Reform UK unveiled an attention-grabbing new policy proposal on Sunday 24 May:

Reform will scrap income tax on overtime.

It's time to make work pay. pic.twitter.com/Q0luvT9WPM

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) May 24, 2026

Advertisement

The problem for Reform is that the policy has also grabbed the attention of people who think things through.

Reform — “Avoidance opportunities”

Sam Dumitriu of the Britain Remade thinktank had 5 points on the new policy:

1. This appears to be an import of Trump’s extremely dumb (but clearly popular) ‘no tax on tips’ policy.

2. If your aim is to boost growth and incentivise work, this isn’t a good use of £5bn. It’s a luxury policy in all honesty: can they honestly say £5bn couldn’t go further elsewhere (either in tax cuts, infrastructure investment, or just improving public services)?

Advertisement

3. This will likely create lots of avoidance opportunities.

4. There will also be genuine cases of unfairness. What about workers with second jobs?

5. This is likely to create a massive cliff-edge problem where taking an extra hour of overtime or getting a raise leaves someone thousands of pounds worse off.

To be clear, Britain Remade isn’t a left-wing think tank; it’s actually linked to the Tories. You could respond by saying ‘well of course they’d object to a Reform policy‘, but arguably the Tories would be more likely to steal it it it made sense (and it wouldn’t be the first time they’d poached an idea from Farage).

One banker offered a perspective on how businesses could exploit these “avoidance opportunities”:

If someone on £75k/year with a 41 hour week with 1 hour guaranteed overtime restructured the contract to earn minimum wage (age 21+ at £12.21/hour) for the first 40 hours which is £25,396.80 and the remaining £49,603.20 is overtime this would reduce their tax by about £17,000! https://t.co/XWUInbOlwt

— David Hollidge (@DavidHollidge) May 23, 2026

This tax specialist did the same:

I've only been thinking about this for about 10 minutes, but take someone earning, say, £50k in a 40 hour week doing an hour's overtime (extra £1,250 a year). Their hourly rate is currently £24/hr.

They could agree to change their contract so that:

– The first 40 hours a… https://t.co/jwWlj2vR6X

Advertisement

— Stuart (@StuartMaggs) May 23, 2026

Steve Loftus is another figure on the centre right who took issue with Reform’s policy, noting:

France did this in 2007 in almost exactly the same way.

It cost €4.5b a year in lost revenue for no gain. No more hours were worked, people just shifted their work to game the system.

Advertisement

It did nothing but give people more take home pay and it ended in 2012.

But if you want to give people more take home pay there are a dozen easier way to do it.

Gimmicks

Finally getting to someone who isn’t a banker or a tax wonk, trade unionist commenter Josh noted:

The UK working time directive means you can't be forced to work more than an average of 48 hours a week.

Reform's attempts to normalise 40+ hour working weeks are a clear attempt to set an agenda of rolling back on employment rights workers have fought for over the past century https://t.co/hU9Wp88TgF

— Josh (@jhendy_10) May 23, 2026

The Trades Union Congress’s general secretary Paul Nowak, meanwhile, said the following:

Nigel Farage’s overtime tax proposal is just a cynical gimmick.

Working people don’t need politicians encouraging a culture of ever-longer hours. They need decent pay rises, secure jobs and strong rights at work.

Advertisement

If Mr Farage was truly serious about reducing the tax burden on workers, he’d support fairer taxes on wealth and clamping down on tax avoiders in his own ranks like Richard Tice. But that might upset his corporate donors.

He added:

Reform want to strip away protections that keep workers safe and healthy – including limits on excessive hours and rights to paid holidays and rest breaks.

And Farage’s claim to stand up for working people is frankly laughable. He wants to tear up the Employment Rights Act and scrap protections like day one sick pay, bans on exploitative zero-hours contracts and measures to stop fire-and-rehire abuses.

This is not a plan to make work pay. It’s a charter for weaker rights, longer hours and exhaustion at work.

Advertisement

And what about the millions of workers – mainly women – who work part time? Does Nigel Farage think their jobs matter less?

Popularity contest

While Reform is proposing ill-thought-out tinkering, the Green Party has been proposing more serious solutions. As the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey wrote:

the Greens have proposed to introduce a 10:1 pay ratio. This would mean the highest-paid person in a company couldn’t earn more than ten times what the lowest-earning employees do.

In practice, minimum-wage employees would get a pay rise, but crucially, we would also see the end to sky-high executive salaries and ridiculous bonuses.

The overtime tax policy has at least proven to be popular with the Sun’s Kate Ferguson:

Breaking news – a politician actually proposes to cut tax.

Reform UK will stop taking workers for mugs and ban tax on overtime.

Robert Jenrick writes for us on Reform UK's new policy…https://t.co/jbX2LUZGBw

— Kate Ferguson (@kateferguson4) May 23, 2026

So it’s a question of who you trust; the nation’s least trustworthy newspaper or everyone else.

Featured image via Getty Images (Ryan Jenkinson)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Source link

Laura Loomer is one of the best-known, most fanatical US Israel mouthpieces. She is also one of the closest to the Trump regime and has advocated feeding immigrants to alligators. She is also one of the most odious. And in response to the San Diego mosque shooting, she spewed out naked racism that would see her on trial had she — unthinkably — been a Muslim saying a quarter of the same about a synagogue attack.

Two fascist gunmen murdered three Muslims in the attack. Many US ‘mainstream’ media outlets somehow managed to make it about a nearby synagogue that was not attacked. But Loomer immediately wanted to doubt that the attack happened at all. Not just that — she claimed that those who attend it are evil would-be murderers and wanted the government’s deportation thugs set on the victims:

Laura Loomer — safety through deportation

Loomer soon seemed to realise that denying the reality of the shooting was untenable even for her. But she dialled the hate up even further. This time, to ‘keep Muslims safe’, she wanted every US Muslim deported. Imagine if some antisemitic race thug said that about US Jews:

In a country where the white majority are literally there through invasion and displacement of the native inhabitants — that applies to Loomer’s favourite place too — it’s Muslims who are the invaders, apparently. And now, according to Laura Loomer, the shooting was a ‘false flag’ designed to get sympathy. Every accusation is a confession:

Not a one-off

This is anything but a one-off for Loomer. She has called for the ’rounding up’ of Muslims — again, a call that would see her immediately arrested if said about Jewish people:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Thorns of a Rose (@thornsof.a.rose)

And for a “war with Islam”:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Rise Above Justice Movement (@riseabovejusticemovement)

And her hatred and gaslighting of Muslims dates back years:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Akhbar.Sara (@akhbar.sara)

Nor is Loomer unusual among the pro-Israel right — including in the US Congress and Senate:

Zionism is racism. The more fanatical an adherent is, the more easily they slip into evil.

Featured image via Joe Raedle/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The post ‘They’re <em>pretending</em> not to know what a woman is’ appeared first on spiked.

Source link

It’s been widely reported that Andy Burnham wants to ‘renationalise’ vital public industries and utilities. This sounds good, because people hate privatisation, and they want the UK to once more own its own assets. The problem, of course, is that Burnham isn’t planning to renationalise anything, as he keeps admitting:

Andy Burnham says we could have a "localised public control option" for Thames Water

What does that mean? Who is in charge? Where do the profits go?

We need nothing less than permanent PUBLIC OWNERSHIP of Thames Water with households, workers and anti sewage groups on the board pic.twitter.com/0s1OT1mMzz

Advertisement

— Cat Hobbs (@CatHobbs) May 23, 2026

Half measures

We observed early on that political commentators and outlets like the Guardian were reporting on Burnham’s plans to ‘renationalise’ utilities. Take the following clip, for example:

Andy Burnham: “I don’t blame anyone who left our party. I don’t blame anyone who voted for other parties”.

“We need to renationalise water, energy and housing.” pic.twitter.com/lS5TXENvXG

— Tory Fibs (@ToryFibs) May 16, 2026

Despite it being presented as a quote, Burnham did not talk about ‘renationalising’ anything in the above; instead he talked about putting utilities under “stronger public control”. Now, Burnham is setting the record straight, with the Times reporting:

He has also spoken of stronger public control over utility companies. “I use that phrase advisedly. People then shorthand it as nationalisation; it’s not the same thing,” he said, pointing to Greater Manchester’s bus services, which are run by private operators.

It’s good that Burnham is using terms “advisedly”, we suppose, but we’d advise he investigates what the public actually wants. As YouGov polling has shown:

Dead-eyed Labour centrists will ask: ‘as long as these services are efficient, what does it matter?‘

It matters because these services will not remain efficient if private operators remain in the mix. If we allow them to retain a stake, they will use their foothold to push for more and more power until eventually they own the lot. We’re seeing this happening in the NHS right now. And we cannot let the fox in the henhouse simply because Andy Burnham is ‘mad for it’.

You do, though

Burnham also told the Times:

Thames Water, for instance, you don’t just say ‘nationalise water’. You could have a localised public control option there.

Sorry, Andy, but we are just saying ‘nationalise water‘, and so is the majority of the public.

We ‘ve reported on scandal, after scandal, after scandal relating to these private water companies; why would we want these proven crooks to retain any degree of control over our most vital resource?

As Hannah Sharland reported for the Canary on 19 May:

the government has so far actively refused to bring Thames Water into special administration. It has repeatedly fallen back on water industry spin to justify pursuing a ‘market-led’ – privatised – solution. Now, ministers and Ofwat are poised to sign a deal that would allow it to dodge fines for the next four years.

If working with private water companies worked, we wouldn’t have to spare them from paying fines; they would simply be able to profit from the service without incurring them.

Burnham — more of the same

Of course, it’s easy to understand why crooked Labour politicians would want private money in the mix. These people are in the same social circles as the fat cats who profit from privatisation, and ‘everyman’ Burnham is literally a graduate of Cambridge University.

We will say this for Burnham, though; he is at least making it clear what he is and isn’t offering. Hopefully people listen to him now so they’re not surprised in 12 months when Labour’s polling is back in the sewer along with Britain’s poorly treated water.

Featured image via Getty Images (Leon Neal) 

By Willem Moore

Source link

As part of dodgy attempts to affect media coverage he was unhappy with, Fine Gael minister for communications Patrick O’Donovan held a call with Ireland’s media regulator “outside normal communication channels“. He then failed to disclose that the conversation took place.

The Ditch reports that on Saturday April 11 O’Donovan spoke to Coimisiún na Meán’s (The Media Commission or CnaM) Rónán Ó Domhnaill to:

…express concern regarding media coverage of the fuel protests and to ask whether there was a mechanism for the minister within the legislation to ask for an examination of the broadcast coverage of the protests.

The protests in early April were led by hauliers and farmers opposed to the rising cost of fuel. The recent spike in prices has been caused by the US-‘Israeli’-led illegal war on Iran, and the latter’s perfectly reasonable response of closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil corridor. Ireland’s government carries a share of the blame in this, due to its role in weapons shipments for the aggressors, and its failure to criticise the mass murder taking place.

Ireland — Minister likely broke EU law on press interference

Rather than accept this failure, O’Donovan — likely breaching EU rules on ministers pressuring media – sought to shift the narrative in press coverage. The Ditch note that O’Donovan complained about:

…“a lack of balance” in an RTÉ radio broadcast that included three opposition spokespeople and one government representative and “Prime Time interviewing protestor James Geoghegan in a gentle way”.

An internal note from CnaM reported that O’Donovan said:

…the media only giving the side of the protestors in their news reports, and not the victims of the blockades.

O’Donovan also bemoaned:

…a journalist broadcasting from a protest from inside an unauthorised portacabin belonging to protestors.

The latter seems an entirely reasonable thing for a journalist to do as a means of conveying the reality of a protest environment. The public clearly thought RTÉ’s coverage was adequate, with the broadcaster only receiving nine complaints following the protests’ main period.

O’Donovan went on to say on Monday April 13 that he was intending to speak to Coimisiún na Meán about his dissatisfaction on fuel protest reporting. He failed to declare that he’d already been jockeying behind the scenes via that informal phone call to find a way of pressuring media organisations.

Those public comments had already generated furore, with National Union of Journalists assistant general secretary Séamus Dooley describing them as “sinister and deeply disturbing.” Dooley said:

The Media Minister is not a bystander but is in a position to influence the allocation of funds, the approval of commercial radio licenses and overall policy on broadcasting.

It is not his role to dictate to the independent regulator or to apply pressure on media organisations. RTÉ is a public service broadcaster not a State broadcaster and is independently regulated in the interests of democracy. You cannot have a ‘slightly independent’ public service broadcaster.

O’Donovan’s ‘Trumpian’ attacks on the media

Dooley continued:

There’s no place for Trumpian ad hominem attacks on journalists and the Minister’s comments have caused genuine concern.

Upon hearing of O’Donovan’s phone call, Dooley told The Ditch that the minister “crossed a line by phoning the commissioner”. He also said:

…individually and collectively commissioners should not be subject to political pressure of any type.

O’Donovan dodgy campaign wasn’t without success, however, as The Ditch report that he managed to extract “two concessions from the regulator“. The minutes from the department of culture, communications and sport, stemming from a subsequent Tuesday April 14 meeting with CnaM, reveal that the commission will:

…”examine the issue of broadcasters producing an anonymised schedule of complaints on an annual basis” and “will provide a briefing to the minister on their work on protecting democracy”

The minutes also failed to mention the minister’s Saturday phone call with commissioner Ó Domhnaill.

EU regulations stipulate that:

Member States shall respect the effective editorial freedom and independence of media service providers in the exercise of their professional activities. Member States, including their national regulatory authorities and bodies, shall not interfere in or try to influence the editorial policies and editorial decisions of media service providers.

Given ministers are high-profile figures whose words frequently receive wide circulation, any public statement commenting on press coverage would amount to a move to “interfere in” or “influence” media. Phoning up commissioners on a Saturday outside formal channels is a further step beyond that, and neglecting to report said phone call merely compounds the misconduct.

If the minister wants nice things said about him, maybe he should focus on ensuring his government change policy away from warmongering and impoverishing its own citizens, rather than complaining when the press reports on the consequences of those disastrous decisions.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Reform UK was once an insurgent political party that aimed to steal hard-right voters from the Tory Party. At first, it seemed like Reform’s goal was to force concessions from the Tories — much like how UKIP did with the Brexit referendum. Surprising many, however, Reform actually ended up overtaking the Tories in the polls.

In response, Farage attempted to replace the Conservatives completely by softening some of the rhetoric and accepting bus-loads of Tory defectors. Predictably, this led to another insurgent political party emerging — this time seeking to steal hard-right voters from Reform UK.

The party in question is Restore Britain, and the latest polling suggests it could deny Reform a victory in the Makerfield by-election:

The Times have just released a new poll for the Makerfield by-election by Survation.

Robert Kenyon is the only candidate who can stop Andy Burnham.

This is a two horse race – nobody else comes close. pic.twitter.com/zZ75PasBdt

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) May 23, 2026

Reform VS Restore

The leader of Restore is ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe. The TLDR of Lowe leaving Reform is as follows:

• Lowe began criticising Farage (seemingly in coordination with Elon Musk).
• Farage suggested Lowe wouldn’t be anywhere near office without Nigel’s cult of personality (a.k.a. Reform).
• Reform suspended Lowe and reported him to the police for ‘verbal threats’ and “serious bullying” of female staffers.

Lowe would later form Restore in February 2026. The move came after Farage opened the floodgates to Tory defectors – a move which proved incredibly unpopular with Reform activists. Farage’s party would also hint at working with the Tories to ensure an election victory. As anyone could have predicted, this all made it harder for Reform to claim that it was an ‘alternative’ to the Tories.

By the end of April, Politico’s Poll of Polls showed that Reform’s polling had dropped from highs of 30%+ to 24%. Since the local elections and the chaos around Keir Starmer’s position as PM, the party has clawed its way back up to 26%:

Now, Reform faces two threats. The first is the bounce that Labour gets from Andy Burnham:

Striking things about this poll

Labour are ahead after tanking in Red Wall in locals (Burnham effect)

How well Restore are doing

How badly Conservatives are doing

The third party of the right https://t.co/ds74ZHstBj

Advertisement

— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) May 23, 2026

The second is that this by-election is going to shine a light on Restore Britain. And if Lowe’s party is able to dent Reform’s polling with hardly any national recognition, imagine what they can achieve with it.

On the march

Reform has adopted a stance of viciously attacking any and all opponents. Recently, this saw the party and its social media operation turn on a Makerfield charity director who dared to criticise them turning up at an event for disabled people without an invite:

They are trying to present the woman running a cafe for people with special needs as the ‘uniparty’.

This is political cannibalism, where you demonise just about anyone if you perceive them to get in your way. Certainly curious to see if it works! https://t.co/wH2IpfdeVO

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) May 23, 2026

We’re also seeing suspicious bot activity like this:

The electoral commission has to look into this.
It's clearly orchestrated. The question is – who is paying for it? Putin? Harborne? Farage? Some tech bro? pic.twitter.com/dgWGvxkZFq

— Dr Iain Overton (@iainoverton) May 23, 2026

Given all this, it’s unsurprising that Reform is gunning for Restore:

Vote Restore. Get Burnham. https://t.co/Vx0sYB9RY0

— Reform UK (@reformparty_uk) May 23, 2026

One commenter argued that Reform isn’t best-positioned to make this argument:

Reform split the vote and allowed Keir Starmer a super majority and all the Faragistas said that was fine.

But now Restore are doing it to them and the Faragistas are furious. It's almost as if they are TWO TIER! https://t.co/Ixm7fjnVZm

— Alexander Hall (@AEHALL1983) May 23, 2026

Advertisement

Reform’s attack on Restore will drive up the latter party’s profile. This will allow Lowe to directly speak to the public, and to potentially convince those with doubts about Farage that there’s an alternative. The timing really couldn’t be worse for Farage, either, because there are many good reasons to have doubts about him right now — key among them the £5m ‘gift’ he failed to declare:

Here are the facts as laid down by Derbyshire:
1) Farage says he won’t run
2) crypto billionaire pays him £5mill
3) Farage U-turns and runs
4) Farage hides the donation
5) Farage announces if he wins the election he will slash capital gains tax for crypto firms

Same old same old https://t.co/ViEIFZkf3A

Advertisement

— Alonso Gurmendi (@Alonso_GD) May 6, 2026

The optics say it all: Farage, a public school boy in cords and tweed, fresh from receiving £5m from another public school boy, nodding along as Kenyon argues that Britain’s real problem is teenagers who cannot be hired on the minimum wage. https://t.co/gA42bUhOKE

— Dr Iain Overton (@iainoverton) May 23, 2026

Advertisement

Reform was already moving further rightwards to stop the drift towards Restore. A recent example of this was the plan to punish citizens who don’t vote for Reform. As we reported:

Reform’s new policy is to build migrant ‘detention centres’ (what would more accurately be called ‘concentration camps’) in areas which don’t vote Reform. The party has denied its new policy constitutes a ‘threat’. The reason it’s being interpreted as one is because Reform argued people shouldn’t want detention centres in their area. Therefore, it’s clearly a threat by the party’s own logic.

This is a perfect illustration of the problem facing Reform. No serious practical solutions. Just political posturing. Which works fine when you’re trying to make a breakthrough. But won’t cut it when you need to move to being a serious alternative government. https://t.co/szML6sTV9g

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 4, 2026

Advertisement

The problem Farage has is the problem Kemi Badenoch and the Tories have. Politicians to their right can simply say ‘well of course they’d say that now, but they won’t follow through on it‘. Eventually Rupert Lowe will let his supporters down too, and someone will emerge to his right. Oh, and we’re already seeing signs of this. As commenter Mukhtar noted:

People are resigning from Rupert Lowe’s party, including local branch chairs, after discovering that former Tory MP Scott Benton is now employed by Restore and has access to the membership database. Scott Benton resigned as a Tory MP after he was caught in an undercover sting offering lobbying access to the gambling industry.

They’ve now found a photo of him with a Hebrew tattoo and are saying this is not what Rupert Lowe promised them. The people Restore are attracting is certainly something.

The following are examples of right-wing accounts commenting on the matter:

This is new Restore communications lead Scott Benton back when he was a Tory MP explaining to an undercover journalist posing as a gambling lobbyist how he’d be willing to lobby Ministers in exchange for cash.

Restore have hired a corrupt former Tory MP. Restore is a disgrace. pic.twitter.com/lV4lNJyfrR

— Wolf (@WorldByWolf) May 22, 2026

This is Scott Benton.

A disgraced former Tory MP who was forced out due to his involvement with the Gambling Industry.

He now has full access to Restore's database of membership after being employed by the party.

As you can see he has a Ba'al and 'israel' tattoo.

Mossad… pic.twitter.com/1QVH6pHEIf

Advertisement

— UNN (@UnityNewsNet) May 22, 2026

Increased attention will also mean more people learn that Lowe once had his groundskeeper execute his pet dog with a shotgun.

Reform? Restore? Reject!

Honestly, we don’t want Reform or Restore to do well. At the same time, we’d be happy for the two parties to do just well enough to cancel each other out.

Forgetting Repulse and Reject, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that Andy Burnham seems to be offering little more than reheated Starmerism. As we’ve reported:

• 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.

For too long, UK politicians have exclusively tried to appeal to frothing right wingers. We wish that Burnham was the man to pull us out of this death loop, but Burnham himself keeps telling us otherwise.

Featured image Getty Images (Sean Gallup) / Getty Images (Carl Court)

By Willem Moore

Source link

A few days before the kickoff of the 2026 World Cup, environmental warnings are escalating around the tournament, which is supposed to be the biggest in football history, but is now poised to become the “most climate-destructive” since the tournament began.

The Guardian revealed that the edition, which will be held in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, does not appear to be just an exceptional sporting event, but a massive project that could leave an unprecedented carbon footprint. This is due to the enormous expansion in the number of teams, matches, and host cities, alongside the almost complete reliance on air travel across an entire continent.

Record emissions… A World Cup the size of a continent

According to the report, the 2026 World Cup could cause the emission of nearly 9 million tons of carbon dioxide, a figure approaching double the average emissions recorded by previous editions of the tournament.

The newspaper believes the main reason for this increase is the unprecedented geographical nature of the World Cup, as matches will be spread across dozens of cities spanning three countries. This entails thousands of air travel miles for teams, fans, media, and sponsors.

For the first time in World Cup history, the tournament will transform into something resembling a “giant air transport network,” at a time when climate issues and emissions reduction are a growing global priority.

The biggest change in the 2026 edition is the increase in the number of participating teams from 32 to 48 and the increase in the number of matches to 104, which The Guardian report considers the key turning point in the inflation of the tournament’s environmental impact.

Every extra match means more travel, more energy consumption, and more logistical pressure, while criticism of FIFA’s commercial expansion policies is mounting.

Environmental voices believe that football has entered a new phase where economic and marketing interests take precedence over climate considerations, especially with FIFA’s endeavor to turn the World Cup into the biggest event ever in terms of revenues, sponsorships, and spectators.

The issue of “sustainability” haunts FIFA

The report directed direct criticism at the “sustainability” discourse promoted by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), arguing that talking about an environmentally friendly tournament appears contradictory given the expected emissions figures.

It also recalled the controversy surrounding the Qatar 2022 World Cup, after FIFA faced criticism for declaring the tournament “carbon-neutral,” at a time when Swiss regulatory bodies deemed the evidence provided insufficient to prove those claims.

The intensity of the criticism grows with the continued presence of oil and energy companies among the international federation’s most prominent commercial partners, which raises questions about the seriousness of the environmental rhetoric adopted by the world’s largest football institution.

The concerns were not limited to emissions only, as the report pointed to climate warnings related to high temperatures during the tournament, especially in some US cities expected to host matches in the peak of summer.

According to studies relied upon by the newspaper, a quarter of the tournament’s matches may be played in heat conditions dangerous to players and fans. This could impose unprecedented health and sporting challenges, and perhaps lead to a reconsideration of match times or even future hosting policies.

Football vs. climate

What the latest reports reveal is that the World Cup is no longer merely a global sporting event; it has become part of the international debate on climate and sustainability.

As FIFA prepares to organize the largest edition in history, questions are mounting about the true environmental cost of this expansion, and whether football can truly reconcile commercial growth with climate preservation, or whether the 2026 World Cup will be the moment the world’s most popular game turned into one of the most environmentally controversial sporting events.

Featured image via Hector Vivas/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

The World Cup ball is no longer just a piece of rubber and air, as fans have known it for decades, but has transformed in the 2026 World Cup into a comprehensive technological tool containing electronic sensors and advanced tracking systems, to the extent that it requires charging before matches.

The Spanish newspaper AS revealed that the new official match ball for the 2026 World Cup, named “Trionda,” contains a smart chip embedded within its structure, which necessitates pre-charging so it can transmit data during games.

The newspaper explained in its report that the battery works for several continuous hours, while the sensor remains extremely light so players do not feel its presence during play.

What is inside the World Cup ball?

According to FIFA, the International Federation of Association Football, the ball relies on “Connected Ball Technology,” a smart system that allows real-time tracking of every movement the ball makes on the field.

The “TRIONDA” contains a high-precision motion sensor that operates at a frequency of up to 500 times per second, allowing it to monitor the ball’s speed, direction, spin, and moment of touch with extreme accuracy.

This data is sent directly to the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system to support refereeing decisions, particularly in cases of offside, handballs, and controversial calls.

What has changed compared to the 2022 World Cup?

One of the most notable developments in the 2026 edition concerns the method of fixing the sensor inside the ball.

In the 2022 Qatar World Cup, the sensor was fixed in the centre of the ball via an internal suspension system. In the 2026 edition, it has been integrated within one of the ball’s panels itself, a geometric change that reports described as a major step toward improving balance and stability during flight.

To compensate for this change, counterweights were distributed inside the other panels to maintain the ball’s stability during play, which some reports considered a shift from a “smart ball” to a “complete data system within the ball itself.”

How does the technology work during matches?

According to what AS newspaper and accompanying technical reports indicated, the ball’s data does not work separately but is integrated with a sophisticated camera system surrounding the stadium.

The system relies on 12 tracking cameras distributed inside the stadium, monitoring the locations of players and the ball, and analyzing movement at a rate of nearly 50 times per second.

The information is then sent directly to the VAR room, where it is used to determine: the moment the ball was passed, semi-automated offside situations, goal-line crossing, and certain handballs and precise contacts.

A ball that doubles as an “extra referee”

The most prominent paradox in the 2026 World Cup is that the ball itself has become part of the refereeing system.

While technology was previously limited to cameras and screens, the ball now transmits data directly to the referees, a scene that reflects the major transformation football is undergoing toward the world of artificial intelligence and real-time data analysis.

Featured image via Florencia Tan Jun/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

The Omagh Bomb

We have three  categories of legacy case in the News apparently unable to advance,  just as there  hundreds of other cases not even contemplated for attention : the 26 outstanding  in Kenova not linked to Stakeknife ; the Disappeared said to be outside the formal Disappeared process ; and the Springhill inquests. Although subject to different legal treatment, they have in common the welter of detail even in the absence of conclusive evidence, the demand for answers and the common failure of existing processes, even quite searching ones, to provide them.

Ironically the gold standard of legacy investigation is about to get under way at last:  the public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. It is surely clear that the Finucane inquiry serves as no precedent. It was granted to fulfil a broken  promise and as a token of the Labour government’s good faith.

If we needed a reminder of  massive complexity, the Omagh bomb public inquiry is proceeding  according the same gold standard, being just outside the GFA legacy time limitation.

Advertisement

There are, it seems to me, two main reasons for holding full blown public inquiries into the Troubles. One is the inquiry as a test case or like a class action for alleged gross violation of legal norms authorised by the state;  the other that it will produce a definitive result,  including the terms for accepting responsibility.  If on the way, the state refuses  to disclose by way of a public interest certificate or by other means, that action by itself will speak volumes. The inquiry the state itself has set up will have demonstrably failed.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong but I doubt if  the Finucane inquiry will  satisfy that legally accomplished and politically influential family, even though their counsel will at last  be able to interrogate witnesses. The government of the day will at least be compelled to pass judgment on its predecessors and state clear terms for future disclosure, if “who called the shots as well as who pulled the trigger” from bottom to top is convincingly demonstrated, not just as lower level  procedure which gave higher ups deniablity  as the de Silva report found.

Attention to progress in both inquiries via live stream will be intense. The path is conclusion is strewn with obstacles, predictable and unexpected.  Without the constraints of a trial, critics will pounce on anything they suspect is less than complete transparency. But no one seriously argues that the PI is the viable regular legacy procedure. The argument lies elsewhere, over the powers and range of  the Legacy Commission recast in  Labour’s NI Troubles Bill which replaced the Conservatives’  generally loathed Legacy Act.  It takes on the residual role of the Investigations Unit  with sweeping powers  under the original Stormont House Agreement cancelled by the Conservatives along with most  prosecutions.  Conditional amnesty has been removed  to satisfy the conceded right to a fair trial under the ECHR, despite the belief that very little evidence survives. Meanwhile the debate has swung the other way after the painful failures to secure convictions against elderly infirm and ultimately dead veterans ,with Opposition MPs demanding further protection to be written into the Bill for old soldiers.  

So with due respect for legal process,  is not the best recourse to submit cases in deadlock to the recast Legacy Commission under the NI Troubles Bill? Their investigative powers are claimed to be wide and their conclusions can be challenged to their faces in real time, unlike any eventual decisions of the DPP on prosecutions. If satisfaction is not the result, at least we should have a much better   idea of where we are in each case, including  the quality of the arguments for and against  taking  responsibility and whether or not to go further. This does not necessarily happen in a trial and is more appropriate when best evidence is thin to non existent. Then the state or the paramilitaries or both will have to make some sort of reply and risk enduring a public savaging.

Advertisement

 

Former BBC journalist and manager in Belfast, Manchester and London, Editor Spolight; Political Editor BBC NI; Current Affairs Commissioning editor BBC Radio 4; Editor Political and Parliamentary Programmes, BBC Westminster; former London Editor Belfast Telegraph. Hon Senior Research Fellow, The Constitution Unit, Univ Coll. London

---

Discover more from Slugger O’Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Source link