Prevent referrals started to rise dramatically. However, more than 50% of the individuals concerned had no clear ideological motivation. Assistant commissioner Taylor pinned this on the fact that there’s simply nowhere else to report these kinds of concerns.

However, he also claimed that this volume of non-terror referrals:

increases the risk of us not spotting somebody that is … because the system is overwhelmed with referrals.

He went on:

The challenge we have in the Prevent system is there is no triage that sits above it, so Prevent currently is the only bucket into which all of these referrals can sit.

We see people with material from Isis and neo-Nazis. We see people watching beheadings and school shootings. We see the gamification of that. So it’s people who are just absorbing horrible stuff that is creating concern for the people who refer them, but they’re not motivated by an ideology specifically, ie extreme rightwing or Islamist.

‘I wouldn’t like to say’

Taylor then rattled off increasing threat levels from states such as Iran and Russia, along with terror groups like Daesh. However, when faced with the question of whether Donald Trump and the American far-right was having a polarising effect, he suddenly became reticent to make a political statement.

Rather, per the Guardian, he characterised Trump as “one of several factors behind rising tensions”:

We’ve seen for a number of years an increasing polarisation, without doubt. You only need to look at the level of protest in London and the diversity of protest in London to see how many different views there are …. Whether you could directly attribute that to the US and Trump, I wouldn’t like to say.

I think there are many, many things at play here, of which that is but one.

If that isn’t the UK justice system’s attitude to ‘ideology’ in a nutshell, we don’t know what is. Is a fascist in the White House causing an uptick in radical ideology? Who’s to say? But look over there at the protesters!

Prevent, despite ostensibly being set up to target all extremist ideology, has disproportionately targeted Muslims from its outset. In fact, hundreds of babies and toddlers have been referred to the scheme, overwhelmingly due to “Islamist concerns”.

In 2022, the Shawcross review even had the nerve to call for a renewed focus on Islamic extremism, calling the definition of neo-Nazism has “expanded too widely”.

And now, we’re being told that non-ideological motivations are falling through the cracks precisely because of the state’s obsession with terrorist ideology? And, in fact, we have no real mechanisms in place for concerns of non-terrorist violence?

If the UK were any less Islamophobic, there’d be a lesson in all this. Pity, that.

Featured image via the Canary

Jeremy Corbyn-led Your Party won’t be fielding councillors in the upcoming local elections. They will, however, be backing various independents. Now, we’re learning such independents could include ex-Tory councillors:

‼️BREAKING | Your Party’s candidates for 2026 include three councillors who were Conservative members as recently as January 2026

Gaz Ali, Amo Hussain, Izzy Hussain all sat as Tories on Walsall Council until Jan ’26. Now backed by Corbyn.

(Leaflet edited to hide phone numbers) pic.twitter.com/azYoWufF0a

— Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️‍⚧️ (@LeftieStats) April 2, 2026

Advertisement

“Endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn”

One thing to note is that the above flyer states “endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn” rather than ‘endorsed by Your Party‘. Corbyn is free to support whoever he likes, but as the party’s parliamentary leader, people will interpret his endorsement as the position of Your Party.

The endorsement was first highlighted by the Green Party’s Mish Rahman:

the candidates in my area are 3 deselected Tory cllrs, all cabinet portfolio holders part of the local Tory administration lol
They have moved wards as indys and are standing against me in the same ward. pic.twitter.com/b4Em7up7Ur

— Mish Rahman (@mish_rahman) April 2, 2026

Rahman was a Labour NEC member between 2020 and 2024. When defecting to the Greens in January 2026, he said:

Politics must be about clarity and courage.

We are facing a convergence of crises: the rise of the far right, a cost of living emergency pushing working-class people to the brink and civil liberties eroded by successive governments. These are not abstract threats, they are lived realities for millions.

Today I have joined The Green Party because it is prepared to confront these challenges honestly: to defend democracy, stand up for social justice, and recognise that economic fairness and environmental responsibility are inseparable.

Earlier today (2 April), we reported on Your Party’s plans for the local elections:

As party structures continue to develop, Your Party will support around 250 candidates across England. The vast majority of these will be standing as Independents or for allied local community parties.

Your Party targets
Key targets for allied groups include:

Advertisement

• Tower Hamlets, run by Lutfur Rahman’s Aspire since 2022.
• Redbridge (see below).
• Newham, where the Newham Independents Party has recently won multiple by-elections.
• Bradford, where Labour’s support has been in massive decline.

Later in the day – and after the Mish Rahman tweet – New Statesman’s Ava-Santina posted that Walsall is in the mix too:

NEW: Your Party unveil their “get Labour out” local election strategy.

Full list of YP candidates coming later today
– Walsall
– Bradford
– Southport
– Oldham
– Redbridge

Corbyn: “These elections are the beginning of the fightback against austerity, privatisation and fear.

— Ava-Santina (@AvaSantina) April 2, 2026

This could be ex-Tories highlighted above, or it could be the ex-Labour independents who joined Your Party last year.

Stats for Lefties engaged in the following discussion on whether the endorsement is real (we’ve got to admit; we do keep rubbing our eyes and glancing back at it):

People outside Your Party have reacted as follows:

Independents

As reported by Birmingham Live, Gaz Ali and Amo Hussain were actually deselected by the Conservatives. In other words, if they didn’t go independent, they couldn’t have defended their council seats in the upcoming local elections.

In a statement on why the three men subsequently quit the Conservative Party, they said:

Our decision is driven by a number of factors. First and foremost is the treatment of several of our colleagues within the Aldridge and Brownhills Conservative Association. The exclusion of good, hard-working councillors, individuals who have given years of loyal service, has been deeply troubling.

In particular, the failure to approve respected councillors such as Keith Sears, who has dedicated over 50 years of service to Walsall and to the Conservative Party, is something we cannot overlook.

We are also increasingly concerned about the direction of the national Conservative Party. The tone and rhetoric emerging from parliamentary leadership appear divisive and risk marginalising communities.

We have always believed that politics should bring people together, and that the party should be inclusive and unifying. Regrettably, this is no longer a position we feel able to align ourselves with.

Ah yes – the Conservative Party – those great unifiers of modern Britain.

Who could forget how unified we felt when we suffered through the devastating austerity cuts of the 2010s – cuts which didn’t touch the rich even slightly.

It just doesn’t wash, does it?

Corbyn Endorsing Deselected Tories as “Independent Socialists” is no surprise, since we’ve already seen a near year of the “Social Conservative” shite from His Party.
Honestly, he should have just ran for London Mayor & Kept whatever respect he had left. He could have even won. https://t.co/VieTmnFXxi

— Michael Walsh (@thatbloodyMikey) April 2, 2026

The big question is this: would the trio have quit if not for being deselected?

The answer is ‘we don’t know’.

Forgetting that, Corbyn and Your Party should have a policy of never endorsing anyone who’s ever had anything to do with the Tories.

And never in a million years did we think we’d need to explain that.

How did it come to this?

It’s not controversial to say Your Party has not turned out how many hoped it would.

Despite attracting 800,000 signups upons its announcement, the party would go on to secure a fraction of that number once it opened up to members. Since then, the party has failed to place in most polls, while the Green Party has captured much of Your Party’s initial enthusiasm.

There are good people in the party, and we know that many of them are struggling to process this latest development.

That’s quite enough for me, I think. What a massive disaster this has all been. Shame on those who squandered this opportunity to build a genuinely decent political alternative. https://t.co/G8Z6DHUCfj pic.twitter.com/eWWBi4ofpR

— chloe (@Dykeocletian) April 2, 2026

Solidarity with all those who just wanted Your Party to be a clear alternative to Labour and the Tories.

We contacted Your Party to confirm the endorsement, but had not heard back at the time of publication.

Featured image via X/Twitter

A UK airline has permanently cancelled a flight due to pressure from the energy crisis caused by the US attack on Iran. Skybus operated an internal flight between London and the Cornish town of Newquay. The firm’s cancellation could be the first of many as air travel is hit by increasing pressure.

The National reported on 2 April:

Skybus operates daily flights between London Gatwick and the seaside town of Newquay.

The service was due to end on May 31, however the airline has announced that it will be ending now – nearly two months earlier than planned.

Adding:

The airline’s managing director Jonathon Hinkles said it was due to various reasons including the increase in fuel costs.

Hinkles said:

At a time of great economic uncertainty and steps being taken to conserve energy worldwide, it is neither environmentally nor economically sound for us to continue flying with vastly reduced passenger numbers.

It does beg a question: who the hell flies from London to Cornwall?

UK — Widespread price hikes

But bigger providers say they are under pressure too. Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary said:

We don’t expect any disruption until early May, but if the war continues, we do run the risk of supply disruptions in Europe in May and June and obviously we hope the war will finish sooner than that and that the risk to supply will be eliminated.

The UK has been hit in other ways too. UK Pm Keir Starmer has tried to allay fears, but Brits are feeling the impact:

Families with a 55-litre diesel car face paying more than £100 at the pump for the first time since December 2022.

LBC reported on 23 March:

The Prime Minister chaired the meeting on Monday afternoon, during which the Chancellor spoke about steps she will set out in a statement to Parliament tomorrow.

Ms Reeves, Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband gave updates on the situation and stressed that de-escalation and ending the Iran conflict was “the best thing we can do for the economy”, Downing Street said in a readout.

It is unclear when the war will end and on what terms.

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.

Featured image via Aerospace Global News

Reform are having an absolute nightmare in the runup to the local elections. As we’ve reported, they’ve been losing candidates left and right. If you think this means the party’s vetting procedures aren’t up to snuff, don’t worry. According to Farage himself, the problem is many of the eager Reform members signing up are actually just liars.

Farage defends Reform’s vetting failures after ‘abhorrent’ incidentshttps://t.co/8uAu2Azx0V

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) April 1, 2026

Farage — Liars, liars

We’ve covered the many woes that Reform have had in the runup to the local elections, with key calamities including:

As reported by the Independent, Farage defended Reform UK’s vetting process by saying:

sometimes people lie

That’s true, Nigel, yes; this is what you’re supposed to uncover by vetting them.

The Independent also reported:

Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman, Zia Yusuf, also defended the process, stating that out of 8,000 candidates vetted, even a 99.9 per cent success rate means a handful of problematic individuals might still slip through.

If Reform had enjoyed a 99.9% success rate, they would have only had eight problem candidates. The truth is they’ve already had that many between Wales and Scotland alone, and we’re still a month out from the election:

Reform UK Wales only announced their candidate list 3 days ago and already 3 have quit or been suspended:

Andrew Barry
Corey Edwards
Patrick Benham-Crosswell

Advertisement

It’s 6 out of a friend of 73 in Scotland.#ReformShitshow

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) March 28, 2026

Reform UK Scotland have seen 5 of their 73 candidates suspended or stood down.

That’s nearly 7% of all of them. #ReformScotlandShitshow pic.twitter.com/0FWLJLxafH

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) March 27, 2026

Advertisement

All eyes on

When Yusuf was pressed on the number of candidates dropping out by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, Yusuf said:

Yes, of course it’s reasonable to hold Reform to account.

But what consistently happens is the BBC pounces on every single Reform mishap and gives it vastly disproportionate coverage in your news cycles – and completely ignores the far most voluminous misdemeanours and frankly egregious things from other parties do.

This is the problem Reform have.

They want to be the biggest party in the country, but they don’t want the inevitable scrutiny that comes with it.

And as Kuenssberg pointed out:

proportionally, Reform has lost more candidates over this kind of thing happening than other political parties

Farage’s response to his party’s candidate crisis is to brand signups ‘liars’.

We can’t imagine that going down well with the Reform faithful, but we’ll see.

Featured image via Canva

French President Emmanuel Macron has bit back at Trump following his attempts to undermine NATO. Pointing to the US Presidents repeated attacks which he says has created “daily doubt about his commitment” to the North Atlantic alliance, Macron tells Trump to “be serious”.

Yesterday, the US President once again went to the media, making comments that appear designed to pressure the alliance into bending to his will.

However, it appears Macron is not for giving in — even going so far as to try to educate Trump on diplomacy:

We need to be serious, and if you want to be serious, you don’t go around saying the opposite of what you said the day before.

BREAKING 🚨: Macron is TROLLING Trump at epic level 🔥😂

🇫🇷Macron: “When we are serious, we do not say the opposite of what we said the day before. Perhaps we should not speak every day.”

Advertisement

Bro calmly telling Trump that he is a big clown. 😂 pic.twitter.com/Aupk0u3Sj8

— InfoGram (@_InfoGram_) April 2, 2026

‘Perhaps we should not speak every day’ says Macron

The US and Israel began its illegal war on Iran at the end of February, and with typical Western duplicity, the bombs began falling whilst Iranian officials were at the negotiating table. Consequently, the Middle East has descended into chaos with Iran using its inalienable right to self-defence by targetting US bases and interests in their neighbouring states.

Unsurprisingly, Iran has also used its proximity and access to the Strait of Hormuz to make this egregious violation of international law as expensive as possible for the West. A pretty strong strategic move, really.

Now the Western world is seeing consequences for its complicity in the US’ colonialist actions, Trump is changing his rhetoric daily in an attempt to seemingly save face.

The main challenge for Trump is to declare victory without being able to open the Strait of Hormuz: “Let France do it… Let the European countries do it… Let South Korea do it… Let Japan do it… This was not part of what I wanted to do” pic.twitter.com/0GCnqocxp9

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) April 2, 2026

Thankfully, Macron is no longer being backwards about coming forwards and has confronted the President’s ridiculous political gameplaying.

In an interview whilst on a state visit in Seoul in South Korea, Macron stated:

I believe that organisations and alliances like Nato are defined by what is left unsaid – that is, the trust that underpins them, and that has often been the case, incidentally, with military and strategic matters.

If you cast doubt on your commitment every day, you erode its very substance.

We need to be serious, and if you want to be serious, you don’t go around saying the opposite of what you said the day before.

I think there is too much talk.

The French President then argued that the only way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is through dialogue and diplomatic cooperation with Iran. Lambasting the tactic of US military might forcing it open as “unrealistic”, he says the risks are too great for navies involved and seeks peace rather than any involvement in the US/Israel war on Iran.

China: Illegal war and US-Israeli strikes responsible for fall out

China has today declared the war to be illegal and positioned the blame for the impact to global energy costs solely at the feet of the tyrants who started dropping bombs in the first place:

JUST IN: 🇨🇳 China says US-Israeli strikes against Iran is “illegal” and is what caused the Strait of Hormuz to close. pic.twitter.com/KEW2LhDQX9

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) April 2, 2026

A reminder that it is only complicit states who are being punished by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for the transit of roughly a quarter of global oil trade:

BREAKING: Iran assures the Philippines that it will allow Philippine-bound and Philippine-flagged ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Department of Foreign Affairs announced in a statement Thursday, April 2, that Foreign Affairs Secretary Theresa Lazaro spoke with… pic.twitter.com/NV7bX53uLw

Advertisement

— Philstar.com (@PhilstarNews) April 2, 2026

Like in previous aggressions, some have suggested the US’ main interest is to weaken China, who have long overshadowed the US in the size and health of its economy. Specifically, they depend on the Strait of Hormuz far more than Western countries.

Nevertheless, Iran has shown it values loyalty and a commitment to the rule of law over and above power plays and the instinct for collective punishment we so often see in the West.

Everyone keeps saying Iran ‘closed’ the Strait of Hormuz. They didn’t close it. They’re deciding who gets through.

China, India, now the Philippines 9 days after declaring an energy emergency. If you stayed out of the war, you get your oil. If you didn’t, good luck.

Advertisement

It’s a… https://t.co/zk1pOljP0K

— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) April 2, 2026

Play by the rules or fuck off

It is undeniable that we currently live in a world order in which powerful white men seek to throw the rule book out the window, like in Iraq and other western invasions. Unlike in 2003 however, it appears world leaders are finally pushing back against sensationalist statements and war-baiting from politicians corrupted by billionaires and the military machine.

Spain has gone far further than most, banning use of its air space and its bases by the US military. Whilst France’s intervention is welcome, Macron could go a hell of a lot further and see a far greater impact.

After all, this moment offers a chance to prioritise the rule of law, as the world receives yet another reminder of why an international rules-based system exists in the first place.

Featured image via PBS

The US is still hiding casualty figures from its failing Iran war. The Pentagon is ‘cooking the books’ on the number of soldiers killed and wounded by using outdated reporting to keep the public in the dark. The Intercept’s Nick Turse reported on 1 April:

Almost 750 U.S. troops have been wounded or killed in the Middle East since October 2023, an analysis by The Intercept has found. But the Pentagon won’t acknowledge it.

Adding:

U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, appears to be engaged in what a defense official called a “casualty cover-up,” offering The Intercept low-ball and outdated figures and failing to provide clarifications on military deaths and injuries.

15 troops were wounded in a attack on a Saudi air base on 27 March alone, according to two government officials who spoke with The Intercept.

Turse said:

Hundreds of U.S. personnel have been killed or injured in the region since the U.S. launched a war on Iran just over a month ago.

US — Outdated figures

The Intercept said Central Command (CENTCOM) was using “outdated” figures:

resulting in undercounts, including a statement sent Monday from spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins noting that “Since the start of Operation Epic Fury, approximately 303 U.S. service members have been wounded.”

The US outlet said:

The comment was three days old and excluded at least 15 wounded in the Friday attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The command did not reply to repeated requests for updated figures

They added:

CENTCOM also would not provide a count of troops who have died in the region since the start of the war. An Intercept analysis puts the number at no less than 15.

An unnamed defence official told the Intercept:

This is, quite obviously, a subject that [War Secretary Pete] Hegseth and the White House want to keep under major wraps.

The Trump approach starkly contrasts with the last US administration, run by then-president Joe Biden. That government sent the Intercept:

detailed chronologies of attacks on U.S. bases in the Middle East that listed the specific outpost that was attacked, the type of strike, and whether — or how many — casualties resulted, along with an aggregate count of attacks by country.

Trump and Pete Hegseth’s department of war clearly have something to hide. This is likely exacerbated by the sense the US is losing — or has already lost — a war of choice with Iran.

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.

The US and Trump now face worldwide humiliation.

Featured image via the Cradle

DWP — In yet another escalation of its performative penalisation of disabled drivers, the Motability scheme is now planning to fit all vehicles for under-30s with compulsory black boxes.

The devices track the car’s speed, braking and rest habits. Using this information, they issue drivers with a weekly red, amber or green rating. If drivers receive more than four reds over a year, they face losing access to the vital lifeline.

DWP and Motability

The Motability Scheme allows disabled people to exchange their qualifying mobility allowance for the lease of a vehicle. The Scheme is delivered by Motability Operations, a commercial organisation, which is in turn governed by the Motability Foundation charity.

Motability currently helps around 860,000 people get around with a greater degree of independence. It’s funded primarily through the Motability Endowment Trust and the exchange of individuals’ mobility allowance payments, as part of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

However, the DWP has recently confirmed that, from 1 July, VAT and Insurance Premium Tax will apply to most new car leases. This means it will cost more to deliver the Motability scheme.

As such, Motability Foundation has been left scrabbling to find savings. Chief executive Nigel Fletcher explained it would be hit with a price rise of around £1,100 per driver:

A lot of disabled people won’t be able to afford that, so we’re now having to try and work out how can we make changes to the scheme that protects pricing as much as we possibly can.

The mandatory black boxes for under 30s form part of this cost-cutting drive. Fletcher described this as being about “keeping prices down and keeping people safe”. As part of a pilot of the black box scheme, started back in September in Northern Ireland, it’s already removed 300 drivers. However, Fletcher stated that:

They will get lots of warnings before they get taken off the scheme. And then if they are taken off the scheme, we will need to start looking at what our policies are around allowing them back onto the scheme in the future.

‘It’s not a point about our safety’

However, critics of the black-box scheme have called out this clear penalisation of younger disabled drivers. For example, actor Keron Day leases a specially adapted wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) through Motability. He pointed out that:

Disabled people need to have the choice, just like everybody else.

If I passed [my driving test] aged 17, I would have 13 years of a mandatory black box. None of my non-disabled peers would have that.

We all have to pass the exact same driving tests that everybody else does, so it’s not a point about our safety.

Likewise, Eva Hanna leases a car with hand controls. She observed that the black box fitted to her car issued amber and even red reports for jerky driving. However, this is likely a consequence of the adaptations, rather than her own skill in driving:

The braking and acceleration can be a bit more sensitive, because obviously it’s not the same as using your feet.

You have to pull on the brake a little, or you have to pull on the accelerator to get it going. So I’ve found that during my journey I might have braked too hard or accelerated too harshly.

Advertisement

Faced with this problem, Fletcher stated that Motability was unaware of the potential flaw. However, he added that the scheme would continue to gather information.

Performative cruelty

These cuts to Motability — along with the ‘luxury cars’ fiasco and halving mileage allowances — just happen to follow immediately after the scheme became a favoured target of the right. 

As critics have highlighted, disabled drivers are already subject to the same qualification thresholds and safety laws as the rest of us. This is a cost-saving measure, purely and simply.

We need look no further than its application to the under-30s as proof of its discriminatory nature. Sure, younger drivers are statistically more likely to be less safe — but if the boxes make them safer, surely the same logic would apply to the over-30s equally?

This amounts to nothing more than the latest in a series of performative blows to the disabled community. Whether it’s the wider government, the Labour Party, or the DWP itself, they’re using disabled people’s receipt of a ‘benefits’ payment as open permission to penalise and discriminate against the community.

Featured image via MyLondon