Content warning: this article features graphic discussion of rape and sexual abuse. 

A US federal prosecutor has denied opening a case against a woman who claims Donald Trump raped her. But a source had told the legacy press that such a case is being pursued. It would be the latest of many sexual abuse scandals centering on the US president.

Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of “raping her in the mid-1990s”. Trump and Carroll have already contested two cases heard in court.

Carrol is a former columnist for Elle Magazine. CBC reported:

The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied on Thursday that his ‌office has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the writer who accused U.S. President Donald Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s.

A person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday that the Justice Department had begun an investigation, led by ​the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, into whether Carroll committed ​perjury in testimony involving two civil lawsuits that she won against Trump.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said:

The Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office can confirm that it has not opened — and has never opened — ​a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.

Trump complications

An anonymous source previously told legacy media:

the probe involved testimony in Carroll’s successful cases, decided in 2023 and 2024, alleging Trump sexually abused her in a New York department store and defamed her by saying she was lying.

The new case, which federal lawyers deny is being developed, focuses on whether Carroll lied about her case being funded by a third party.

The anonymous source said:

the prosecutors’ move was based on a 2022 deposition statement by the former Elle magazine advice columnist that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. Her lawyers later revealed ​that Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, had paid some of her legal bills.

A previous appeal found:

Ms. Carroll plausibly represented that she had forgotten ⁠about the limited outside funding counsel obtained in September 2020 when this question was first posed to ⁠her in 2022, and the additional discovery did not indicate otherwise.

CBC said:

A jury found ⁠in May 2023 that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll, and defamed her by ⁠lying, but did not rape her. Another jury in January 2024 found that ⁠he ⁠had defamed her and ordered him ​to pay $83.3 million US in damages.

Trump denies raping/sexually assaulting Carroll. In August 2024 a federal judge found the claim that the current US president had raped Carroll to be “substantially true.” However, the legal issue is complicated by the verdict of a jury in a civil case regarding the alleged sexual assault. USA Today reported that:

Under New York criminal law, an assault constitutes “rape” only if it involves vaginal penetration by a penis. That was the definition the jury was instructed to use in the civil case.

As such, the jury found that Carroll did not prove that Trump raped her, but did prove that Trump sexually abused her.

Trump settling old scores through abuse of the law

Trump uses the US legal system to settle old scores, CBC said:

Since Trump returned to the presidency for a second time, Democrats have accused him of seeking retribution against those who he believes have wronged him.

Adding:

Some have also accused acting U.S. attorney general Todd Blanche and his predecessor Pam Bondi of enabling Trump in those quests, undermining the independence of the Justice Department.

Other targets included:

former Trump national security adviser John Bolton, former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, although a judge dismissed the charges against James in late 2025.

And:

Investigations have also either been announced or uncovered by reporters concerning Sen. Adam Schiff, former CIA director John Brennan and first-term Trump administration members Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.

The president was a long-time associate of paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. One Epstein file linked Trump with a murder in December 2025:

The report additionally details an accusation from a woman who claimed Trump and Epstein raped her. The woman said she wouldn’t call the police as “they will kill me”.

The woman was later found with her head “blown off”. Reportedly, officers at the scene said ‘there was no way it was a suicide’, although a coroner would later deem it to be self-inflicted.

Trump denies any wrongdoing. His accusers are numerous. Reports suggest at least 25 women have accused him of different forms of sexual violence. Time will tell if this new probe into Carroll emerges and if more women put forward allegations in the current febrile climate of legal repression. The US president is under legal and political pressure on many fronts – not least the Iran war. The victims of alleged sexual violence have often had their stories overshadowed by the churn of world events.

Featured image via Getty/Roberto Schmidt

By Joe Glenton

Source link

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) shouldn’t force people living with terminal illness and progressive, life-limiting conditions to undergo stressful, costly and unnecessary disability benefit reassessments.

So says a coalition of more than 30 organisations, led by end-of-life charity Marie Curie, in an open letter to DWP minister Stephen Timms.

Sent on 28 May to coincide with the Call for Evidence deadline for the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payments, the open letter describes the reform as a “clear and compassionate” way to protect people living with terminal illness and those with progressive life-limiting conditions.

DWP has a chance to make things better

The coalition argues that PIP reassessments represent an unacceptable burden. They force people already suffering with their health to prove they are unwell enough to receive support they will always need.

Instead, they should have assured and constant financial support until they die, so they can focus on what really matters – staying as well as possible and spending time with loved ones.

Signatories include, among others:

• Age UK.
• Amnesty International.
• MS Society.
• Parkinson’s UK.
• Trussell Trust.

The coalition adds:

• PIP is designed to help with the extra costs of disability. But for people who are dying or living with progressive, life-limiting conditions, reassessments can cause needless distress, uncertainty and financial anxiety at a time when every moment matters.
• Reassessing people whose conditions will only worsen adds little value for the DWP. Just 2% of PIP awards for people with Parkinson’s, dementia and Motor Neurone Disease are reduced on review. That’s despite each assessment costing around £282, raising concerns about both the human and financial cost.
• Lifetime awards for people in receipt of PIP via the Special Rules route are already in place in Scotland. This shows that a more compassionate system is both possible and practical.

Becca Stacey, Marie Curie senior policy manager, Financial Security, said:

Too many people living with terminal illness and progressive, life-limiting conditions are being forced to prove just how unwell they are, which is simply wrong.

These reassessments rarely change the outcome, but they cause real distress and uncertainty at a time when people should be focused on comfort, care and time with loved ones.

The UK government has a clear chance to fix this now. Ending reassessments and introducing lifetime awards for people with terminal and progressive, life-limiting conditions would create a fairer, more compassionate system that treats people with dignity.

Advertisement

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said:

At Age UK we think it is inhumane to burden people in these sad situations, and their loved ones, with a full PIP reassessment.

It is also wasteful since in these circumstances there is usually no prospect of the reassessment concluding that the recipient is ineligible for support, for however time-limited the period they may need it.

That’s why we support Marie Curie in calling for these reassessments to end, and we sincerely hope that the Timms Review will provide the mechanism to enable this to happen.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

This is genuinely incredible and says SO SO MUCH about the perception of China in the West.

This is the #1 news show in France, and the host – David Pujadas – asks the pundits around the table (a sample of the top media figures in France) if they can name 3 living Chinese… pic.twitter.com/gkkWxTKfni

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 29, 2026

This selection of French media pundits was offered a simple challenge: name three living Chinese people.

As you’d expect, a familiar response came: Xi Jinping; then… nothing. Rien. Juste l’embarras.

These are not some random fellows interviewed vox-pop on the street. They’re prime-time pundits on the supposedly ‘top’ or number-one French news show. According to Chinese-resident French journalist Arnaud Bertrand, they’re some of France’s media bigwigs. Yet their ignorance on China is staggering.

Like much of the Western media class, they regularly obsess about Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China (CPC). They accept that one cannot study global affairs without talking about the major, transformational role China plays.

Yet they cannot name anyone beyond Chinese President Xi. Not even Premier Li Qiang. What baffling idiocy.

Here’s a simple primer … just think about how many US politicians you could name. One category alone. Now add to that American singers, actors, sportspeople, internet personalities, etc. Sure, they’re English-speaking — but I bet you could name a few across non-anglophone Europe too. Start to notice the imbalance? Funny, innit?

Western double standards

I’ve suffered enough UK and global English-language corporate media over the years to have no doubts that French media heads aren’t alone on this. We’ve all imbibed the simple-minded ‘analysts’ at work.

It’s why so frequently pundits and politicians resort to the same tired clichés: Chinese workers “stole our jobs” (they didn’t); China is “doing colonialism” in Africa, or China is a “threat to our national security” (it’s not). The left isn’t innocent of this either — see anti-imperialist journalist Abby Martin challenging Novara’s Michael Walker on the latter unfounded assertion.

But these French bien-pensants don’t know any counterpart journalists, nor top CPC council politicians nor ministers. Not even the usual roster of Western-media spotlighted Chinese figures such as Jack Ma, Jimmy Lai or Ai Wei Wei. They couldn’t name a single cultural icon like actor Jackie Chan or singer Faye Wong.

They couldn’t offer us any Chinese person they’ve met, even in their personal or professional lives, they’re so isolated from actual contact with China! Gentle reminder — Chinese people account for 17% of us all.

As Arnaud Bertrand writes on X:

They do not know a single living Chinese person beyond the president. …

That’s the level of ignorance of China we’re dealing with in the West today, in 2026.

Top academic researcher Jason Hickel — whose Substack research on China is well worth checking out — added that his experience of talking to Westerners about China is exactly similar.

This is disturbing. And it accords with my own experience, where Western pundits will pronounce very strong opinions about China’s political system, with great certainty, but when you ask them even basic questions like “how do NPC elections work”, “how do CPC elections work”, or… https://t.co/e2DKIlpyab

— Jason Hickel (@jasonhickel) May 29, 2026

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary / X

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

A growing group of academics, students, trade unionists, education advocates, and civil society organisations across the UK has condemned the Ministry of Defence’s newly launched Defence Universities Alliance. They’re warning that the initiative represents a dangerous escalation in the militarisation of higher education.

Demilitarise Education has released an official public statement opposing the Defence Universities Alliance. Ten organisations and groups across the UK have endorsed the statement, including:

• World Beyond War.
• Action on Armed Violence.
• Loughborough Action for Palestine.
• Stop the War.
• Boycott, Divest, Sanction Group – UCL.
• CND.
• People & Planet.
• University & College Workers for Palestine.
• Quakers in Britain.
• Campaign Against Arms Trade.

The endorsement signals growing cross-sector concern over the Defence Universities Alliance’s potential impact on academic independence, democratic accountability, ethical research, and the future role of higher education in society.

Defence Universities Alliance – embedding militarism into education

The Defence Universities Alliance, which launched earlier this month, seeks to recruit twenty founding university members. Universities joining the alliance would commit to expanding research and development in so-called “defence and national security” technologies while strengthening pathways into military-related industries.

The initiative fundamentally reshapes the role of universities, away from serving the public good and towards supporting military infrastructure, weapons development, and state militarisation.

Jinsella, co-founder and executive director of Demilitarise Education, said:

The Defence Universities Alliance is designed to lock civil society into the conveyor belt of perpetual war. University leaders must see past the facade of a ‘whole-of-society’ approach to defence.

This isn’t about human security, it’s about arms-industry profits. Innovation in favour of creating the conditions for peace and conflict resolution should be coming out of universities, not war machines.

NGOs warn that the alliance threatens academic freedom and institutional independence by encouraging universities to align research priorities with military objectives rather than urgent social, environmental, and humanitarian needs.

Under the Defence Universities Alliance charter, universities would be expected to support the UK’s wider military strategy actively. This might be through defence-focused research partnerships, skills development, and closer collaboration with arms manufacturers and the defence sector.

Growing criticism argues this could fundamentally reshape the role of higher education by prioritising military and national security objectives over independent, socially beneficial research.

This could steer students and graduates into defence careers through targeted skills and career promotion. And it risks embedding a “whole-of-society” militarisation agenda that blurs the boundary between education, public institutions, and military priorities.

Concerns are also growing that increased institutional alignment with defence interests risks undermining academic independence, narrowing ethical debate on campuses, and redirecting public resources and expertise away from urgent social challenges such as inequality, healthcare, climate, and education.

The three major charter points embedded here are:

• Defence research prioritisation: universities becoming more focused on military/national security research.
• Defence skills and career promotion: students being channelled into defence-sector employment.
• “Whole-of-society” collaboration agenda: deeper institutional integration between universities, government and defence industry.

Iain Overton, of Action on Armed Violence, commented:

Universities should be places of critical inquiry and peaceful scrutiny. They are not extensions of the military-industrial complex. The growing alignment between higher education and defence interests risks undermining academic independence and distorting research priorities.

We have seen this in the past and that past has led, invariably, to war. We know this is the path, and yet we continue down it, blindly and without moral scruples.

Call for resistance and transparency

There are also concerns about the broader government agenda surrounding the Defence Universities Alliance, including efforts to expand military-linked career pathways and increase defence-sector recruitment through higher education institutions.

Commitments to the Defence Universities Alliance charter will reposition universities as part of the UK’s so-called “Defence Industrial Base”. This move erodes the political neutrality of higher education and risks academic freedom.

Organisations involved in the statement are calling on university communities across the UK to resist the initiative through collective action, democratic scrutiny, and public accountability.
The coalition is demanding:

• Full transparency regarding implications and discussions or negotiations relating to Defence Universities Alliance membership.
• Democratic oversight through university senates and governing bodies.
• Meaningful consultation with students, staff, and affected communities.
• Development of alternative partnership alliances.

Organisations supporting the statement are calling on university communities across the UK to resist the initiative through collective action, democratic scrutiny, and public accountability.

Union motions in favour of demilitarising education have now been adopted at six universities with further cross-campus organising to challenge the expansion of military influence within universities being encouraged.

Annachiara Canetta, Europe organiser at World BEYOND War, added:

At World BEYOND War we believe that educational institutions should imagine and build alternatives to militarism, not become increasingly entangled with it.

We oppose the Defence Universities Alliance and the normalisation of military influence in academic life, and we stand in solidarity with Demilitarise Education and all those resisting the Defence Universities Alliance.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Andy Burnham has finally hit back at Tony Blair’s thinly veiled criticism of his potential leadership of the Labour Party.

Blair previously published a rambling article via his eponymous think tank, the Tony Blair Institute, detailing his belief in the so-called ‘radical centre‘. From what we can tell, that means private-sector deregulation, centering AI above all, slashing welfare and wages, and sucking up to Trump. Really radical, that lot.

The section of Blair’s essay which reads as an attack on Burnham is this:

the alternative which thinks the answer is moving even further left on taxes, spending and welfare, spun with a rehash of the far-left critique about nothing good coming out of the last ‘40 years’ of ‘neo-liberalism’, which presumably includes the last Labour government.

Likewise, Blair also criticised a nascent impulse in what’s left of the supposedly left-wing Labour party to, you know, put out left-wing policies:

It is one thing when in opposition to indulge this perennial delusion that when we lose seats to the right the country is really signalling it wants Labour to move left; it is dangerous to do it in government.

Would we at the Canary necessarily characterise Burnham as all that left-wing? Probably not. However, he’s a damn sight further left than Blair, for sure.

Burnham: ‘life has got harder’

Now, however, Burnham has come out with his rebuttal to Blair’s perceived criticisms. In an article for the Times on 28 May, the Manchester mayor wrote of reading Blair’s essay:

I kept waiting for the main topic of conversation on doorsteps in Makerfield to make an appearance. And it never did. The fall in the living standards of millions, and the reality that life has got harder for most year on year since the financial crash in 2008, is, I believe, the gaping omission in his analysis.

In fact, Blair called for policies which will make people’s living standards even worse. Namely, the ex-Labour leader called to slash the minimum wage, worker’s rights, and benefits. Likewise, he also advocated for the deregulation of both the housing and technology sectors, claiming that:

We need a transformative programme for planning reform and deregulation. The planning system in Britain is an abomination. The government has taken significant steps, but well short of a truly radical reform.

However, this call for deregulation was an ‘in’ for Burnham, who wrote that:

Lest we forget: the principal cause of the 2008 crash was a failure of regulation. So how can a new wave of deregulation plausibly be the answer to the problems we have experienced since? This is the real “retro” thinking, I suggest; the kind of thinking that would doom us to repeat past mistakes and, if we’re not careful, prevent us from protecting children by failing to regulate social media, artificial intelligence and big tech.

Regulation for growth

Instead, the new leadership hopeful called for us to “build a higher-growth economy” precisely in order to achieve “regional equality and social justice”. Of course, exactly how that commitment to social justice lines up with his support for anti-trans and anti-immigrant stances is anyone’s guess.

Continuing in the ‘regulation for growth’ vein, the Manchester Mayor argued:

In Greater Manchester, we have laid a new path to [a higher-growth economy]. We call it Good Growth. In the past decade, we achieved the highest annual average growth anywhere in the UK — 3.1 per cent — and, at the same time, as the Centre for Cities recently found, the biggest reduction in inner-city deprivation. This has not come about by leaving things to the market but by being very interventionist and intentional about it.

It’s certainly correct that Manchester is doing a good deal better for itself than many comparable cities. Part of that is down to the city’s control over its transportation system – including nearly half a billion pounds of dividends from its international airport, owned in part by the council.

As Burnham is wont to do, he turned to Manchester’s buses as an example:

We are proud to be the first place anywhere to reverse one of the biggest Thatcher legacies: bus deregulation. A system that charged single fares of more than £4 when I arrived in 2017 is now capped at £2. […] Tony is right to say that we need welfare reform and that the numbers of young people on benefits is too high, but how can you fix that if people can’t afford to travel to training, jobs and opportunity?

The non-radical center

Burnham finished off by writing that:

We need a huge transfer of power, resources and personnel to combined and local authorities to create more agency at the ground level, empower our community and voluntary sectors and make Good Growth a reality everywhere. This means big changes to British public procurement, using full social value weighting, to give local entities the best chance of winning contracts and recycling maximum value back into communities.

Devolved political power, a regulated private sector, and a empowered communities? Sure, sounds great, we’re all for it. However, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, Burnham’s other policies and actions haven’t quite lived up to his leftist hype. Just as a quick roundup, Burnham:

• Supports Mahmood’s racist immigration changes.
• Is silent on wealth taxes.
• Won’t back proportional representation this parliament.
• Ditched trans rights to panic-grab Reform votes.
• Wouldn’t work to renationalise Thames Water.

As the Canary’s Willem Moore summarised – Burnham might not be right-wing enough for Blair, but that’s hardly saying much. Meanwhile, he’s still not managing to put out a substantive left-wing policy either.

This might not be Blair’s ‘radical centre’ – whatever the hell that means – but by God does it look like the centre all the same.

Featured image via Getty/Ryan Jenkinson

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Pragmatism does not mean grifting. Pragmatism is a serious philosophical movement. At its heart is a definition of truth. It seeks an honest answer to the question, “Does this work, and what practical difference does it make in our lives?”

If it’s a short-term gain at a long-term cost, it is not pragmatic. If it enriches a small group of people at the cost of serious economic damage, it’s not pragmatic. At least not in the context of a democratic government.

Pragmatism is one of the most abused words in politics. What should mean, “Will this work?” is weaponised to mean, “I’m scared to challenge vested interests.” Or worse still, “I’m going to do something unpopular with the public, but my donors will love it. I’ll call it ‘making tough decisions.’” The real word for that is cronyism.

The return of the crypt keeper

Tony Blair has popped up out of his box again to tell Labour how pragmatic cronyism should be done. But there was nothing pragmatic about the Iraq War. 179 British service personnel killed. 3,598 wounded. 487,000 civilian deaths. West Asia plunged into turmoil for decades. Was it pragmatic to get £13 billion of NHS PFI investment at the cost of £80 billion? How about failing to regulate the banks, and the subsequent 2007-08 crash?

Now he says increasing carbon emissions is a good idea – after Saudi Arabia gave him £9 million. He thinks handing over our public services to unregulated AI firms is a spiffing idea. It’s pure coincidence that he’s been offered £257 million from global AI giant Oracle.

Blair, like his best mate Mandelson, is one of the most brazen – along with Farage, who says his £5 million undeclared ‘personal gift’ from overseas crypto-billionaire Christopher Harbone has nothing to do with Reform’s policy of tax cuts for crypto-billionaires. The other £22 million Harborne donated to Reform was just a coincidence, apparently.

Burnham’s ‘pragmaticism’

I read an article yesterday that accused Andy Burnham of changing his positions. It’s widely reported that:

• he’s backing Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules;
• he’s reversed his position on support for refugees;
• he’s abandoning some trans rights;
• he’s changed his position on the EU;
• he won’t take water companies into public ownership, but have “stronger public control”.

I saw a comment that this is ‘pragmatism’. Sometimes people say ‘pragmatic’ when they mean ‘timid’.

If Andy was bold, he’d win big. Polling shows that the number-one reason people will not vote Labour is “I don’t know what they stand for” – followed by being incompetent, being out of touch, and not trusting their promises. None of this will be improved by U-turning.

Funny how it’s always ‘pragmatic’ to be right-wing

“Left-wing” policies are always popular. 74% support mass council-house building. 77% support wealth taxes on billionaires. 82% support public ownership of water. And despite the media reporting and hordes of online bots, 77% of Britons agree that transgender people should be protected from discrimination.

So the establishment attack the messengers. Left-wing politicians lack profile, media experience, and a track record of being in government. They get smeared before anyone can look at their policies. None of that applies to Andy Burnham. He already has massive recognition. His high personal ratings are based on his current image – people see him as “left-wing”.

He does not need to tack right. He won 62% of the vote in Makerfield in the 2024 Mayoral election. Voters know him independently of his red rosette.

Voters would love it if he said:

I will bring water back into public ownership, and the companies that have been squeezing us dry will not get bailed out by tax payers.

Or if he said:

I’ll build a million council homes so everyone can have somewhere secure to live. I will tax billionaires. I will bring in PR, no ifs, no buts. I will protect the most vulnerable and stand against division. Black or white, gay or straight, cis or trans, old or young, able bodied or disabled, I will invest what it takes to build a Britain that leaves no one behind.

If he spoke like he did outside Bridgewater Hall in October 2020 when he stood up against the Tory government, he would win Makerfield at a canter.

But that’s not what he’s doing.

After Starmer

The collapse of Starmerism has handed him an opportunity that almost no one in politics ever gets. He could remake Britain. It’s on a plate.

What’s the pragmatic choice? Listen to the Labour Together advisors, take the path of limping centrism, and lose the general election in three years time? Leave a legacy of crumbling public services, rip-off utilities, and stunted life chances for millions?

Or stand and win on a common sense programme that’s massively popular. Then start to fix what needs fixing. Win a second term and lift millions out of poverty, heal division, and give everyone security from cradle to grave.

Bravery is pragmatic.

Featured image via the Canary

By Jamie Driscoll

Source link

Spanish clubs have dominated the global football economy. Real Madrid are ranked the world’s most valuable club in 2026 and Barcelona is second, according to Forbes. Their latest ranking of the most valuable football clubs exposes the growing gap between Spain’s elite clubs and the rest of Europe. Meanwhile, the Premier League has more clubs in the rankings.

Spanish clubs at the top

Real Madrid remain top of the rankings for a fifth consecutive year, valued at around $9.5bn with revenues of $1.265bn. They are the first club in history to surpass $1.2bn annually. Much of that growth is credited to the redevelopment of the Santiago Bernabéu. The stadium has been transformed into a year-round revenue stream through concerts and major events. Additionally, strong commercial deals and global brand power have contributed to this growth.

Barcelona come second with a valuation of $7.5bn and have crossed the $1bn revenue mark for the first time. This marks a clear recovery after years of financial instability. Their resurgence has been driven by commercial strength, sponsorship, and stability on and off the pitch.

Premier League breadth

Despite Spain’s dominance at the very top, the Premier League remains the most represented competition, with eight clubs in the global top 20 including Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal and Chelsea. Broadcast income remains the Premier League’s biggest financial advantage. Furthermore, Manchester United stay among the world’s most valuable clubs despite their decline on the pitch.

Paris Saint-Germain remain firmly among Europe’s financial elite at $5.8bn, while Italian clubs continue to trail the leading leagues. However, Juventus, AC Milan, and Inter Milan retain strong valuations. Few clubs saw a bigger rise than Inter Miami. Lionel Messi’s arrival pushed its valuation beyond $1.3bn. More American clubs are appearing in the rankings as investment in US football continues to grow ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

Football’s new order

Overall, the Forbes figures show that modern football is now shaped as much by money as results on the pitch.

Real Madrid and Barcelona remain football’s financial giants, the Premier League dominates in numbers, and American investment is reshaping football’s economic balance.

Featured image via Gonzalo Arroyo Moreno / Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

New-ish GB Energy has wasted no time siphoning off public money to private companies. Scottish paper the National has revealed that up to £20m of taxpayer money is going straight to consultancy firms.

GB Energy: corporate capture

Under energy secretary Ed Miliband’s guidance, London-based firms Deloitte and Baringa Partners are gaining lucrative contracts. They’re to handle day-to-day operations of Labour’s flagship — supposedly publicly-owned — corporation GB Energy.

The National has revealed that these contracts, signed on 1 May, awarded the two firms a shared programme — worth up to £10m each — in which they will:

be responsible for “organisational set up support”, “operational design and delivery”, market strategy and “technical support”.

Deloitte is expected to handle the bulk of the contract. Baringa will be expected to step in wherever conflicts of interest arise or where there’s a resourcing issue. The extendable contracts will run for two years.

Under pressure from corporateering Gulf State agent and AI-tech lobbyist Tony Blair, Labour government ministers this week debated scrapping “net zero” altogether. This came amid the UK’s worst May heatwave and a subsequent drought across parts of Britain leaving thousands without water.

Keir Starmer’s Great British Energy is in a sorry state of affairs

More broken Labour promises?

The National didn’t hold back, highlighting that GB Energy was supposed to be headquartered in Aberdeen, which Labour announced but not have yet seen through. (Although the region is notoriously controlled by Europe’s largest oil cartel, so this could be a net-negative, carbon-positive.)

They also underscore that GB Energy was supposed to create 1000 jobs, mainly in the far-north. The National previously revealed that only 30 staff are employed on permanent contracts. The remainder are on temporary or contingent, ergo more insecure, government-sponsored contracts.

Most scathingly, the National reminds us that Labour previously pledged to halve government spending on consultancy contractors. Yet now Labour emphasise “knowledge sharing”, which insiders suggest shows that GB Energy is still building its internal capability from zero. This could signal “limited in-house expertise“.

Consultancy costs ballooned under the Johnson-Truss-Sunak parliament, with £-billions squandered on the non-entity ‘Rwanda Plan’ and punitive anti-migrant small boat measures. They have now dropped by 14% across government departments, with in-housing savings mainly in healthcare and the Home Office.

However, it’s a matter of public record that Labour, especially under its Starmer/McSweeney/Labour Together/Think Labour leadership pivoted hard towards large corporate and private donors. It now takes less from unions combined than it does from corporations.

The ‘Big Four’ revolving door

It’s well documented that the so-called ‘Big Four’ frequently flirts with politics and regularly imbricates its swanky corporate structures and methods into political process.

Between 2009–2012, for example, the Big Four — Deloitte, EY, PwC and KPMG — offered, or donated, almost £2m worth of free labour to the UK’s then-Big Three political parties. This corporate ‘secondment’ comes in the form of unrequited “staff costs,” offering free “expertise” to political parties and government alike.

The Rusbridger-era Guardian reported that Big Four employees regularly worked with MPs, party offices, and the government, often for months. HM Treasury had 15 secondees from the Big Four on loan in 2012.

Given that these same corporate staff regularly consult for FTSE 100 or FTSE 250 companies simultaneously with government, many argue that this alone constitutes conflict. At the time, Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation think-tank said:

Conflicts of interest are built into the very DNA of the big professional services firms.

Former Labour MP Austin Mitchell described these firms being “more powerful than government“. These companies’ financial successes grant them privileged access to government big-wigs and policymakers.

This is by no means unique to British politics. It was reported in 2024 that the New York government paid McKinsey $4m for a 95-page deck on waste management. Its revolutionary suggestion was: to adopt wheelie bins. This came at a whopping cost of some $42,000 per presentation slide!

NYC paid McKinsey $4m for a 95 page deck on putting trash in containers, not bags

That’s $42k per slide.

So McKinsey made $42k for this slide explaining the concept of a trash bin https://t.co/QgWPWt7fXJ pic.twitter.com/4S8jqit0aD

Advertisement

— Andrew Lynch (@andrewglynch) July 10, 2024

Australian journalists have also clearly documented the “revolving door” between Big Four firms and their mainstream politicians. Subsequently, Australian government contracts awarded more than quadrupled to over £1.4b in the decade to 2023.

ABC similarly produced a damning investigative article titled:

How the big four accounting firms infiltrated governments, earning more than $10b over a decade while taxpayers are in the dark

Likewise, one New South Wales university researcher extolled an in-depth article titled:

How reliance on consultancy firms like PwC undermines the capacity of governments

It’s time that Britain’s political and media class wake up to this problem like Australians have.

It’s not renewables putting up your energy bills, it’s billionaires

Featured image via Getty/Carl Court

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Source link

Green leader Zack Polanski has published a letter calling out ex-Labour leader Tony Blair’s links to the atificial intelligence (AI) industry and government. The news comes after war criminal Blair published an essay, via his Tony Blair Institute (TBI) think tank, calling for Labour to essentially shape all future policy around AI.

Of course, this policy recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Larry Ellison gave £250m to the TBI. Ellison just happens to be the CEO of AI-specialist company Oracle. He’s also a good buddy of Donald Trump, at whose feet Blair all but worshipped in his essay.

The Canary already covered Blair’s piece on 27 May. It’s truly terrifying example of anti-immigrant, anti-worker fascist pandering dressed up as ‘radical centrism’.

We could pull it apart all week. However, Blair does a great job himself – criticising the left and right for lacking vision, then pulling an about-face to praise Trump, Georgia Meloni, and Javier Milei. Here, however, we’re going to take a look at Polanski’s critique, focusing on Blair’s obvious shilling for the AI industry.

Polanski spots Blair’s cartoon evil

Polanski addressed his letter to Labour’s Chris Ward MP, the parliamentary secretary in the cabinet office.

Tony Blair’s essay published by the Tony Blair Institute yesterday contained some important points, notably, a call to switch to an AI focused economy with more government investment in AI, which he argued would be facilitated by cuts to welfare spending, reductions in the minimum wage and reduced workers’ rights.

You might be forgiven for thinking this was hyperbole. ‘Fund AI by cutting welfare, wages and rights’ seems that bit too cartoonishly evil, even for Blair.

However, because the ex-Labour leader is apparently a parody of himself, it’s perfectly accurate. Blair listed the commitments of the current government:

the new workers’-rights laws; the net-zero acceleration and phasing out of the British oil and gas industry; the uplift in the minimum wage beyond inflation; and the non-dom changes.

He then states that they should be abandoned in favour of growing the private sector:

The prime minister and the chancellor should have said right at the outset: these are commitments which economic circumstances have rendered unwise to proceed with. The priority is growth. That comes with a vibrant private sector which has suffered years of economic instability, and we are going to go all out for making business feel respected and supported.

So long as the businesses feel respected, the voters can do one – fantastic plan there. Blair is also very specific about the businesses he’s talking about primarily: an AI-led “technology revolution”. He then writes:

There is no point in debating whether this technological revolution is a good or bad thing. Just know it is a ‘thing’. In fact, it is ‘the thing’. It will displace jobs, though creating new ones, but no one yet knows the full consequence. Companies and countries will rise or fall on the back of it. It will revolutionise the private sector and should in time revolutionise public services and government.

Just ignore the ethics – spoken like a true war criminal. 

The Ellison connection

In his letter, Polanski then moved on to the heart of the matter – the reason why Blair is shilling for the AI industry:

It has been widely reported that Larry Ellison the owner of Oracle, which specialises in AI, funded the Tony Blair Institute with over £250m, and also that the Tony Blair Institute has significant contacts and influence within the government.

All of that is, again, completely true. The Ellison Foundation has funded the TBI with over £250m. In turn, just two months ago, the Treasury called on the help of the TBI and several private companies, specifically to guide AI policy. Treasury secretary James Murray said that:

These people are exactly who can help us create change across the public sector – giving us the hard truths on our approach to AI and advising where we need to prioritise our investment to support real efficiencies.

At the time, Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at tech equity campaign group Foxglove – described the move as:

yet more evidence of the government’s excessively cosy relationship with Big Tech.

Giving tech giants privileged access to decision-making around buying the very products they supply is clearly a risk.

It’s hard to understand how ministers seem to be unable to spot a potential conflict of interest which is blindingly obvious to everyone else.

Hint: they see the conflict of interest – they just don’t care.

‘The challenge of democracy’

Speaking of obvious conflicts of interest, Polanski rounded out his letter by writing:

We are sure you will agree that it’s important for the public to know whether there is a link between Larry Ellison’s donations and Tony Blair’s public advocacy for more government funding for AI. We therefore request that all formal and informal contacts between representatives of the Tony Blair Institute and government departments (officials and ministers) are disclosed.

It would be bad for public confidence if there was a suspicion that large corporate interests are buying access to the government via the Tony Blair Institute.

And he’s damn right there, too. Blair’s (further) corruption by the AI industry is as plain as day – and his arguments to fund it by slashing worker’s rights and pay (along with removing environmental protections) is a clear breach of public interest.

If this Labour government had any shame, they’d make clear the exact links between Ellison’s millions, Blair and their doggedly pro-AI policies. Then again, if they had any shame, they wouldn’t have called in Blair in the first place.

In his essay, the ex-Labour leader stated that:

The challenge of democracy is not transparency, honesty or conspiracy theories about the hidden power of elites.

This is, of course, precisely what a deeply dishonest champion of the (barely) hidden power of billionaires would say. If you listen closely, you can hear the £250m talking.

Featured image via Getty/Ryan Jenkinson

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link