We have an update, folks.

Because they don’t even care about keeping their bullshit straight.

So the full sequence now runs:

(1) “The money isn’t missing, it’s all still there and ringfenced for a second indyref. Anyone who says otherwise is a loony conspiracy theorist.”

Advertisement

(2) “Okay, it’s not ringfenced, it’s woven in with everything else but it’s there and we will only spend it on a second indyref.”

(3) “We’ve still got all the money, even though it’s not in our bank account, and we’ve set up a special unit that’s going to spend it right now ‘on independence’, even though there’s no second indyref.”

(4) “Okay, the guy who was going to be in charge of spending it has quit in mysterious circumstances and the ‘independence unit’ doesn’t exist any more, and we’re not letting the treasurer look at the books to see where the money is so he’s resigned, but it’s all still there waiting for the imminent second indyref, honest.”

(5) “Okay, we’ve spent SOME of it but the rest is all still there, it’s just invisible and we can’t show it to you, though we could if we wanted to. The important thing is that there’s definitely none of it missing.”

Advertisement

(6) “Okay, we’ve spent about quarter of a million pounds of it now, despite there being no second indyref, although we can’t tell you what it was spent on, and there’s still absolutely loads left.”

(7) “There’s no missing money, we’ve still got it all. Sure, it’s not in the bank, but we’ve given ourselves an IOU or something and it’ll all magically appear when there’s a second indyref.”

(8) “Okay, we spent the lot, despite the continuing absence of a second indyref, but we can’t be any more specific about what we spent it on. Just, you know, general SNP stuff. The exact thing we said we WOULDN’T spend it on.”

And now,

Advertisement

(9) “We couldn’t spend it because our chief executive stole it, but if we get it back from him then we definitely will spend it – not on a second indyref, because there isn’t going to be one, but on SOMETHING, we just can’t say what, and frankly it’s pretty tasteless of you to even ask because we’re victims of a crime, actually.”

Even when they think they’ve gotten clean away with it, lying about it is now so ingrained that they just can’t stop.

Maybe we should ask John Swinney to tell the story backwards. Because at worst, he couldn’t make very much more of a mess of it than he is now.

Source link

The Labour right and their friends in the media are constantly urging the party to become more regressive to appeal to Reform voters. As we’ve reported in the past, though, Labour actually lost four times as many voters to parties on its left. And now, we have a clearer picture of what pushed them in that direction.

EXCLUSIVE: More than half of former Labour voters who intent to back a centre or leftwing party in the next general election have cited the government's record on Gaza as a reason for abandoning Labour, new polling shows.

— Harriet Williamson (@harriepw) June 8, 2026

Labour genocidaires

Labour offered both political and material support to Israel and its genocide on Palestine. An example of the political support was denying Israel’s actions constituted ‘genocide’, despite the UN and human rights watchdogs saying otherwise. An example of the material support was continuing to send arms.

Conducted by Opinium, the poll was commissioned by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FoE). Highlighting what was found, PSC produced the following infographic:

BREAKING: New polling shows that Labour’s policy on Gaza is a significant factor in progressive voters ditching the party in huge numbers pic.twitter.com/9ftj4Y1QWQ

— Palestine Solidarity Campaign (@PSCupdates) June 8, 2026

Advertisement

The Green Party has been the primary beneficiary of Labour’s losses.

These voters overwhelmingly support stronger action for Palestine (4/6): pic.twitter.com/9NB2ah3SSd

— Palestine Solidarity Campaign (@PSCupdates) June 8, 2026

Advertisement

These findings come as Israel escalates its violence against Palestinians.

The Labour government must heed this message and finally end its shameful complicity in Israel's genocide and apartheid against Palestinians.

For the full results, see here (6/6):…

Advertisement

— Palestine Solidarity Campaign (@PSCupdates) June 8, 2026

What the above shows is that a new PM could potentially win back a substantial cohort of voters by adopting a moral stance. In other words, it would be a win-win. The question is whether any of Starmer’s potential replacements care more about winning than saving Israel’s blushes.

Mealy-mouthed Andy Burnham has refused to describe Israel’s actions as a genocide, stating:

I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester.

This might wash if he wanted to remain a regional mayor, but he doesn’t. And if he’s unable to make big decisions now, maybe he’s not cut out for a more important role?

Burnham also said:

But I do have concerns about the disproportionate nature of what has happened in terms of the destruction, and there has to be a full process of investigation and accountability.

In other words, he wants a lengthy inquiry which concludes years after everyone responsible is out of office.

Wes Streeting – the other man angling to become PM – is also not to be trusted on this matter:

You spent two years supporting genocide and now pretend you didn't? Just staggering dishonesty from
these human pieces of excrement. https://t.co/Vz7iEYsHIW

— Bog Standard Marxist (@muskeatsbogeys) June 2, 2026

As HG wrote for the Canary:

Streeting has no backbone. If he truly cared about Gaza, he’d have spoken out and publicly condemned Israel’s war crimes. He would not have just done it via text to Epstein’s pal. He also wouldn’t wait until now, when there is a potential leadership contest in the not-so-distant future. It’s pretty convenient that he’s suddenly taking a hardline stance against a genocidal terrorist state. What good are your faux morals if they only appear to benefit your potential run as party leader?

‘Sensible’ politics

At this point, we have to stop pretending these Labour politicians are pursuing ‘sensible, grown-up politics’.

Supporting genocide and apartheid isn’t just morally evil; it’s a certified vote loser. This means they’re not doing it for electability reasons; they’re doing it because they’re ideologically committed to the far-right ideology of Zionism.

Featured image via WPA Pool (Getty Images) / Amir Levy (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has written to the candidates in the Makerfield by-election – but only the Green Party candidate has responded so far. Specifically, they’re asking what each candidate will do to “uphold the rights of Palestinian people”. Green Party candidate Sarah Wakefield has now responded, seemingly making her the first to do so. Front-runner Andy Burnham, meanwhile, is still refusing to get off the fence.

Green Party candidate steps up

The letter from PSC reads:

Millions of people across Britain are rightly horrified by Israel’s ongoing atrocities against Palestinians. The strength of these sentiments is seen not just in the national marches for Palestine – the largest sustained mass mobilisation in Britain since the suffragettes – but also in elections and polling. For example, polls show that the overwhelming majority of people, including in the North West, oppose Israel’s military actions in Gaza, with more than 80% of voters believing that Israel is guilty of genocide.

A vast array of experts and human rights organisations, including the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, have conducted their own investigations and found that Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people amount to genocide. A similar consensus exists regarding Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians, including the July 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling, which found Israel to be in violation of international prohibition against apartheid.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues – with almost 1,000 Palestinians violently killed by Israel since the so-called “ceasefire” began, alongside ongoing severe restrictions on aid and life-saving organisations. So too does Israel’s ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and apartheid. In light of this, if you are elected as the Member of Parliament for Makerfield, will you:

Advertisement

1. Act, if the findings of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry amongst others that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and the July 2024 ICJ ruling that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid against Palestinians?
2. Support a total ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements and all other trade that aids or assists Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory?
3. Support comprehensive sanctions on Israel, including a full arms embargo?
4. Support the reversal of the authoritarian use of public order and anti-terror legislation to suppress protest in support of Palestinian rights?

In the interests of transparency, we will publish this letter and any replies we receive. We would also be happy to meet to discuss these matters with you.

Answers

In a refreshing change of pace for a UK politician, Wakefield has actually provided answers to the above questions (emphasis added):

Thank you for getting in contact with me about this. It’s so important that all politicians are held accountable on this issue.

Opposing genocide is not optional. For those of us seeking political power, using that power to work to end the ongoing genocide in Palestine is not optional. Under international law, all countries have a duty to actively work to prevent genocide – but in this country our responsibility goes beyond that.

The UK government has been more than a bystander to the genocide in Gaza. It has been, and remains, complicit. It sells weapon components to Israel, has provided diplomatic cover for Israel, and refuses to accept the overwhelming expert consensus that what is being inflicted on the Palestinian people is, indeed, a genocide.

I unequivocally accept the findings of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry and numerous other expert bodies that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. I additionally accept the 2024 ICJ ruling that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid against Palestinians.

Advertisement

I fully support a total ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements and all other trade that aids or assists Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. I also support comprehensive sanctions on Israel, including a full arms embargo. Without doubt, I support reversing the authoritarian use of public order and anti-terror legislation to suppress protest in support of Palestinian rights.

Every politician who sincerely believes in human rights, international law, and the sanctity of human life should be able to say the same.

Labour let downs

Wakefield has been clear on her stance. Front-runner Andy Burnham, meanwhile, said the following when asked if Israel’s actions constitute a genocide:

I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester.

When politicians refuse to commit to a position, it’s because they don’t want to be held to it later. Going off the actions of Labour, we have to assume Burnham doesn’t want to stand up to Israel because he knows his Labour colleagues won’t stand behind him. Going off his own actions, we have to assume he’s probably in agreement with them:

https://t.co/0qbagSvIYp https://t.co/yCaxsotv6n

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) June 9, 2026

His stance on the genocide isn’t the only time Burnham has proven to be non-committal or right-wing in this by-election campaign either:

• Burnham ‘to support’ Mahmood’s racist immigration changes.
• Burnham is silent on wealth taxes – not a promising sign from potential PM.
• Andy Burnham’s role with Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank just shows he’s more of the same.
• Burnham WON’T back proportional representation this parliament.
• Shapeshifting Burnham ditches trans rights to panic-grab Reform votes.
• Burnham slammed for saying he won’t renationalise Thames Water.

Free Palestine

Before the genocide, Israel subjected Palestinians in Gaza to decades of apartheid. And they did so with support of the political establishment in Western countries like the UK.

For many of us, this status quo cannot continue. And if politicians like Andy Burnham don’t learn that lesson, they’re going to have a problem come the next general election.

Featured image via Christopher Furlong (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

With just days to go before the start of the 2026 World Cup, the settler colonial US have been denying entry to fans, players, and officials – this time to Somali referee Omar Artan.

At a time when all eyes should be on the stadiums and the national teams, some of the World Cup’s most prominent stories have begun at airports and border checkpoints.

Somali referee turned away

Somali referee Omar Abdulqadir Artan was set for a historic moment in his career after being selected by FIFA for the 2026 World Cup, making him one of the most prominent African referees at the tournament.

However, the journey came to an abrupt end upon his arrival in the United States, where he underwent additional screening and questioning before US authorities refused him entry and sent him back to Istanbul, despite him holding a valid visa.

Artan had met all of FIFA’s technical and administrative requirements for participation in the tournament, and of course has travelled widely in his role as a professional referee. Nevertheless, his dream of appearing at the world’s biggest football event was dashed by procedures relating to entry into the host country.

The case quickly became one of the most sensitive issues ahead of the World Cup, given its implications that go beyond football and affect the ability of approved participants to reach the tournament.

Iraq captain Ayman Hussein… lengthy investigations and a different outcome

Days before the Artan case, Reuters highlighted another incident that sparked controversy within the World Cup, when Iraqi striker Ayman Hussein underwent an investigation lasting around seven hours at O’Hare Airport in Chicago following the arrival of his national team’s delegation.

According to the agency, the procedures included a search of the player’s phone before he was eventually allowed to enter and join the Iraqi national team’s camp.

However, the outcome was not the same for the Iraqi national team’s official photographer, Talal Salah, who was detained for more than ten hours and subjected to similar procedures, before being definitively denied entry to the United States.

The two incidents have once again raised questions about the nature of the procedures faced by some participants in the tournament, particularly as both cases involved individuals who had arrived as part of an officially accredited delegation to take part in the global event.

The World Cup under the microscope

Although the details of each case differ, the common thread is that the crisis did not relate to sporting competition or technical readiness, but rather to entry procedures into the United States.

In the space of a few days, a FIFA-accredited referee found himself excluded from the tournament, whilst the captain of the Iraqi national team spent hours under investigation, and an official photographer was barred from accompanying his national team – scenes that were unforeseen ahead of the biggest edition in World Cup history.

As the opening whistle approaches, it seems that the controversy over visas and border procedures has become part of the World Cup landscape, adding a new challenge for the tournament as it prepares to welcome the world to the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Al Jazeera English

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

PORTLAND, Maine — Darcy Halvorsen, 59, had already cast her ballot early for Graham Platner in Maine’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary when she read news of sexual text messages the oysterman had sent while married to a woman who wasn’t his wife.

Halvorsen, who described herself as a Platner skeptic-turned-fan, is back to being a skeptic. As she attended a town hall of his at the Elks Lodge in Portland on Sunday — at least her eighth Platner event since last fall — she was regretting the vote.

“I’m feeling very let down, disappointed,” she said. “Because I don’t think it was handled well. I don’t think he took responsibility for it.”

Platner’s continued drumbeat of scandals has divided both Democratic Party leaders and voters as they stare down the must-win Senate race. Defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November is crucial to the party’s plans to take back control of the upper chamber and provide a check on President Donald Trump. But even as Platner’s staunch supporters stick with him, his political baggage is threatening to sink him with some Democratic and independent voters heading into the general election, according to interviews with nearly two dozen Maine voters.

Several Democratic voters were hesitant to weigh in on the Senate race, saying they felt Platner’s candidacy was all but certain at this point and sharing their opinion on him was likely to be met with backlash. Others who were planning to vote Democratic in November are now toying with backing Collins or sitting out the Senate race entirely — a challenge for the likely nominee and his party.

Peter and Kelly Dufour were manning the grill at a Get-Out-the-Vote event for gubernatorial candidate Hannah Pingree in Portland on Saturday and excited about the former Democratic state House speaker’s candidacy for governor. Asked about the Senate race, Kelly put her head in her hands.

The pair were looking to learn more about David Costello, who was Democratic Senate nominee in 2024 and is running in the primary again this year — the only Democrat candidate on the ballot besides Platner and Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her campaign in April.

Peter said he was “disappointed” by Collins’ votes in the past few years, particularly to confirm judges, but he’s “torn” over giving up her prime seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee for Platner.

“I want someone of good moral character to be my senator,” he said, describing himself as 50-50 on the race right now.

Kelly said she wasn’t sure if she was 50-50 anymore in light of the latest Platner news.

With Platner, she said, “it just seems like one thing after another.”

Platner and his allies have attributed his past poor conduct to his struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use after leaving the military. He has said he found community after moving back to Maine and asked voters to judge him on who he is now. But some Maine voters are still skeptical of his story of redemption.

Kathy Bonk, a Brooksville resident and president of the Maine chapter of the National Organization of Women, plans to vote for Mills in Tuesday’s primary, though she expects Platner to prevail.

“There’s been a lot of press coverage about, ‘Well, we’ll let Maine voters decide.’ The Maine Democratic voters are going to decide the primary, but then you put that question to all Maine voters in the general,” she said. “I just think there’s a number of people that after everything that’s come out on Platner just can’t bring themselves to vote for Platner.”

Some Democrats are hoping that a poor showing from Platner in Tuesday’s primary would help them convince him to step aside and allow the state party to replace him with another candidate. But the idea seemed fairly ludicrous to most voters in Maine, given not only Platner’s record of surviving scandals but also his strong base of supporters — many of whom see his controversies as outside attacks on his movement that have only hardened their resolve for him.

“Mainers don’t want to see one of their own cut down at the knees,” said Constantine Dixon, a 36-year-old from Portland who attended the Sunday town hall for Platner.

Platner has inspired many Maine voters in a way few other candidates have in the state’s recent political history, drawing massive crowds like few in the state have seen and going from an unknown oysterman to consistently leading the sitting governor in primary polls. Many of his backers brush off his recent controversies as less important than the issues he is running on: universal health care, getting money out of politics, and making the state affordable for working people.

He has maintained support from lawmakers like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) rallied with him in Bar Harbor on Friday, and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), in his first public display of support, hosted a virtual fundraiser for him on Sunday.

“Since this campaign launched, we have been and remain deeply humbled by the support and loyalty of this movement,” Ben Chin, Platner’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “Mainers know Graham, they understand what he stands for, and they believe in what this campaign is fighting for. Lifting people up and fighting for working Mainers has been and always will be our priority.”

Days after reports of the extramarital sexting, the New York Times published accounts of several of Platner’s ex-girlfriends who recalled disturbing patterns of behavior. One woman alleged that he had grabbed her in ways that left marks and once locked her in a room.

Platner’s campaign acknowledged he sent sexual text messages to other women while married, but had already addressed the issue with his wife. He admitted to being a “bad boyfriend” in past relationships but said he had never been violent.

At the town hall in Portland on Sunday, Platner was received enthusiastically by hundreds of supporters. Some attendees said they showed up specifically to indicate their support for him after a difficult week.

Charlotte Brown, an unenrolled voter, said she had supported Collins until the senator’s vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In Platner, she finally found a politician who “represented us.”

“We wanted to come to stand up for him with all the attacks,” she said. “We wanted him to know that we have his back.”

Platner’s supporters, which include many older women who make up the core of the Democratic Party in Maine, largely don’t condone his past behavior — but they believe in his personal growth.

“What happened in his personal life was a long time ago,” said Janet Miles, an Air Force veteran attending an event for Pingree over the weekend. “People change. Do I approve of the things he did? Definitely not. If he did all those things a week ago, that would be different.”

“I was really upset when I heard his comments about women drinking and rape,” said Cathy Walter, a retiree from Gorham, Maine, referencing Platner’s Reddit history that was uncovered last fall. In posts more than a decade ago, Platner had written that sexual assault victims should take responsibility and avoid alcohol so as not to end up in a “compromising situation.”

But Walter appreciated how Platner owned up to his past conduct and said what happened “does not disqualify him.” She’s taking cues from national leaders on whether he can still beat Collins in November.

“I’m watching, what is Bernie Sanders saying? What is Elizabeth Warren saying?” Walter said. “They would be pulling their support if he couldn’t get elected.”

Platner’s political rise has captivated the state since his campaign launch last August. News reports about his old social media posts and a tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol did not meaningfully slow his momentum. Mills, who was recruited for the race by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, ended up suspending her campaign at the end of April, as Platner continued to lead her in fundraising and public polls.

Mills has not endorsed Platner, and some of his skeptics are planning to vote for her in the primary. The governor hasn’t publicly remarked on the race other than reminding a Maine Trust for Local News columnist a week ago that she remains on the ballot.

Mills campaign signs still dotted Portland neighborhoods this weekend. In Portland’s Back Bay, one sign was improvisationally stapled to a wooden post. Written by hand in blue marker was a reminder for passersby: “She’s still in! Vote!”

National Republicans have been gearing up for a general election battle against Platner for months, with the pro-Collins super PAC Pine Tree Results launching ads last month that focused on Platner’s Reddit comments and tattoo. In the aftermath of the recent controversies, Collins told reporters in Maine on Friday that Platner had “a lot of questions to answer.”

Halvorsen, the former Platner fan who was frustrated with his recent scandals, said she could not remember seeing Maine Democrats so at odds over something — and she recalled many contested primaries in the state. On social media, she said, she’d faced attacks for being a Platner skeptic, attacks for being a fan, and now attacks for being ambivalent about him.

“Trump wants us to be divided,” she said. “And that’s what’s happening in Maine.”

Source link

The far right is trying to defeat Sen. Lindsey Graham. He’s burning serious cash to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Spending from his campaign and allied outside groups ahead of Tuesday’s primary has already topped $18 million, according to an AdImpact analysis — an eye-popping sum in the relatively small state, and a sign that Graham is taking seriously the primary challenge from businessman Mark Lynch as he seeks to avoid a runoff election.

Graham allies including a pro-cryptocurrency organization, an outside group closely aligned with GOP Senate leadership, and a super PAC that has not yet been required to make its donor list public have combined to dump millions into the race on Graham’s behalf.

Lynch has held his own, mostly self-funding his campaign with $5 million of his retirement savings. He is running hard to Graham’s right, setting up a proxy test of whether the “America First” GOP base views President Donald Trump’s recent interventionist turn with some skepticism even as they continue to support the president. Core to his message is an attack on the senator’s long history in Washington, including his past support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants — and his stridently interventionist foreign policy, including his vocal support for Trump’s war in Iran. Lynch’s campaign ads feature clips of Graham from his 2016 presidential bid calling Trump a “bigot” and praising former President Joe Biden.

Lynch’s campaign has also attracted the support of some of the president’s most prominent MAGA Republican critics, like former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who says the GOP has moved away from Trump’s “America First” platform.

The few public polls of the primary show Graham either narrowly topping or just under the 50 percent threshold he’d need to avoid a two-week runoff. In addition to Lynch, four other Republicans will appear on the ballot, which could further dilute Graham’s share of the vote.

The big spending against a little-known primary opponent has drawn some attention in the closing days of the primary.

“Lindsey is well-funded. You might as well make sure you’ve got all the i’s dotted and all the t’s crossed to make sure that you win without a runoff,” said Tyson Grinstead, chair of the Richland County GOP and a former Graham campaign adviser. “For Lindsey, I think it’s not outside the norm, especially in Lindsey dollars.”

The matchup between the longtime senator and the Upstate South Carolina businessman is shaping up to be a test of what “America First” means and who can claim that mantle in the Republican Party: close allies of the president like Graham, or those who are the staunchest adherents to MAGA’s original values, like Lynch.

Anti-interventionism was a core tenant of Trump’s meteoric rise that helped him squash more hawkish Republicans, including Graham, to win the White House in 2016. But now, more than 100 days into a conflict with Iran, the president has aligned himself with Graham’s hardline approach to foreign policy — a complete reversal of his perennial campaign promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars.

Trump has backed Graham’s reelection bid, but several anti-interventionist Republicans have come out in support of Lynch in the closing days of the campaign, painting Graham as an avatar of establishment support for U.S. military intervention.

Greene, a former Trump acolyte who broke with the president over voting to release the Jeffrey Epstein files and the war in Iran, posted a long message supporting Lynch and slamming Graham as an “America Last warmonger.” Joe Kent, who left his Trump administration post in March because of the Iran war, posted a similar endorsement message a few days prior.

“All the double dealing, all the lies, all the selling out the country to foreign powers — now [Graham] faces the humiliation of being forced into a runoff,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, told POLITICO.

Graham is still seen as a heavy favorite to hold the seat. He has been sent back to the Senate three times since he first won in 2002, warding off a primary challenge from the right each time. He’s a fixture of both Palmetto State and national Republican politics, and has successfully rekindled a close alliance with Trump amidst their long-running on-again, off-again relationship.

Regardless of whether he wins outright or has to keep running for two weeks, Graham is still expected to defeat Lynch. But the viability of Lynch’s challenge so far reveals yet another fissure between a faction of MAGA and the Republican establishment that has been remade in Trump’s image.

“I take everything seriously when it comes to representing the people of South Carolina, including my primary,” Graham said in a statement to POLITICO.

The senator has long been a prolific fundraiser. He amassed the single biggest war chest of any Republican running this cycle and had just over $4 million cash on hand as of late May, despite the likelihood that he will not face a competitive general election. And he’s no stranger to spending big to ward off a primary challenge. In 2014, Graham spent $8.5 million to overcome a crowded primary field that became a test to prove his conservative credentials. And he spent nearly $100 million in 2020, successfully dispatching Democrat Jaime Harrison in the general election by 10 points in the deep-red state, even as Harrison outspent him.

But more important than money in deep-red South Carolina, he has firm backing from the president, who has stuck with Graham even as cracks emerge in his home state support — and in spite of their occasional splits.

Trump swooped in to boost Graham with a tele-rally on the eve of Election Day.

“He’s outstanding. He’s been at my side for a long time. We fought each other initially a long time ago,” Trump said Monday. “But after that fight was over, we were best of friends, and he’s helped me as much as anybody in the Senate.”

In encouraging Republicans to vote for Graham, Trump also tacitly acknowledged the challenge Lynch poses. “We don’t want any surprises, we don’t want any bad things to happen. Elections, you never know, so we have to be very careful,” he said.

Lynch’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview. His spokesperson and adviser Noel Fritsch said that if the campaign can push Graham into a runoff, it would be “a huge shock to the system” in South Carolina because Graham has won easily in the past.

Lynch’s platform is centered around spending money domestically rather than overseas, and he has spent significant time on the stump and on far-right media outlets hammering Graham’s record as more “Washington-first” than “America First.” He’s blasted Graham for his support of Trump’s war in Iran, in particular.

While Lynch casts himself as a strong supporter of Trump and his MAGA movement, Fritsch brushed aside concerns that the president’s endorsement of Graham will be insurmountable in the Republican primary.

“Everybody that we’re talking to is like, ‘what’s going on with his endorsements?’ There’s a couple of folks out there who are kind of like, ‘I’ll do whatever Trump says,’ but most of the folks are just like, ‘What is going on? This is not the Trump that we knew or voted for over and over again,’ Which, by the way, is what Mr. Mark Lynch did.”

Lynch’s campaign faces an uphill battle against a well-funded incumbent with deep ties to the Republican Party in Columbia and Washington. Graham’s campaign has spent $13 million alone on advertising, several million of which have been in negative ads hitting Lynch over his complicated past with drug use and arrest on charges of cocaine trafficking in 1984.

“Mark’s been very open about the fact that in the early 80s … he had some issues with substance abuse, specifically cocaine. He’s been a teetotaling, stone-cold sober, Southern Baptist guy for over four decades since then,” Fritsch said.

Observers and allies say that others have tried this kind of primary challenge with Graham before — and it hasn’t worked.

“Lindsey has only lost one county in any primary race in his career for the Senate, and that was — gosh, that was 2008,” Grinstead, the Richland GOP chair, said.

“The same people who are always against Lindsey are against Lindsey this time,” he added. “I’m not seeing a lot of new folks who are on the conservative side of the grassroots establishment starting to leave Lindsey.”

Andrew Howard and William Steakin contributed to this report.

Source link

Source link

The Scottish parliament has voted to approve a new wealth tax on high-end luxury goods, especially mansions and houses over £1m and private jet travel.

Scottish parliament leading the way

MSPs went to the Scottish parliament chamber to debate a new “fair, progressive and sustainable” approach to tax. This included the plans for a levy on private jets and houses owned by the wealthiest in society.

The motion — which passed 84-28, with 10 abstentions — highlighted the role taxes play in the delivery of essential public services. The motion welcomed all of Scotland’s recent

progress made towards the creation of a private jet tax and a mansion tax

The vote was largely symbolic, as the SNP‘s budget already outlined plans to implement a mansion tax by 2028, alongside a private jet tax. Labour’s amendment calling for an “immediate and comprehensive review of business rates” also passed by 95 votes to 27.

Posting on X, Scotland’s newly (re-)elected SNP First Minister John Swinney celebrated the vote:

In a cost of living crisis, it is right that those with the broadest shoulders contribute a bit more – while the majority of taxpayers in Scotland continue to pay less tax than elsewhere in the UK.

These are the words we head from Starmer once upon a time. How refreshing that they should actually be taken to mean something and be acted upon.

BREAKING: Parliament backed our plans for a private jet tax and a mansion tax.

In a cost of living crisis, it is right that those with the broadest shoulders contribute a bit more – while the majority of taxpayers in Scotland continue to pay less tax than elsewhere in the UK. pic.twitter.com/ABAZ0tQs7f

— John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) June 4, 2026

Advertisement

Call it the ‘Offord Tax’

The Scottish Greens have long campaigned for a private jet levy and other forms of wealth taxes, and joined the SNP politicians in celebrating the vote online.

However, a Greens’ amendment was defeated by 30 votes to 37, with 55 abstentions It argued that:

progressive reform of property tax could play a powerful role in wealth taxation

Nonetheless, the Greens have clear cause for celebrating the policy which they, alongside other progressives, have made the loudest case for. This is partly thanks to Zack Polanski’s bold messaging to the south.

Private jet flights are 30 times more polluting than regular flights.

After years of campaigning from Scottish Green MSPs, the Scottish Government is set to introduce a private jet tax! pic.twitter.com/WoURMlQsqc

Advertisement

— Scottish Greens (@scottishgreens) June 4, 2026

But it’s Scottish Greens leader Ross Greer’s sharp jibes at Reform UK’s leader Malcom Offord in the final stretch of May’s Holyrood elections which clearly captured the wealth debate.

Appearing together on the party leaders’ televised STV debate, the multi-millionaire ex-BoJo donor Lord Offord bragged about his wealth accumulation. Offord stated:

Today, I own six houses, five cars, and six boats. …

Mr Greer, in your Scotland … Do you want more people like me or fewer people like me?

Advertisement

To this, Greer swiftly and unapologetically replied: “Fewer people like you.” He said he was glad Offord finally admitted how many homes he owns! He also pointed out that there’s three times as many empty homes in Scotland as there are homeless children.

Reform UK’s amendment warned that increases in wealth taxes lead to “significant flight of tax revenues.” It lost by 16 votes to 94, with 10 abstentions. Perhaps with some luck, Mr Offord will take Mr Greer’s advice and flee away, taxes and all if needs be.

The Conservatives’ amendment called on the Government to “reduce income tax to stimulate growth.” It was also defeated in the Scottish parliament by 28 votes to 94. Reducing tax burdens on working people and focusing on wealth tax isn’t a bad idea — but Tories don’t support that. Let’s sort out wealth taxes before we reconsider income, eh?

Reform’s Scottish leader brags about owning ‘6 houses’ in debate

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Award-winning Welsh journalist and author Will Hayward has criticised a senior Welsh Reform politician over his comments that “infantilise” the proud people he claims to represent.

The Reformer’s statement came at the Hay literary festival in Hay-on-Wye in Wales. Hayward indicated the Member of the Senedd (MS) in his post as James Evans. He’s the Shadow Minister for Health, Prevention and Sport in Reform’s Welsh cabinet.

Since May’s Senedd elections, James Evans MS has occupied that position within Welsh Reform. The comments were made in the context of significant ongoing debates around devolving the Crown Estate.

The MS stated that Wales shouldn’t have more devolved powers because:

I don’t think it should devolve, for the simple reason being: if you devolve it you’ve got to then set up an office to run it. And we’re not very good in Wales at being efficient in running things…

The crowd, presumably with a large Welsh contingent, groaned in unison at these ignorant comments. There’s at least one audible exclamation of “come on,” and certainly not a positive one.

Reform are the official opposition since Labour collapsed in Wales in May’s historic Senedd elections which delivered pro-independence party Plaid Cymru to power for the first time. It’s hardly very patriotic for a Welsh Reform politician to belittle his people in such a demeaning manner.

Reform’s three-page plea to Wales doesn’t mention ‘Wales’ once

Hayward hits back at Reform

Will Hayward makes it clear that, while he favours devolution of Wales’ land away from the English crown to its people, being against evolution is not inherently anti-Welsh. Evans’ comments, however, do seem to be.

Responding to the Reform shadow minister’s comments, Hayward wrote online:

the argument that “we are not very good in Wales at being efficient” is one of the most infantile descriptions of a nation I have ever heard, especially coming from a man/party who claimed they wanted to lead that nation. The idea that Wales and the Welsh are uniquely incapable of running something illustrates a level of self-hate and lack of confidence that we need to shed.

It’s a narrative that holds us back more than almost anything.

In Hayward’s view, this mindset makes a mockery of the idea that Welsh Reform are serious about winning power in the Celtic nation. It gives credence to the idea that Welsh Reform’s political agenda in Wales is only really ever about laundering consent for Reform in Westminster, and not about the Welsh people.

It’s a retrograde, patronising state of mind, which we should always push back on when it comes from outside of Wales. But it’s particularly damaging when it comes from politicians who claim that they want to lead Wales. …

Reform are deeply hostile to treating Wales as a thing in and of itself. They’re really hostile to the idea of Wales having devolution, of having its own parliament. … If you thought you could lead Welsh government, why would you not want that government to be equipped?

As Hayward points out in another video, Reform appear to have abandoned some major demographic groups. They need to win these around if they were serious about winning meaningfully in Wales:

• Women, who make up 51% of voters, yet lag ten percent behind Welsh male support for Reform;
• Young people, who overwhelmingly oppose Reform at both the Welsh and the UK level; and
• People who feel “more Welsh than British,” which is Wales’s largest single identity group across all other demographic dividers (ethnic background, age, gender, etc.).

To that list I’d add Wales’ Black and Brown people, since multiple Reform figures have shared vile racist posts.

Wales moves to decolonise its museums, and GB News is losing it

Time to devolve the Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate is the land owned by the King in Wales, and all moneys earned by it go to the Treasury in London. It’s not like Scotland’s estates, where money earned from royal estates remains in Holyrood.

Constitutional law wonk Gareth Evans explains the significance of the Crown Estate:

The Crown Estate holds a diverse portfolio of assets in Wales which includes 65 per cent of the foreshore, over 50,000 acres of land, and the majority of the seabed out to 12 nautical miles. It also holds general rights over the seabed and subsoil out to 200 nautical miles, including natural resources and the licensing of offshore energy projects, but excluding fossil fuels. …

The economic importance … of these assets is reflected in the recent changes in the stated value of the Crown Estate’s assets in Wales, which increased from £95 million in 2020 to £853 million in 2023.

So this sudden uptick in value has clearly made the Crown Estate a hot topic. But the issue of the Crown Estate has gained particular significance since Plaid Cymru took power in Wales.

In 2025 a Private Members’ bill was introduced by Lord Wigley, Plaid’s former leader. But it did not pass, and the UK government remains opposed to devolving the money-maker. Because of course it does.

However, in 2024, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales recommended that the Crown Estate should:

become the responsibility of the devolved government of Wales, as it is in Scotland.

Advocates like Hayward argue that if it’s not devolved, Wales might forgo opportunities to shape and capture value from its own natural resources. In Scotland, Holyrood’s management of their devolved Crown Estate estimate that over £90b investments into offshore wind energy could be made within 10-15 years.

Ultimately, like all of Wales, the Estate was only brought under English rule by military conquest centuries ago. It remains, like some say of all Cymru, colonised by England’s crown.

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

England manager Thomas Tuchel has sent a direct message to Real Madrid star Jude Bellingham, emphasising that competition for starting places in the squad heading to the 2026 World Cup will be wide open, with no guarantees for any player.

Bellingham’s place not confirmed – yet

According to Sky Sports, Tuchel emphasised that Bellingham is one of several players in contention for the playmaker role (No. 10), given the wealth of options available within the England squad.

This comes at a time when Bellingham has featured in just four matches during the qualifiers, whilst the coaching staff have relied on other players, most notably Aston Villa’s Morgan Rogers, who played in all eight qualifying matches, reflecting the fierce competition for this position.

According to the same source, Tuchel emphasised that England’s squad includes a large number of players capable of filling key roles, noting that the coaching staff have around 14 or 15 players who could be considered for the starting line-up, which means the final selections will remain open until the very last moments before the tournament kicks off.

This statement presents Bellingham with a direct challenge to prove his worth, at a time when England are preparing to enter the World Cup with high ambitions and a squad brimming with options in the attacking midfield.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link