The storied career of Sen. John Cornyn came to a swift and decisive end at the hands of the GOP voters who once propelled him to power.

The senator was a towering figure in both national and Texas politics, known for his sober temperament, ability to cut deals and role in shaping the Senate GOP conference during the last four presidencies. Then, just about an hour after polls closed Tuesday, Cornyn lost his primary to Ken Paxton, a scandal-plagued MAGA darling who was boosted by President Donald Trump’s last-minute endorsement.

Cornyn’s defeat is rattling the establishment wing of the GOP, who viewed the brutal primary as a battle for the soul of the party. His supporters mourn his approaching absence in the Senate as another example of an institutionalist who fell victim to the rise of the populist right, what they see as the end of an era of compassionate conservatism.

“It just blows my mind that anybody could look at John Cornyn and somehow call him a secret liberal RINO,” said Josh Schroeder, mayor of Georgetown, Texas, and a Cornyn supporter. “If that guy can’t pass a conservative litmus test, who can?”

Cornyn’s loss stands to further deplete the corps of senators willing to work across the aisle on thorny policy issues, from immigration reform to gun safety — potentially contributing further to increasing polarization on Capitol Hill.

While Cornyn was not a frequent bipartisan operator in the mold of former Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) or Rob Portman (R-Ohio), he occasionally dug in to try and find compromise. His loss comes just ten days after fellow Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) lost his own primary to a Trump-backed challenger. Before that, it had been 14 years since the last elected senator lost a primary.

“He’s always been about delivering results for Texas rather than chasing headlines,” said Brian Walsh, Cornyn’s former communications director. “He respects the Senate as his institution and believes deeply in doing the work the right way, even when it’s difficult, or I would say politically inconvenient.”

His participation was often crucial as a member of the GOP leadership team and a key Republican fundraiser who operated with the tacit approval of Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who served as GOP leader for nearly all of Cornyn’s tenure.

Even though his supporters were long skeptical of his odds in the primary, Cornyn chose to go down swinging. He continued to run negative ads against Paxton throughout Texas until the last minute, harping on Paxton’s indiscretions. And he warned during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday that the attorney general would be an “albatross” on the rest of the Republican ticket “likely to have a negative drag on the down ballot races in Texas, judges, local officials, House of Representatives, you name it.”

But those moral arguments did not sway a majority of primary voters — or Trump, who chose to endorse the attorney general and cited Cornyn’s decision to wait to endorse his third presidential run as proof he was insufficiently loyal.

Paxton’s supporters have long shrugged off his long trail of criminal and ethics investigations, impeachment by the state legislature and ongoing divorce, complete with accusations of infidelity, believing that his commitment to carrying the MAGA torch was more important than corruption allegations or a messy personal life. Paxton, for his part, has tried to focus the campaign on his qualifications for the Senate — and allegiance to Trump.

Paxton also benefitted from a strong anti-incumbency sentiment rippling throughout Texas. The GOP base was ripe for his argument that Cornyn was too enmeshed in the D.C. swamp to justify sending back to Washington even as those attacks bewildered Cornyn’s supporters, who pointed to his long record of voting for Trump’s agenda.

As majority whip during Trump’s first term, Cornyn helped shepherd the president’s signature tax bill across the finish line. In 2024, he fell just a few votes short of becoming majority leader against Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). And few Republicans have demonstrated fundraising prowess like Cornyn, the former chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who has brought in more than $400 million throughout the course of his political career.

“Senate Republicans were very eager to see their friend and colleague continue, and Cornyn is one of those guys that would’ve raised money for his fellow incumbents. That’s unlikely to continue,” said a GOP Senate strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Trump, after weeks of standing on the sidelines, swooped in at the start of early voting to back Paxton, a reward for the attorney general supporting his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Cornyn, on the other hand, voted to certify the results.

Throughout the bitter campaign, Cornyn shifted to the right on some issues, adopting the fiery language of the MAGA base, which was seen as an effort to endear himself to Trump in a bid for his endorsement. Most prominently, he ran an ad declaring that “radical Islam is a bloodthirsty ideology.”

When Paxton cleverly declared that he would drop out of the primary if the Senate GOP killed the filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump’s priority election bill, that staved off the president’s planned endorsement of Cornyn. The Texas senator belatedly announced a reversal of his longheld support of the filibuster. And Cornyn introduced a bill two weeks ago to rename a major U.S. highway Interstate 47 to honor Trump. But it came far too late to save him.

But in a hyper-partisan environment, Cornyn’s decisions to occasionally work with Democrats doomed his standing among the rabidly conservative base in Texas.

Cornyn kept to the outskirts of high-stakes bipartisan immigration talks, such as the “Gang of Eight” that sought a comprehensive overhaul in 2013. But he later partnered with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona in exploring a narrower, border-security-focused bill.

He also found success reaching across the aisle in 2022 on gun safety legislation in the aftermath of the Uvalde school shooting. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was modest relative to Democratic demands for stricter gun control. But it was still the most significant federal gun legislation in a generation — and it provoked intense backlash among hard-right voters in Texas.

“We both know that when we’re doing what’s right, it doesn’t matter what other people think,” Cornyn texted Sinema at the time.

Four years later, Paxton made the legislation a centerpiece of his campaign, accusing Cornyn of shepherding “the worst gun control bill in decades.”

Texas will now be swept up in an expensive and competitive Senate race, with Democrats amped to compete against Paxton, who they view as more vulnerable than Cornyn in a midterm environment favorable to their party. Many believe Democratic nominee and state Sen. James Talarico is their best shot in a generation at flipping a statewide seat.

Schroeder, who represents a small town in Talarico’s former district, said the Democrat is capable of pulling off a strong campaign: “He appears to be campaigning from the high road while the Democratic party is just slicing Paxton to shreds because they got a whole lot of ammunition.”

In the aftermath of the brutal primary, some Republicans fear that the state of the GOP is dire – and potentially unable to unify ahead of November with the possibility that some Cornyn supporters will sit out the race entirely or vote for Talarico. After the race was quickly called on Tuesday, Talarico posted on X: “To Senator Cornyn’s supporters: you have a place in our campaign.”

In his concession speech, Cornyn said he will support the GOP ticket: “I’ve fought the good fight, I’ve finished the race, and I’ve kept the faith.”

“I’ll have more to say later.”

Mike DeBonis and Samuel Benson contributed to this article.

Source link

Progressive sex therapist Maureen Galindo lost the Democratic runoff for Texas’ 35th District after being accused of antisemitism and facing condemnations from within her own party.

Johnny Garcia’s victory over Galindo on Tuesday has national and Texas Democrats breathing a sigh of relief.

They had moved en masse to disavow Galindo after she said in a recent social media post that she would write legislation to turn a local ICE detention center into a “prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking.” They had also accused Republicans of trying to prop her up, pointing to a shadowy super PAC with possible GOP ties, Lead Left, that pumped over $900,000 into the race to boost Galindo and attack Garcia.

The district is one of the five that Texas Republicans are targeting for pickups this fall, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has added Garcia, a county sheriff’s deputy, to its coveted “Red to Blue” program to support his candidacy.

Source link

Attorney General Ken Paxton defeated Sen. John Cornyn in the Senate GOP runoff Tuesday, cementing the influence of the far right in Texas and potentially putting the seat in play for November.

Paxton was boosted by a last-minute endorsement from President Donald Trump in the final days of the race. His defeat of Cornyn, a towering figure in Texas politics and four-term incumbent, is a major MAGA coup.

But establishment Republicans and major national donors have warned that a Paxton victory would lead to a costly general election against Democratic nominee James Talarico. Head-to-head polling shows Talarico with a slight lead over Paxton.

Paxton overcame his deficit in the March primary, where he finished narrowly behind Cornyn, by leaning on his grassroots support among MAGA voters — a base he’s cultivated throughout his tenure in Texas.

He also overcame millions of dollars in attack ads from Cornyn that highlighted his long trail of personal and political scandals. And Trump’s endorsement one week before the primary runoff likely sealed the deal.

Source link

Texas Democratic Rep. Christian Menefee defeated longtime Rep. Al Green in a runoff that was defined by heavy outside spending and clashes over generational change.

The Tuesday result will likely end the long career of Green, a 78-year-old civil rights champion who was running for a 12th term in Washington. He entered the race in the newly drawn Houston-area 18th District after his own district was carved up in redistricting.

Menefee, a 38-year-old Harris County attorney and fellow member of the Congressional Black Caucus, was sworn into Congress earlier this year after winning a special election in January to serve out the remainder of the late Rep. Sylvester Turner’s term. He is expected to cruise to victory in November in the safely Democratic Houston district.

The race was also the latest sign of the power of the crypto lobby’s influence. A cryptocurrency super PAC poured $4 million into the race to back Menefee, turning the incumbent-on-incumbent showdown into the most expensive House runoff in Texas this cycle.

In the end, Green, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, couldn’t overcome the cash disadvantage despite his name recognition.

Source link

Over 70 furious student protesters gathered outside their student union at the University of York on Friday evening. With stunningly articulate voices, they stood up against the University’s decision to ratify the far-right Restore Britain Society. The demonstration on Friday 22 May 2026 showed an irrepressible rage growing on campus. The York Student Action Network (YSAN) organised the two-hour rally after their appeals to the union were ignored, and the Restore Society was approved on Tuesday 12 May 2026.

Disgusting hate speech absolutely ignored

Students are rightly furious that the union has decided to platform an organisation tied to very obvious white supremacy. More than 22 campus societies have already signed joint statements condemning the union’s decision.

Activists have revealed that before the Restore Society gained official status, members of the group organised a ‘Detain and Deport’ golf pub crawl. To top this off, this disgusting little society shared online propaganda featuring the British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Mosley. Come on, this isn’t just a silly little group of right-wing students. This is full-on fascism that the Student Union could not have been oblivious to.

Worst still? Members have allegedly drawn swastikas around campus and used racial slurs. So during the protest, speakers directly confronted the union with megaphones. They simply ask the SU “where do you draw the line?”

Far-right policies will directly target minority students

The parent political party of this little society, Restore Britain, is barely a party anyway. It was launched by Great Yarmouth muppet Rupert Lowe. The party’s official platform pushes a disgusting fascist agenda which specifically targets Marginalised groups, Women and Disabled people. They give off that whole extreme ‘white supremacist, kick them all out and get women back in the kitchen’ vibes.

There continues to be an immense amount of fake news circulating around Restore Britain’s principles of immigration. Here is our position. Read it, and let me know if you agree…

Step one.

Remove the illegal migrant population. Two million? Three million? Even more? Doesn’t…

Advertisement

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) March 29, 2026

The party openly and proudly campaigns for total “remigration“. It’s gross manifesto includes plans to actually deport LEGAL residents. This is absolutely spitting on the rule of law and people should be bloody scared of what this means. Supporting Black and Brown people against this affront needs to be our top priority. If they come for one of us, they come for all of us.

Restore also want to strip dual nationals of their citizenship and rip apart our asylum system. During the protest, a speaker listed these exact policies.

Systematic institutional failure from York University

A pitiful 20 Restore Britain supporters turned out to counter-protest. And of course they all turned up in suits. They stood behind safety barriers, waving their St Georges’ flags from Temu. Of course they blasted classical music, incorporating one of Hitler’s favourites which of course was “Ride of the Valkyries”.

These counter-protesters actively cheered when protest speakers spoke about Restore’s extreme deportation policies. Campus safety officers actually got off their arses this time, placing them behind barriers. This is because these creeps had actively harassed students on Tuesday 21 April 2026.

Activists at the university say this proves that security staff finally recognise the danger to students these weird individuals present to the student body. So why has the SU given them a ticket to openly intimidate international students and Black and Brown people? Urgh.

Targeted policing for the left

The protest at York also exposed institutional racism from local authorities. Two police vans were present for the rally. Activists report witnessing officers driving directly up to the peaceful crowd. And of course, they targeted a Muslim speaker. Officers leaned out of the vehicles windows during the speech, driving away only when the speakers had finished talking.

The University of York has a lot to answer for. It has failed to issue a statement regarding the protest. They have failed to acknowledge the targeted police intimidation. The message the university is currently giving out is that it doesn’t care about Black and Brown students. That it actively promotes and encourages fascism within the campus.

Free speech in York my arse

Union officials have claimed on their Instagram that they fear legal repercussions if they did not ratify the society. However, other universities have shown they will not cave to right-wing pressure.

The University of St Andrews stood up and rejected a Reform UK Society in April 2026. Massive student backlash and common sense meant St Andrews successfully protected their students from outright racism. And the University of Sussex won an appeal against the Office for Students and bypassed a ridiculous £585,000 fine over this ‘free speech’ mania.

York is now one of two universities in the UK to have ratified a Restore Britain group. Students at York now say they will escalate their tactics until management grows a spine and actually shows real allyship with minoritised communities. And rightly so. When the UK is sprinting towards a fascist government, it’s small groups like the YSAN which will lead the fight against it. Once more, we in a privileged position need to use that privilege to support Black and Brown people. They come for one of us, they come for us all.

Featured images via the author & Instagram

By Antifabot

Source link

Restore Britain is a breakaway party of Reform UK which exists because the latter wasn’t right-wing enough.

Reform has largely just ignored its rival, but this changed in late May when it turned out Restore could stop them from winning the Makerfield by-election. An interesting development since then is that the legions of anonymous Twitter/X accounts seem to have turned on Restore.

The question is whether these accounts are actually British, or if they’re foreign users trying to game Twitter’s algorithm? Because as you can see, some of these people apparently live in Ecuador:

Just a heads up

All of these pro Reform UK accounts are being paid for and are based in Ecuador pic.twitter.com/81adNLktSm

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) May 25, 2026

Foreign interference… in Restore Britain…?

In 2025, Elon Musk announced that Twitter would be revealing every user’s location data. People anticipated this day, because they suspected many far-right accounts were actually foreign individuals cosplaying as Western reactionaries to farm clicks. Surprise, surprise – this ended up being precisely what happened:

Confirmation that this account is Indian. pic.twitter.com/myNTIrfTPR

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) November 23, 2025

Shockingly, the exposed accounts included the US Department of Homeland Security:

https://t.co/32KUm3JeHL pic.twitter.com/mbFdamoqkb

— j! (@astrrals) November 21, 2025

Reporting on the issue at the time, the Independent wrote:

MAGANationX, for example, includes a bio line that reads “Patriot Voice for We The People,” but was actually started in Eastern Europe, according to the new feature.

Another account, using an image of President Donald Trump in a tuxedo and using the name “MAGA Scope” with an American flag emoji, was found to have been started in Nigeria in 2024.

In terms of the UK, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported on a man who shared AI slop videos of Keir Starmer dressed as a Muslim. Surprisingly, this particular account holder turned out to be “a devout Muslim man living in Pakistan”. The Bureau added:

This man, who we are not naming for his own safety, runs successful accounts pushing Islamophobic AI slop to UK audiences. Videos shared by just one of his Facebook pages had been viewed millions of times and he told us in an interview he earned around $1,500 a month from that page alone.

While it sounds bizarre that Black and Brown people could be driving white supremacy in the UK, you have to remember:

• These people don’t have to worry about racism in a foreign country.
• Our uneven and individualistic global system guarantees there will always be people out there doing anything they can to get ahead.

We have plenty of scammers in the UK, too – the difference is our homegrown talent can pull in a lot more than $1,500 a month:

Anyone seen this Tory lately she has “£122m” belonging us ?

“Baroness Michelle Mone remains under active criminal investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) regarding suspected offenses related to the procurement of PPE during the Covid-19 pandemic” pic.twitter.com/70F3evAfEg

— Gazberto (@gazberto) May 25, 2026

It’s also far from the case that only foreign accounts are spreading misinformation. In America, the reformed influencer Ashley St. Clair revealed that her former right-wing bedfellows get paid to coordinate their messaging. St. Clair recently discussed this and a lot more about the right-wing grift-o-sphere in a conversation with Hasan Piker:

Anon for Reform

One of the prominent accounts posting in favour of Reform UK is ‘Wolf’:

Rupert Lowe dismisses concerns about splitting the vote in Makerfield.

So why isn’t he standing a candidate in the Aberdeen by-election?

Because it looks like the Tories could win there and I strongly suspect he’s got a deal in place with them.

It’s so obvious what this is. pic.twitter.com/Ro3v1TL0Wg

— Wolf (@WorldByWolf) May 24, 2026

If we look at Wolf’s account, it says they’re in the UK but with an exclamation point by the name:

The exclamation point indicates that the account is using (or has used) a VPN. A VPN allows you to set your location to someplace else, suggesting that Wolf is using one to hide their true location.

I should note that this method of verifying where someone is from isn’t foolproof. I actually have the exclamation point on my account, which is almost certainly because I use a VPN sometimes. Thankfully, however, we released a physical newspaper today, allowing me to demonstrate that I am in fact in the country:

First edition of the Canary print edition!

Find where you can get a copy here:https://t.co/EDhyWLES5W pic.twitter.com/Rm3Usz6UII

— Willem Moore (@willem_moore_uk) May 26, 2026

Be sure to pick a copy up near you!

Back to today’s news, Wolf is far from the only account going all out for Reform. The following is apparently based in Ecuador, but confusingly also has the VPN symbol:

Lowe is the man that talks about banning Halal slaughter but has it in the menu at his son’s wedding.

Restore is a party set up by the establishment to derail Reform. https://t.co/RsLGDXJJix

— UK Patriot (@Yvonne1388552) May 26, 2026

If these accounts are fraudulent, the question is whether their activities are coordinated, or whether individual accounts are simple posting in a fashion which best brings in the cash? Because – let’s be clear – we’re not pointing this stuff out because we’d prefer Restore Britain to Reform UK. As much as these accounts pretend otherwise, they’re both the same party, and that party is the Tories.

Another thing to note is that while there’s a deluge of anonymous accounts blasting Restore right now, they’re not all leaning that way. The ‘Basil the Great’ account we shared at the top supports Restore and is also of questionable origin. Said account is additionally a prominent spreader of misinformation:

That Basil account already deleted the video, but look how they spread misinformation. pic.twitter.com/yPx5kTbA56

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) August 22, 2025

Advertisement

There are also many accounts like this one with obviously AI profile pictures:

If you vote for Labour nothing changes.

If you vote for Greens you get Sharia.

Advertisement

If you vote for Reform you get demographically replaced.

If you vote for Restore Britain you send shockwaves through the establishment and put them all on the back foot.

Use your vote wisely.

— British Bastard (@BritishBastardX) May 24, 2026

Strange times

We live in a bizarre period in which it’s increasingly difficult to know what’s real. The legions of anonymous accounts attacking Restore Britain could be shy Brits; they could be foreign users; they could be AI; they could be all manner of things. The issue is we simply don’t know, and many people don’t care to check.

It’s hard to say exactly how we solve this problem. Do we want to end anonymity online? Almost certainly not, but if these accounts are receiving money to push political messaging, it might not be ridiculous to make them display the actual country they’re posting from at least.

In the long term, the only way to prevent people from cheating the system is to create a system which doesn’t need to be cheated. If we all lived roughly equal lives, people wouldn’t be scrabbling to get ahead.

In the meantime, be careful who you trust.

Featured image via Leon Neal (Getty Images) / Junko Kimura (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

In a new video, leader of the Tories Kemi Badenoch has unveiled her latest desperate push to remain relevant. The problem is her new plan is to oppose something which enjoys almost universal support from the public:

Starmer, Burnham, Farage, Polanski…These men have one thing in common. They all want nationalisation.

That will mean companies run by politicians but paid for with YOUR money.

There’s only one party that stands against their failed ideas and that’s the Conservatives. pic.twitter.com/vjQmRQ4V7n

Advertisement

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) May 24, 2026

Enjoy obscurity, Tories!

In her tweet, Badenoch says:

Starmer, Burnham, Farage, Polanski…These men have one thing in common.

This is correct, but the thing they have in common is that they have READ THE ROOM:

Badenoch also said:

That will mean companies run by politicians but paid for with YOUR money.

Sorry, but whose money does she think pays for privatised services?

Is she unfamiliar with the concept of an electric bill?

Does she not know about bus fares?

In the video itself, Badenoch says:

Do you know what it’s like to have the government controlling everything? It is not cool. You think government is bad now and yet you’re saying let’s have the government run all the industries. If you don’t think government is good now, why is it going to be better if you give it more things to do?

So Badenoch – who wants to govern the country with the Tories – is arguing that politicians like her shouldn’t be trusted to govern anything. This is a bold strategy if nothing else!

Badenoch also said:

Why were the water companies privatized in the first place? It’s because when they were nationalised, they weren’t working very well, they were wasteful, they cost a lot of money and they just weren’t very good.

At the end of the day, a water company is just a building with people in it. She’s clearly deluded herself into thinking there’s some sort of business magic which means you can’t run a company for the public good, but if the will is there, it can be done.

The privatisation nightmare

We Own It have provided 10 reasons why privatisation failed:

1. You don’t have a choice – public services are natural monopolies: “Privatisation was introduced because of a belief in free markets and consumer choice. But public services tend to be what economists call ‘natural monopolies’, or services where competition doesn’t really make sense. For example, when you take the train, you don’t really have a choice about which one to use. There is no real market.“
2. Waste: “Money from your bills and taxes should go into improving public services. But with privatisation, [shareholders must receive dividends]. Interest rates are higher for private companies than they are for government. (Plus, there are the extra costs of creating and regulating an artificial market.)“.
3. Cutting corners: “The drive to maximise profit comes into conflict with the need to spend time caring, or spend money to meet people’s needs“.
4. Cherry picking: “Private companies cherry pick the profitable bits of a service and leave the rest“.
5. Fragmentation: “When lots of private companies are involved in delivering a public service, this can create a complicated, fragmented system where it’s not always clear who’s doing what. For example, on our railway, different organisations are responsible for managing the track and stations, running trains and leasing trains. This is inefficient and wasteful“.
6. Wrong incentives: “When private companies run public services, they may not have an incentive to help tackle problems. For example, companies running private prisons will get paid more money if more people are locked up“.
7. Inadequate regulation: “Often there’s a revolving door between people working for the regulator and people working for the companies they are regulating. For example, Cathryn Ross who was previously the CEO at Ofwat, the water regulator, now works for privatised Thames Water“.
8. Lack of flexibility: “Councils and government departments are responsible for meeting the needs of the public – but privatisation means less flexibility for changing circumstances. If an outsourcing contract with a private company needs changing, government must pay more to make changes or improvements, add in extras or to opt out“.
9. Loss of capacity: “Handing over control to private companies weakens the public sector, reducing the skills and people available to provide high quality public services“.
10. Risk of bailouts: “Public services are vital, they’re not optional extras, and so they are often too big and too important to fail. This means the government stands ready to rescue private companies in their hour of need – we saw this for example with outsourcing firm Carillion, the East Coast railway line, energy retailer Bulb and Thames Water”.

Not the same

Badenoch suggested that Starmer, Burnham, Farage, and Polanski are all the same on nationalisation, but that’s really not the case.

Starmer is nationalising the train operators, but that had already begun under the Tories to an extent, because privatised rail was such a colossal failure that even they couldn’t ignore it. Starmer has refused to renationalise anything else despite once pledging to do so.

Burnham is talking about “stronger public control”, which as we keep pointing out, is not the same thing as renationalisation. He complained when we said this, but as he’s refusing to give a clear idea of what does have planned, he can complain all he likes:

I’m not doing anything of the kind. Just got to be realistic about how quickly it can be done.

— Andy Burnham (@AndyBurnhamGM) May 24, 2026

Farage talked about nationalising British steel. Badenoch weirdly seems to think voters are against this despite strong evidence to the contrary:

Polanski, meanwhile, is actually planning to nationalise public services, so well done him:

Another poll in front of Labour?

We're coming for Reform next!

Time for rent controls, nationalise our public services & protect our NHS.https://t.co/0qbagSvIYp pic.twitter.com/T1LrG77Ohm

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) March 30, 2026

Advertisement

Anyway, all this aside, we absolutely support the Tories and Badenoch’s decision to make themselves the face of Britain’s most hated catastrophe.

Featured image via Alishia Abodunde (Getty Images) / Heather Diehl (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

The director of national security for Britain, alongside others with links to MI5 and GCHQ, were part of a “secret policymaking group” that helped create the notorious Legacy Act. The 2023 Act was a concoction by the Tory government designed to shut down investigations into Troubles-era crimes, including those carried out by the British state.

The revelations are reported by the Detail and stem from work by Daniel Holder of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ). Holder spent:

…eight months seeking the release of documents relating to the Senior Legacy Investigations Working Group, which met in mid-2020.

The documents Holder provided are marked “official secret”. Their contents show outrageous plans to bulldoze through the deeply sensitive matter of investigating 3,500 deaths “within two years”, an impossible deadline. The intention was to close:

…down the vast majority of cases within six to twelve months, with an estimated 500 deaths requiring another year of investigation.

It formed part of an approach to:

…shift away from the current criminal justice focus and towards greater reconciliation and information recovery.

Tory plan for army veterans to escape prosecution

This was one of the “suggested talking points for the NIO chair of the secret group”. It represented the approach of the Conservative government, which wanted to avoid more cases of British army veterans being held to account in the courts for murders they carried out in the north of Ireland. Tories have remained vocal as Labour has sought to reform the Legacy Act.

Shadow armed forces minister Mark Francois claimed that veterans would have a “sword of Damocles hanging over them again”. They ought to, if they carried out atrocities. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch recently effectively called for British troops to be immune for prosecution, as she posted a video containing footage of Bloody Sunday.

The secretive group sabotaging work into historic injustices “met on 19 June and 10 July 2020”. It was:

…composed of senior officials from the worlds of policing, counter-terrorism, and the law, including former PSNI chief constable George Hamilton.

Among those on the panel who were either members of the security services, or linked to them, included:

Madeleine Alessandri – formerly Britain’s deputy national security advisor. She held “a number of posts within the United Kingdom’s national intelligence infrastructure”, both before and after her time in the policy group. Later chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee

Chloe Squire – director of national security at the Home Office while on the Legacy Senior Working Group

Shehzad Charania – now works for GCHQ

This essentially amounts to the security services marking their own homework, as legacy cases would involve crimes carried out by said spooks, such as MI5 collusion with the likes of Fred ‘Stakeknife’ Scappaticci.

Victims of the Troubles’ families left out of secretive process

Alessandri argued that:

…addressing the past was vital “for allowing Northern Ireland to move forward as a society and transition fully into a post-conflict society.”

This is true, though the method for this ought to be constructed in concert with Troubles victims’ families, rather than drawn up by secret policy groups full of security services personnel. Among those in the group who had no business speaking on behalf of these families was former Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) chief constable George Hamilton, who said to group members:

…even when you secure a criminal justice outcome, experience has shown that it doesn’t bring the closure people hope for or bring family satisfaction.

Families will welcome information recovery. It is the small vocal minority that will present the legal challenges and we should be ready for that but they do not speak for the silent majority who just want to move on.

The Detail give the response of Mark Thompson of Relatives for Justice, who replied:

I wouldn’t describe the 1,100 bereaved relatives of murder victims including victims of torture who want answers as ‘small and vocal minority’.

Thompson added:

It is not lost on all these families that the very people who made these comments represent the very same state agencies that would be subject to robust independent investigations with full accountability if we were to have such a process.

In a Facebook post, Relatives for Justice said:

MI5 and policing vested interests came together to deny justice to all families, from all backgrounds, affected by all actors, their rights to truth, justice and accountability.

Families have since successfully led the challenges to these shameful efforts

By Robert Freeman

Source link

A Green Party membership coalition has hit back at senior party figures, urging the Greens to stand aside in the Makerfield by-election. Their letter‘s message is unambiguous: the grassroots will not be managed into irrelevance.

Green grassroots hitting back at Burnham

The Canary can reveal a letter signed by Green Party members, circulating in response to a joint statement from high-profile party figures including former co-leader Jonathan Bartley and ex-councillor Rupert Read.

It calls on Zack Polanski to rule out stepping aside for Labour’s Andy Burnham in Makerfield. Over 120 members and counting have so far signed the open letter, launched on 25 May.

They oppose a Green stand-down, even if the Greater Manchester mayor commits to backing proportional representation (PR) — which he’s already disavowed — for the next general election manifesto.

The grassroots response — signed by members from Stockton, Stockport, Alnwick, Northumberland, and Hartlepool Green Party branches, among others — is pointed. In parts, it is scathing.

EXCL: Senior Green Party figures have urged Zack Polanski to consider stepping aside for Andy Burnham in the Makerfield by-election if the Greater Manchester mayor commits to introducing proportional representation

Green councillors, activists and former party leaders have…

— Daisy Eastlake (@daisyeastlake) May 24, 2026

PR’s already off the table

The response comes to an original letter signed by a campaign group within the senior party ranks calling themselves ‘Greens for Proportional Representation in Makerfield’.

Central to the senior figures’ case for standing aside is the prospect of Burnham backing PR. This reform is long championed by the Greens as essential to breaking Britain’s broken two-party duopoly. But the letter-writers are having none of it.

As they bluntly note: Burnham has already ruled out PR. The letter states that its signatories are

confused as to why this point keeps being argued as if it is still on the table.

It’s a significant problem for the pro-stand-aside camp. Their entire strategic rationale rests on a concession which Burnham has explicitly declined to make.

Urging Greens to sacrifice their presence in a historic by-election, for a promise that simply doesn’t exist, isn’t strategic pragmatism. It’s wishful (and, arguably, politically suicidal) thinking dressed up as ‘realpolitik’ or centre-ground coalition-ism.

Burnham WON’T back proportional representation this parliament

Greens want more than PR

Even if Burnham were to change his position overnight, many Green members would remain unconvinced. The letter is entirely frank about why: it’s Labour’s horrific record.

The signatories cite the Labour Party’s complicity in genocide in Gaza; its attacks on trans rights, which Burnham recently doubled down on; and its continued embrace of austerity. These are reasons why PR alone cannot and should not function as a get-out-of-scrutiny-free card.

Not for Burnham, nor anyone still imbricated in Labour’s machinery. This is a crucial point.

The argument from Bartley, Read, and their co-signatories implicitly frames Labour — specifically Burnham’s Labour — as a vehicle somehow worth protecting. Ultimately, that’s their core premise.

The grassroots letter refuses this frame entirely. You do not stand aside for a party that, in their words, you are fundamentally at odds with — especially on the defining moral and political questions of our moment.

Steering away from party members

Perhaps the most stinging section of the letter concerns internal party democracy. The signatories describe the senior figures’ letter as “symbolic of wider tension” inside the Greens, with officers attempting to:

steer decision-making around election campaigning away from grass roots membership [sic].

This cuts to the heart of what the Green Party is supposed to be.

Unlike Labour — whose membership has repeatedly seen its preferences overridden, managed, and suppressed by the parliamentary leadership and NEC — the Greens built their recent surge in membership on an explicit promise: this would be a member-led organisation. People joined, as the letter puts it:

because we were promised a member-led organisation where we can fight against both the far-right and neoliberal establishment.

Nobody, the signatories remind us with quiet fury:

has signed up in the last year to further enable the two-party system.

Greens’ Makerfield candidate withdraws after Israel lobby pile-on

Stakes of getting this wrong

The letter doesn’t mince words about what capitulation would cost.

The Greens’ meteoric membership growth is driven by activists who see the party as a genuine vehicle for socialist and progressive politics, particularly outside of Labour’s grip. As such, it’s fragile in the ways that all political momentum is fragile. It depends on trust.

If members repeatedly see their enthusiasm “stifled” by self-appointed senior figures making unilateral strategic calculations, that momentum will collapse. Perhaps irreparably.

The letter warns that the stakes are too high — for working class people, for the left, for the prospect of any serious challenge to the two-party stranglehold — to absorb yet again:

another 7-year setback in bringing socialism to Britain.

Speaking exclusively to the Canary, the principal author of the Greens’ letter, Georgina Hollifield of Stockton Green Party, said:

The grassroots demand: let locals decide

The Greens’ letter’s conclusion is constitutionally modest but politically significant.

The decision on whether to stand and whether to campaign — which, the signatories correctly note, are separate decisions — should rest with local party members in Makerfield. Not with Bartley. Not with Read. Not with anyone firing off letters from outside the constituency.

This is, at its core, a demand that the Green Party actually be what it says it is.

The Makerfield by-election may not be winnable for the Greens. But the battle over what kind of party the Greens will become? That fight’s very much still on.

Paid-up Green Party members *only* can sign the open letter here.

Featured image via the Canary / X

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Online abuse and harassment are “constant, corrosive and deeply embedded” for young people across the country. That’s according to a Barnardo’s-commissioned poll of 4,000 young people in the UK about their experiences of online misogyny.

The results from thousands of 13 to 20-year-olds show how they experience misogyny online. Over a quarter (28%) of girls in Scotland said they’d been called degrading names online. And five in seven (72%) boys said they believed they are expected to “act tough and not show emotion”.

Online misogyny is having real world effects

The findings also highlight how online misogyny is having an impact on the offline lives of young people. More than a quarter (27%) of all young people in Scotland had seen a nude photo that had originally been sent privately and had been shared.

Just over one in seven (15%) 13 to 15-year-olds across the UK as a whole had been asked to share a nude photo of themselves. Meanwhile, 17% of respondents in Scotland reported having received repeated messages after asking the sender to stop or ignoring them.

At the same time, boys in the Scotland felt unable to challenge their peers. 18% said that their friends wouldn’t back them if they called out sexist comments. And about five in eight (62%) boys in Scotland said that people would think they are “boring” if they don’t join in with group “banter”.

18-year-old Olly (not his real name) said:

As a young man, I see online misogyny every day. It sets the tone for how boys treat girls and how boys treat each other. There is pressure to laugh it off or stay silent, even when it crosses a line.

Young men set the standard. Challenge it, shut it down, and back those who speak up. That is how we change what is accepted.

Sarah, a children’s services manager for a Barnardo’s Domestic Abuse & Sexual Violence service, says:

A girl we supported was referred to the service after digitally manipulated – deepfake – images of her were created and circulated online.

The images were shared through social media platforms, sometimes via fake accounts created to spread the abuse further. Incidents like this cause significant emotional impact including fear and distress.

A culture of victim blaming can also lead to girls being concerned about how others perceive them, rather than seeing themselves as a victim of serious sexual abuse.

This can sometimes leave them vulnerable to further abuse and exploitation – but with the right support, we do see girls begin to rebuild trust, confidence and find their voice.

Barnardo’s says the children and young people they support are increasingly feeling the impact of online misogyny. 29% of Barnardo’s frontline practitioners said they were seeing more children affected by misogynistic content online, compared to the year before. 29% also said they were seeing an increase in child-on-child sexual abuse and / or children displaying problematic or harmful sexual behaviour, compared to the year before.

Michele Janes, director of Barnardo’s Scotland, said:

Misogyny isn’t always loud or visible to many of us, but these findings show how constant, corrosive and deeply embedded it is in the lives of young people today both online and off. It shapes how boys and girls think about themselves, their worth and their relationships with others.

Young people are telling us that the result can be harmful on all sides, from humiliation and sexualised abuse to feelings of shame and isolation. This is not inevitable – it is learned, and it can be challenged.

That’s why we’re raising the alarm and we want young people’s experiences to be at the heart of conversations about how to tackle misogynistic content online.

As a step in the right direction, we are calling on the government to turn Ofcom’s guidance for online services to improve the safety of women and girls online into a mandatory code of practice for tech companies to create safer digital platforms for all children and young people.

Advertisement

Featured image via Barnardo’s

By The Canary

Source link