Andy Burnham in Ashton-in-Makerfield, 9 June 2026 (AP Photo/Jon Super/Alamy)

13 min read24 min

Andy Burnham supporters are increasingly optimistic about Makerfield. Sienna Rodgers explores what comes after the by-election

Advertisement

Visitors to the Makerfield constituency are met with “a sea of turquoise”, in Nigel Farage’s own words, as Reform UK voters proudly bear their allegiance in the form of posters, garden stakes and even custom-made flags.

And yet, with the caveat that things can change quickly and they are taking nothing for granted, Labour activists and those around Andy Burnham are increasingly confident of winning the tricky by-election. They cite the poor performance of Reform’s candidate Robert Kenyon on the BBC’s Question Time as a key factor; some also report that Farage’s reaction to police failure in the Henry Nowak murder, in which he called for “pure cold rage”, has motivated the Burnham vote.

Burnham backers have concluded that there is now a “shy Andy vote”, just as there was a shy Reform one in the local elections, with supportive voters saying they are too nervous to put up Labour posters in their windows. The lack of visibility does not reflect the strength of the anti-Reform vote, according to Labour sources, and Burnham’s personal appeal is helping to coalesce that group behind him.

Advertisement

Labour door-knockers are nervous too, however. They are being warned by organisers that Restore Britain activists – who are easily identifiable on the ground, as they wear dark blue polo shirts and baseball hats featuring their party’s name – are equipped with smart glasses that record interactions.

Canvassers for Burnham have been told not to engage properly with ‘antis’ on the doorstep either, as too often they have doorbells that record videos, which could be used against the activists online. ‘Persuasion’ conversations are thus limited to those who are truly undecided, making tech’s impact on party activism an interesting subplot. Burnham himself spends much of his time door-knocking ‘don’t knows’.

In the Labour canvassing script seen by The House, door-knockers are instructed to say they are “out campaigning for Andy Burnham” (rather than the party). Non-voters are asked why they don’t vote, told about Burnham’s local record and asked, “Could Andy earn your vote?”. Voters classified as ‘against’ are asked only which party they plan to support, then thanked for their time – “Do not engage in arguments,” the sheet orders.

Advertisement

For ‘don’t knows’, the canvasser asks on a scale of one to 10 how likely the voter is to back Labour and whether they are considering a different party. The “rebuttal lines” for those who could back Reform lead with the statement that Farage’s party would “make the NHS into an insurance-based system if they get into power, and that really scares me”. Verbally, organisers have also told activists to highlight that Kenyon “is a sexist” and to point them towards Question Time. Those leaning towards the Greens, Lib Dems or Tories are all told that the by-election is “a two-horse race between Labour and Reform” and that “a vote for them risks letting Reform win through the middle”.

Activists are also given rebuttal lines on arguments that may arise on the doorstep: grooming gangs (“He called for a national inquiry before it was politically convenient to do so”); the Clean Air Zone (“The Boris Johnson government forced 10 councils to consider clean air zones”, and it is no longer needed thanks to the Bee Network of buses); Makerfield as a “stepping stone to No 10” (“Andy is not getting ahead of himself”), Brexit (“Andy respects the Brexit vote”).

Most notably, on immigration, canvassers are told to say that “Andy supports reducing net migration” and he believes “it is right to pursue root and branch reform”. Allies of Shabana Mahmood are confident that she would be kept as Home Secretary by a Burnham premiership and her reforms would hardly be watered down, if at all.

What comes next

If Burnham does win Makerfield on 18 June, what follows? He has been clear about his intention to enter any Labour leadership contest, but the details – process and timeline – remain murky.

Advertisement

The hindrance to a swift challenge is the Greater Manchester mayoral by-election that his election to Parliament would trigger. Nobody can be both a mayor with police and crime commissioner powers – as Burnham is – and an MP at the same time, according to the law. Legislation also requires that the by-election be held within 35 working days of a vacancy, which means Thursday, 30 July is being eyed as the likely date.

While views in Parliament differ, the Manchester side of Burnham’s circle have argued that it would not be viable for him to kick off a contest before the mayoral by-election is complete. “He’ll be heavily invested in it, and it’s his responsibility to help with that,” says one such source.

“All roads lead to conference – whether coronation or contest, it ends there”

Advertisement

There is no guarantee that Labour will be able to hold onto the mayoralty. It is “going to be awful”, says another insider, particularly as it would be the third major by-election in the same region within a few months. The widely held assumption is that Manchester city council leader Bev Craig would be the candidate; without Burnham’s remarkable personal appeal to overcome the unpopularity of Labour’s brand, it is expected to be a very tough fight against Reform.

Government plans to quickly change the voting system for mayoralties back to a preferential one, after the Conservatives swapped it to first-past-the-post in 2022. The necessary primary legislation has already been passed; ministers now hope to have the statutory instrument to implement the reform approved imminently. Labour sources say they hope Labour would then get the second preferences of Lib Dems, Greens and even Tories who want to block Reform.

Even so, there are no comfortable options for Burnham. Either he risks entering the fray with a mayoral loss under his belt, or he is blamed during a leadership election for diverting party resources and attention when the biggest-ever by-election is taking place.

If July is indeed ruled out, August is next: the summer month over which Parliament does not sit, and Constituency Labour Parties typically do not meet, making both the MP and CLP nomination stages of any leadership contest difficult. Processes could be digitised, so nothing is impossible, but why would Keir Starmer’s operation and the current Labour general secretary facilitate a quick challenge?

Advertisement

That would leave September. Burnham supporters like the idea of him being crowned at conference, but that takes place less than four weeks after Parliament’s return from recess. The last deputy leadership election suggests that seven weeks – possibly six at a push – is the speediest timeline for the internal election according to Labour rules.

“All roads lead to conference – whether coronation or contest, it ends there,” an insider predicts, yet one pro-Burnham MP says Christmas may be a more realistic timeline for a new resident at No 10.

However, the instability under the present leadership  – particularly acute after John Healey’s resignation as defence secretary – has cast further doubt on whether a longer timeline is viable. Senior figures think Burnham must move almost immediately after a Makerfield win and suggest Downing Street’s bunker operation is increasingly delusional. And there is, of course, the possibility that declared leadership contender Wes Streeting – or another hopeful – could force the situation quickly.

While neither the Burnhamites nor Starmerites believe the former health secretary has the numbers unless Starmer stands aside, sources close to Streeting insist he does. He chose not to challenge in May, they explain, because doing so before Burnham had a chance to run for Parliament would have been a poor start to the battle in the eyes of too many MPs and members. Streeting’s nominations would reach three figures once a contest actually began, claims one MP backer.

The Prime Minister has insisted that he will fight, fight, fight – even willing to stand in a contest against Burnham, who would win decisively in a head-to-head according to polls of Labour members. The leadership, as one minister puts it, is “gearing up for a fight” and looking for “signs of disloyalty”. It has been reported that ministers would have to step down if they wanted to publicly back Burnham. A Starmerite MP tells The House that the Starmer operation is expecting further resignations on 19 June and has already drawn up lists of replacement options for those thought likely to quit.

Advertisement

If Starmer is still intent on running even after Healey quitting, and Burnham succeeds in Makerfield, the PM has two options, a frontbencher says: declare that rivals must “put up or shut up”, John Major-style, or hope to slow it all down and buy himself more time. “Well done on winning the by-election – now we must all get to work on the next by-election” with the implicit “…which your actions have triggered” is considered the more likely of the two.

One argument that has been advanced by Starmerites is that the May 2027 elections are set to be a dreadful set for Labour, given that the areas were last contested in 2023 – a particularly good year for the party – and Reform has not had a go at them yet. “You’re basically guaranteed four-figure losses for us and four-figure gains for Reform,” a Starmer backer said, suggesting therefore: “Let Keir lead us through those and allow him to bow out, having done three years in No 10.” Yet, put to them later that the crisis around defence spending makes this option far less tenable, they reply: “Indeed.”

While nobody in the Burnham camp who spoke to The House is willing to wait a year, some do believe that a degree of delay would be good – allowing for more prep, which could only be helpful to Burnham.

Preparing for government

Advertisement

Burnham’s focus has had to be on Makerfield, but those around him have been putting in the hours to prepare for No 10.

Ministers who have despaired over Starmer’s leadership but not, so far, made a move to assist in his downfall are anxious about what a Burnham premiership will mean – both for their own careers and the functioning of government. “My God, am I worried… The unseriousness of it. I think he really is a flip-flopper,” says one. Fearful that Burnham cannot make difficult decisions, they speculate he could be “Keir on steroids” but with better comms. Burnham’s recent comments on Waspi compensation have only deepened that anxiety.

The Labour left are worried too. “They need to be a lot bolder,” says a supportive Labour MP. “What he tried to do in Manchester on the Clean Air Zone, but then had to row back on because it was so disliked, is exactly the sort of stuff that he will need to do at a national level.”

The job of Burnham’s team is to address such concerns. They have already requested notes from serving ministers on their work, which has been taken as a sign of competence. And Burnham allies are a fairly broad church – the MPs closest to him, led by Louise Haigh and Anneliese Midgley, are even said to be taking a warm and constructive approach to Streeting’s camp. This breadth comes with internal tensions, however.

Advertisement

“He can do things on welfare that others can’t”

Alongside the Westminster/Manchester divide, there is the ‘Tribune/Mainstream’ split, with most core supporters being either members of the centre-left Tribune group of MPs or the new Labour left member organisation Mainstream.

There is a worry among members of the latter that they have been sidelined. When Neal Lawson, of Mainstream and older organisation Compass, spoke at a recent conference about beating Reform with a “progressive majority”, he was slapped down by a senior source in Burnham’s campaign team. “This is nothing to do with Andy’s campaign, it is a Compass project that does not represent Andy,” they told HuffPost UK. A Mainstream source says the discussion was not centred on electoral pacts but merely the sharing of ideas between progressive parties.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Josh Simons, the MP who gave up his seat for Burnham, has been described as first racking his brain to define Starmerism over at Labour Together and now doing the same for Burnhamism. Those involved in Mainstream say it has done the “heavy lifting” on policy. But it is Miatta Fahnbulleh, the former energy minister and close ally of Ed Miliband, who now holds the pen. Another soft left rising star from the 2024 intake, Yuan Yang, is understood to be feeding in.

There is much speculation over potential appointments by Burnham, should he gain power. The left side of Burnham’s camp would like to see a “clear out” on the frontbenches and figures such as Clive Lewis given jobs to ensure a radical approach to, say, the water industry. Others value some continuity.

Miliband is seen as a likely candidate for chancellor – while still serving as Energy Secretary, sources say he is involved in the minutiae of the Makerfield campaign – but this is not regarded as certain by all. More centrist voices, who prefer Streeting or even Pat McFadden, warn that lobby hacks would hate the move and it could become a distraction.

Haigh is tipped for a major post linked to the economy or industry, such as chief secretary to the Treasury, business or energy secretary. While one source tells The House Midgley has her eye on the Whips’ Office, The New Statesman has suggested that the trade union whisperer could be political secretary in No 10. It is said Angela Rayner could return to her previous roles of deputy prime minister and local government secretary.

Advertisement

Downing Street hires are thought likely to include chief of staff Kevin Lee and Simons, plus a range of ‘soft left’ staffers such as former Lisa Nandy aides Luke Francis (a potential director of political strategy) and Jade Azim, Co-operative Party assistant general secretary Caitlin Prowle and ex-Unite worker Jenny Killin. Also part of the younger crowd are Abby Tomlinson of ‘Milifandom’ fame and left-wing podcaster Ali Milani, both managing digital output in Makerfield.

From the Mainstream/Compass camp, ex-MP Jon Cruddas and young organiser Luke Hurst are key players as well as Lawson. An experienced figure further towards the centre-left could be former Labour chief operating officer John Lehal, who helped run Burnham’s 2015 leadership bid and has been spotted on the campaign trail.

There is no obvious pick for director of comms, though more junior posts are expected to be filled by people such as Miliband aide Grace Pritchard and former Sue Gray staffer Donjeta Miftari. On policy, Mat Lawrence of the Common Wealth think tank, Labour Growth Group director Mark McVitie and IPPR’s Zoe Billingham are all expected to wield influence.

Burnham’s popularity is such that some insiders believe he should frontload painful decisions while he still has the support, rather than hand out goodies at the start. The Starmer government did try the former approach, however, and it didn’t land well. “He can do things on welfare that others can’t,” a Blue Labour-aligned figure says hopefully. Whether Burnham would have the political will to do so remains to be seen. 

Advertisement

 

Advertisement

Source link

For nearly four years, Ken Salazar — the U.S. ambassador to Mexico under former President Joe Biden — grew increasingly frustrated with the White House’s border plan.

Salazar says he begged for a “border czar” to run point on interagency coordination; he never got one, and instead, the moniker was inaccurately and problematically affixed to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. He asked for the White House to openly call it a border “crisis”; the designation came too late.

Salazar became so distraught that by July 2024, three weeks after Biden’s disastrous presidential debate performance, he decided to take matters into his own hands: “I should run for president,” Salazar told himself, according to his forthcoming book, a copy of which POLITICO obtained before its July 28 release date.

“There was political failure to understand the reality of the crisis at the border, and the political consequence it would have on Democrats in the 2024 election,” Salazar told POLITICO.

Salazar doesn’t want his party to repeat the past. His book, Borderlands: My Fight for an Inclusive America, is part-memoir, part-manifesto. Salazar — the former Interior secretary, Democratic U.S. senator, and Colorado attorney general — makes a case for what he calls “a new North American alliance,” in which the U.S., Canada and Mexico integrate their supply chains, jointly patrol their shared borders and promote cultural and educational exchanges. He sees it as a revival of former President John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress.

But the book is also a warning to future 2028 Democratic presidential candidates.

Salazar is positioning himself as his party’s immigration whisperer, meeting with presidential hopefuls and pitching them on his “borderlands platform,” which says the U.S.’ borders are “broken” and “must be fixed.” He said in an interview that he’s already met with Arizona Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego about his plan, and he has a meeting scheduled with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. (Spokespeople for Kelly, Gallego and Pritzker did not respond to requests for comment.)

Salazar never followed through with his plan of running for president in 2024. Although he dialed up advisers and operatives and drafted out a platform, the Democratic Party did not hold a mini-primary to choose its new nominee after Biden dropped out. Instead, Biden hand-picked his successor, Harris — a decision Salazar calls a “mistake.”

Salazar writes that he consistently petitioned the White House to create a “border czar” position, allowing someone in Washington to run point on the interagency response to the immigration crisis. Harris, as vice president, had been tasked with addressing “root causes” of migration, and she devoted her efforts to addressing corruption in Central America. Salazar saw that as insufficient: “But sadly, her designation in this position was having no effect on migration flows,” he writes. He pressed several White House officials, and even Biden himself, to create the position. The designation never came.

“[Harris] had been placed in charge of getting at the ‘root causes’ of migration, but many felt she had been ineffective,” Salazar writes, suggesting perhaps she hadn’t been given enough authority or felt that taking more responsibility on the issue would be “political suicide.” “For whatever reason, she had been unable to help with the border and migration crisis, even though she’d sat next door to the Oval Office for almost four years.”

A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment, and a spokesperson for Harris did not respond to a request for comment.

Salazar’s book arrives at a moment when Americans view President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement with widespread pessimism. A POLITICO Poll in April showed that half of Americans — including one quarter of his 2024 voters — said Trump’s mass deportations campaign is too aggressive. But his border policy is still viewed favorably, and Americans still broadly trust Republicans over Democrats on immigration — a fact some Democrats chalk up to a “Biden hangover.”

It’s likely to kickstart a fresh round of recriminations within the Democratic Party, on the heels of former first lady Jill Biden’s new memoir detailing her husband’s exit from the 2024 campaign. Joe Biden is also expected to release a new book soon, though a spokesperson clarified that “the release date has not been finalized.”

Salazar, in his book, is candid about the failures of the previous administration — and how those shortcomings provided a window for Trump to ride a wave of voter frustration with immigration enforcement back into office.

His administration colleagues disappointed him on other fronts. In October 2023, when Mayorkas visited Mexico, Salazar notes he pushed him for a consistent, White House-driven message on the border crisis. (“We used the word ‘crisis’ freely and often,” Salazar writes, “even if at that time the White House refused to acknowledge it as such.”) Salazar claims Mayorkas told him: “Ken, I have a lot on my plate already. I’m about to be impeached for all this border stuff. The Republicans have it out for me.”

Mayorkas declined to comment about Salazar’s characterization.

Salazar’s consistent efforts, and failures, to garner buy-in from the White House on addressing the border crisis led him to question how seriously his Democratic colleagues took the issue and how well they understood the U.S.’ relationship with Mexico. “I’m not sure this administration knows what they’re doing,” Salazar told his wife at the tail end of Biden’s visit to Mexico in 2023.

Finally, in June 2024, Biden issued an executive order that effectively closed the southern border, which Salazar cheered as a success. “This should have been a moment of vindication — after all, American voters were demanding action on the border — but it was too late, and images of an out-of-control border would dominate the closing months of the presidential election,” Salazar writes. (Last month, Mayorkas also implied the Biden administration should have taken that action sooner.)

The border was “antiquated, under-resourced, underdeveloped, insecure, and broken,” Salazar adds. “In this, Trump had been correct.”

It’s a warning sign to Salazar’s party both in this year’s midterm cycle and in 2028: Downplay voters’ concerns on immigration and the border at your own peril.

Salazar’s hope is that the Democratic Party’s next standard-bearer will take up his “borderlands” platform, which places the impetus for border enforcement upon all three North American countries. If no one does, though, he isn’t closing the door on a run himself.

Asked three times by POLITICO if he’s considering a presidential bid in 2028, he demurred. “I can’t see the future beyond the reality that we have a November 2026 election, and a lot’s going to happen this year,” he said. “Looking ahead, I want this borderlands platform to be part of that agenda for the future.”

Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed.

Source link

Source link

Major banks are putting increasing amounts of money into fossil fuel. 2025 saw nearly $1tn of investment in fossil fuel companies, even as energy instability is deepening the global cost-of-living crisis.

The 17th edition of the Banking on Climate Chaos (BOCC) report finds that the world’s 65 largest banks committed $906bn to fossil fuel companies in 2025. This was an increase of 8% from the previous year.

Since the Paris Agreement a decade ago, these banks have channelled $8.7tn into oil, gas, and coal operations. The report is the world’s most comprehensive open-source dataset on fossil fuel financing by commercial banks.

The report finds that JPMorgan Chase remains the #1 fossil fuel financier in the world. It provided $58bn to fossil fuel companies in 2025, up 12.6% from 2024.

Bank of America ranks second at $47bn, and Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) ranks third at $47bn, a 21% increase in a single year.

The “Dirty Dozen”, the twelve largest fossil fuel banks, now provide nearly 40% of all global bank fossil fuel financing across approximately 2,000 banks worldwide.

Banks financing fossil fuel expansion

Financing for companies actively expanding fossil fuels surged 27% to $508bn in 2025. Any such expansion financing is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

US banks’ share of all global bank fossil fuel financing increased to 32%, up from 28% in 2021, and represents the single largest source of fossil capital in the world.

European banks show the clearest downward trend. BNP Paribas reduced fossil deals by 28%; UBS by 36%; La Caixa by 34%. Standard Chartered however increased its fossil fuel financing by 28%, Deutsche Bank by 20% and HSBC by 16%.

The report also highlights the limited impacts of voluntary climate commitments and the need for stronger regulatory measures. Following the collapse of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), banks accelerated their policy rollbacks.

Of the 15 North American banks in scope, 12 now have no meaningful fossil fuel commitments. JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs abandoned their coal and Arctic exclusions entirely, converting them into case-by-case due diligence standards.

The cost-of-living connection

The fossil energy crises of the 2020s, which are Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the 2026 US-Israeli war on Iran, show that fossil fuel dependence is a structural source of global instability.

Three-quarters of humanity lives in fossil-importing countries and bears the cost of every supply disruption. Following the Iran conflict and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, wholesale gas prices roughly doubled in the EU while emergency rationing spiralled throughout Southeast Asia.

Trends show that profits flow upward. 84% of US oil and gas excess profits from the Ukraine crisis went to the wealthiest 10% of individuals while everyone else paid the price. This pattern looks to be repeating itself in 2026.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

An irritable Nigel Farage has lashed out at Restore Britain and Elon Musk. And he’s got good reason to be angry, because it looks like the Reform breakaway party could prevent Farage from winning in Makerfield:

Let's see what happens next Thursday, shall we?

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) June 10, 2026

Reform, Restore, Retreat

In the clip above, Sky News’s Beth Rigby put the following to the hard-right leader:

When it comes to Makerfield, Restore are doing well here and it could really hurt you.

A tetchy Farage asked “are they?” before Rigby finished:

What’s Rupert Lowe got that it’s appealing to some people over you?

Farage answered:

Elon Musk

While a couple of people laughed, he didn’t look amused.

I thought his answers on this were very strange, given he must have known the question was going to be asked. Was his opportunity to reach out to Restore voters. Chose to have a dig at Lowe and Musk instead. https://t.co/brGPB5NsmV

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) June 10, 2026

If you’re unfamiliar with what’s going on, the story is that Musk decided Nige wasn’t hardline enough when Lowe was still a member of Reform, saying:

The Reform Party needs a new leader. Farage doesn’t have what it takes.

Around the same time, Musk decided Lowe was the man to replace Farage:

I have not met Rupert Lowe, but his statements online that I have read so far make a lot of sense https://t.co/bxHaigf3A1

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 5, 2025

Lowe did not end up becoming the leader of Reform UK, because Farage threw him out of the party. Instead, Lowe would later establish Restore Britain, with Musk throwing his weight behind it:

Join Rupert Lowe in Restore Britain, because he is the only one who will actually do it! https://t.co/sa5VkSRWXD

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 14, 2026

The confused and possibly ketamine-addled Musk has also said things like this:

NEW: Elon Musk has accused Reform UK of being "Nazis" and wanting "race extinction" pic.twitter.com/fQuh0FoIdZ

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) February 18, 2026

Since then, Farage has accused Lowe of being “one man with a social media account”. And it certainly seems to be the case that Lowe does get a boost to his reach on X/Twitter. As Rose Cocker wrote for the Canary:

Since launching Restore back in February, ten of Lowe’s X posts have received over 10-million views. Meanwhile, whilst Farage has over three times Lowe’s follower count, none of his posts have reached a similar mark.

While Farage may be correct to say Restore began as one spiteful man with a Twitter addiction, it’s certainly something more than that now:

Jut for fairness, this does reflect what I found in Makerfield. Restore have much more of a presence on the ground than I was anticipating. Have to see if they can sustain it. But it's real. https://t.co/Vr43DKeHZa

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 23, 2026

Advertisement

Unbeliever

In the clip at the top, Farage continued:

Most people here who say Restore, and by the way it’s not a very big percentage, most people here would not recognise a photograph of him.

For reference, this is what the polls are saying:

POLL | Burnham expands lead in Makerfield:

Lab: 49% (+6)
Ref: 39% (-1)
Res: 8% (+1)
Grn: 2% (-1)
Lib: 1% (-3)
Con: 1% (-1)

Via @Survation, 1 June (+/- vs 22 May) pic.twitter.com/IXTHwUTabh

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) June 5, 2026

Is Restore’s polling good enough to suggest they could win?

Absolutely not.

But is it big enough to stop Reform winning?

Roughly, yeah, it is.

Here’s how Farage finished:

This is stuff that pops up on their phones. That has been the problem with it. I do not believe for a moment it will last.

This is Farage scolding would-be Reform voters. And it shows he’s genuinely pissed off. But what did he expect?

Splitsville

As we reported, the far-right split isn’t happening because of a personal beef between Lowe and Farage. It’s happening because of the growing contradictions between Reform UK’s rhetoric and its actions:

As an example of this, take Zia Yusuf. Yusuf is one of Reform’s most prominent politicians, and he’s constantly arguing that white people are the most oppressed group in the UK…

If you’re a far-right voter who buys into this, why would you vote for the party with Zia Yusuf and Suella Braverman in it? Why wouldn’t you vote for the all-white Restore Britain, which is more obviously following through on Reform’s propaganda?

In other words, Restore is doing to Reform what Reform did to the Tories, and Nigel is getting a taste of his own medicine. This is somewhat ironic, too, given that Nige is something of an anti-vaxxer.

Featured image via Ryan Jenkinson / Leon Neal / Win McNamee (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

On 11 June, Met Police chief Sir Mark Rowley appeared on Sky News to discuss the Belfast ‘race-based pogroms,’ following a horrific stabbing attack days earlier.

Far-right politicians and pundits, with the help of tech mogul Elon Musk, love nothing more than turning tragedy into a PR stunt. They whip up fear and hate across the UK towards Black and Brown people. Meanwhile, white supremacist thugs have taken to the streets of Belfast, setting fire to the homes and terrorising local residents. It is clear that the situation in Belfast has implications far beyond the city’s limits.

When asked about the racist pogroms, Rowley turned the conversation antisemitism. Even when Muslim homes in Belfast have been targeted by white rioters, our institutions insist antisemitism is the main concern. 

Rowley even took the opportunity to criticise Russia and Iran — but made no mention of Israel’s genocide. This, once again, exposes the well documented hierarchy of racism in the UK.

Asked about Belfast Mark Rowley talks about people overseas whipping up division to create disorder & he specifically mentions Russian & Iranian state actors

Its not Russia & Iran orchestrating the far right violence we're seeing, but Rowley has a job to do & he's doing it pic.twitter.com/KCMcDd2GLY

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 11, 2026

Protests or racist riots?

When asked whether the chaos counted as protests or riots, Rowley deflected (on script), pointing to foreign threats — Russia and Iran. Israel’s influence, and the UK government’s complicity, went entirely unmentioned.

Rowley described the violence as “violent disorder” and blamed overseas bot farms for “whipping up sentiment” on the streets of Belfast. Yet in doing so, he avoided acknowledging the racialised nature of the attacks or the fear felt by Belfast’s Black and Brown communities. This is a pattern we’ve seen before — downplaying Islamophobia at home by obsessing over ‘external’ threats.

Sophie Ridge: Would you describe what we think in Belfast as protests or riots?

Rowland: I was watching a bit of news last night, I can’t remember what channel it was, but these protesters, I thought, that isn’t protest. That isn’t protest. People are setting fire to cars.

That’s not protest. That’s violent disorder, that’s criminality. I really feel for the police service in N Ireland, I think it’s really difficult. We live in these volatile times and we have a lot of um, some of what goes on online whips up sentiment on the street, isn’t it?

Advertisement

Ridge: That’s interesting you say about some of the things that happen online whip up sentiments on the street. What do you mean by that? Is that what we’re seeing now?

Rowland: I think that’s definitely a factor in it. And so, I’m not just talking about polarised debate in this country, on the sort of Southport riots we saw evidence of bot farms overseas being part of the things that were whipping up sentiments here. That’s really dangerous.

We know that there are Russian state actors, Iranian state actors They want to sow discord on the streets of the UK. So, this is a really complex issue we’re wrestling with.

Sophy Ridge: "Are these racist riots rather than protests?"

Hilary Benn: "Well if you are targeting people on the basis of the colour of their skin how else can you describe them? That is racist thuggery, theres no question about it at all" pic.twitter.com/XBGBtQwdgW

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 11, 2026

Undermining democracy

Shortly after, Ridge asked about social media’s role in attempts to “undermine democracy” in the UK. Ironically, Rowley warned about disinformation — while rewriting the story himself. Many of these conversations now circle back to current divides in Belfast.

Rowland: I haven’t looked at the details, but I think the government minister was talking about, sort of, changing their policy on disinformation and things online, which is a really sensitive area though, isn’t it, because on the one hand, of course no one wants foreign states creating disorder on the streets of the UK. But also, you don’t want to suppress free speech within the UK.

And I’m sure that’s the government’s intent, but it’s a really hard thing to do. But this is the complex world we’re operating in where people overseas can have a dangerous effect on the country.

Despite widespread reporting of the horrific violence against Muslim communities — which SDLP leader Claire Hanna has labelled a “race-based pogrom” — Rowley described the attacks as “horrific,” before predictably shifting to antisemitism.

Rowley: So, I only know what I’ve seen on the media, but as it’s reported, it seems that some of those fires have been targeted at, sort of, Black and other minorities. That’s horrific. And that’s not just sort of mindless disorder that’s targeted at minorities. That’s a really frightening issue.

We’ve been wrestling in London with hate crime issues, particularly the most intense issues being aimed at Jewish communities. And that’s both, sort of, um, on-street hate crime issues between communities, where Jews face the highest levels of any community.

But on top of that, some of that is driven by a threat from the Iranian state, and that’s why we’re putting more protection around them. That illustrates that tension again about local issues and global issues.

Advertisement

"I read an interview with 2 care workers who were in their house, in the flames.. it was a local vicar who managed to.. talk to the people outside to get them to pause to allow these two women to escape. How is that meant to make you feel in your home? Its absolutely unspeakable" pic.twitter.com/qdMPbtTv2L

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 11, 2026

Doublespeak

Once again, a white official seeks to blame Brown people even as they live in fear across the UK.

Islamophobia has surged 377 percent, which is almost double the rise in antisemitism. Tell Mama, a Muslim-focused monitoring charity, recorded 6,000 anti-Muslim hate incidents in 2024 alone. “Unite the Kingdom” rallies and divisive debates over migration have made things worse, and an estimated 80 percent of anti-Muslim hate crimes go unreported.

Time and again, UK officials sideline Islamophobia while elevating antisemitism, often using it to shut down anti-Zionist or anti-genocide criticism. Belfast is now a focal point for this debate.

This is the hierarchy of racism in action, and it needs to be called out.

Featured image via Charles McQuillan / Getty Images

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

On 9 June, an uprising of far-right agitators took to the streets of Belfast. These white rioters burned vehicles and houses, fought with the police, and targeted the homes and businesses of people of colour. According to GB News host Bev Turner, however, you wouldn’t call this a “riot”:

A GB News presenter repeatedly insists "there weren't riots" in Belfast last night…

This is what GB News advertisers are aligning with pic.twitter.com/lHAiC1SJO3

— Stop Funding Hate (@StopFundingHate) June 10, 2026

Shocking from GB News

We’re not sure who Bev Turner’s guest was, but the interview on GB News went like this:

Turner: There weren’t riots, there weren’t riots, there weren’t people marauding through the streets with pitchforks.

Frankenstein’s monster wasn’t there either, but these aren’t factors we use to define what a ‘riot’ is in the 21st century.

Guest: There was a house set on fire, Beverley. There was a house set on fire. We’ve seen numerous pictures of fires ablaze in Belfast. This is disgraceful, violent behaviour that is-

Turner: But there aren’t bodies piled up in hospitals tonight, Matthew.

Guest: Someone’s house being burnt down in a riot is not that dramatic? What are you saying, Bev? What words are you allowing out of your mouth?

Turner: There was no riot. There was no riot. There was no riot. There is not a house that has been burnt down. There are no riots. The police aren’t even reporting riots.

Okay, so here’s a video of a house being burned down in Belfast:

The rioters have set a house on fire in Belfast. pic.twitter.com/N7o8KpFtyb

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) June 9, 2026

Here are some more:

Families Flee As Belfast Homes Burn In Night Of Disorder pic.twitter.com/PXw01150XX

— A Troubled Land | Media | Archive | News – ATL (@ATroubledLand) June 10, 2026

Here is the aftermath:

In June 1920, Mussolini sent squadrismo to border towns to "cleanse" them of the Slavic "eternal barbarian." The fascists burned down buildings and attacked any apparent racial "other" for the "health of the nation." This border fascism pioneered other forms of fascist violence https://t.co/mujhKsuUj0

— John Duncan (@Johntheduncan) June 11, 2026

Still not convinced it was technically a ‘riot’?

What if we told you the police have been charging the men who rampaged across Belfast with the crime of ‘rioting’?

And this is the key factor in the legal definition of what constitutes a riot:

Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

You can read the rest of the law here; we assure you there is nothing about pitchforks.

The rancid Bev Turner

Turner is the GB News host who notoriously gave sexual abuser Donald Trump the softest of softball interviews. As such, it’s unsurprising to see her defending the honour of racist rioters.

At the same time, it is shocking seeing her trying to get away with blatant lies like ‘no house burnt down’. And it’s a sign GB News knows the toothless Ofcom will never pull them up on their misinformation.

Featured image via Kate Green (Getty Images) / Charles McQuillan (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Indian PM Modi thanked Trump for his congratulatory wishes on becoming India’s longest-serving Prime Minister despite the US having attacked Indian seafarers near the Gulf of Oman.

The post by PM Modi showed the Indian government’s alliance with the US-Israel axis.

Thank you, President Trump, for your warm wishes.

I look forward to working with you to further advance the India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership, for the benefit of both our nations and the world.@POTUS@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/4W09WzT4Ju

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) June 10, 2026

Advertisement

Earlier in a post on X, CENTCOM said a U.S. aircraft fired precision munitions into the ship’s engine room late June 9 after the crew “repeatedly failed to comply” with American instructions, claiming the tanker was carrying Iranian oil in violation of its blockade. The vessel was Palau-flagged MT Settebello.

Of the 24 Indian crew members onboard, 21 Indians have been rescued, and the missing three were, however unfortunately, confirmed dead on Thursday.

https://t.co/YgShlznGPQ

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 10, 2026

Modi, who has yet to mourn the loss of Indian lives, has, however, thanked the President, under whose command Indians were killed. Though India summoned the U.S. charge d’affaires to protest the U.S. military attack on the ship.

Three ships with Indian sailors attacked in four days

On Thursday, a third vessel with Indian sailors was attacked by Trump’s military.

MT Jalveer, a commercial vessel with Indian sailors on board, was attacked off Oman’s coast, India’s Times Now reported. The vessel has 20 Indian seafarers on board, and all of them are reported to be safe.

This brings the tally of vessels attacked by the US with Indian sailors in the past four days up to three.  US had attacked the vessel Marivex, on Tuesday. in which all 24 Indian crew members were rescued safely.

“Shameless subservience” from Modi

Communist Party of India (Marxist) slammed the Indian Ministry of External Affairs statement on Wednesday which failed to name the USA as the perpetrator of the attacks as “shameless subservience” to the USA.

They condemned the “illegal US attack and the Government’s complete abdication of India’s sovereignty and duty to protect Indian citizens.”

US imperialism strikes again. US forces attack a commercial oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, killing 3 Indian sailors in cold blood. This is the second such attack reported within two days.
Yet the MEA’s statement doesn’t even name the US as the perpetrator! While Indian lives are…

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) June 11, 2026

Communist Party of Indian  ML said that India was paying a price for mortgaging its autonomy to interests of the US-Israel axis.

PM Modi’s “my dear friend President Trump” led US forces kill 3 Indian seafarers.

This is the price India is paying for mortgaging India’s strategic autonomy and national interests to the US-Israel axis. https://t.co/sVyvhKO8HW pic.twitter.com/6nE59bzgRW

Advertisement

— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) June 11, 2026

India is one of the largest countries of origin for military-related goods entering Israel. It is currently negotiating trade deals with both USA and Israel. Modi has consistenly also called Trump and Netanyahu his friends.

Thanking Trump for warm wishes while Indian sailors are dying — “shameless subservience” from Modi, indeed.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

John Healey resigned on Thursday over Starmer’s plans for military spending (Alamy)

4 min read5 min

A former Labour defence secretary has warned Keir Starmer that his credibility “will be shot” if he doesn’t rethink military spending plans in the wake of John Healey’s resignation.

Advertisement

In an interview with PoliticsHome, Lord Hutton, who was defence secretary between 2008 and 2009 under former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, described Healey’s resignation on Thursday as a “colossal failure of government” and said that the UK should be “ashamed”.

Healey, a major Starmer loyalist, announced his resignation from cabinet earlier today, warning that the government’s planned military spending is not enough to keep the country safe. He singled out the Treasury for criticism, saying it was “unwilling” to “commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats”.

Responding to the news, Hutton said Healey’s resignation “represents a colossal failure of government over the last period of time” and that the Starmer administration had “completely failed” to respond to growing global threats to UK security.

Advertisement

The former defence secretary, who was a Labour MP for nearly two decades, said that the reported spending plans would make “the task of his [Healey’s] successor extremely difficult”, adding that if the government sticks to the current position, the next defence secretary will struggle with a “huge credibility problem”. Healey’s replacement had not been confirmed at the time of writing.

Hutton told PoliticsHome that the government will need to combine further borrowing with cuts to other departments, including welfare, to fund the necessary increase to defence spending.

“This is all about deterrence. It’s about preserving the peace, not putting the peace at risk,” he said.

Advertisement

Hutton said he was “utterly frustrated” that the Labour government seemed “to be completely unable to address” the issue, adding that he hoped Healey’s resignation “will force a rethink on the part of senior ministers”.

“It will have to be rethought,” Hutton later added, “otherwise, the government’s entire credibility will be shot.”

Hutton warned that he did not believe the UK was currently fulfilling its obligation under Article 3 of NATO, which states that members should be able to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack”. 

“I don’t think we’re discharging that article three obligation right now.”

PoliticsHome previously revealed concerns among defence figures, including former ministers, that the UK was not capable of defending itself from attack.

Advertisement

“I just don’t think we’re meeting our NATO commitment, and we need to be able to hold our head high in the NATO council, and on our current policies, we should be ashamed,” Hutton told PoliticsHome.

The government had been expected to publish its long-awaited Defence Investment Plan (DIP) in the coming days after months of delay due to uncertainty about where the funding for such an investment would come from. 

The PM and Chancellor Rachel Reeves are under pressure to significantly increase defence spending in response to global threats to the UK. Last year, the Prime Minister pledged to raise military spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, with the ambition of increasing that figure to 3 per cent in the next parliament.

In his letter of resignation to Starmer, Healey said the DIP financial settlement, which he was first given in full on Monday afternoon, “falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time”. 

Advertisement

“The extra support is backloaded when the pressure of operations and imperative to speed up readiness to fight is in the first two years and it rises to just 2.58 per cent of GDP in 2030, when we will reach 2.6 per cent next year with the investment we are already making,” implying that Starmer had offered Healey just a 0.08 per cent rise in spending.

 

Source link

On January 11th, I was standing in the driveway to HMP New Hall with a small group of protesters who had walked up the drive half an hour earlier. A blue bib PLO arrived.

He ushered me over, secretively, trying to minimise the interaction. I walked over.

How did you even hear about this?

He asked me incredulously.

Barely a week prior, on the 3rd, I watched a woman with a baby stand metres away from people being pepper sprayed after more than 100 activists from across the country descended on the prison to demand the release of hunger striker Heba Muraisi and her transfer back to HMP Bronzefield.

Days later, on the 8th, when activists returned, a line of police stretched out across the bottom of the drive – no one made it any further that day; clearly, tactics would have to be re-evaluated.

For weeks prior to this, successful prison blockades had been launched in secret, catching guards, residents and staff unaware. It was quite a sight to behold – a small group of committed rabble rousers standing on the driveway while a half mile of parked cars snaked up the hill behind them, their headlights twinkling like Christmas lights through the trees, waiting for shift change. The governor thought he was in control, but suddenly it was the people who decided when their shifts started and ended. Whether people could come or go was no longer in their control. A poignant message to the government machine that was employed to stop just 24 people from being able to come and go as they pleased.

You still don’t understand this do you?

I replied…

this is just people; friends, family, colleagues – people talking round dinner tables. You can’t stand on this movement and if you try then they are just going to find new ways to do this. These people are going to keep coming back until that woman gets to walk out of those gates

Covering the hunger strike changed my life. Watching individuals be held on remand, having their rights abused in ways that I could not imagine being possible in a modern democracy in the West… I remember saying to people, I must have written it somewhere – if this was happening in any other country – imagine if this was happening in Russia…

David Lammy would have been standing on the news condemning it full-throatily, but instead, we had him running through corridors trying to pretend he didn’t know what the rest of us were standing outside shouting about. I grew up bathed in liberalism; the idea that the state, the police, the machinations of the society we lived in were made to help, guide and protect us.

It wasn’t just Gaza that got me to where I am now. It’s more complicated than that.

I care about the Palestinian cause because I remember growing up watching it. I remember adults I loved telling me that it was justified in all sorts of ways that never made sense to a child watching other children hide from tanks inside bombed-out buildings or under slabs of concrete. But I haven’t got skin in the game. I don’t have a connection to the land. Like so many people reading this, I am here because I cannot help but be. But I have the privilege of stepping back when this becomes too much. So many people are here precisely because they don’t have that privilege.

The anger that grew in me during the hunger strike wasn’t about Israel, it wasn’t about Palestine, and it wasn’t about Gaza or the West Bank for me directly. But it was about watching this country, my country, the country that told me my whole life it was something, turn around and show me that it was everything that it had ever told me that it wasn’t. The only people who had any hand whatsoever over the way this has totally transformed people politically, they are the people making these decisions in government. As Emma Kamio, mother of Ellie, said to me recently;

The government has radicalised me

I think a lot of people I have met this year feel the same way.

It’s nearly 6 months on now, and what HMP New Hall finally began to understand, the state still does not.

Of course, the hunger strike is over; they all eventually stopped – Kam, Qesser, T, Heba are on bail waiting for their trials, while Amu Gib, Lewie, Jon, and Umer Khalid remain on remand. But the government has not stopped.

Let’s seriously ask ourselves – what kind of country do we live in where a disabled man is being forced to drag himself across the floor to use a toilet? Let’s be crystal clear as well: Umer Khalid did not crawl into prison. He walked. The intentional neglect of the UK prison service has cost this man the use of his legs.

The state has refused Umer the medical care and attention that he has both desperately needed and that he has been legally entitled to receive. A wheelchair that won’t fit in the corridor or through the cell door. Unable to shower for 26 days due to no shower chair being provided. Umer has been abused by the state since the first moment he entered the prison system.

It’s not enough to beat him, to take away his Quran; no. Take away every vestige of dignity possible – it’s the only way to make him pay for having a conscience. It’s not enough to refuse urgent medical care until entire limbs are rendered useless. We must force him to drag himself with one good arm across his prison cell. And when he once again falls and injures his one good arm and shoulder – the only limb he has to navigate life with? He’s left in his cell, unable to use the toilet for over 24 hours. When a fire alarm goes off, we evacuate the entire building and leave him behind.

Now, finally in hospital, several reports state that doctors fear for his safety if he is forced to return to Wormwood Scrubs. The state treats literal paedophiles with more care and dignity than they have treated these humans.

Because showing these people humanity is beyond the state. In 2026, we can call someone a terrorist and watch their humanity wither and die in front of our eyes.

The entire saga of these prosecutions has been harrowing for those involved. Many defendants were whisked away in the middle of the night – one mother thought her child had been kidnapped by a squad of black bloc ballyed up psychopaths. They cut through the doors and they put her in an unmarked van and disappeared her. The police told the mother to ring round the hospitals and morgues.

It was two weeks before they let her know her daughter was alive and in police custody. This wasn’t an isolated case. Other defendants told of being arrested with multiple officers pointing guns at their heads. Twenty to thirty officers swarming into family homes at dawn with loaded weapons. Multiple defendants have told me how, after they were already handcuffed, officers continued to go round the house destroying possessions, smashing up homes.

How do we justify treating people this way?

There’s so much I could say or write about all this – but I know that no one individual in this case would want me to. It’s never been about them. I cannot count how many phone calls I have listened to outside prisons, how many statements I have read – how many times I have heard these voices I have come to recognise.

Every time they chose to centre the Palestinian people and their cause. 2 months without food – so long that there was no hunger, only pain left, and all they could do was think of Palestine. It’s the thing that makes me love them all so much. One recently told me that;

If you make the action about yourself then it was destined to failure from the start.

These brave humans are willing to go to prison for what they believe, and even then, that’s still not enough for this corrupt government. They want more blood from the stone.

Tomorrow, on the 12th of June, the first 4 of the Filton 25 will be sentenced. A jury already refused to convict them on certain charges. So, the state wasn’t willing to let the people on the jury make that decision again. It had to bring them back, to rig the system further, to gag them and their lawyers. To force a jury to convict without ever implicitly stating it. And now that it has managed its most recent ghastly magic trick, we are sitting, all waiting with bated breath, to see what comes next.

At the sentencing, we will find out whether this so-called terrorism link will be applied to this case. The judge argued during the trial that by dismantling Elbit machinery in the UK, the group was aiming to influence the Israeli government.

By denying them access to weaponry. During a genocide.

They weren’t even trying to challenge or influence their own government. They had already tried that;

We tried every democratic means available to us, including demonstrations, fundraisers, encampments, petitions, writing to MPs, stickers leading to Amnesty International information about the apartheid, vigils, arms factory pickets, the list goes on… none of it worked.

From Zoe Rogers’ closing arguments

This wasn’t about influencing anyone – 800,000 people marching, 3000 plus arrests at Defend our Juries protests. That was an attempt to influence. None of that definitively worked. As the wonderful Lisa Luxx from the Free The Filton 25 Defence Committee pointed out in a speech outside The Old Bailey for the, then Brize Norton 5 bail hearings;

Civil disobedience and direct action are two different things… Civil disobedience is usually a large public disruption so you can engage with decision makers. Direct action believes you are the decision maker.

This was (and remains) about making it financially unviable for these factories to operate in this country. Colonialism doesn’t just happen in Kashmir or in Sudan or in the stacks of rubble heaped up in Gaza. Imperialism doesn’t just exist in the mind’s eye in far-flung places many of us will never see. It’s happening all around us, and we are all complicit.

Elbit didn’t have to come to court to defend itself against the accusations that it produces 85% of the drones and land-based weapons that have helped level Gaza. It can’t do that in court. It’s only in the Murdoch-owned media where you can still lie with impunity and without repercussions.

It didn’t need to come to court to provide a breakdown of the weapons that these people broke down. It could account for the weight of every sledgehammer used, to the individual gram, but it couldn’t justify a penny of the damage that it was claimed was caused. It can’t come to court to explain that this research and development lab was shipping out weapons not available for sale, for testing. It doesn’t want to have to explain that the testing site is the world’s largest store of rubble, where people are still shot for crossing invisible lines that exist in the head of a soldier with a sniper rifle half a mile away. The test subjects: women and children.

The legislation being used to apply this terrorism link is based upon the notion that extreme and serious property damage can constitute terrorism. It was introduced after the IRA bombed the Arndale Centre in Manchester in 1996. It caused hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage. This is abuse of power. Plain and simple. Counter-terror legislation should not be used to terrorise traumatised communities who have reacted in the only way that was left available to them after years of resistance to a genocide being played out on their phones in real time.

You might think that, reading this, I am clearly emotionally involved. And I am. There is no denying that. One of the things I often think about in this job is impartiality – what is it? Is it about remaining steadfast in the middle of the road? Should I pretend that the government has a valid point of view in all this? Should I say that, no, it’s okay that the judge didn’t tell the jury about the plans to target these individuals with a terrorist connection? If he told the court that two and two make five, should I be reporting that now? I have gone to protests where there were no other journalists, and then gone home and seen reports the next day from three different people telling three different stories, none of them reporting the facts of what actually went down. Impartiality doesn’t exist – it’s a thin veneer that people hide behind to tell the story they want to tell.

I am not impartial; I think what is happening is wrong. It is an abuse of power so gross and so egregious that it has robbed me of the faith I once had in the system.

What is happening to these individuals is everything that is wrong with this system, packaged up into a little box and neatly wrapped in a bow. It is demonstrably wrong and I will not stop saying that over and over again until someone finally stops to listen. It doesn’t end with this sentencing. The power to create and make change lies in the hands of elected politicians in Parliament. While we sat and listened to those politicians speak to a crowd that filled Pall Mall during the Nakba commemoration march this year, someone said to me;

Imagine if all these people kept walking, all the way to the gates of those factories… imagine what they could achieve

The power to influence and coerce these politicians remains, as always, in the streets. It is in our hands and we can all choose to leverage that power whenever we decide to realise that. When we decide to organise, to mobilise and to help create a real change in this country that we can all be proud of.

I look forward to seeing many of you at Woolwich tomorrow morning where crowds will be gathering from 10am to remind the powers that be of this fact.

No matter what happens tomorrow, these people will not be forgotten. This won’t stop anything. It won’t stop the marches; it won’t stop the protests. It won’t stop me from walking up another prison drive in the dark to document people banging on the gates. It’s only going to breathe fresh life into the movement.

This will not stop people from taking direct action against Elbit, against Rafael, Leonardo or any of these companies which prop up the Israeli government and which profit from genocide on the other side of the globe.

You cannot tread on this and expect it to stop. It doesn’t work like that. I urge the government to please think twice.

Charlotte Head. Sam Corner. Ellie Kamio. Fatema Zainab Rajwani. These people are not terrorists.

Featured image via the Canary

By Barold

Source link