Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
🚫 GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING

Politics

Ireland’s explosive data centre growth triggers shocking rise in electricity bills

Published

on

Ireland

Ireland

A new report has revealed the whopping tax levied on households in Ireland due to runaway data centre expansion — a massive €715 million extra on electricity bills from 2015-2023. Not only that, the document published by Friends of the Earth Ireland (FOTEI) projects that between 2025-2034, bill payers are:

set to face an additional €1.43 billion in electricity bills linked to data centre growth.

It also highlights how those least able to pay are hit, stating that:

…the poorest households in Ireland paid an extra €209 on electricity bills between 2021 and 2023 due to data centre growth.

The cost primarily stems from data centres sucking up vast amounts of energy, 24 hours a day. This means fossil gas is used more frequently to cover any potential gap in grid capacity.

Gas is prone to price shocks, and the report cites the Russia-Ukraine war and the illegal US-‘Israeli’ assault on Iran as recent examples of how fossil fuel prices can suddenly skyrocket. The €1.43 billion figure mentioned above could hit €1.6 billion if there is similar volatility in the coming decade.

Advertisement

The report elaborates, saying:

Ireland is one of [the] most gas-reliant countries in the EU to produce electricity—this reliance also means the price of fossil gas is the key determinant of electricity prices in Ireland. Ireland’s reliance on imported oil and gas means that our energy bills are affected by every instance of war, political instability and price shocks.

FOTEI argue:

What we need is real energy independence, powered by renewables, which will bring down our energy bills – not a further dependence on dirty, expensive fossil fuels brought about by data centre expansion.

Ireland — Data centres gobbling up renewable capacity

Unfortunately, data centres have been devouring “almost all new renewables capacity”. The report describes them:

…“cannibalising” renewable energy, slowing down electrification and clean energy for everyone else.

Ireland has a vast data centre presence compared to other countries. FOTEI explain that they:

Advertisement

…currently consume more than 22% of electricity in Ireland and this is projected to rise to 30% by 2030.

Even the United States, which people perhaps associate most strongly with data centre rollouts, only uses between 4-6%, depending on varying estimates. The Republic of Ireland has 121 data centres already, with a population of just over five million people. As reported by the Canary previously, the government plans to massively expand that number.

Friends of the Earth Ireland point out some of the policies people might actually want, using that potential $1.6 billion going on inflated bills. They suggest the money:

…could otherwise be spent on essential needs like food, housing, childcare, retrofitting, transport etc. Instead, households are subsidising an energy-guzzling industry dominated by some of the wealthiest tech corporations in the world.

The €1.6 billion that data centre growth in Ireland will likely drain from households through higher electricity bills is equivalent to more than four times the amount allocated by the Government in Budget 2026 to provide fully funded upgrades for those in energy poverty.

Big Tech destroying Irish sovereignty

The reason behind the data centre boom is Ireland’s dependence on foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly from large US tech firms who build these data centres. Their presence in Ireland is the result of the country’s policy of very low corporate tax rates.

Advertisement

This stance helps to entrench unaccountable corporate power worldwide, as it triggers a race to the bottom on corporate levies. Nations scramble to offer the lowest rate and attract large firms to their doorstep. This means the big multinationals keep more of their profits, and the public gets less.

It essentially amounts to Ireland surrendering much of its sovereignty. It can’t do anything these corporations — or the corporate-controlled US state — don’t like.

In 2024, the government appeared to be taking steps towards passing the Occupied Territories Bill (OTB). This legislation would have limited trade with the genocidal entity known as ‘Israel’. The US ambassador threatened “consequences”, mentioning “1,000 US companies operating in Ireland”. 90 minutes later Taoiseach Micheál Martin announced the OTB was under review.

Similarly, Ireland is being pushed to integrate slowly into NATO due to its now crucial role as a hub of digital infrastructure. The Irish population backs neither support for the Zionist entity, nor increased militarism.

Advertisement

Industry lobby fails to convince

Digital Infrastructure Ireland, which claims to be the “collective voice of Ireland’s digital infrastructure ecosystem“, has given an unconvincing response to the report. Chair Maurice Mortell accused Friends of the Earth Ireland of “just trying to sow division in society”.

Campaigners against injustices in capitalist economies don’t need to sow division — that division is inherent to a system that creates a fundamental split in society. A chasm between those who own infrastructure like data centres, and those who do not. The owners accumulate enormous wealth and political power, while the rest of us see the natural world devastated by climate-wrecking, unsustainable energy use. To add insult to injury, we then have to pick up the bill too.

Featured image via IrishTimes

By Robert Freeman

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Mbappe and the Champions League curse: Paris rules Europe after his departure

Published

on

Mbappe

Mbappe

For years, the European project of Paris Saint-Germain was inextricably linked to the name Kylian Mbappe. Since joining the club in 2017, the French striker became the most prominent face of the Parisian dream in the UEFA Champions League, while the club’s management spent billions in an effort to finally win the trophy that had eluded them.

During that period, rumors constantly linked Mbappe with Real Madrid, a club historically synonymous with the continental competition. While Paris sought to retain its star to complete its European ambitions, the player continued to view a transfer to the Spanish capital as the quickest route to achieving his ultimate dream: winning the Champions League.

Real Madrid collects trophies

Before Mbappe’s arrival, Real Madrid continued to assert its European dominance, successfully winning the Champions League in both the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 seasons, reaffirming its status as the competition’s primary benchmark.

In the summer of 2024, the anticipated transfer finally materialized, with Mbappe joining Real Madrid amid expectations that he would be a decisive addition to a team accustomed to standing on the European podium. The scenario seemed clear at the time: the player left Paris in pursuit of the trophy, and Real Madrid had all the ingredients to continue its continental domination. However, football was concealing a completely different script.

Advertisement

Paris dominates europe after Mbappe’s departure

After Mbappe exited the scene, Paris Saint-Germain successfully broke the historical curse that had plagued them for years, triumphing in the Champions League final in the 2024–2025 season. They then repeated the feat in the 2025–2026 season, securing two consecutive titles that the club and its fans had long awaited.

Conversely, Real Madrid found themselves far from the podiums during the two seasons following the French star’s arrival, finishing both of those last two seasons without any silverware—a paradox that is difficult to ignore.

From the Bernabeu dream to fan pressure

Kylian Mbappe’s struggles in his final season with Real Madrid were not limited to results; they extended to his relationship with a segment of the fanbase that began to hold him partially responsible for the team’s decline and two consecutive trophy-less seasons.

As criticism escalated, an online campaign titled “Mbappe Out” spread, demanding the French star’s departure from the club. It achieved widespread traction on social media, garnering nearly 30 million signatures according to international media reports.

Advertisement

Thus, the player found himself in a position he never expected upon moving to the Santiago Bernabéu. Instead of leading the new project toward European glory, he became a target for criticism and campaigns demanding his exit, all while Paris Saint-Germain was writing the most successful chapters of its continental history after his departure.

Featured image via Lars Baron/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Watch: Netherlands police thug brutally flings pregnant Palestinian woman backwards to floor

Published

on

Netherlands

Netherlands

A Netherlands police thug has been caught on camera viciously throwing a visibly pregnant Palestinian asylum-seeker backwards to the floor in an unprovoked attack. Several other officers stood by and did nothing to prevent the attack or to restrain the thug afterward. The attack was perpetrated on 29 May 2026 in an asylum centre in Zeist, near Amsterdam. It is yet another example of European state brutality toward refugees and and anti-genocide activists:

Netherlands — Early birth

The video quickly went viral. The woman had approached police to ask to be allowed to remain with her husband during detention. She showed no sign of any aggression, yet Netherlands police tried to claim they were dealing with a knife attack. Her husband was badly beaten as he tried to defend his wife.

The violence triggered the victim’s labour and she gave birth to a baby girl, who is reported to be stable. Netherlands authorities claim to be investigating the attack.

Featured image via Dean Mouhtaropoulos/Getty Images

Advertisement

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Kemi Badenoch says future Tories will all be ‘C words’

Published

on

Kemi Badenoch in front of Tory supporters

Kemi Badenoch in front of Tory supporters

Kemi Badenoch has argued that the next generation of Conservatives need to be C words. If you’re thinking ‘aren’t they already?‘, we can explain:

Advertisement

Kemi Badenoch — Do you C what she did there?

This latest intervention comes from a Badenoch-penned think piece titled:

This Z-list Labour Parliament is everything that’s wrong with British politics

You don’t have to read between the lines to understand that Badenoch is promising a return to the traditional Tory values of bungs for business and austerity for the masses:

I want men and women who understand that it is not government that creates growth; it is business. That the state should do fewer things but do them well. That economic policy should reward not just effort but risk. We cannot and should not have a zero-risk environment.

They need to be fiscal realists. There are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs. Everything has a cost. There are no free lunches… or free breakfast clubs.

While she targets Labour in the headline, much of the piece is clearly directed at the former colleagues who defected to Reform. Take the offending paragraph:

Advertisement

But that’s not all. I have overhauled the candidate selection process for Tory MPs to search for the next generation. We need candidates with the five Cs: they must be clever, have charisma, communication skills, conviction and, most importantly, be Conservative.

I will not allow people who do not share our beliefs to use the Conservative Party as a vehicle to further their personal ambitions.

On the one hand, she’s right to suggest Tory defectors used the party “as a vehicle to further their personal ambitions”. On the other, this is clearly true of most Tories whether they defected or not.

You could also add far more Cs to the list, including:

‘Braindead wasteland’

Clearly feeling C-ranky, Reform’s Zia Yusuf responded:

The party that gave us Matt Hancock as Health Secretary and Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, and still has the likes of Priti Patel and James “Cleverly” on the front bench wants to claim they’re the party of talent?

The Tory Party is a wasteland of braindead career politicians who will soon learn they’re unemployable in the real world.

Advertisement

Kemi herself has no achievements of note in her career other than hacking Harriet Harman’s website.

It’s understandable why Yusuf would take offence; it’s because he and the rest of Reform’s top politicians are ex-Tories. The fact that they left the Conservative Party doesn’t mean they’re no longer C-words, though. If anything, we’d argue they’re bigger C-words than ever.

Featured image via Leon Neal (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Police offered Manchester cafe owner cash, immunity to grass on Palestine Action

Published

on

Greater Manchester Police

Greater Manchester Police

Greater Manchester Police offered cafe-owner Shams Sadiq cash — and carte blanche to commit ‘certain’ crimes — if he would inform on anti-genocide group Palestine Action (PA) and his fellow Muslims. Sadiq, from Didsbury, was approached when he went to collect devices the police had confiscated after a 2025 raid connected to the group. The Starmer regime unlawfully banned PA as a terror group in 2025 at the behest of the Israeli government and lobby groups.

The government is still trying to overturn the High Court’s ruling that the ban breached human and free speech rights. Police continue to arrest people for protesting against the ban.

During Sadiq’s visit, the police told him he was “fully involved” with PA, but that they were not going to charge him — because they wanted him to grass the group up and inform on other Muslims:

They said to me: ‘We need your help. Look, there’s benefits in helping us.’ I’m like: ‘What kind of benefits? Financial benefits? Are you going to pay my taxes?’ They said: ‘Oh, we can help with things like that.’

Sadiq says he was also offered immunity for “certain” crimes:

Advertisement

The other guy said to me: ‘Oh, there’s other benefits, too.’ They said: ‘We’re not saying you can go out and commit a serious crime but we can turn a blind eye to certain things. [For example] We don’t care about speeding. …

…they said I am involved and maybe be an informer. They also said I’m quite respected in my community, so maybe they think I would help them find Muslims in the mosque with extreme views.

Greater Manchester Police — Softening-up

He added that he had also been questioned, four days before the police offer, under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act as he returned from a holiday in Morocco. The questioning covered Palestine Action and his finances. Under the unfit and draconian Act, if someone is detained at an airport they do not have the right to have a lawyer present and refusing to answer any questions or provide device passwords is a criminal offence. The Starmer regime has frequently used this against opponents of genocide and especially journalists who expose Israel’s crimes.

The detention was plainly an attempt to soften Sadiq up in preparation for the police approach. He was ordered to meet the same two police operatives at a cafe in Manchester Airport three days later, where they turned ‘good cop’ and apologised for his ordeal before returning devices that had again been confiscated.

Sadiq says he has gone public to ensure his safety after rejecting the offer:

Advertisement

I feel like I need protection from the police rather than anything else. It’s scary that I’ve got this marker on my passport for doing nothing. If they’ve got something on me, then charge me.

Greater Manchester Police did not respond to requests for comment. Sadiq has brought in lawyers.

Featured image via Carl Recine/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Royals knew about Andrew’s dodgy trade envoy dealings 6 years ago

Published

on

Andrew

Andrew

Buckingham Palace had emails six years ago showing the queen’s second son, Andrew, was abusing his position as UK trade envoy. It was a position the late queen had pressured the government into giving the Epstein pal formerly known as Prince Andrew.

Court documents have revealed that the family had an archive of information since 2020 concerning Mountbatten-Windsor’s sharing of information with banking scion Jonathan Rowland. Andrew had told his serial child-rapist friend Jeffrey Epstein that Rowland’s “shady” banker father David was his “main money man”. Emails released in the US Justice Department’s Epstein files show Andrew, as trade envoy, trying to promote the Rowlands’ businesses to Epstein.

Andrew — The bus isn’t big enough

The palace is again trying to distance itself from Andrew’s dodgy dealings, claiming that it could not comment because he is the subject of a police investigation. Thames Valley Police has appealed for people to provide it with information after Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest for suspected misconduct in public office.

The king has already shown a readiness to throw his brother under a bus to protect the monarchy. However, Charles is known to have forked out huge amounts of money to fund Andrew’s legal battles over Epstein. Rowland, for his part, has confirmed that emails relevant to Andrew’s disclosure of sensitive information were among the archive provided to the Palace as part of disclosure in a 2020 legal case.

Advertisement

The case did not directly involve the royals but they received the emails because many mentioned, or were sent to/by Mountbatten-Windsor. He is not the only Epstein-linked figure known to have passed sensitive — and highly lucrative — information obtained in a government role to contacts. Other Epstein files show Peter Mandelson, at the time an adviser to the Brown government, repeatedly passing insider-trading information to Epstein himself. Mandelson was later appointed as UK ambassador to the US by Keir Starmer, despite the Starmer regime’s knowledge of Mandelson’s actions and links to Epstein.

Featured image via Chris Jackson/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Rumours swirl of an early election if Burnham wins

Published

on

Andy Burnham in front of campaign banners

Andy Burnham in front of campaign banners

Andy Burnham is running to become the MP for Makerfield, Wigan. As everyone knows, if Burnham wins, he’ll challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership, becoming the PM if he succeeds. Given that Labour has a huge majority and the party doesn’t have to call an election until 2029, most assume he won’t go to the polls early. If rumours are to be believed, however, he might be eyeing one up:

Advertisement

Wargaming

The latest rumours comes from the Sun, and as such have to be taken with a pinch of salt. At the same time, Labour politicians love talking to the Sun despite its long and rancid history, so the source doesn’t necessarily discount the veracity.

According to the Murdoch rag, a senior Labour source said:

Andy considering an early general election. They are wargaming it.

But Labour MPs would absolutely hate it. They are worried about losing their seats.

If Andy becomes PM I expect he will have to promise the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) that he will not call a snap election.

Advertisement

They will want him to sign the pledge in blood.

Regardless of the finer details, this anonymous quote allowed the Sun to run a story claiming Burnham wants an early election. This is convenient for Burnham’s opponents, because they’re claiming Burnham’s dastardly plan is to — you guessed it — call an early election:

Advertisement

For the past year, Reform’s war cry has been ‘Starmer out now’. This has proven popular with the public — a public which understands the quickest way to get Starmer out is to get Burnham in. The problem for Reform politicians is that Burnham would likely be a tougher opponent, so now they have to work to keep Starmer in without admitting that’s what they’re doing.

Given this, it’s entirely possible one of Starmer’s allies briefed these rumours to hurt Burnham’s chances. Burnham himself, meanwhile, seems to have dismissed the rumours:

At the same time, it’s not entirely out of the realms of possibility that Burnham might actually want an early election. Also, it wouldn’t be the first time Burnham went back on his word:

Why would Burnham want to?

Over the past decade, we’ve had two early elections:

  • Theresa May: Despite having a majority, May called an election in 2017 hoping to take advantage of Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity. In the end, Corbyn’s Labour realised the largest vote share increase since 1945, with May demoted to a minority government as a result.
  • Boris Johnson: Johnson inherited May’s minority government, which meant he couldn’t do much of anything. In 2017, Brexit wasn’t an issue, because both parties committed to following through on it. By 2019, however, Keir Starmer had maneuvered Labour into backing a second referendum, which meant the 2019 election itself became a second referendum itself. This nuked Labour’s chances, and produced a large majority for Boris Johnson (although not as large as the one won by Starmer in 2024).

Clearly, calling an early election would be a risky move; especially when current polling looks like this:

Although Burnham would get a boost in the polls when compared to Starmer, it’s far from a guarantee that he’d win:

There is some reason to suspect Burnham might want to go to the polls early, however.

Rudderless

When it comes to big policies like proportional representation, Burnham has said Labour needs put them in a general manifesto before enacting them. The King in the North also doesn’t seem to have a concrete plan for office, as we’ve reported:

Advertisement

If Labour call a general election, the party will have to produce a manifesto. As the Manchester Mill reported, Burnham is a lot happier being the face of the operation than the ideological engine — i.e. he’d no doubt love for the wonks to go off and draft a plan for him. The question is which side of Labour would be in charge of this manifesto — the rotten side or the really fucking rotten side.

Burnham movement

As Stats for Lefties and Philip Proudfoot note, the direction of travel for Burnham right now is rightwards:

Advertisement

Whether Burnham calls an election or not, we need to make it very clear this country will not tolerate more of the same. And if he runs an election with a manifesto that’s Starmerism 2.0, we will fight against it tooth and nail.

Featured image via Christopher Furlong (Getty Images) / Christopher Furlong (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Revolution Is Female at P21

Published

on

Revolution

Revolution

Nearly two years on from Art of Palestine: from the river to the sea, Rasha Eleyan is back at London’s P21 with her own solo exhibition: Revolution Is Female. The Palestinian artist explores the vital role women play in the Palestinian liberation movement.

Pop-inflected style

Eleyan’s style is very distinctive. The daughter of Palestinian artist Nasr Abdelaziz, Rasha had access to a well-stocked library of books on animation she would copy from: Abdelaziz had studied animation in London in the 1970s. But where his style is figurative, focusing on traditional life in Palestine, Rasha’s paintings have a distinct pop art influence. She also credits her first job at Disney Television in Singapore. She tells The Canary:

I’m often identified as a pop artist, but I was also obsessively inspired by films that combined animation with live action, especially Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That’s where I started merging pop-inspired visual elements with more classical realistic painting techniques.

She also credits her father for the way she chooses to focus on and portray women. His paintings depict Palestinian women — including her mother — with dignity and quiet strength:

The women in his paintings are my inspiration: beautiful women in Palestinian thobe[s], with long dark hair, engaged in daily rural life, carrying a serenity that feels suspended in time — but also a quiet mourning.

Portrait of Rasha Eleyan — Image courtesy of the artist

Advertisement

Growing up in the Gulf, Rasha was all too aware of her family’s (and her people’s) history of displacement. Her parents were keen to retain their identity as Palestinians and foster a strong sense of belonging.

We all had Palestinian thobes that my mother would dress us in for special occasions. We grew up with songs of resistance that emerged from the catastrophic situation our people were placed in. Our heritage was simply us being ourselves — but blended with frustration, loss, and also steadfastness.

That connection to her roots is what inspires the subject of her work. Recurring patterns and colours are drawn from elements that are ubiquitous in Palestinian culture: cactus, watermelon, red, green.  Another motif is the Zaghrouta, a ululation with both celebratory and political connotations.

Can You Hear Me, 2025, acrylic on canvas, 123 x 94 cm — Image courtesy of the artist

Revolution is Female

The exhibition at P21 is Rasha’s first solo show in the UK. She moved to the UK a few years ago, and took part in group exhibitions. But this is Rasha’s opportunity to showcase a larger body of her work and its evolution over more than a decade. Co-curated by Zeina Saleh, the exhibition focuses on the role of revolutionary women — through resistance, but also through domestic space, symbolism, celebration, and political presence.

Advertisement

I find myself highly inspired by the Arabic saying “Revolution is Female”, a phrase deeply embedded within our culture and collective consciousness.

Indeed, the phrase reflects the way that women have been the backbone of the liberation movement in the region for decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, films such as Leila and the Wolves and Mai Masri’s Wildflowers: Women of South Lebanon were already celebrating them.

Watermelon Love Affair, 2026, acrylic on canvas, 70 x 80 cm — Image courtesy of the artist

A thriving scene despite censorship

In spite of Israel’s ongoing efforts to erase Palestinian life and culture, Palestinian artists are as prolific as ever. Just this past month, the Palestine Film Institute showcased at the Cannes Film Festival  new initiatives and partnerships to structure their film scene, the Venice Biennale exhibited the Gaza Genocide Tapestry… The ubiquity of Palestinian art has of course been met with increased attempts at censorship.

There is undeniably more interest in Palestinian artists, and that is a natural reaction to the atrocities we have been living through over the last two and a half years — though of course our reality stretches far beyond that. As for censorship — yes, we experience it. […] Conversations around resistance, in particular, can feel constrained in digital spaces.

 Eleyan believes art is a privileged medium for raising awareness and fostering empathy. Certainly, the popularity of recent exhibitions (Thread Memory…), music events (Sada, Together for Palestine…), and films (Palestine 36…) attest to this. 

Advertisement

Revolution Is Female runs from 11 to 19 June at P21 in London. The opening reception is on 10 June. Booking and info here.

Featured image via the artist

By Abla Kandalaft

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Dare to be free – spiked

Published

on

Dare to be free

We live in profoundly risk-averse times. And this has had a tremendous impact on individual freedom. Every aspect is increasingly overshadowed by a concern over the seemingly adverse consequences of our actions. Every potential decision, right down to what we choose to eat or drink, is increasingly regulated by officialdom.

In this context, how do we start to re-make the case for individual freedom? The answer lies not in denying but in embracing the risks and the responsibilities that come with freedom.

There’s certainly a straightforward way to argue for the freedom to take risks, especially risks that don’t directly affect anyone else, and that is to see risk as a form of harm to the risk-taker. If smoking, or drinking excessively, or eating too many pies, harms me by increasing my long-term health risks, that’s my own business. If I bet my rent on a spin of the roulette wheel, and end up eating cold baked beans for a month, how does that harm anyone else? If I take up mountaineering, or motorcycle racing, or lion taming, and suffer life-changing injuries, I am the one who suffers harm, and therefore I should be free to do what I think best.

Advertisement

I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument taken from classic liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’, especially in this puritanical age. It’s important to defend our freedom to make choices about our own lives, small as well as large, even when others think they’re bad choices and not in our own interests.

Yet the negative impacts of an individual’s actions or even just their bad luck do extend beyond that individual. Financially, practically or emotionally, it’s almost impossible to think of a risk that doesn’t resonate somehow along the social bonds tying us together. To live as if each of us is, in John Donne’s words, ‘an island’ is neither possible nor, I would suggest, desirable. We are human by virtue of growing up in human society – our lives interwoven with other humans.

To argue that the authorities should keep their noses out of our riskier actions is not to deny this inescapable web of human connection. The question is not whether our actions have effects on others, but who should have the authority to criticise or constrain those actions. Is it those who are involved with us – practically, or emotionally – or public bodies with a blueprint for desirable lifestyles that we’re all urged to follow?

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Advertisement

Please wait…

Advertisement

Governments and campaign groups may claim to have our best interests at heart, but they don’t in the way our family and friends do. People who know us understand that there is more to life than being healthy, safe and solvent. They can see positive, as well as negative, aspects of risk-taking – the potential rewards as well as the possible harms.

Public bodies, by contrast, tend to have population-level targets for us, the public, that don’t take into account harder-to-measure values such as pleasure, altruism, curiosity or autonomy. Preserving bodily health, financial stability and safety in general are almost moral imperatives in themselves today. The scope of Bessie Smith’s ‘Tain’t Nobody’s Bizness if I Do’ has shrunk so far that we can’t even be trusted to choose what we look at online, let alone what we do in the real world.

Advertisement

Putting oneself at risk is framed as an invitation to harm: at best, reckless and feckless; at worst, wantonly self-destructive. To take a risk is seen as irresponsible. I want to turn this argument around. Far from being irresponsible, taking risks is the only way to be a truly responsible adult. To live a life devoted to constraining uncertainty, minimising bad possibilities and maximising predictability, is to live as a child. It’s not only permissible to take risks – in fact, it’s intrinsic to being a moral agent.

There is a school of moral philosophy that is focussed entirely on the consequences of one’s actions: consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. To decide what to do, a good utilitarian tries to predict the outcomes of different courses of action, choosing the one that will probably lead to the best state of affairs for the greatest number of people affected.

Advertisement

I say ‘probably’, because it’s impossible to predict exactly how things will turn out. This leads to arguments about whether it’s better to minimise the worst harm that can happen, maximise the best possible outcome or calculate the ‘expected’ (average) outcome and follow the numbers. Then comes the question of what we mean by the ‘best’ state of affairs. Who gets to decide the measure of ‘best’? Utilitarianism, while neat in theory, is very tricky in practice.

Another school of moral philosophy, intentionalism, avoids these tricky questions by judging the intentions of the person who acts. If the intentions are good, but the action turns out to result in a bad state of affairs, the agent is still a good person. The German 18th-century philosophy Immanuel Kant is often credited with formalising this approach, by asserting that what matters most is a ‘good will’. Kant distinguished the moral universe from the cause-and-effect physical universe of our everyday experience. In the physical world, we are governed by physical laws, but in the moral universe individuals are capable of governing themselves, by choosing to act according to moral laws.

This idea of ‘pure’ agency – that we should be judged only by our intentions, not the outcomes of our actions – doesn’t quite match our everyday moral instincts. We can sympathise with the well-meaning person whose well-intentioned actions go wrong, but we don’t necessarily think that their ‘good will’ lets them off the hook.

Advertisement

Suppose you borrow my car to drive somebody to hospital. Unfortunately for you – and for me – when you bring it back you hit the gatepost. Who should be responsible for getting the car (and possibly the gatepost) repaired? Surely it’s you, because you were driving. Not only that, when you decided to take the car, you took on responsibility for its safe return.

Real life is full of examples like this: we take on projects, large and small, with varying degrees of uncertainty about how they will turn out. By initiating something new, we take on responsibility for seeing it through. This may involve unforeseen challenges. It may mean learning new skills we didn’t expect to need. It may bring new obligations that we didn’t anticipate.

I took a show about risk to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2019. Early in the show, I would ask a random audience member, ‘What’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?’. Several people answered, ‘getting married’. This always got a laugh (especially as that person was usually sitting with their spouse and sometimes children) followed by reflective silence.

Advertisement

Is getting married the same as a spin of the roulette wheel? That’s a cheeky thing to say about your life partner. Did you get lucky? Or have you tied yourself to a lifetime of snoring and being talked over at dinner? But marriage is not a spin of the roulette wheel. It’s not a single decision after which there is nothing to be done but sit back and wait for fate to take its course.

Marriage is an open-ended commitment to another person, ‘for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health’, without knowing what challenges the future will bring. You may acquire new obligations to children. You may have to find new strengths you didn’t know were in you, to cope with what life throws at you. Hopefully, you will also find new possibilities open to you, new opportunities that you could not have foreseen when you first said, ‘I do’.

Advertisement

Marriage is, in short, the kind of risk that responsible adults take, because we recognise that responsibility extends beyond our intentions, beyond what we can predict and beyond what we explicitly agree to take on.

Having children is another example. So is starting a business, setting in motion a political campaign, leading an expedition – anything new which needs others to make it happen is not a single risk, but an unfolding, branching series of risks that cascade from the first decision, committing you to a path that can’t be retraced if you regret choosing it. More decisions, more risks, more actions will be required of you along the way, each one causing outcomes you couldn’t predict but now can’t rewind.

Hannah Arendt, writing in The Human Condition (1958), calls this ‘the burden of irreversibility and unpredictability’, which is an inescapable part of human action. It’s inevitable that ‘he who acts never quite knows what he is doing… he always becomes “guilty” of consequences he never intended or even foresaw… no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of his deed, he can never undo it’.

Advertisement

Philosophical discussion of moral responsibility often includes the ‘control condition’ – the idea that one’s responsibility extends only as far as one’s control. Philosophers Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel introduced the idea of ‘moral luck’ to challenge this idea. Luck can, and does, affect our moral judgment of individuals and actions. A ‘good will’ is not enough: we judge people differently if their actions turn out to have better or worse consequences due to things beyond their control. The drunk driver who kills is condemned more harshly than the equally drunk driver who is lucky enough to encounter no pedestrian on the way home.

But, as Arendt points out, every worthwhile human enterprise involves factors beyond an individual’s control. Not only the vagaries of nature and the unknowability of the complex physical world, but the fundamental unpredictability of other people. ‘The fact that man is capable of the unexpected means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.’ Not even the most sophisticated computer imaginable could predict the future of the human world, because humans are free to transcend the deterministic laws of nature. We have a unique capacity to defy statistical probability with unprecedented actions that set new things in motion.

Because every significant project – from a marriage to a political campaign – needs more than one person to make it happen, it can never be under the control of a single individual, not even the person who set it in motion. This means that to act in any significant way, to set in motion anything that could influence the world, is to take a risk.

Advertisement

Freedom is not liberation from responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, but freedom to act in full acceptance of that responsibility. Freedom to act, that is, without being able to know for what, exactly, one will turn out to be responsible.

This is what philosopher Margaret Urban Walker calls ‘impure’ agency. We are human agents, ‘agents of, rather than outside, the world of space, time, and causality’, and our responsibilities outrun our capacity to control the world around us. If ‘pure agents’ really existed, says Urban Walker, and insisted that their responsibilities – moral and practical – ended at the limit of their control, they would be able to walk away from all unforeseen, unplanned or uncontrolled outcomes of their actions. ‘Relationships, situations and encounters in which emerge uncontrolled and uninvited needs, demands and opportunities to enable or harm’ would be no grounds for moral claims upon such ‘pure agents’.

Advertisement

We could not live together, trusting each other to assume the burdens of our web of human commitments, if everyone insisted on thus limiting their obligations to others. Dependability may not seem to be an especially glorious virtue, but, without it, society rapidly falls apart. Moral luck, far from being a curious paradox of interest only to philosophers, is ‘a fact of our moral situation and our human kind of agency’, Urban Walker writes. Recognising the reality of this situation is itself part of being a moral agent.

To children who act without understanding we say, ‘it wasn’t your fault, you didn’t know’, even when their actions have terrible consequences. Adults are expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, no matter how unforeseen. In our current, risk-averse society, our knowledge of this fact turns out to be a constraint on our willingness to act, to start new things, and to take on open-ended responsibilities.

All sorts of things that previous generations regarded as normal parts of life – relationships, children, starting a business or a voluntary community group – are now understood less as exciting opportunities but more as risky Pandora’s boxes of potential harm. Uncertainty about how things will turn out is regarded as a reason not to do them, in case they turn out badly.

Advertisement

When we do begin new things, we’re encouraged to do them in ways that minimise that uncertainty. Dating apps, for example, feel more controllable than just talking to strangers in a bar; potential partners are viewed through a screen and communication can be carefully crafted before sending. In person, spontaneous looks and words might betray our feelings and leave us emotionally vulnerable to another person’s actions.

There is a deep pessimism in this tendency to think about risk mainly in terms of harm, rather than opportunity. Embarking on a risky project is generally something we do because we hope for good outcomes, not bad. Underlying this pessimism is a lack of faith in our human ability to cope with uncertainty, to follow through with our responsibilities in unforeseen situations. This is consistent with the general trend to see adults more and more like children: too emotionally fragile to act rationally in upsetting situations; too immature to be relied upon when the going gets tough; vulnerable, not dependable.

No wonder we’re inclined to discuss risk as a state of impending harm from which we should all be protected, and not as a way of understanding action, as an integral part of human life.

Advertisement

What, then, should an adult who values freedom do about risk? It’s not a question of taking risks for the sake of danger. If you feel that doing more risky things will build your habit of courage, fine, but suddenly taking up mountaineering will do little to shift the infantilising, risk-averse mood in our society.

Instead, we need to take on the inherent risk that any worthwhile human enterprise entails, wholeheartedly, and with full acceptance of the moral responsibility that brings. As much as one can – and should – prepare for any project, plan ahead for potential problems and anticipate the unexpected, there will always be unforeseen challenges.

These are, what Urban Walker calls, ‘the decisive moral tests one did not invite… the faulty or horrifying results that one invited but did not control and that one is expected to find resources to address or redress without taking refuge in denial, demoralisation, or paralysis’.

It is our willingness to live up to our responsibilities at such times that is the real test of our integrity as moral agents. But that willingness to commit to a project in full knowledge of the risks involved, and live up to our responsibilities when the going gets tough, is also what constitutes real freedom to act in, and on, the world.

Advertisement

Timandra Harkness is a writer, performer and broadcaster. She is the author most recently of Technology is Not the Problem, published by HQ.

This is an edited version of a Letters on Liberty pamphlet, Risk and Responsibility, which can be purchased in full here. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for this and more.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | The First Restore Britain University Societies Are Being Created

Published

on

The First Restore Britain University Societies Are Being Created
The First Restore Britain University Societies Are Being Created

Rupert Lowe launched his party Restore Britain earlier this year (Alamy)


5 min read

The University of York’s Restore Britain society is the first to be ratified at a Russell Group institution. PoliticsHome speaks to its president about how society hopes to help Rupert Lowe and why billionaire Elon Musk’s support for the party could be a “double-edged sword”.

Advertisement

When former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe launched his own party, Restore Britain, in February after falling out with Nigel Farage, there was scepticism that it could have a meaningful electoral impact. There was a belief that there was limited space for a right-wing, fringe party to have an impact as long as Nigel Farage’s Reform continues to lead the polls.

However, at this month’s local elections, there were signs that Restore Britain could prove to be a headache for Farage. Lowe’s party, which has hard-right policies like the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants and shutting down universities that “brainwash students into hating their own culture”, helped deny Reform a majority on Norfolk County Council by winning all 10 seats they contested in Great Yarmouth.

Looking ahead to next month’s crucial by-election in Makerfield, Labour activists in the northwest told The House magazine this weekend that Reform would be on course to defeat Andy Burnham were it not for Restore Britain’s participation. A Survation poll this week put Labour candidate Burnham in the lead on 43 per cent, with Reform’s Robert Kenyon close behind on 40 per cent. Restore Britain candidate Rebecca Shepherd was on 7 per cent.

Advertisement

Lowe, who has cultivated large followings on social media, is now seemingly building support at campus level.  

Jared Allman, a second-year philosophy student at the University of York (UoY), is president of the university’s newly ratified Restore Britain society. The society was originally set up by Nye Gollings, who was previously president of UoY’s Reform UK society.

Allman, 22, whose favourite historical figure is French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (“he is the best military commander of all time”), told PoliticsHome that his support for Restore Britain comes from the belief that British people must “come back together and reaffirm their national identity”.

Advertisement

Other members of the society name Henry VIII’s executed chancellor Thomas More, Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, William the Conqueror and ancient copper merchant Ea-nāṣir as their favourite historical figures. 

When asked whether it would not be more appropriate for his favourite historical figure to be British, Allman said: “That does make absolute sense, but if there were one that I thought was better than him, then I would have put him down.”

Currently, the society has about 25-30 members, the majority of whom, Allman admitted, are men, apart from “two or three female members”. In terms of the ethnicity of the group, Allman reckoned about five or six are “ethnic members”.

On the lack of women, Allman said: “That end of politics probably has a bad rap to it, and I feel like people perhaps just are intimidated…especially a woman, but I would absolutely love to get more female members, and that could be really beneficial to the society.”

Advertisement

York’s Student Union (SU) anticipated that the ratification, which gives a group training and funding opportunities, access to resources, and support from student union staff, would be so contentious that it published a full explainer on why the decision had been made, insisting it was “not an endorsement” and the organisation was “legally bound” to do so.

Unlike his predecessor, Gollings, Allman is not a former Reform UK member. He described Reform leader Farage as a “chameleon” who has done “nothing whatsoever” for his parliamentary constituency of Clacton since he was elected almost two years ago.

“I just like how Rupert Lowe’s not afraid to say it, and there really aren’t a lot of people that have a backbone and stand firm with what they say,” he told PoliticsHome.

“On the whole, the greatest issue facing our country is the cultural decline of England and its native people,” Allman told PoliticsHome, but insists he does not have a problem with international students on campus, as they have come to the country through legal routes.

Advertisement

York St John University, on the other side of the city, also has a ratified Restore Britain society. While other societies exist at universities across the country in Warwick, Durham, Bristol and London, they are not yet ratified. Allman said the society leaders keep in touch via a group chat.

Following the ratification, the SU received backlash from other university societies, culminating in a protest outside the SU building against the decision on 22 May. “I expected there to be more people,” Allman said, but described the atmosphere as “hostile”.

York university campus lake
The University of York Restore Britain society is the first to be ratified at a Russell Group (Alamy)

“I just find it ridiculous, not only the fact that they think they can suppress a view they disagree with, but also that they think the best way to go about that is to mob up and basically use intimidation tactics, lots of screaming through a megaphone, like lots of loud, sharp noise.”

Going forward, Allman told PoliticsHome he wants to take the society towards putting on “more intellectually-based activities” and bringing speakers and guests to the university. The group also has plans to travel to Makerfield to campaign for their candidate, Shepherd.

Musk, the controversial billionaire owner of X, has indicated support for Restore Britain in his inflammatory online commentary on British politics. Allman admitted that Musk’s support is a bit of a “double-edged sword”, telling PoliticsHome: “He’s got quite a bad reputation”.

Advertisement

“It’s good that he’s endorsing Restore, because he has got a large following, and he is the richest man on the planet, but he also has been accused of meddling with foreign affairs and foreign politics,” he said.

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Ronaldo may play in the 2030 World Cup

Published

on

Ronaldo

Ronaldo

Portugal’s national team coach, Roberto Martínez, affirmed that Cristiano Ronaldo could be present at the 2030 World Cup, stressing that “no one should doubt” the team captain’s ability to appear in the next edition of the tournament.

Martínez’s remarks came during an interview with the Spanish radio station “Cadena SER“, where he explained that Ronaldo is currently preparing for the 2026 World Cup. This will be his sixth appearance in the history of the World Cup, a record he shares with Argentina’s Lionel Messi.

No one should doubt that. He deserves this,” Martínez said in his statement, referring to the possibility of the Portuguese star continuing until the 2030 edition, which will be co-hosted by Morocco, Spain, and Portugal.

On the international stage, the Portuguese captain has scored over 130 goals for his national team, cementing his status as the all-time top scorer in national team history, an unprecedented record.

Advertisement

The Portugal coach added that Ronaldo serves as an inspiring role model for young players, confirming that the technical staff sees him as an example of professional mentality and longevity, not just physical fitness.

Martínez continued, stating that Ronaldo is defined not by the titles he achieves or his daily routine, but by his constant “hunger” for development, noting that despite his great accomplishments, he maintains the same drive and desire to compete.

The legend of Ronaldo

Ronaldo holds a historic position in the World Cup, as he is the player with the most appearances in the tournament’s history, and he is the only player to have scored in five different editions of the World Cup, which further strengthens his exceptional international record.

Debate continues regarding the Portuguese star’s future with the national team, given that he is turning 41. However, Martínez’s statements reopen the door to the possibility of his career extending until the 2030 World Cup, by which time he will be 45 years old.

Advertisement

Cristiano Ronaldo has played 22 matches in his World Cup history, scoring 8 goals. The Portuguese star is looking to continue his career in the tournament to boost his tally of international appearances and pursue the record held by Argentina’s Lionel Messi, who tops the list of most World Cup appearances with 26 matches, in addition to scoring 13 goals across five editions of the tournament.

Featured image via Charles McQuillan/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025