Politics
Starmer’s attempt to save his premiership – speech in full
Keir Starmer vowed to prove his “doubters” wrong in a make-or-break speech on Monday morning.
The prime minister warned of “very dangerous opponents”, alluding to insurgent political forces on the right and left, and pledged to embrace a closer relationship with Europe.
Read Starmer’s speech in full.
The election results last week were tough, very tough. We lost some brilliant Labour representatives; that hurts and it should hurt. I get it, I feel it, and I take responsibility. But it’s not just about taking responsibility for the results; it’s about taking responsibility to explain how, as a political and electoral force, we will be better and do better in the months and years ahead.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
Because we are not just facing dangerous times but dangerous opponents – very dangerous opponents. This hurts, not just because Labour has done badly, but because if we don’t get this right, our country will go down a very dark path. So just as I take responsibility for the results, I also take responsibility for delivering the change we promised for a stronger and fairer Britain that we must build.
I take responsibility for navigating us through a world that is more dangerous than at any time in my life, and I take responsibility for not walking away – not plunging our country into chaos, as the Tories did time and again, chaos that did lasting damage to this country. A Labour government would never be forgiven for inflicting that on our country again.
I know that people are frustrated by the state of Britain, frustrated by politics, and some people – frustrated with me. I know I have my doubters, and I know I need to prove them wrong, and I will. So let me start on a personal note.
Like every prime minister, I’ve learned a lot in the first two years in the job. In terms of the policy challenges that our country faces, incremental change won’t cut it. On growth, defence, Europe, and energy, we need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times.
And this is a political challenge just as much as it’s a policy challenge. Delivery is, of course, essential, but it’s not sufficient on its own to address the frustration that voters feel. We’re battling Reform and the Greens, but at a deeper level, we are battling the despair on which they prey – despair that they exploit and amplify. And so analysis matters, but argument matters more. Evidence matters, but so too does emotion. Stories beat spreadsheets. People need hope.
So we will face up to the big challenges and we will make the big arguments – the Labour case – that only Labour values and Labour policies can ensure our country not only weathers these storms but emerges stronger and fairer. And the Labour case: that neither Nigel Farage nor Zack Polanski offers our country the serious progressive leadership these times demand.
Of course, like every government, we’ve made mistakes. But we got the big political choices right. I mean – if we had listened to the advice of other parties, right now we would be stuck in a stand-off with Iran, having been dragged into a war that is not in our interest, and I will never do that.
We invested in our public services, in people, and in the pride of Britain’s communities; difficult decisions funded that. But now, NHS waiting times are coming down, child poverty is coming down, and immigration is coming down. We are rebuilding from the ground up. They were the right calls.
And most of all, we stabilised the economy. The fundamentals are sound – and that matters because it puts us in a much better place to come out of the conflict in Iran stronger and fairer, and for living standards to improve after two decades of stagnation. But that’s not enough, clearly. No, for the British people, tired of a status quo that has failed them, change cannot come quickly enough. And truth be told, I’m not sure that they believe that we care. I’m not sure they believe that we see their lives.
And that’s tough to say. When you come from a working-class background like me, it’s hard to hear that because I do know what it’s like to struggle and to strive. But what I take from it is that I have spent too much time talking about what I am doing for working people and not enough time talking about why, or who I stand for. Because I can see how hard life has been during these decades of crisis; I can see that very clearly. My late brother, Nick, spent all his adult life going from one job to the next; the status quo did not work for him.
My sister is a carer, working long hours on low pay, year after year after year. She didn’t even get sick pay in the pandemic; the status quo did not work for her. For too long we’ve ignored people like that, and there are millions of people in that boat – millions of people who don’t get the dignity, the respect, or the chance that they deserve to go as far as their talent and effort should take them. Millions of people are held back because the status quo in this country does not work for them. I am fighting for them; we are fighting for them.
I am their Prime Minister and this is their Government because I know whose side I am on. I’m on the side of working people, just like my sister – people who work harder and harder but who worry about the cost of living. They’re not asking for the world; they just want to do the best for their kids. They want their town centres, the places they care about, to thrive; their public services to work; and people in power to see their problems.
And right now they’re worried sick. They turn on the TV and see bombs falling. They go to the petrol station and see prices rising. And they think: how is this happening to us again? They say, “How can I be paying the price for a war thousands of miles away that I don’t support, that Britain isn’t involved in?” And it’s not a new feeling, is it?
For two decades our country’s been buffeted by crisis after crisis: the 2008 financial crash, the Tory austerity that followed it, Brexit, Covid, and the Ukraine War. On and on it goes, and the response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to the status quo – a status quo that failed working people time and again. Our response this time must be different – a complete break. We must make this country stronger. Take control of our economic security, our energy security, and our defence security. And we must make this country fairer. Strength through fairness; that is my compass in this world. It is a core Labour argument, and in the coming days, you will see those values writ large in the King’s Speech. And you will see hope, urgency, and exactly whose side we are on reflected in everything we say and everything we do.
Let me give you three examples today, starting with British Steel. Because what we did in Scunthorpe last year is one of the proudest things we have done in Government. That plant was hours away from closure, and that is thousands of jobs gone, an entire region decimated, and Britain’s security exposed. And so we acted. Parliament was in recess, but it didn’t matter. As a united Labour Party, we passed emergency legislation and we took control. We must bring that same urgency to everything now, starting, appropriately enough, with Scunthorpe. Because steel is the ultimate sovereign capability. Strong nations, in a world like this, need to make steel. That’s why we’re backing steel in Port Talbot and across the UK. But in Scunthorpe, we’ve been negotiating with the current owner. A commercial sale has not been possible, and a public interest test could now be met.
So I can announce that legislation will be brought forward this week to give the Government powers – subject to that public interest test – to take full national ownership of British Steel. Public ownership in the public interest; urgent Government, on the side of working people, making Britain stronger with the hope of industrial renewal. That is a Labour choice.
Second example: Europe. And I’m sorry, but I need to take a bit of a detour on this because I want to remind you what Nigel Farage said about Brexit. He said it would make us richer; wrong – it made us poorer. He said it would reduce migration; wrong – migration went through the roof. He said it would make us more secure; wrong again – it made us weaker. He took Britain for a ride and – unlike the Tories, actually, who at least had to face up to it – he just fled the scene. And now, he’ll talk about almost anything other than the consequences of the one policy he actually delivered. Because he’s not just a grifter, he is a chancer.
So, at the next EU summit, I will set a new direction for Britain. The last government was defined by breaking our relationship with Europe; this Labour Government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe – by putting Britain at the heart of Europe. Because standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values, and our enemies – that is the right choice for Britain; that is the Labour choice. And for our young people, also something more. Because Brexit snatched away their ability to work, to study, and to live easily in Europe. That’s why I am proud we restored the Erasmus scheme.
But I want to go further. I want to make a better offer for our young people, restore that hope and that freedom, and that sense of possibility. And so I want an ambitious Youth Experience scheme to be at the heart of our new arrangement with the EU so that our young people can work, study, and live in Europe. A symbol of a stronger relationship and a fairer future with our closest allies; that is the Labour choice.
And third: the greatest hope, the hope every parent has of a better future for their children. I want parents to feel that this is shared by their Government. Now – my parents… don’t worry – I’m not going there! But they didn’t have a lot of money, and my Mum was seriously ill for most of her life. But when they were in their later years, reflecting on what gave their life meaning, I could see that, as well as their hope in us, their kids, what comforted them was the idea that they had contributed to a Britain that was getting better for young people – that kids now had better opportunities than they did.
And so I have always been driven by the idea that every child should go as far as their talent or effort takes them. It’s a beautiful idea, shared widely across this country. We tell ourselves stories about it, don’t we? Stories not unlike mine, about the working-class kids who do make it. And I don’t blame people for telling those stories; it’s important to tell those stories. But it’s not everyone, is it? So when I say every child should have the opportunity to go as far as their talent or effort takes them, I mean every child.
I mean the kids who are growing up in poverty, the kids who have special educational needs, the kids who can’t get a job, and the kids who are ignored, frankly, because society often only puts those who go to university on a pedestal. We don’t see anything else as success, and that’s wrong – deeply wrong.
So we will go much further on our investment in apprenticeships, in technical excellence colleges, and in special educational needs. We will make sure every young person struggling to find work will get a guaranteed offer of a job, training, or a work placement. And we will go much further with our pride in place programme; we will back the millions of people who give their time and effort to young people in their community – we will back them, not just with money, but with power. And we will make sure that kids whose talent lies with their hands, kids who go to college, kids ignored by the status quo because politicians’ kids don’t go there – they will finally get the respect they deserve in a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the Labour choice. These are just a few examples, but they show the urgency and hope in our direction. They show the Labour values we will be guided by. And they show, frankly, the lessons that we will learn.
Now, other parties will draw different lessons. In fact, they already are. They want more grievance politics. More division. More pointing at Britain’s problems, looking not for solutions but for someone to blame. Now that’s fine if it’s me, if it’s politicians – that’s the job. But increasingly, it’s not; it’s other people in this country. And I don’t think that’s British. That is not the decency and respect we are known for. But it’s here; that politics is with us now, and you’ll see it again on Saturday at a march designed to confront and intimidate this diverse city and this diverse country. That is why this Government will block far-right agitators from travelling into Britain for that event, because we will not allow people to come to the UK, threaten our communities, and spread hate on our streets. This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we win it. Because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens; we can only win as a stronger version of Labour – a mainstream party of power, not protest.
But I also want to be crystal clear on this: because I will never stop fighting for the decent, respectful, and diverse country that I love. And I will never give up on the hope we can unlock in this country – the hope of renters for security in their home, of workers for fairness at work, of public services freed from austerity, the hope of European solidarity, of community pride, and of the people who paint over the graffiti that is racist. A country taking control of its future; our spirit unchanged, our resolve unbroken. The hope of a country that can and will become a stronger, fairer Britain. That is the hope I am fighting for, that is the hope we are fighting for. That is the Labour choice. Thank you.
Wes Streeting appears to be attempting to rewrite history over his position on Gaza, after supporting Israel’s genocide for years.
You spent two years supporting genocide and now pretend you didn’t? Just staggering dishonesty from
these human pieces of excrement. https://t.co/Vz7iEYsHIW— Bog Standard Marxist
(@muskeatsbogeys) June 2, 2026
Recently published conversations between Streeting and Peter Mandelson, a friend of Epstein and a former government advisor, show Mandelson calling Streeting “hysterical” and “pathetic,” saying:
I think Wes is experiencing an early mid-life crisis.
Previously, Streeting released some messages between himself and Mandelson to clarify the nature of their relationship. In them, he described Israel as a “rogue state” and admitted that:
Israel Is Committing War Crimes Before Our Eyes.
Now, Streeting has told the Guardian that he was “horrified by the war in Gaza”. He stated that he “did everything I could” to get the government to act with the “moral urgency the conflict demands”. Supposedly, he shared eyewitness testimonies from doctors on the ground in Gaza, to ensure what was happening “wasn’t a war without witnesses”.
He added:
I’ve always supported Israel’s right to defend itself and Palestinians’ right to a state of their own. I’ve met survivors of October 7th and was the first shadow cabinet minister to visit Israel. I visited the West Bank a decade ago, I called for sanctions on Israeli settlements when I was a backbencher – this wasn’t some emotional or one-sided reaction; it is what I and other ministers believe.
I was proud to be part of the government that eventually recognised a Palestinian state, but we took far too long to get there.
Streeting and Israel’s ‘right’ to self-defence
Streeting has publicly supported Israel for the entirety of his career, since his days at the National Union of Students. He has been a member of Labour Friends of Israel for over twenty years, and was Starmer’s first shadow minister to visit Israel. Labour Friends of Israel – a highly secretive Israeli lobby group- paid for the visit.
According to Declassified UK, as of June 2024, Streeting had taken nearly £30,000 from Britain’s powerful pro-Israel lobby. This included donations from Sir Trevor Chinn, Lord Mendelsohn, and David Menton.
Streeting has previously criticised specific Israeli policies. This included illegal settlements and denying British MPs access to the Occupied West Bank. However, he has also regularly made comments about Israel’s ‘right to self-defence’ – despite that right not actually existing under international law.
Yet Streeting is a member of the same government that walked back comments from David Lammy, in which he claimed Israel had violated international law.
You were part of a cabinet that armed and supported a genocidal apartheid Israeli state.
Spare us the crocodile tears.
No amount of revisionism erases your role in that. You’re complicit, whether you like it or not. https://t.co/ctF6YX630H
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) June 2, 2026
Streeting was also caught on camera saying “persuade Hamas” in response to a question about Israel’s war crimes and “why can’t we have a ceasefire?”
This is despite armed resistance being legal under international law when living in an occupied territory.
Last year, after Israel had already destroyed a number of hospitals and attacked ambulances, Wes was asked what his party would do to force a ceasefire, he arrogantly shrugged and said his constituent should “persuade hamas” https://t.co/ETY0HzV5vM pic.twitter.com/cxCJP9k9f1
— Chłoddy (@OfSymbols) July 24, 2025
Complete contradiction
Additionally, Streeting doesn’t seem to realise that Israel’s right to self-defence completely contradicts the ‘two-state solution‘. Which, of course, he is also in favour of.
Aside from the fact that the two-state solution is a colonialist idea that legitimises the displacement of indigenous Palestinians, the two ideas completely clash in both international law and politics. No state can claim self-defence against a territory it occupies and exercises control over. Yet a two-state solution means recognising Palestine as a sovereign and, therefore, independent state.
As long as Israel claims “self-defence” to justify illegal occupation, bombing, and blockades, Palestine cannot function as an independent state. This would be required for the two-state solution, which Streeting is so keen on.
If Streeting truly believes his texts to Mandelson, why on earth has he accepted so much money from Labour Friends of Israel? And why has it taken him until now to say these things publicly?
Streeting has no backbone. If he truly cared about Gaza, he’d have spoken out and publicly condemned Israel’s war crimes. He would not have just done it via text to Epstein’s pal. He also wouldn’t wait until now, when there is a potential leadership contest in the not-so-distant future. It’s pretty convenient that he’s suddenly taking a hardline stance against a genocidal terrorist state. What good are your faux morals if they only appear to benefit your potential run as party leader?
Featured image via Leon Neal/Getty Images
By HG
On the 2 June, far-right bigot Nigel Farage put out a statement ostensibly aiming to avoid societal dissolution in response to police treatment of murder victim Henry Nowak. Roughly 24 hours later, rioters took to the streets of Southampton to throw wheelie bins at cops.
Farage tried to despicably weaponise the murder of Nowak to incite racial hatred. He specifically called for “pure, cold rage.” Lo and behold, fellow racists rioted in Southampton, and the riots trended on social media as #FarageRiots.
In the UK, this is precisely how white supremacy functions: politicians, mainstream media, and regular people all do their bit to keep the wheels of racism turning.
Farage got what he wanted
Yesterday, Reform UK Ltd. put out a video video statement by their party leader calling for “pure cold rage” in response to the murder and police treatment of Henry Nowak. He claimed to make demands hoping to avoid the breakdown of society:
The most important thing that needs to change, that has to change, if our society is not to be ripped apart, where communities start to distrust each other and deeply distrust the police and all the other institutions of this country, is we need a change in culture.
For Farage, this meant:
Enough of anti-white prejudice, a promotion of the idea that white lives matter just as much as black lives.
The very next day, like clockwork, hundreds of assorted racists, white supremacists and card-carrying neo-Nazis gathered outside a Southampton police station to riot. Far-right grifter Tommy Robinson addressed the crowd, launching into a rant about Muslims (in spite of the fact that the murderer was a Sikh person).
It’s precisely this kind of riot that the Reform leader claimed he wanted to prevent. After all, this is the same man who actually lost the (extremely lucrative) support of billionaire Elon Musk for preventing Robinson from joining Reform, given that Robinson was a former member of the British National Party (BNP).
This is white supremacy
The thing is, this is precisely how white supremacy functions – all around the world, but especially in the UK.
A compliant media aids and abets Farage, Robinson, and their ilk with its reporting. Despite their claims of in-fighting, it’s hard to believe any of them are particularly aggrieved when violent rioters are throwing bins around and hoisting flags. Whether it’s allowing Reform to grab uncritical headlines and puff pieces like GB News’:
Or merely dangerously misleading reporting like the BBC’s claim that the murderer used:
a ceremonial blade Sikhs are required by their faith to carry.
The national broadcaster used that line in the very same article where it quoted Sikh leaders explaining, very patiently, that the knife was not a religious requirement, and certainly wasn’t a kirpan. Likewise, the same community leaders also reported a massive uptick in anti-Sikh hatred as a consequence of the trial.
This kind of reporting primes the public to focus on the murderer’s Sikh faith, and ultimately his race. It fosters the idea that the problem is that Sikhs in general are allowed to carry knives, which quickly slips to the idea that brown people are treated better than white people (in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary).
The same tired line
With the public primed and readied, Farage doesn’t actually have to say ‘I would like my followers to riot’. In fact, he can stand in front of a camera acting as if he wants to prevent a riot.
Meanwhile, he continues to bleat about ‘anti-white discrimination’ and ‘two-tier systems’ – the exact dogwhistles (foghorns) that will prompt his followers to riot. This was so utterly predictable that the Canary drew yesterday’s article on Farage’s address to a conclusion with the line:
Clearly, the far-right leader has now pivoted from avoiding media scrutiny to a frantic attempt to create a distraction. If he has to incite another race-riot to do so, then so be it.
It was so utterly predictable because this is exactly the same attack line the racist right used to incite the 2024 race riots. In fact, an Institute of Race Relations report in the aftermath of the riots stated that:
Even as the ‘riots’ were ongoing, a range of figures sought to spread the notion that white defendants were victims of a ‘two-tier’ policing system that treated them more harshly ‘because of their race and political views’
Shocking nobody, one of those figures bleating about ‘two-tier policing’ was Farage himself. Then, as now, politicians and commentators highlighted that the Reform leader’s words were dangerous.
But, of course, he knows his words are dangerous. He knows they’re driving the rise of white supremacy; he knows they’ll spark white riots. We’d wager that he was counting on it.
That’s wholly a feature, not a bug – Farage knows that he’s the ‘acceptable’ political face of white supremacy in the UK, whether or not he’d call himself that openly. Inciting a race riot is probably cheaper and more effective than hitting the campaign trail for Reform UK.
Featured image via Getty/Finbarr Webster
Far-right race-hate activist ‘Young Bob’ has posted footage of himself among neo-nazi thugs as they rioted in Southampton and attacked police.
The footage does not blur his friends’ faces, but no one ever accused the far right of being too weighed down with brain matter. The video is shown below in case ‘Young Bob’ realises what he’s done and deletes his X post.
Far-right rampage
The thugs were part of a mob that rampaged through Southampton’s streets yesterday, egged on by their hate-preachers. The mob attacked police and spewed anti-Muslim hate on the pretext of the conviction of a Sikh (not a Muslim) for murder.
‘Bob’ and his footage will have been very helpful to the police and Crown Prosecution Service. Assuming, of course, that the state can spare the resources from its persecution of anti-genocide protesters to prosecute actual hate and violence.
Featured image via X/ YoungBobRB
By Skwawkbox
Politics
Politics Home | Keir Starmer Accuses Nigel Farage Of “Unforgiveable” Response To Henry Nowak Murder
Prime Minister Keir Starmer told MPs on Wednesday “there is no justification for more violence and disorder” following riots in Southampton.
4 min read
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has told MPs “there is no justification for more violence and disorder” following riots in Southampton and criticised Reform UK leader Nigel Farage’s calls for “pure cold rage” in response to the murder of Henry Nowak.
Footage released this week by police showed 18-year-old student Nowak being handcuffed and arrested as he lay dying on the ground in Southampton in December, telling officers he was not able to breathe.
Nowak had been stabbed by 23-year-old Vickrum Digwa, who had falsely told officers at the scene that he himself had been a victim of a racist attack. On Monday, Digwa was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum term of 21 years.
There was unrest in Southampton on Tuesday night following the publication of the footage showing Nowak’s arrest. At the time of writing, two people had been arrested for their role in the protests, which resulted in 11 officers being injured, according to Hampshire Police.
Speaking in Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday, Starmer said now is “time for serious work, not rage”, and described attacks on police officers in Hampshire last night as “disgraceful and completely unacceptable”.
He paid tribute to the “extraordinary dignity” shown by Nowak’s family, “after their son’s life was stolen in appalling circumstances”.
“He was clearly a kind, thoughtful, and much-loved young man. There are serious questions to answer, including how accusations of racism informed police thinking. And we’re supporting the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) to get to the bottom of what happened,” he said.
The IOPC police watchdog has initiated an investigation into the conduct of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, while at the same time, the Attorney General’s office is considering whether to review Digwa’s sentence.
Later in PMQs, Farage asked Starmer about “two-tier policing”.
“Following the horrendous circumstances of Henry Nowak’s death, can I urge the Prime Minister to consider this: it is now clear to growing millions in this country that we’re living under two-tier policing,” the Reform leader said.
“The instructions that are given to police officers from police bosses are clear and written down in ink: it says he must treat different ethnic groups in different ways.
“That apart from the upset and the anger at the circumstances of his death, the anger that you saw spilling out in Southampton last night, and which is in danger of getting considerably worse.”
Starmer said he doesn’t believe there is two-tier policing in the UK, then accused Farage of pretending to respect Nowak’s family.
“I’m really shocked that he pretends to have respect for Henry’s family, and then acts in this way.
“A grieving family have asked us not to respond in the way that the leader of Reform has responded: they’ve asked us not to, they have lost their son in the most appalling circumstances.
“They make a simple plea of us, as human beings, to please not exploit that. That is their plea to us, but we all need to reflect on those words of Henry’s father. My response, and the response of others… has been focused on the lessons to be learned, so we can deliver justice.
“His response has been to appeal for rage. Rage. That’s his response to a father who’s lost his son and asked for that not to happen. Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances, but to do it when the family are expressly saying please don’t, is unforgivable.
“It shows exactly who he is.”
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch struck a similar tone to the PM, telling MPs it was the “responsibility of everyone to bring people together, not divide them”.
“I also want to share my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Henry Nowak,” said Badenoch.
“The circumstances around Henry’s wrongful arrest and tragic murder must be a wake-up call to the entire country and to our institutions that every life matters. And that it is the responsibility of everyone in this house to bring people together, not divide them.”
Israel lobbyists — and UK politicians who take donations from Israel lobbyists — characterise protests against Israel’s genocide as ‘hate’. It’s a bare-faced lie. But the far-right is full of hate yet many MPs refuse to say so.
The ‘protest’ (riots) in Southampton on Tuesday, egged on by fascists Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, put it beyond doubt.
View this post on Instagram
Israel-aligned politicians attack humanitarians instead
Yet the Starmer regime is treating this real hate as a side issue. It’s too busy waging war on peaceful protest, free speech on genocide and the humanitarians who resist mass murder and war crimes.
The ‘mainstream’ media are no better. While peaceful marches are ‘hate’, fascist race-riots are both-sided and branded as “clashes with police”. Britain is being broken on purpose.
Featured image via Isabel Infantes/AFP
By Skwawkbox
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: 12 July 1936 – 28 May 2026 | Image courtesy of UK Parliament
4 min read
Former spy and later a government minister and whip, Meta Ramsay was an exceptional person in so many ways. Loyal to her country, her party and her friends, she was a mentor to many of us. Words by Lord Foulkes
Meta Ramsay was an exceptional person in so many ways: a powerful woman in a man’s world, a most generous friend in every sense, and a mentor to many of us. She was loyal in every way: to her country, the Labour Party and, above all, to her friends.
Her background was relatively modest. Those who knew her mother, Sheila – the daughter of Jewish refugees from Ukraine – could see where Meta got her strength of character. Her father, Alexander, was a gentle man in every sense, but nevertheless an avid supporter of Glasgow Rangers. This likely explains why Meta, though not a football follower herself, would always know the Hearts result by the time we spoke on Sundays.
After happy years at her local Battlefield Primary School, her parents saved enough to send Meta to Hutchesons’, then a fee-paying corporation school, which enabled her to gain a place at the University of Glasgow. There, she joined a cohort of formidable debaters and politicians – including Donald Dewar, John Smith, Ming Campbell, and Douglas Alexander (father of the current secretary of state) – and was able not just to hold her own, but to better them.
At Scottish universities, the men’s and women’s unions were social and debating centres, but the students’ representative council (SRC) was the true hub of power. Meta became the first woman to serve as president of the Glasgow University SRC, a foretaste of things to come. Scotland also had its own national student body, the Scottish Union of Students, and, once again, Meta was the first woman to become its president. It was then that we met, when I attended their conferences as a representative from the Edinburgh SRC.
At the time, the Cold War was at its height, and the international student scene was divided between the Communist International Union of Students (IUS) headquartered in Prague and the International Student Conference (ISC) in Leiden. In a further portent of things to come, Meta moved to the ISC to serve as assistant secretary.
Meta’s service in MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, was known to very few at the time, long before the organisation became as open as it is today. Her frontline work in Finland, and her role in the defection of Oleg Gordievsky in particular, is now the stuff of legend – and rightly so.
One disobliging colleague said to Labour leader John Smith, ‘Be careful, she was a spy,’ to which John retorted, ‘I know, that’s why I’m appointing her!’
Away from the intense world of intelligence, Meta maintained a warm and deeply grounded personal life. She was utterly devoted to her dear Cairn Terrier, Tam, so much so that she once prevailed upon me to chauffeur him from Glasgow to London! How could I refuse?
When she retired from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), she soon moved to work as foreign affairs adviser to the Labour leader, John Smith. One disobliging colleague said to John, “Be careful, she was a spy,” to which John retorted, “I know, that’s why I’m appointing her!”
She was appointed to the House of Lords by Tony Blair and became a whip, skilfully piloting the Scotland Bill through the Lords and keeping her flock in line. And when Labour moved into opposition, she served, fittingly, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and on the North Atlantic Assembly, Nato’s parliamentary body.
Her activity in the Labour Party spanned her entire adult life, bookending her foreign service, including joining the Scottish Executive Committee to provide vital senior female leadership during the period when Ian Murray was Labour’s sole Scottish MP.
She fell ill in London but returned home to Glasgow, where she passed away accompanied by her longstanding friend, assistant, and executor, the wonderful Caroline Thickett. She has since received glowing tributes from all sides of the House of Lords and beyond.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock is a Labour peer
Ahead of the ten year anniversary of the EU referendum on 23 June, UK in a Changing Europe experts have written a short series of blogs reflecting on some of the issues at the heart of Brexit then and now. Here, Jill Rutter considers how Brexit has impacted the civil service.
We could never persuade former Brexit minister and European Research Group chair Steve Baker to relive Brexit for UK in a Changing Europe’s Brexit Witness Archive. But two quotes from his recent Ministers Reflect interview for the Institute for Government are perfect illustrations of the way in which Brexit impacted the civil service.
Speaking of his own civil servants in his brief ministerial stint at the Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU) he said: “The officials were absolutely excellent in the Department for Exiting the EU, absolutely brilliant and brilliantly led”. But a few paragraphs later he describes how officials reacted to the DExEU ministerial team concluding that the UK had to leave the EU with an FTA-style agreement: “officials all sat there looking crestfallen. They’d all briefed us individually that we should do something hybrid that involved the customs union and alignment. We all said no individually. So they put on a summit. Again, notice they’re managing us, which is a thing to come back to. We gave them very clear directions on what we required as a team.” That sounds much more like the scepticism about the civil service to be expected from Eurosceptic ministers.
But Baker himself acknowledges that the civil servants were pursuing the Brexit that the Prime Minister and Chancellor wanted – and his real frustration (which resulted in his post-Chequers resignation) should be directed at his ministerial bosses, as they were the ones taking the policy in a direction he did not like, not the civil service.
The good news for the civil service is that it managed to deliver a Brexit which was broadly the one chosen by the Johnson government. Gaping holes did not emerge – either in UK legal frameworks or at the borders for goods (failure to stem cross-Channel irregular migration has become a running sore post-Brexit). UK regulators have mostly been able to substitute adequately for their EU counterparts – and, even before the final completion of Brexit, the UK’s medicines regulator gave the first approval for a Covid 19 vaccine. The UK developed missing trade capacity, rolled over EU-era trade agreements and negotiated its own new free trade agreements (FTAs) with countries such as New Zealand and Australia.
The price of that delivery was a massive expansion in the size of the civil service, which is now over a third bigger than it was in June 2016. Not all of that is down to Brexit itself – it was inflated by the need to deal with the pandemic and more recently by attempts to get on top of the asylum backlog. Nonetheless, that is an expansion that is way in excess of initial estimates of the impact of Brexit on the size civil service (and the expansion in the number of public servants in some arm’s length bodies should be added as well to take full account of Brexit as a driver of state expansion).
The bad news for the civil service is that Brexit catalysed a breakdown of relations with a significant segment of the political and ministerial class.
In the Theresa May government, civil servants were collateral damage as her cabinet could not agree on the model of Brexit it wanted to pursue. In some departments, Brexit supporting ministers were reluctant to confront the problems officials raised with them in implementing Brexit. The UK’s permanent representative, Ivan Rogers, resigned after being “stabbed in the back” by Theresa May’s chiefs of staff briefing against him. The Treasury was already bruised by what then-Chancellor Philip Hammond described as “being painted as the villain of the referendum campaign”. Ministers went on the record rubbishing official forecasts. Senior officials who had specialised in European relations found that their CVs were regarded as what former Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU Katrina Williams described as “unfortunate”. Theresa May herself repeatedly denied she was a puppet of her Europe adviser, Olly Robbins.
Although, in one part of the forest, Lord Frost was working more effectively with civil servants to deliver the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, relations elsewhere in government became ever tenser under the Johnson administration. In that administration’s version of Henry VIII, one permanent secretary resigned (the head of the Government Legal Department) over government willingness to break international law; the services of the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sedwill, were dispensed with and several more permanent secretaries were sacked or not extended as part of Dominic Cummings’s war on the bureaucracy. Meanwhile Johnson’s ministers went on the warpath against civil service wokery and working from home, while attempting to impose headcount reductions to roll back the increased numbers since Brexit.
Keir Starmer came in, determined not just to reset relations with the EU, but also with the civil service. But he too became disillusioned with a government “machine” which he never got to grips with managing – within months of taking office he was complaining about the civil service being too happy in the “tepid bath of managed decline”. Starmer’s peremptory sacking in April 2026 of Olly Robbins, who had rejoined the civil service eighteen months earlier, over Peter Mandelson’s vetting has reportedly had a dire effect on ministerial-civil service relations and on civil service morale, which intriguingly peaked in 2020.
Meanwhile, Starmer’s political opponents used his recruitment in opposition of former civil servant Sue Gray as chief of staff as evidence of political sympathies within the civil service – and to argue the case for the politicisation of appointments more along US lines. That remains a significant plank in Reform UK’s vision for the future state. Starmer’s actions make it harder for Labour to defend the current set-up.
The increasing frustration of ministers with the system and their civil servants is rooted in their own failure to deliver people’s aspirations for higher living standards, make inroads on regional inequality and improve public services, all while navigating an increasingly hostile external environment. That frustration contributed to the initial decision to vote for Brexit in June 2016. It is clear that ten years on, that frustration has grown rather than diminished.
By Jill Rutter, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government.
Is Caribbean unity at a turning point? Since the brazen and horrific US attack on Venezuela in January, the Caribbean’s regional trade bloc CARICOM has been in crisis. What has been left out by much of the media is the assistance that some Caribbean countries like Trinidad and Tobago gave the United States in its imperialist attack on the South American country.
Trinidad and Tobago support of the US
The Dominican Republic and Guyana all played a role in providing the US with bases and logistical support. However, more than any other country, Trinidad and Tobago provided temporary radar surveillance and the airbase that the US could use to launch its criminal attack that killed at least 80 Venezuelans.
Since then, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has defended the strikes and launched her own verbal attacks on CARICOM member states. She has even gone as far as to question CARICOM’s viability and failure to reflect the economic and geopolitical interests of Trinidad and Tobago.
These tensions have brought into sharp focus the growing challenges in working to bring about regional integration in the Caribbean.
Caribbean collaboration
The region has a long history of regional integration attempts going back almost 70 years with the most recent — the short-lived West Indies Federation — collapsing in 1962.
This latest division will likely test the resilience of CARICOM at a critical time when US imperialism is particularly volatile and a threat to the entire region. As small island states, Caribbean countries have managed to survive the post-independence period through regional cooperation and negotiating as a single bloc.
However, beneath this resilience hides an elite-driven, state-centric approach to development that reproduces economic dependency and creates the conditions for wealthier member states, like Trinidad and Tobago, to pursue unilateral agreements with larger powers.
T&T’s grievances are a decade in the making
To understand how we got here, we have to look at what is motivating the Trinidad and Tobago government to take the position it has against CARICOM.
For months, Persad-Bissessar has been questioning CARICOM’s effectiveness on maintaining regional security, challenging the idea of Trinidad and Tobago’s place within the bloc — especially as the country contributes up to 20% of CARICOM’s annual budget, which amounts to $20 million.
She has since demanded that CARICOM’s secretary general, Carla Barnett, step down once her five-year term ends later this year.
Persad-Bissessar has also repeatedly defended the US’ controversial actions in the lead up to its attack on Venezuela. Between September and December 2025, the US murdered 115 people in the Caribbean Sea on the unproven pretext of “drug smuggling”.
Since then, many fishermen across the region have been reluctant to go out to sea for fear of a US strike, which has had adverse effects on people’s livelihoods.
In September 2025, Roosevelt Skerrit, Prime Minister of Dominica, asserted that the Caribbean Sea should remain a “zone of peace” in response to the increased US military build up against Venezuela.
However, Persad-Bissessar also defended the US’ presence, stating:
CARICOM has chosen to support the Maduro narco-government through the fake zone of peace narrative.
Demographic shock
For Trinidad and Tobago, the position on the US strikes on Venezuela is different from other Caribbean countries. This is in part due to the proximity of the island nations, which is only 11-12km (7 miles) away from Venezuela, making the Caribbean country the closest to South America.
This is important because, for over a decade, migration from Venezuela to Trinidad has steadily increased, due in part to the economic mismanagement of the Maduro government, and the brutal and coercive US sanctions that were designed to cripple the Venezuelan economy. As a result, more than 30,000 Venezuelans have settled in Trinidad and Tobago, adding to the population of 1.5 million people in a short space of time.
This demographic shock has produced familiar anti-immigrant rhetoric around integration, crime, housing and competition for jobs that often emerge in migration discourse in the West. However, in Trinidad and Tobago, this migration wave has exacerbated existing issues, including public service provision for citizens and general unpreparedness for refugees outside of the Caribbean.
Persad-Bissessar’s frustrations stem from what she and other Trinidadian elites view as the disproportionate humanitarian focus that CARICOM has prioritised in relation to the Venezuelan migration.
For Trinidad and Tobago, the priority is to militarise its border as a measure against what it sees as the threat of drug trafficking. These priorities have found a perfect synergy with the US’ refocus on controlling the Caribbean on the dubious basis of security.
Whether Persad-Bissessar knows it or not, she is positioning her country as a key node of US imperialism in the Americas, which will continue to increase tension within CARICOM itself.
CARICOM and the global economy
It could be argued that the tensions between CARICOM and Trinidad and Tobago are structurally rooted in the roles that both polities play in the global economy.
For CARICOM, its state-centric and elite-driven structure means that a lot of its decision making is dominated by heads of government, senior technocrats and private sector lobbies.
It has been said that CARICOM is designed to manage capitalism in the Caribbean. Many critics, such as Jamaican economist Norman Girvan, have argued that such a structure ensures that narrow interests centred around attracting foreign investment, harmonising tax incentives for multinationals and maintaining a tourism-focused development model, deepens the Caribbean’s position at the periphery of the global economy.
To-date, regional integration through CARICOM has failed to include workers or unions in regional decision making, develop plans for regional public ownership in energy, transport and food systems — all of which could strengthen state and regional systems.
Defenders of CARICOM would argue that, as small island states, CARICOM was created to strengthen and amplify the diplomatic power of individual Caribbean countries through collective action. This allows them to better resist absorption into US foreign policy and economic interests.
CARICOM’s foreign policy machinery, the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR), was designed specifically for this. It creates coordinated foreign policy positions for CARICOM member states to act as a collective in drafting and creating treaties and trade agreements outside of the US sphere. The aim being to reduce dependence on the United States.
The consequences of foreign dependence
For Garvin and earlier thinkers (prior to CARICOM’s inception) like Walter Rodney, the issue is that Caribbean elites reproduce and maintain Caribbean dependency on foreign investment, remittances, extractive industries and trade with global powers like the US and European Union (EU). This is because they benefit directly from those structures in terms of having access to those markets. They are more inclined to compromise on policy in order to enjoy the benefits that they as a class could access from the developed world.
As a result, we have a region with a weak industrial policy, limited economic diversification and low wages.
It is a region also beholden to EU development funds, IMF frameworks and WTO rules. Even if CARICOM resists US imperialism in a limited context, the elite structure ensures that this resistance will never go far enough in creating full economic and political self-determination.
The bloc’s limitations in assisting Cuba as it faces economic strangulation by the US is an example of this. This weakness cascades into its relationship with wealthier members like Trinidad and Tobago, which clashes with CARICOM regionalism when it starts to obstruct its own attempt to align with global capital.
There is a perception among wealthier Caribbean countries that CARICOM holds them back from acting with full autonomy. Trinidad and Tobago policymakers increasingly question why they must go through their lower-income CARICOM counterparts to craft foreign policy given the country is significantly more industrialised than its neighbours.
As such, Trinidad’s own elites seek to assert their country’s ability to form independent agreements with the US and dictate their own migration policy. Trinidad and Tobago’s elites do not feel as dependent on regional integration as less developed Caribbean countries. Meanwhile, CARICOM does not have any real mechanism to enforce regional integration and cooperation of member states.
Is CARICOM at risk of collapse?
The unilateral foreign policy positions taken by Trinidad and Tobago are concerning for the long term viability of the bloc.
Last year, as US military build-up was increasing, Trinidad’s foreign affairs minister stated there was “no need to consult CARICOM”. Her comments indicate that at least in this moment, Trinidad and Tobago’s government is prepared to move the country away from multilateralism.
The effect is that distrust and suspicion have increased among other CARICOM member states towards Trinidad which could have an effect on regional cooperation in other areas.
However, Trinidad and Tobago is one of the biggest beneficiaries of CARICOM, accounting for a significant share of Trinidadan manufactured goods, energy products and financial services.
If Trinidad and Tobago was to leave CARICOM, it could incur trade losses of up to $3 billion. As such, a sudden Brexit-style departure would be unlikely, even with the current tensions.
The effects of CARICOM hostilities
Nonetheless, a departure is not impossible, but Trinidad and Tobago’s issues, if left unresolved, could weaken CARICOM in the long term.
Trinidad and Tobago doe not have to formally leave CARICOM to undermine the bloc and its neighbours. It could simply reduce or cease engagement altogether over time if the government determines the bloc is unable to serve its interests.
As CARICOM lacks the regional mechanisms to enforce unity, there is space for Trinidad and Tobago to undertake this. However, Trinidad and Tobago’s lack of engagement would weaken CARICOM.
This is the threat that Trinidad and Tobago’s position poses, and it has already started.
The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, urged governments across CARICOM to negotiate as a single bloc since historically, the US has taken Caribbean states and interests more seriously when they negotiate together. The actions of Trinidad and Tobago sets a greater precedent for the US to expect bilateral negotiations going forward for other Caribbean countries.
Regional shifts
These changes are not without their consequences. Venezuela, in response to Trinidad and Tobago’s US assistance, has cancelled a number of key oil and gas deals. Relations with the two countries have remained cold, even with Venezuela’s new President, Delcy Rodriguez.
Rodriguez, on her first foreign visit in April, skipped past Trinidad and Tobago and went to Grenada and then to Barbados to discuss partnerships on a range of issues, such as food and energy security. Unlike Trinidad, both Caribbean countries resisted US pressure to install a radar system and to allow their territories to serve as launch points for an attack on Venezuela.
This signals another trend going forward: if CARICOM continues to pull away from each other, many other countries will see the opportunity to form partnerships with individual states rather than the collective bloc. In the short to medium term, this could seem like an opportunity. But over time, as small island states, this builds dependency and locks the region into internal competition with each other.
For regional integration to work, the Caribbean must rethink how CARICOM functions. It faces too many internal contradictions that will undermine it. This is the challenge facing the Caribbean: how can it create and maintain regional integration that accommodates all the economies in the region?
An alternative to CARICOM?
Perhaps a completely different model is needed to resolve the tension between national and regional interests with a goal of liberating the Caribbean from the divergent and competing capitalist priorities that CARICOM operates under.
The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) demonstrated the possibility in 2004. Both Cuba and Venezuela founded ALBA to challenge neoliberal blocs like CARICOM, and the US-led Free Trade Area of the Americas. They did this by implementing a different economic model of regional integration that does not foment competition amongst its members.
ALBA prioritised solidarity through shared development plans, joint public enterprises, mutual aid during crises and energy integration through barter arrangements as opposed to market determinants. It was deliberately post-capitalist by design and sought to empower Caribbean countries to delink from US-led capitalism.
Countries like Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica and Antigua and Barbuda joined ALBA at the time, benefiting from Cuban doctors and engineer exchange, as well as public ownership in the development of regional institutions like the development bank.
But ALBA would go into decline in 2014, due to Venezuela’s economic crisis and the devastating US sanctions imposed.
However, it represents the most recent attempt at creating a regional integration alternative in the Caribbean that resolves the internal contradictions of regional integration in its current form. It shows that such alternative models of regional integration are possible.
What does the Caribbean need now?
If models that prioritise public ownership over elite control are implemented, then the tensions between regional integration and national self determination that define the conflict between Trinidad and Tobago and CARICOM can be mitigated. And in time, completely dissolved.
Solving the conflict is essential for the Caribbean not only to meet the challenges presented by US imperialism but on other issues, such as the climate crisis and growing food and energy security.
Featured image via Roberto Schmidt/ Getty Images
The seat-warmer-in-chief squirms…
British Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, sat down with Analyst News to discuss the punitive state actions levelled towards him by Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President Trump.
Khan opened up about the coercive agenda at play to intimidate him as he pursues justice and accountability for the tens of thousands of victims of flagrant war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In response, Khan defiantly centered those who have lost everything as a result of imperialist aggression, saying:
.. it’s not about us. It’s about victims and their right to justice.
They’re not worthless. They’re not numbers. They’re not abstract concepts.
They’re people that have lost their babies, their wives, their husbands, their grandparents.
'It's painful, it's difficult, it's meant to coerce … but it's not about us, it's about the victims' right to justice.'
In an exclusive interview with Analyst News, the International Criminal Court's Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan details the threats and sanctions against him,… pic.twitter.com/afFHn4E5qq
— Analyst News (@AnalystNews_) June 2, 2026
ICC prosecutor: ‘you go against Israel, we’ll come after you and your family’
ICC prosecutor Khan has faced no end of abuse from corrupted officials as a result of his determination to uphold the rule of international law. The decision to issue arrest warrants for political leaders involved in numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity no doubt fuels the ongoing sanctions
Moreover, the US has expanded its punitive and intimidating sanctions beyond Khan himself and extended them to his wider family, revoking his children’s US visas. All the while, there has been no meaningful condemnation from its allies. In fact, David Cameron joined these corrosive efforts, threatening Khan that the UK would withdraw from the ICC itself if warrants against Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant were not withdrawn.
Despite these silencing efforts to obstruct accountability for the genocide in Gaza, which the US and the UK have materially supported through the provision of bombs, bullets and the UK’s spy planes, Khan has remained inspiringly defiant.
As Chief Prosecutor, he makes clear that he will continue to pursue justice and uphold the independence of the court in the face of significant political pressure.
In the interview, he spoke about the threats and warnings he has received from US officials:
Karim Khan: You go against Israel, we’ll come after you and your family. You have been warned. Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, I mean, quite powerful individuals, wrote a public letter. They wrote to me and they said, you have been warned. That’s how it ended. You have been warned. Yes, we have faced threats. I’ve been convicted by the Russian Federation to a 15-year sentence for the audacity they think of applying for warrants that judges independently gave in relation to the aggression against Ukraine. And President Trump has sanctioned me and my family because of Palestine.
Analyst News Journalist: You had your email disabled, your bank account’s frozen. Is that still the case?
Khan: Yes, I don’t have any credit card in the world. I mean, all those types of things. You know, travel bans, my children’s visas, revoked to the United States.
The journalist then highlighted how Khan’s family are not prosecutors or involved in decision making yet have equally faced this abuse of power.
Well, this is the question. I mean, even Magnitsky sanctions for human rights violations don’t apply to family. But as the senator said, you know… They would come after me and my family. They’ve done that.
The Magnitsky sanctions mentioned by Khan refer to a bipartisan US federal law enacted in 2012, which:
allow the United States to freeze assets and ban travel for foreign individuals and entities involved in serious human rights abuses or significant corruption, regardless of their nationality.
Khan: “It’s meant to coerce. It’s meant to make us change course.”
We have all witnessed countless severe abuses of the human rights of Palestinians and Iranians. But the US and its allies appear prepared to inflict this kind of punishment on anyone who challenges their sick agenda or seeks to hold Israel accountable.
Activists aboard the latest aid flotilla travelled towards Gaza in an attempt to deliver humanitarian assistance and show solidarity with Palestinians. Before long, Israeli forces once again intercepted the flotilla and detained those on board, an action many have condemned as illegal under international law. Subsequently, several activists reported that Israeli occupation forces subjected them to violent assault, rape, and multiple methods of torture.
Nevertheless, despite a depressingly huge volume of mounting evidence, the US has not applied Magnitsky sanctions against any Israeli officials.
Instead, they have chosen to weaponise those measures against a respected international lawyer for pursuing accountability under international law – and have even targeted his children in the process.
The Chief Prosecutor isn’t having any of it through and makes it clear that he will continue to fight for the people who have paid the price of Western imperialist aggression and Zionist settler colonialism:
But again, this is painful. It’s difficult. It’s meant to coerce. It’s meant to make us change course.
We can’t. And I think that’s a testament to the many women of the office that it’s not about us. It’s about victims and their right to justice.
Khan: ‘what’s liberating is accepting mortality’
This interview will undoubtedly reinvigorate advocates across the world. After all, millions of people have been calling out Israel and its crimes since the Israeli genocide escalated against Palestinian men, women and children after October 7th.
Whether it be the IOF leaving babies to starve to death in neonatal units, the bombing of hospitals and schools, or the kidnapping of thousands of Palestinians without charge or conviction, Israel’s crimes are far-reaching, morally depraved, and prolific.
When asked about whether he has feared for his own life and those of his family due to his principled professional stance, Khan powerfully stated:
What’s liberating is accepting mortality. You know, the cause of death is life.
So, once you accept that, actually these things don’t become very important.
Featured image via Getty/Michael M. Santiago
Tenaya Therapeutics, Inc. (TNYA) Discusses Interim Data from MyPEAK-1 Trial of TN-201 Gene Therapy for MYBPC3-Associated HCM – Slideshow (NASDAQ:TNYA) 2026-06-03
Bitcoin Price Faces $20K Risk as Schiff Flags Complacency
Streeting attempts to rewrite history over Gaza
-
Tech5 days agoWaymo dominates autonomous vehicle registrations as Tesla trails behind
-
News Videos5 days agoThis is BROKEN! INSANE 5x MONEY CAR WASH WEEK! The NEW GTA Online UPDATE Today! (GTA5 New Update)
-
Tech4 days agoSpaceX just won a second Golden Dome contract. This one is $4.16 billion.
-
News Videos5 days agoSHE IS KILLING XRP!!! WATCH URGENT AND ACT FAST
-
Business2 days agoJade Biosciences, Inc. (JBIO) Discusses Positive Interim Results From JADE101 Phase I Healthy Volunteer Study and Development Plans Transcript
-
NewsBeat5 days agoFIRST NIGHT REVIEW: Take That bring the Circus back to life in spectacular sun-soaked style
-
Crypto World5 days ago
CFTC Has Approved the First Regulated Bitcoin Perpetual Contract in the U.S.
-
Business4 days agoIs the Spurs Phenom Already Better Than Prime Diesel?
-
NewsBeat5 days agoNovak Djokovic v Joao Fonseca LIVE: French Open latest scores and results after Jannik Sinner’s shocking collapse
-
Crypto World5 days agoSnowflake (SNOW) Stock Rallies on Strong Q1 Results and AI Product Growth
-
Entertainment5 days agoWeak ‘Supergirl’ Box Office Tracking Amid Milly Alcock Backlash
-
Business4 days agoDemand Conditions Improve In Chemicals Sector In April 2026
-
Crypto World5 days agoMicroStrategy Moves $30 Million in BTC to Coinbase Prime: Is the Bitcoin Sell-Off Already Here?
-
Politics4 days agoThe House | Inside Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Campaign: “Nobody Thinks This Is In The Bag”
-
Entertainment4 days agoOne of the Greatest Sitcoms of All Time Shoots Up Apple TV’s Charts 11 Years Later
-
Tech5 days agoThis Week In Security: Ubiquiti Fixes, And FreeBSD Joins The Club You Don’t Want To Join
-
Entertainment5 days agoMaddox Jolie-Pitt Legally Requests to Drop Brad’s Surname
-
Entertainment4 days agoBritney Spears Shares Troubling Update After Hard Year
-
Crypto World24 hours agoSeagate (STX) Stock Surges to Record High on AI Boom and Legal Settlement
-
Entertainment5 days agoBruce Willis’ Generosity Resurfaces Amid His Dementia
You must be logged in to post a comment Login