Angela Rayner gave an impassioned speech slamming Shabana Mahmood’s cruel immigration proposals as a “breach of trust”. Going even further, the former Labour deputy leader claimed that the public now view the Labour Party as pro-establishment and “un-British”.

Home Secretary Mahmood is proposing changes to migration which would double the time required for migrants to qualify for permanent residence from five to ten years. Even more heartlessly, the Labour government intend to subject refugees to an anxious wait of up to 20 years for the right to remain permanently.

Whilst Mahmood deems this to be “fair” in order to avoid draining public finances, Rayner appears to be attempting to remind the former party of the people of its supposed values and principles.

However, against the backdrop of our colonial history and ongoing support for imperialism, the proposed policy feels unmistakably “British” – and that is precisely the problem we must confront. It is entirely British to operate a hostile environment.

Rayner’s challenge is little more than limp lettuce

And when Andy Burnham addressed the immigration proposals, he showed little real unease with the cruelty at the heart of the immigration reforms.

Speaking to BBC R4′s Today programme, Burnham appears to suggest there may be legitimacy to the government’s proposal. Apparently, the Labour government simply have been ‘clear’ enough with their reasoning. The Labour Mayor said the “impatience to deliver change is shared right across government” and acknowledged Angela Rayner’s argument as worth heeding. Nonetheless, he ultimately chose to side with the government:

I do think the government has a story to tell here and it needs to tell it more effectively.

I think the government really needs to point to that to then allow some breathing space for a considered debate on the proposals around changes to the immigration system.

Therefore, if we dig a bit deeper into Rayner’s apparently “explosive” comments, we soon realise there’s little challenge actually present. On the other hand, it appears she is only concerned by existing refugees and migrants than how this harmful policy would impact future arrivals to the UK.

Labour double standards and lip service once again – no surprise there.

She claimed the system must become fairer and work for working people yet avoided confronting the super-rich interests prioritising profits. Instead, she appeared to accept the narrative that immigration harms workers rather than employers. In the end, her concern seemed confined to migrants already contributing to the economy not having their deal changed “halfway through” – everyone else, apparently, can be disregarded.

She added:

The people already in the system, who made a huge investment, now fear for their future – they do not have stability and do not know what will happen.

We cannot talk about earning a settlement if we keep moving the goalposts.

Advertisement

Because moving the goalposts undermines our sense of fair play. It’s un-British.

Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but one that upholds the British values we want all who live here to respect.

Nevertheless, she has more to say ‘apparently’:

🚨 NEW: Angela Rayner has attacked Labour’s direction tonight

– Labour’s “running out of time” with its “very survival at stake” as populism rises

Advertisement

– Migration reforms are a “breach of trust” and “un-British”

– “A lot more to say” soon- “been waiting for this moment”

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) March 17, 2026

Make it count or it’s worthless

Once, Labour stood against the hateful immigration policies of right-wing Conservative governments. Now in power, it has chosen cruelty instead—targeting people trying to build a life with dignity and integrity. Mahmood’s reforms will strip away the opportunities they need to do so.

Seeking to protect those already here while taking hope and protections away from others in war-torn countries is manipulative and coercive. It is also, frankly, beyond pathetic. Nevertheless, championing the interests of the super-rich whilst punishing vulnerable people has been the hallmark of this government. Subsequently, it has seen them lose a significant part of their traditional base to left-wing competitors in the Green’s and Your Party.

If Rayner and Burnham actually care about human rights or British values and principles, they’d walk away from this captured, corrupted party.

Featured image via the Canary

4 min read9 min

The House of Lords is currently acting as a laudable bulwark against a stream of bad legislation and faces another imminent test of its mettle this week. In an effort to push back against extreme proposals passed to the Lords by the House of Commons, Baroness Stroud has tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to reinstate the requirement for pregnant women to have an in-person medical consultation before being allowed to carry out their own at-home abortions in England and Wales. This safeguard should never have been abandoned, and I was pleased to speak to the amendment last month.

The amendment relates to a clause inserted into the bill by Tonia Antoniazzi MP. Ostensibly, the Crime and Policing Bill aims to reduce violence against women and girls. However, the bill was used by opportunistic MPs to push through clause 208, which would decriminalise abortion for any reason, at any stage, right up to birth, for women in relation to their own pregnancies. Astonishingly, such a consequential change to the law was easily passed after just 46 minutes of backbench debate in the Commons. On a matter touching life and death, that is beyond irresponsible.

This combination of the proposed decriminalisation of abortion for women in relation to their own pregnancies and the continuation of the ‘pills-by-post’ scheme would strip away key remaining safeguards around our already lax abortion laws. I believe it would, in practice, make it easier for women to carry out late-term abortions at home. This is extremely dangerous. Experience shows that not having an in-person medical assessment before an abortion can lead to serious consequences.

Freedom of Information data has revealed that the pills-by-post process has led to an array of serious complications, including sepsis, haemorrhaging, embolisms, renal failure, and trauma to organs. The removal of safeguards also opens the door to abuse, potentially making it easier for partners or family members to coerce women into having abortions. These are the real costs of replacing clinical oversight with self-administration in the majority of abortions in Britain. I am relieved that there is currently no pills-by-post scheme in Northern Ireland, and attempts to introduce one must be resisted.

The public was told that at-home abortions were a pandemic measure. Yet they have quietly become the norm, despite warnings from clinicians and parliamentarians. It has become possible, in practice, for women to have abortions well beyond the 24-week legal limit, since there is no reliable way to verify gestational age without an in-person examination. Fully decriminalising self-induced abortion would remove any legal deterrent against such procedures, effectively inviting more of them to take place.

Baroness Stroud’s amendment offers a straightforward, common-sense corrective: reinstate the requirement for an in-person consultation before pills can be prescribed or taken at home. This would offer protection to women and unborn children after they are old enough to be able to survive outside of the womb. The few cases of women prosecuted for late-term abortions in recent years are symptomatic of a system void of sufficient safeguards in the first place.

Alongside Baroness Stroud’s amendment, peers will have the opportunity to support Baroness Monckton’s amendment to remove clause 208 from the bill altogether. If we fail to do so, women will be able to end the lives of their unborn babies up to birth without criminal liability, effectively decriminalising self-administered abortion to full term. This ought to be unthinkable and would be deeply unpopular with the public.

Indeed, legislating for abortion “to birth without medical help”, as Baroness O’Loan put it in the Second Reading debate, would be to disregard every principle of care and safety that Parliament claims to uphold, ironically turning what were once illegal backstreet abortion practices into a lawful reality, carried out behind closed doors and without medical oversight. This is not progress for women.

The House of Lords is the last line of defence against this reckless proposal. If Parliament sincerely seeks to protect women and girls from harm, peers must vote to restore in-person consultations for those considering abortions at home when they vote on these amendments this week. Anything less would make a mockery of the bill’s claimed commitment to safeguard vulnerable people.

Baroness Foster is a non-affiliated life peer and the former First Minister of Northern Ireland

Callum Murphy is the Conservative Party Candidate for Canary Wharf.

Last week I was selected as the Conservative candidate for Canary Wharf ward in the upcoming local elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It’s a fascinating place to stand. Few areas better symbolise the modern British economy: a global financial centre, a growing residential neighbourhood, and home to thousands of younger professionals building their careers in one of the world’s great cities.

Yet places like Canary Wharf also illustrate a political challenge for the Conservative Party. For many years, voters in highly urban areas – particularly younger, professional voters – have drifted away from us. If we are serious about challenging for seats in this borough again, we need to win them back.

That starts by recognising that the voters we are talking about are not natural opponents of Conservatism. Quite the opposite. The young professionals who live in areas like Docklands often share many Conservative instincts. They believe in aspiration, enterprise and personal responsibility. They work hard, pay significant taxes, and want Britain to succeed in a competitive global economy.

But too often, they do not feel that the Conservative Party is speaking directly to them.

A “next-generation” Conservative message must start from the realities of life for voters in their twenties, thirties and forties. If you spend time campaigning in areas like Canary Wharf, certain issues come up again and again.

The first is housing. For many young professionals, home ownership – once a cornerstone of the Conservative promise – feels further away than ever. They are earning good salaries and doing the right things, yet still find themselves renting small flats at high cost with little sense of long-term security.

A modern Conservative offer must restore the link between work and ownership. That means tackling the structural barriers to building more homes in high-demand cities, supporting innovative housing models, and ensuring that those who work hard in places like London can realistically aspire to buy a home there.

The second issue is economic dynamism. Areas like Canary Wharf exist because Britain is open, entrepreneurial and globally connected. The professionals who work here are part of industries that compete internationally every day – finance, technology, consulting and the growing cluster of fintech and innovation businesses in the Docklands.

These voters respond positively to a confident, pro-growth message. They want to hear that Britain will remain one of the best places in the world to start a business, build a career and attract investment. They are instinctively supportive of lower taxes, a competitive regulatory environment, and policies that back innovation and enterprise.

In other words, the core economic instincts of Conservatism remain powerful – but they need to be communicated in a way that speaks to the lived experience of modern urban Britain.

There is also a broader cultural point. Younger professionals in cities are not looking for ideological purity or political tribalism. They are looking for competence, seriousness and practical problem-solving. They want safe streets, well-run services and local government that focuses on delivering results rather than endless political drama.

Anyone familiar with the recent political history of Tower Hamlets will know how strongly that message can resonate. Voters want accountable leadership and transparent governance – something that Conservatives should always be proud to champion and have done so in this borough for many years, not least through the indomitable Cllr Peter Golds CBE, our lone voice on Tower Hamlets Council.

At the local level, this means focusing on tangible improvements to the neighbourhoods where people live: safer public spaces, rubbish collected, potholes filled, and councils that support development but with the consent of residents and with the needs and aspirations of those who live there front of mind. These are not glamorous issues, but they matter enormously to residents.

But reconnecting with younger voters will also require a broader national offer that shows the Conservative Party understands the pressures facing their generation. That is why Kemi Badenoch’s efforts to rebuild the party’s relationship with young people are so important.

Kemi herself had her political education in London, serving as a London Assembly Member before entering Parliament. She understands the aspirations, pressures and ambitions of the young, globally minded professionals who power cities like ours.

Under her leadership, the Conservatives’ emerging New Deal for Young People begins to address some of the structural barriers facing younger generations.

This includes scrapping real interest on Plan 2 student loans – a reform that would save many graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their repayment period. It means expanding opportunity through 100,000 additional apprenticeships, helping local employers develop the skilled workforce they need. And it includes a First Job Bonus so that when young people enter the workforce, they keep the first £5,000 of National Insurance they would otherwise pay.

These policies recognise something simple but important: that we need a fairer system that rewards hard work and gives our young people the opportunities they deserve.

For many younger professionals in places like Canary Wharf, the challenge is not a lack of ambition. It is the sense that the system no longer works as fairly as it once did. They want to know that if they study hard, work hard and contribute to the economy, they will be able to build secure and prosperous lives.

That is fundamentally a Conservative promise.

Another important factor is generational appeal. Many young voters simply do not see the Conservative Party as being “for people like them”. That perception will not change overnight. But it can change gradually if we show that we understand the pressures facing younger generations and are serious about addressing them.

That is why it matters that more candidates and activists from younger backgrounds are stepping forward in places like Canary Wharf. Politics works best when those standing for office reflect the communities they want to represent.

Standing in a ward like this at 25 gives me a front-row seat to the conversations that are shaping the next generation of voters. What I find encouraging is that many of the values that animate young professionals – aspiration, responsibility, opportunity – are deeply compatible with Conservatism.

The task for the Conservative Party is not to reinvent itself entirely. It is to reconnect those enduring principles with the realities of modern life in Britain’s cities.

If we can do that – by championing growth, restoring the path to home ownership, and backing a new deal that gives younger generations a fair shot – there is no reason why areas like Canary Wharf cannot once again become fertile ground for Conservative politics.

The UK government is trying to undermine the work of journalists who keep the public informed. Officials are now trying to claim they must tighten Freedom of Information (FOI) rules to defend against China. Meanwhile US president Donald Trump’s administration has publicly attacked independent media outlet Drop Site News for… telling the truth.

The Financial Times reported on 18 March:

British officials are concerned that China is exploiting the UK’s freedom of information legislation to collate unclassified data that risks revealing sensitive information.

The paper added:

Government figures believe they have detected a pattern of requests relating to the UK’s defence and national security, raising suspicions that Beijing may be behind a significant proportion of them, according to people familiar with the matter.

The evidence? One anonymous official’s ‘concerns’:

There’s a growing awareness that FOI is being used by hostile states — and China in particular — specifically in relation to defence matters.

Journalists freedom’s erosion

Yet as the FT itself points out:

The law only requires the government to provide unclassified material in response to FOI requests and numerous exemptions — including on national security grounds — already exist.

And by attacking FoI law in this way, yet more evidence of how far MoD/government willing to go to avoid oversight and accountability in this area.

‘America Last’ reporting?

US investigative outlet Drop Site News drew fire from the Trump administration on 17 March. They’d reported that US attempts to negotiate with Iran had been met with stony silence. It hurts to get ghosted.

In response to this report today, the White House denounced @DropSiteNews as “abhorrent,” and accused us of engaging in “America Last behavior.”

Thank you for your attention to this matter!https://t.co/RYkAo872gH

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

A White House spokesperson subsequently launched into a bizarre public rant about Drop Site:

The radical, left-wing Drop Site News is clearly carrying water for the Iranian terrorist regime – and reports like these based on pure fiction and citing unnamed anonymous sources should be discarded immediately.

Adding:

Iran feeds this fake news media outlet propaganda and they publish it as fact, which is abhorrent, America Last behavior. Operation Epic Fury will continue unabated until President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, determines that the goals of Operation Epic Fury, including for Iran to no longer pose a military threat, have been fully realized.

Drop Site is one of few outlets that has consistently interviewed the Iranian leadership and Hamas. In a livestream discussion on 17 March, Drop Site reporter Ryan Grim said:

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything quite like this.

Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill described the attack as a:

Featured image via the Canary

The ‘supercarrier’ USS Gerald Ford isn’t doing super well. The ship is being sent to Crete for repairs after a mystery fire caused severe damage. Some open source accounts and legacy media claim the fire took 30 hours to control and affected hundreds of sailors.

The fire on the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford took over 30 hours to put out last week, with over 600 crew losing their berths. pic.twitter.com/Bl6Lm6bJEC

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 17, 2026

The Ford has been at sea for nearly a whole year. It was involved in the US attack on Venezuela on 3 Jan.

US-Israel attacked Iran first on 28 February without provocation. Iran was offering unprecedented concessions in negotiations at the time. The Pentagon has since stated there was no imminent threat from Iran. And the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, has said there is no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Reuters reported:

The ​officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not say how long the Ford was expected to remain in Crete.

One of the officials said nearly 200 sailors were treated for smoke-related ​injuries when the fire broke out in the ship’s main laundry area. The fire ​took hours to bring under control and had an impact on roughly 100 sleeping berths.

However a US defence official said the ship was still part of the US attack on Iran:

the ship’s toilet system was subject to “unexpected and frequent clogging” and requires acid flushes on a regular basis to clear it, at a cost of $400,000 each time.

Sabotage on the USS Gerald Ford?

The sailors aboard the USS Gerald Ford have low morale. Even US senator Mark Warner – a former navy man – said:

The Ford and its crew have been pushed to the brink after nearly a year at sea, and they have been paying the price for President Donald Trump’s reckless military decisions.

First, dissenters:

The dissenters were part of what became known as the GI movement, soldiers publishing ‘underground’ newspapers, signing antiwar petitions, attending protest rallies and engaging in various forms of public speech to demand an end to the war.

Second, resisters:

The resisters were those who disobeyed orders, defied military authority, refused orders, went absent without leave, committed acts of sabotage, and in some cases attacked their own officers and sergeants.

There is no hard evidence of sabotage or mutiny. But this is a deeply unpopular and quickly failing war. The personnel aboard the Ford have been at sea for nearly year. There is clearly poor leadership and strong sense in the US that the war is connected to Epstein files. That environment is a tinderbox for dissent, at the very least.

Featured image via the Canary

Ahead of the election in Slovenia on Sunday 22 March 2026, Tim Haughton and Alenka Krašovec explain the Slovenian political landscape and where the different parties stand in the polls.

Politics is a mix of the perennial and the new. Slovenians go to the polls on Sunday in parliamentary elections in which the country’s perennial political figure Janez Janša, the former three-time prime minister, is leading the race against the incumbent Robert Golob and his left-liberal coalition.

A prominent figure since Slovenia’s independence in 1991 Janša is Slovenia’s marmite politician. His supporters point to his experience, delivery on promises and leadership qualities that helped navigate the country through rocky waters. But his opponents have highlighted corruption scandals, his close association with politicians such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and have accused Janša of overseeing democratic backsliding in Slovenia during his last stint in power (from 2020 to 2022).

Janša’s right-wing Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) looks set to win a quarter of the vote. SDS’s pitch to the electorate blends the personality and record of Janša with promises to cut taxes. There is also a nationalist/identity tint to its campaign with posters imploring voters to back SDS if they want their grandchildren to be able to sing Slovene songs. With the continued presence of the divisive figure of Janša as the party’s leader, such messages do not tend to convert many voters to SDS, but they help mobilise the party’s core.

In 2022, Janša lost power to the Freedom Movement whose leader Robert Golob served as prime minister at the helm of a three-party coalition. At the heart of Freedom Movement’s success was a bandwagon effect: anti-Janša voters saw Golob’s party as the best vehicle to defeat Janša.

Four years on, Freedom Movement is on course to win a fifth of the vote (down from the 35% it won in 2022) and become the second largest party in parliament although the difference between the two parties has been decreasing in the last fortnight. That may seem a normal outcome for a party that has been in government for the past few years, but it marks a distinct change in Slovenia’s politics.

In each of the last four parliamentary elections a large slice of the anti-Janša vote has been swept up by a new party. But by the time of the subsequent election, support for that new party has witnessed steep drops in support with many of those votes captured by a newer party in what we have dubbed a new party subsystem.

Freedom Movement’s ability to hang onto a large slice of its voters is striking in light of the series of challenges faced by Golob’s government linked to energy shocks, war in Ukraine and devastating floods in 2023. But under his watch, whilst the country’s economic performance has not been spectacular, Slovenia has experienced growth, a reduction in inflation and very low levels of unemployment. Golob has called for Slovenia to continue along the path of stability and reforms in key public services like health encapsulated in Freedom Movement’s rallying call to its voters: ‘The work is not done yet: Freedom forward!’

Nonetheless, Slovenia has seen the emergence of new parties and plenty of churn in the past couple of years with several fissions, fusions and new creations. A few disgruntled SDS politicians abandoned Janša to form the Democrats of Anže Logar, and a politician elected on the Greens (Vesna) list for the European Parliament elections in 2024 jumped ship to create his own new party, Rebirth – the Party of Vladimir Prebilič. Both have promised to build bridges to end Slovenia’s polarised politics and suggest there is an alternative to Golob or Janša. Moreover, one of Golob’s coalition partners, the Left Party, formed an electoral alliance with the Greens (Vesna), and Janša’s traditional allies the centre-right New Slovenia forged an electoral alliance with the Peoples Party and a new party FOCUS.

Whilst none of these parties or new alliances has attracted enough support to challenge SDS or Freedom Movement as the likely leader of any government after Sunday’s election, the relative success of these parties and the functioning of the 4% electoral threshold will do much to determine what kind of government is created and how fragile its majority might be in Slovenia’s 90 seat parliament. Many politicians have been unequivocal in their statements about whether they are willing to jump into a coalition bed with Janša or Golob, but the absence or presence of other smaller parties in a potential coalition might be just as decisive.

Current polls indicate seven parties or electoral alliances will cross the threshold including resni.ca established in 2020 as an anti-vaxxer party that continues to pump out populist messages. But given the lack of strong partisan ties among large swathes of the electorate we should not be surprised by the melting away of support or a sudden boost in the last few days of the campaign. Even Freedom Movement’s support may be vulnerable, not least due to videos circulating on social media allegedly exposing political influence, graft and dodgy deals involving several figures seen to be close to the party leader. Moreover, Slovenia is not immune from claims about alleged foreign influence in its elections.

European themes have rarely played a central role in the politics of Slovenia and they are not prominent in the current campaign. Although Janša has had good relations with Orbán and has expressed views close to the Hungarian premier in areas such as migration, media freedom and the rule of law, SDS remains part of the European People’s Party, and Janša rarely rocks the boat in Brussels. Indeed, Slovene politicians of different hues recognise the economic and political benefits of being part of the EU and are rarely awkward partners at the European level.

Unlike in some other Central European states like Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the war in Ukraine and relations with Russia are not a major dividing line in domestic politics. All major parties are supportive of Ukraine. On the other hand, Gaza and the new war with Iran are more frequently discussed and have consequences for the politics and economics of Slovenia.

But the most decisive factor for voters looks set to remain the perennial question of whether to entrust Janša with the premiership or not.

By Tim Haughton, Professor of Comparative and European Politics and Deputy Director of the Centre for Elections Democracy Accountability and Representation, University of Birmingham and Alenka Krašovec, Professor of Political Science, University of Ljubljana.

4 min read54 min

Jason is 48 and from a town just outside of Birmingham. When I arrived at his suburban house on a rainy afternoon last Autumn, he offered me a cup of tea to warm up and helped me hang my soaking coat on the radiator before sitting down to discuss his pension. “I think we should be saving more, but it’s tricky,” Jason explained. “We watch what we buy day-to-day, week-to-week, with shopping and groceries, and I keep tabs on what I can in terms of utilities or what have you. But there’s not a great deal left to think, ‘Right, I’ll put that away at the moment.”

Jason is not alone. Generation X is now aged between 46 and 61, and although many will soon be retiring, most are unprepared for the transition.

7.5m Gen Xers, equal to 54 per cent of the entire generation, are projected to have a retirement income that falls below standard rates of adequacy, according to new research produced at the Social Market Foundation. We spoke to 50 Gen Xers about their pension, and surveyed over 2,000 of them, to understand what’s held them back from saving for a retirement they are now rapidly approaching. We discussed their pension and projected their likely income. We termed their experience “pension shock” to explain the reaction most have when seeing their projection fall far short of their expectations.

Gen X was born between 1965 and 1980. Most were never offered the strong pensions that their parents had retired on, which provided a fixed income for life. Instead, they were told to manage their own money, and for the first time in living memory, make critical decisions over contributions and investment. This strategy was poorly thought through and barely communicated. Most workers were offered no training or advice to help them with the transition. Many failed to save anything at all.

Auto-enrolment was legislated in the 2010s, acknowledging this failure by forcing workers to contribute to their pension by default. It raised contributions almost overnight and will serve Gen Zers like me well. But by the time auto-enrolment came into being, Gen X had already lost out in huge portions of their working life, missing critical years for pension accumulation.

“I wish I’d started thinking about pensions as soon as I started working,” Blake told me over a video call from his home in Wales. “But you know what it’s like: You’re seventeen, eighteen, and you’re invincible! You’ve got your whole life ahead of you! You’re not taking £40 a month off me! … And then, all of a sudden, snap your fingers, and you’re forty or fifty or sixty years old. It does come so quick.”

Speaking to Gen X about their pensions today can feel like watching a train crash. The tracks have been laid. The catastrophe set in motion. And while policymakers are beginning to wake up to the looming crisis, their ability to intervene is limited.

One option is to get Gen X in front of advisors. Just 11 per cent have ever sought financial advice to manage their retirement. For many, the cost is out of reach. That’s why we’re pushing for a Financial MOT, providing expert guidance on matters relevant to money, saving, and investment, for free to any applicant. The policy polls well with Gen X, with 58 per cent in favour of increasing access to financial advice even if it required higher taxes, and I saw the benefits in action. After discussing her pension with me, one woman in the northwest explained: “I think government should put it out there more for people to see mortgage and financial advisors, and actually sit down with someone and go through what you’ve gone through today.”

Gen X’s retirement is approaching fast, and averting disaster will require an emergency mindset from the government to rapidly provide the financial advice that has been denied them throughout their working life.

Gideon Salutin is Chief Economist at the Social Market Foundation

James Elles is a former member of the European Parliament.

Current US strikes against Iran come on top of recent action in Venezuela and expressed intentions about the takeover of Greenland. All underline US determination through the untrammelled use of power to achieve its aims. How are European countries to react to these events?

The publication of the US National Security Strategy last December gives us a clear idea of the direction of US policy in the years ahead (see Bob Seely in ConHome 12 December).

The Strategy reaffirms US support for NATO and collective security (Art 5) but conditions this to Europe shouldering the bulk of its conventional defence – implying a massive shift from burden-sharing to burden-shifting.

To put it bluntly, seismic changes are underway. NATO has guaranteed our common defence reliably since the 1950’s. But now the United States is increasingly prioritising strategic competition with China over European security concerns.

This is a fundamental shift in transatlantic relations, likely to be permanent, requiring Europeans to develop independent military capabilities whilst maintaining NATO’s operational framework.

This would already be a huge task to undertake in normal times, but we are living in exceptional circumstances with a major war in Ukraine which shows no signs of ending any time soon.

The outlook is sombre. Many in European military circles fear that Russia is preparing to wage war on Europe by 2030, if not before, testified by the recent bellicose statements from President Putin – a terrifying prospect.

These issues were vigorously debated at a recent event in London organised by the Ideas Network 2030 (IN2030) and the Wilfried Martens Centre (WMC) “Defending the Continent: A Common Responsibility”

The following actions were proposed for Europe to take:

• Establishing strategic enablers: Europe must develop independent capabilities in satellite communications, long-range transport, and in-flight refuelling, as these functions have historically been provided by the United States but were now essential for autonomous European operations.
• Investing in defence industrial capacity: The priority is to shift European defence industries “from peacetime inefficiency to wartime productivity”, expanding ammunition production, coordinating procurement, and standardising equipment across nations to eliminate wasteful duplication.
• Developing rapid reaction forces: Europe requires “high-readiness, multinational rapid reaction forces” deployable within days to any threatened location, trained under common doctrine and capable of operating independently of immediate American support.

Creating a European Security Council: Speakers advocated a new institutional framework operating on majority voting principles, which could serve as “a bridge to the United Kingdom” and integrate non-EU members including Norway and potentially Ukraine into continental defence planning.

What have European countries so far done? While the challenge of building European defence capacity is substantial, continued dependence on potentially unavailable American reinforcement poses unacceptable risks to European security. For European countries, it is a race against time.

Increasing expenditure on military budgets.

Last summer, NATO reaffirmed its collective defence clause (Art5) and agreed to a 5 per cent target for defence expenditure by 2035.

While few European countries today spend 4 per cent (Poland), Germany is making strides to build its military power allocating large sums for investment e.g. in infrastructure. Under current plans, Germany will reach the NATO target by 2029, having then a defence budget greater than the UK and France combined.

The EU is also stepping up in providing financial aid, removing operational obstacles and facilitating military mobility, providing up to E150 billion in loans to Member States under the Security Action For Europe (SAFE).  Last autumn, it agreed a defence readiness roadmap for 2030.

More people involved in the military.

NATO’s commitment to deploy “80,000 troops” along an “800-kilometre” defence line as part of the peace settlement in Ukraine raises questions about mobilising personnel and upgrading facilities that had been sold off or repurposed since the end of the Cold War. Member countries are committed to increase troop numbers, Germany planning to increase from 182000 to 260000 by 2035 (compared with 73000 in the UK today).

Other options are now being implemented across Europe e.g. the introduction of conscription in France announced by President Macron last autumn. The new military service will allow young people to volunteer for 10 months military training – 3000 in the first year, rising to 50000 annually by 2035. Germany has introduced a new military law that requires mandatory registration for young men for potential conscription.

Enhancing civil resilience.

Improving protection of critical infrastructure, securing energy grids and data systems, and countering hostile disinformation narratives, Nordic countries are exemplars of effective civil preparedness.

What of the UK?

Alarmingly, the Labour Party shows little sign of taking the action urgently required. Focussed on domestic issues, the November budget made no reference as to how the 5 per cent NATO defence spending target will be met. The UK Government is doing too little to prepare the British people for the security challenges ahead. Many at the meeting felt that Britain remains “five or six years behind where we should be” in preparing citizens for contemporary security challenges”.

Given that continued US support for NATO depends on Europe stepping up, what needs to happen?

First, an urgent reappraisal on spending priorities for our country’s defence. There has to be a definite shift in budget allocations from welfare to warfare. Why not reach the NATO target by 2030, emulating the German example?

Second, with so much money available, why not join the SAFE programme providing urgently needed funds for UK defence businesses?

Third, prepare Britain for the reintroduction of voluntary military service.

Paula White-Cain is Donald Trump’s “faith office” head. It’s not hard to see why. White-Cain is a fanatical Israel supporter who says that opposing Trump is opposing God. Could anything more perfectly appeal to the orange narcissist man-baby?

And White-Cain doesn’t just idolise Trump. She is a woman after his own heart, unashamedly all about the cash.

But this TRT video, nauseating as it is, doesn’t do Paula White-Cain justice.

She has no qualms about preying on gullible followers, demanding that they send her $100,000. If any viewer can’t afford to send cash, send $100 anyway, a “sacrificial” seed — because she’s “not gonna lay hands on people” unless she makes that bank. It’s “not about me”, she insists; if you don’t give the cash, kids are going to die.

Paula White-Cain has a “spirit of antichrist”

But she apparently doesn’t care about kids dying if they’re Palestinian. As Israel began its genocide in 2023, she insisted that she stands “with Israel in every single way”.

She said:

There are many people that hate to stand with Israel. It is an antichrist spirit. But we as Christians and believers know this, that we’re not only to stand with Israel because we stand with God, and Israel is God’s place. The Jewish people are God’s people. And we know that is their sovereign land. We stand with them in every single way.

The only non-Israel competition for her affections appears to be Trump himself. In 2020, as he sought re-election, she demanded that God send his angels from Africa, from South America, all to ensure Trump won. Sod what Africa and South America need and what the angels might be there for — they were to come to the US for Trump because unhinged Paula says so.

For any actual Christians, it’s a tough watch to see the gospel twisted into such awfulness.

It didn’t work. Trump lost in 2020 and demonstrated his ‘Christian’ credentials by inciting a mob of thugs to attack the Capitol. That doesn’t seem to have put her off.

Like all Christian nationalists, she stands for an abomination dressed up as spirituality. For murder, greed, racism, brutality, imperialism. For apartheid and genocide. You might even say it’s a “spirit of antichrist”.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Paula White Ministries

Nearly one in five people in Lebanon have been displaced as a result of Israel’s Gaza-style scorched earth tactics, and more people have died in the capital after another attack.

Israel continued to bomb Lebanon on 18 March while the New Arab reported that 12 people have been killed in Beirut.

Its reporters wrote:

Lebanon said two Israeli strikes on central Beirut early Wednesday killed at least six people, with local media also reporting raids on Iran-backed Hezbollah’s stronghold in the city’s southern suburbs.

Local media reported one strike hit an apartment in the central Zuqaq al-Blat neighbourhood, where the Israeli military last week hit a Beirut branch of the Hezbollah-linked financial firm Al-Qard Al-Hassan.

Advertisement

The densely populated area is close to the government’s headquarters and several embassies.

Figures reported from Lebanon’s Disaster Risk Management Unit say 1,049,328 people have registered as displaced while 132,742 people are being housed in official shelters.

Separately, the Lebanese Ministry of Health stated the overall death toll since 2 March has reached 886, with 2,141 injured.

Lebanon attacked by Israel more than 15,000 times

In theory, Hezbollah breached a US-brokered ‘ceasefire’ with Israel which had held up since their last war in 2024. In practice, the US gave Israel carte blanche to strike Lebanon, which it has done constantly since the deal was struck. During that period Israel attacked southern Lebanon about 15,400 times.

If you watch Israel repeat in Lebanon the same genocidal playbook from Gaza and still see this “state” as an “ally” then there’s something deeply wrong with you; minimum, you’re racist.

Israel must be disarmed, its leaders jailed, and vast reparations paid across the region.

— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) March 18, 2026

You can read about the secretive Israel-US ‘side letter’ pact here and our extensive coverage of Israel’s ceasefire breaches and the new invasion so far here.

Nearly one in five people in Lebanon have been forced from their homes as Israel launches new ‘ground operations.’

We map Israel’s attacks and the forced displacement of one million people in Lebanon https://t.co/flmTWJvwlj pic.twitter.com/T7pAx6rjcM

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 17, 2026

International campaign group, No Cold War, made the comparison between Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its new attack on Lebanon.

Israel is pursuing ethnic cleansing in Lebanon – similar tactics as in Gaza. https://t.co/TUv7XIAa0Y

— No Cold War (@NoColdWar) March 18, 2026

Advertisement

Israel told reporters it had fired on a UN position, injuring two Ghanaian peacekeepers. Al Jazeera reported:

Israel’s army acknowledged its troops were behind the incident on March 6 in which shells were fired on UNIFIL personnel at the al-Qawzah base, and said it had apologised to Ghana and the United Nations.

It said the Israeli forces had been responding to antitank missile fire from Hezbollah, which had moderately wounded two of their soldiers, and mistakenly fired at UNIFIL troops instead.

The channel also quoted the IDF:

The IDF [Israeli army] regrets the incident and has conveyed its apologies through the appropriate channels to Ghana and the United Nations. The findings of the investigations have been disseminated within the IDF to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.

Adding:

UNIFIL, which told Reuters its investigation into the incident was not yet complete, has called the incident “unacceptable”.

UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, released a statement on the war this week. She attacked Hezbollah while mildly criticising Israeli “operations”.

Civilians, densely populated areas and UN peacekeepers, are all grist to the mill of Israel’s colonial aggression. And — as in Gaza and Iran — the IDF has no problem with hitting civilians and key infrastructure along the way.

As the war intensifies, despite warnings from humanitarian organisations, displacement is likely to accelerate.

Featured image via the Canary