Haiti has the highest level of perceived corruption of any country taking part in the World Cup, with Norway and New Zealand scoring lowest (something New Zealand might have to get used to!). These figures came from Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Source link

It’s not just football versus soccer. Britain and America share a language and deep historical ties, but their political systems are an ocean apart.

That could be good news for President Donald Trump.

As Republicans in the United States search for clues about the political mood ahead of November’s crucial midterm elections, a parliamentary by-election in Makerfield, England, is demanding attention. It’s not just that the special election could kick off a chain of events ending in Keir Starmer being ousted as prime minister — the contest itself serves as an early test of whether the anti-incumbent anger that upended Western democracies in 2024 remains a potent force.

But a new analysis of POLITICO Poll results suggests British and American voters respond to that political frustration in different ways. While cynicism about politics is widespread and persistent in both countries, British voters, with an array of political parties across the ideological spectrum, are willing to abandon their party in search of an alternative.

American voters, by contrast, remain largely constrained by the two-party system — limiting just how far they can go in channeling their frustrations.

In the U.K., just half of those who voted for Starmer’s center-left Labour Party in 2024 plan to vote the same way in the next election, according to the survey conducted by Public First from May 8 to May 11.

Meanwhile, strong majorities of Americans — including 75 percent of Trump 2024 voters and 86 percent of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris — plan to stick with their party, underscoring just how little voter movement there tends to be in the U.S.

“We have a far, far more fluid system, I think, even than in the U.S., so people will switch parties,” said Mark Shanahan, an associate professor of political engagement at University of Surrey in Guildford, England.

That could be a saving grace for Trump and the GOP as they brace for a midterm landscape more difficult than initially expected, a change fueled in large part by voters’ persistent economic anxieties. It’s easier for the British voters who elected Starmer in 2024 to move to a different party in the country’s multiparty system, but disaffected Trump voters have no real choice.

Trump’s rise to the White House in 2016 was powered by a coalition that included independents, disengaged voters and Americans who felt alienated from the political establishment. They helped him again in 2024.

Republicans trying to stave off a difficult midterms have since warned that the biggest danger for the party in November is not that those voters suddenly defect, but that they become disillusioned enough to simply not vote. It’s a turnout election, strategists and candidates from both parties keep saying, that will likely come down to whether Trump voters show up for the party even when he’s not on the ballot.

What they’re less worried about is Democrats finding a way to move large numbers of persuadable, frustrated Republican voters back into the fold, or to pick up steadfast partisans. That’s true even as voters keep making clear that they’re looking for change.

The POLITICO Poll reveals just how deep the sense of cynicism and pessimism runs among voters in both countries. In the U.S., 71 percent of adults say politicians only look out for themselves, including 79 percent of those who backed Harris in 2024 and 71 percent who voted for Trump.

There are similar frustrations in the U.K., where majorities of voters blame the politicians — not the system — for the country’s current political problems. In a poll conducted earlier this month by London-based Public First, a 45 percent plurality of U.K. adults say that the country keeps changing prime ministers because none of them are any good.

But the analysis from Public First finds an important distinction in how voters in the two countries channel their frustration at the ballot box. British voters appear much more willing to cross party lines.

In the U.K., the Labour Party rode to power in part by tapping into the support from cynical voters. But two years later, the Labour Party is hemorrhaging supporters. Fewer than half — 49 percent — of those who voted with the Labour Party in 2024 plan to do so again, while 13 percent plan to vote for the Green Party to its left and 13 percent for leading hard-right party Reform U.K., while the rest are divided among other parties or unsure according to The POLITICO Poll.

“What we are seeing, particularly since Brexit over in the U.K., is a dissatisfaction in what was never formally a two-party system, but had been a de facto two-party system pretty much since 1916,” said Shanahan.

The Conservative Party — the Tories, the party of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher that battled with Labour for a century — has fallen out of favor, losing support to Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K. party. That break is similar to the MAGA vs. traditional Republican split in the United States — but the two-party American system forces the GOP to stay together in an at-times tense coalition on the right, while British voters can simply switch from Conservative to Reform.

That also spells trouble on the left for Starmer, whose popularity has plummeted and who is eager to quash an internal revolt that could eventually lead to his ouster. The Makerfield by-election on Thursday will determine whether Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester and Starmer’s chief internal rival, is elected as Labour’s representative in Parliament, giving him the chance to challenge Starmer for the party leadership and potentially replace him as prime minister.

“As the electoral politics of the U.K. fragments, it can only take a few thousand cynical voters in each of a few hundred constituencies to switch a majority to a devastating defeat,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, POLITICO’s polling partner. “This is how, in 2024, Labour got into government with fewer votes than it got in 2019, and why most election modelling would now say they’ve lost that majority as quickly as they gained it.”

The POLITICO Poll in June found 64 percent of U.K. adults say they don’t trust Starmer and, in a separate question, 62 percent say he is not someone who keeps his promises. Labour suffered massive losses in last month’s elections, prompting the calls from Starmer’s own MPs for him to be replaced.

But as Starmer stares down that threat — fueled by some of the very voters who elected him into office in the first place — the challenges before Trump and the GOP are much different.

In the U.S., even the most cynical and disaffected voters still tend to stick with their party identities. Even among non-MAGA Republicans — the conservatives least loyal to the president, who do not self-identify with his MAGA movement and ideology — highly cynical voters are just as likely to stick with the GOP in the midterms as less cynical voters are, according to Public First.

“In the U.K., voters who are dissatisfied with the main party tend to have a third or even fourth option. In the U.S., they have one alternative, or the option to not show up,” Wride said.

Poll after poll shows early signs of Trump’s 2024 coalition fracturing, on issues including the cost of living and the Iran war, but when faced with the prospect of choosing between one main party on the left and one on the right, voters tend to hold their noses and pick the same one they have before.

Source link

In April 2026, we learned that Nigel Farage had failed to declare a £5m ‘gift’ from a foreign-based crypto billionaire. Ever since then, the man has been doing everything he can to avoid media scrutiny. And now, motormouth Nigel Farage – the man who built a career out of taking every media appearance offered – has decided to become a f*cking blogger:

When are you going to write an essay about the £5m? https://t.co/AYE6vIUx9k

— Reform Party UK Exposed (@reformexposed) June 14, 2026

Farage — Man of words

The first thing to note about Farage’s essay is that it’s 35,000 words long. This is a third the length of a good-sized novel. And as such, we’re going to hazard a guess that Farage did not in fact write it himself.

When we learned Farage was going to become an essayist, we immediately thought ‘are his supporters going to read this?‘. When we saw the word count, it became obvious the answer is ‘no’.

The theme of the first essay he’s pretended to write is ‘white people are the real oppressed group today‘. We’re going to hold our hands up and admit we won’t be reading it, because why should we? If Farage has opted out of defending his ideas, we’re opting out of reading them.

If he’d like to agree to an interview, however, we’d be happy to read his ghost-written whinge-fest from back to front. The price would be that we in turn get to ask him about the £5m ‘gift’.

Running scared

While Farage has said he’s doing all this to avoid ‘distortions’, others have argued Farage is seeking to avoid people calling out his own distortions:

Farage says his new theme of racial politics will now be pushed in his own Substack.

The idea, it seems, is to avoid scrutiny by anyone who may point out his carefully-crafted misrepresentations.https://t.co/k6ejc34BJW https://t.co/QXsBtYt0jv

— Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson) June 13, 2026

There’s clearly one thing that’s distorted in all this, anyway, and it’s Farage’s mind if he thinks he can run for PM while hiding behind a laptop in some dingy Westminster office.

Featured image via Twitter

By Willem Moore

Source link

A record number of groups are exploiting a gap in campaign finance law to flood this year’s primary elections with money — without disclosing their donors until long after the race is over.

More than $48 million has already been spent on House and Senate primaries this year by super PACs that did not have to reveal their donors before elections took place, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission. That is more than double the total at this time in the 2024 cycle, and 10 times higher than in 2018.

The groups are taking advantage of the campaign finance calendar. A super PAC formed after the last pre-election FEC deadline can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in the crucial final days of an election without disclosing its donors until afterward. The practice has been used for years, but never to the degree of this year’s midterms.

Roughly 1 in 10 dollars in outside spending that has flowed into primaries so far this year has been through these secretive groups.

In some cases, the pop-up super PAC spending has the characteristics of one political party meddling in another’s primary to help boost a candidate seen as more beatable in November, which is what happened in competitive races in Texas’ 35th District, Maine’s 2nd District and most recently New York’s 17th District. In other cases, groups sought to hide their connection to controversial sources, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“It’s certainly a very strategic effort to avoid providing transparency for voters,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. “So even if they’re acting within the letter of the law, they are ultimately undermining in spirit. Because disclosure requirements exist so that voters — when they’re deciding who to cast their ballot for — have the information about who has spent money backing these candidates.”

The path for secretive spending on primaries is relatively straightforward. New groups launch after a monthly or quarterly FEC deadline. They spend millions of dollars to support their preferred candidates, bombarding voters in the final days when they are most engaged with an election. And by the time they have to report their money, weeks after the end of the month or quarter, the election they were aiming to influence is already over.

The tactic is more common in primaries than general elections because outside groups have to file pre-general reports in mid-October, leaving only a relatively small window before the November election where they would be able to launch and spend without disclosing financial information.

The efforts to hide sources of funding have happened across the country this cycle and to support and oppose candidates of widely varying ideologies. More money has been spent in Democratic primaries than Republican ones so far.

Since the beginning of May, two super PACs widely suspected of being tied to Republicans — Lead Left and Real Change — have spent $4.3 million across Democratic primaries in five competitive House districts to boost progressive candidates that are seen as weaker in the general election. Neither group will have to reveal their donors until mid-July.

In Kentucky’s 4th District, where GOP Rep. Thomas Massie was seeking reelection after President Donald Trump endorsed his challenger Ed Gallrein, a newly created super PAC spent a whopping $6.7 million to attack Gallrein. The PAC shut itself down shortly after the primary, revealing only then that most of its funds came from a Texas-based firm. (The PAC is now facing an FEC complaint alleging it was a straw donor scheme.)

In Illinois’ March primaries, three newly created groups tied to AIPAC spent $16 million on House races. While news reports linked AIPAC to the groups throughout the primaries, it wasn’t revealed until afterward that United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s main super PAC, was the leading funder. That allowed AIPAC — which has become politically controversial in Democratic primaries — to attempt to influence the elections without officially declaring its involvement as ballots were being cast.

In the special primary election to replace the late Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) last year, a newly launched super PAC called Fight for Virginia’s Future backed Connolly’s former chief of staff, James Walkinshaw. After the election, which Walkinshaw won, it was revealed that the group’s funding was transferred from Connolly’s campaign account.

Not every newly launched super PAC is inherently secretive. In some cases, new groups are clear about their affiliations even if they don’t immediately report their donors to the FEC.

And there are other ways for super PACs to hide their sources of funding beyond taking advantage of the FEC’s timing. Many get transfers from 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which face far fewer disclosure requirements.

As the practice of pop-up super PACs has become more common, it’s also become more sophisticated.

In past cycles, new super PACs that hid their sources of funding were sometimes linked to existing interests through the little information they do have to share when they are formed or spend money: their vendors, address and treasurer name and contact info. But many groups have developed workarounds and now use unknown treasurers or new vendors that also popped up around the same time as the PACs themselves.

In a handful of Democratic primaries in competitive districts this year, pop-up super PACs that have been linked to Republicans through PO boxes and website metadata have run ads that closely mimic the logos and official materials of Democratic campaigns in the race.

In one case last month, the Republican-linked Lead Left PAC spent nearly $1 million backing Democrat Maureen Galindo over Johnny Garcia in Texas’ 35th District. Galindo had been widely condemned by her own party for calls to turn a local ICE detention center into a “prison for American Zionists.”

The spending on her behalf led to the moderate Blue Dog PAC leading a rescue mission for Garcia: It spent more than $1 million to boost the former Bexar County sheriff’s deputy.

Neither Real Change or Lead Left responded to requests for comment sent to the emails listed on FEC filings. Other groups, including Fight for Virginia’s Future, Kentucky 4th PAC and UDP also didn’t respond to requests for comment. Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to House GOP leadership that is widely speculated to be behind some of the pop-up PACs, did not respond to a request for comment.

Phil Gardner, a senior adviser to the Blue Dog PAC, said the Lead Left ads were “literally trying to impersonate other campaigns.”

Garcia — who ultimately won his race by more than 20 points — said in an interview that news reports linking Lead Left to Republicans helped show voters the importance of the race.

“It showed just how scared they were of our campaign, that they were willing to invest in a candidate that was clearly antisemitic that they knew they would defeat very easily in the general election,” Garcia said.

A similar pop-up PAC also spent heavily for progressive Matt Dunlap over state Sen. Joe Baldacci in Maine’s battleground 2nd District, which Trump won in 2024 and is open this cycle because moderate Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) opted not to seek reelection.

Ian Russell, a national Democratic strategist who is working on Baldacci’s race, said the GOP-linked ads could trick voters who don’t realize they aren’t coming from Dunlap’s campaign.

“They’re literally running a positive ad for Matt Dunlap,” Russell said. “They’re using his campaign logo. They’re using B-roll off of his YouTube page.”

That race is still uncalled as it goes to a ranked-choice count this week.

In recent years, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for tightening campaign finance law, saying sources of funding should be more readily disclosed. But there have not been meaningful advances in campaign finance legislation.

Just last week, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) introduced a bill that would require super PACs to disclose every large donation they receive in the final 20 days of an election — which would make it harder for pop-up PACs to hide their sources of funding.

“All this dark spending money is just skyrocketing,” Crow said in an interview. “Super PACs, corporate donations, pop-up PACs. It’s out of control and it’s getting worse every cycle.”

Source link

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — Those in charge of SoFi Stadium have two days to clean out SoFi Stadium between the United States’ thumping of Paraguay on Friday and a face-off on Monday between Iran and New Zealand. They can count on the L.A. County Department of Health to help with the grossest part.

County health officials are already removing wastewater from the stadium before, during and after every match played at SoFi Stadium, to test for the presence of various viruses. The county health department — which is responsible for the well-being of ten million residents — developed its syndromic-surveillance capacity during the Covid pandemic, but is now deploying it for the first time it at a sports facility.

You can read more in a fascinating report from POLITICO health-care reporters from coast to coast, led by my Sacramento-based colleague Rachel Bluth, about how public-health authorities have prepared for a World Cup unfolding amid an Ebola outbreak, rising measles cases in the United States, and continued fears of hantavirus.

Click here for the whole story.

Source link

The British state’s war on UK rights and justice to protect Israel continues. Jewish protesters are demonstrating outside an event to sell stolen Palestinian land to colonisers today, 14 June 2026. But the Met Police is already arresting peaceful protesters — and appears to be targeting Jewish protesters for violent repression:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @jewish_antizionist_action

The protesters have been loud, but entirely peaceful — Met Police are out of line:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @jewish_antizionist_action

The event had already changed location trying to avoid the protests, after the first venue withdrew:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by PYM Britain (@pymbritain)

The Jewish Anti-Zionist Action group said:

Our protest was Immediately met with violent and disproportionate policing and counter demonstrations.

The outrageous sale of Palestinian land and property, including in illegal settlements in the West Bank, is not welcome in our Synagogues, or anywhere else.

We stand proud alongside over 100 other organisations, public figures and politicians, to demand that the Government take urgent action aganist this outrageous event, that very likely breaches UK and International law.

We know that during this same event in New York City only last month, land sales in Kfar Eldad, Karnei Shomron and other Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were advertised.

We will not stand by whilst this criminal activity now takes place in London.

Advertisement

The use of a synagogue for these events, as an attempt to shield themselves from rightful criticism and protest, is inexcusable, and as anti-zionist Jews we will defend our Synagogues from this exploitation.

We reject the use of our faith and culture as a justification for occupation, war crimes and the ongoing genocide.

We refuse the idea that our safety lies in the seizure of Palestinian land and the destruction of Palestinian life.

As British Jews we will resist any attempt to recruit us to the Israeli settler colonial project.

Advertisement

We affirm our rightful place here in the UK, standing in solidarity with our neighbours, and fighting for Palestinian and collective liberation.

END ALL LAND SALES NOW, FREE PALESTINE

The situation continues to develop. Solidarity with the people of Palestine and all those protesting peacefully against the theft of yet more of their land.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

According to former ministers like Al Carns, the UK is facing the imminent threat of war. In a sense, this is always true, because the UK and the US regularly initiate conflict. And while we could simply stop committing ourselves to these illegal wars of aggression, Labour MPs like Carns and Lisa Nandy are instead proposing a fresh round of austerity:

Nandy: "We've got to significantly increase the amount we're spending on defence"

Over the last several days I haven't seen a single interviewer question this claim. Instead the challenge to politicians making it is, are you increasing it fast enough/by enough? pic.twitter.com/H7OA0MHllf

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Al Carns — Clearly made up danger

In the UK, there’s a cottage industry of ‘defence analysts’ who make the rounds arguing that the UK is on the verge of imminent war with Russia / China / ‘terror’ / etc. The only time they stop making this case is when they’re shilling for Trident, because the argument for nukes is that they’re supposed to make an invasion of the UK impossible.

Al Carns is one of the defence shills who promotes unchecked military expenditure from inside parliament. Carns resigned in spectacular fashion earlier this week, arguing that Britain should be siphoning more money off to the military industrial complex. Carns resignation was pretty much universally praised by the right, because they also want to give endless bungs to defence contractors (in addition to protecting British soldiers from consequences should they commit war crimes):

The focus today is on defence funding. It's clearly mental the PM won't cut welfare to fund our military.

But don't miss what Carns says about Northern Ireland.

The Government's Troubles Bill will see veterans dragged through the courts. If they had any shame, they'd scrap it. https://t.co/2yen2uViDK

— Katie Lam (@Katie_Lam_MP) June 11, 2026

People on the left had criticisms:

How about we owe them not to die in a trench in a foreign country, in a war with no end, and to no end? https://t.co/0POzmA1U5O

— Stop the War Coalition (@STWuk) June 11, 2026

Aaron Bastani of Novara argued your average voter is now mostly deaf to the sabre rattling that successfully riled people up during the Cold War or the War on Terror:

We spend £66 billion on defence, and £18 billion on policing.

Ask the average voter – in Al Carns’ or John Healey’s seat – which is in dire need of more money. Westminster journalists may be surprised! https://t.co/kv32v1H7wA

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) June 11, 2026

Advertisement

At this point, the cat is out of the bag. People increasingly understand that the government is a machine which transfers wealth from the masses to corporate shareholders. They also know that every military conflict we’ve embroiled ourselves in over the past several decades has been a miserable embarrassment of avoidable slaughter.

We don’t need to spend more money on offshore military bases and deadly weapons; we need to stop pretending we’re a significant global power, because it’s coming at the expense of us being a functional mid-sized nation.

Austerity 3.0

If you’re wondering where the money for more war will come from, the answer is a fresh round of austerity:

Carns is asked where the extra £ for defence should come from.

".. I think there are places, such as moving welfare from hand outs to hand ups"

Describing welfare as hand outs tells us all about Carns politics & who he wants to target – the sick, disabled, low paid, pensioners pic.twitter.com/bfHscrkzCv

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

What’s the point of defending the country if it’s literally just an empty shell?

Carns also bragged about the UK military seizing control of a Russian tanker. As Saul Staniforth notes, we’re very opposed to this sort of thing when Iran does it:

Freedom of navigation must be protected, they say, the Strait of Hormuz must be re-opened, they demand.

Meanwhile in the Channel: pic.twitter.com/6L1yRk8ERl

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

WATCH: The moment Royal Marines board a shadow Russian oil tanker in the English Channel pic.twitter.com/6uLGfcqsl8

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) June 14, 2026

Lisa Nandy was also at it:

Lisa Nandy boasting that Starmer cut the aid budget to fund more 'defence' spending & confirms we need to increase spending even more to "meet this moment"

The UK is already the 5th highest military spender in the world (only the US, China, Russia and Germany spend more than us) pic.twitter.com/cLCxwEKMEV

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

By population, the UK is the 22nd largest country in the world. Do we really need to be the fifth biggest spender on arms? How does that benefit us?

Let’s not forget, as much as these people cry about ‘defence’, we don’t use these weapons defensively; we use them offensively – and the reason we do so is to create an excuse to buy more weapons.

As Staniforth highlights, it’s austerity which is driving voters to the right. Labour’s solution to this is to implement more austerity:

Lisa Nandy condemns the nasty & divisive politics of Farage & says living standards haven't improved for too long & people want better, along with hope.

Moments before she was confirming the govt is going to make cuts across departments to fund more 'defence' spending. pic.twitter.com/dXtvAvVeFh

Advertisement

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) June 14, 2026

End of Empire

America and China aren’t laughing at us because we’re no longer a serious military power; they’re laughing because of guys like Al Carns who think we still could be.

Amazingly, this is all happening as Iran has shown you can counter the West’s endless military expenditure with much cheaper technology. And that’s the real threat, isn’t it? Because if you can outclass a multi-million pound missile with a £10k drone, the defence industry suddenly looks much larger than it has any right to be.

This is why the shills are going to scream louder, and why their protests are going to grow ever more ridiculous.

Featured image via Leon Neal (Getty Images) / Christopher Furlong (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

In a letter to Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch has urged Keir Starmer to enter into a pact with her Conservative Party. Her plan is to inflict more austerity on the British public for the sake of giving handouts to greedy defence contractors. And as she notes, Tony Blair is urging Starmer to do the same thing:

Our Armed Forces cannot defend Britain on empty promises and delayed plans.

Keir Starmer’s Defence Ministers resigned as his plan falls short. Their warnings are extremely serious.

I’ve written to the PM offering the support of my MPs to vote to cut welfare to fund defence. pic.twitter.com/aBTSVdOeV8

Advertisement

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) June 14, 2026

The question is this: will Keir Starmer agree to work with the worst of all people for the worst possible reasons, or will he be kicked out of office before he gets chance?

Always money for war

By population, the UK is the 22nd largest country in the world; by defence spending, we’re the fifth. This is clearly a hangover from our time as a globe-spanning empire; a hangover which lumps us with a massive bill for unclear benefits. ‘Unclear benefits’ for the public, anyway. Obviously there’s a massive benefit to the arms companies – companies which use their ill-gotten gains to push for more bloodshed – bloodshed which stains the hands that sign the cheques which finance operators like Blair.

Appealing to Starmer, Badenoch penned the following:

Today’s world is more dangerous and threatening than we have known in our lifetimes. Britain and our allies are confronted by authoritarian states who want to destabilise and divide us. Yet in the space of 12 hours your Defence Secretary, Armed Forces Minister and two key Defence Department aides resigned from your Government. They raised extremely serious concerns about our national defence readiness, and the funding of our military. The former Defence Secretary repeated the warning that “if it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030”.

Let’s tackle these points in order:

Firstly, the world is definitely “more dangerous and threatening”, and while Russia has contributed to that, let’s not forget our ally Israel’s actions – whether it’s the genocide in Gaza, the war on Iran, or the ethnic cleansing we’re seeing in Lebanon. Buying more weapons won’t stop Israel from dragging us into conflict; it will simply encourage and reward them – especially as we buy from Israeli defence contractors like Elbit Systems.

Secondly, Russia is failing to win against Ukraine – a single nation which is not a nuclear power. The idea that Russia will be powerful enough to attack NATO and then survive the nuclear fallout is ridiculous, whether they attack us in 2030 or 2130.

You are not a serious person if you think otherwise.

Badenoch — The stench of Blair

Badenoch also said:

It is time to get serious. We cannot have our military inadequately funded at a time of growing threats. The funding must also not be backloaded, when the pressures are urgent.

I have made several offers to work with you in the national interest to reduce benefit spending so we can invest more in our defence. Sir Tony Blair, the longest serving Labour Prime Minister, has urged you to accept them.

Gee, we wonder why the disgraced war criminal Tony Blair would view endless conflict as more worthy than the welfare of British citizens?

Lest we forget, Labour didn’t back down on the welfare cuts because Starmer grew a conscious; it backed down because targeting sick and disabled people disgusted the public.

Keir Starmer would have to be entirely devoid of intelligence to sign up to a devil’s pact with Kemi Badenoch and Tony Blair. And that’s the problem; he is entirely devoid of intelligence, and so it seems is his most-likely replacement:

NEW | Andy Burnham confirms he will cut welfare benefits to pour billions into war spending.

The aspiring PM said “I am not squeamish about saying that the plan would be to reduce the welfare bill", insisting he'll slash benefits to "support people into work"

Advertisement

(Via @TheTimes) pic.twitter.com/5NDMVE9hmy

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) June 13, 2026

Paradoxical

Iran has shown that it’s possible to counter endless Western military expenditure with cheap and cheerful tech like drones, fast boats, and mines. This is an existential threat to the arms industry, because if missiles that cost millions apiece are now redundant, we don’t need to be spending so much on weapons, do we?

To counter this, the war cries are becoming ever more shrill and ever more preposterous.

In other words, expect to hear a lot more from Tony Blair and his apparent fangirl Kemi Badenoch over the coming months.

Featured image via Chris Somodevilla (Getty Images) / WPA Pool (Getty Images) / Carl Court (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Two Middlesbrough women who set a car on fire in the street, stole property and intimidated innocent local people during far-right riots received jail term of 20 and 22 months. They are already back out on the streets. Anti-genocide protesters who damaged weapons used to murder Palestinian civilians have been jailed for 6 years or more despite being found to have no violent intent. They were held in prison for longer before trial than Megan Davison was sentenced to:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Scott (@thebearded_skot)

Far-right snowflakes

The far-right loves to moan about ‘two-tier policing’. It thinks its the victim. But the victims are those slaughtered and purged by the Israeli colony — and those the British state targets for opposing Israel’s crimes.

Featured image via Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Israel has struck the Dahiya area of Beirut, after Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, called for the IOF to flatten the suburb.

Israeli terrorists just attacked southern suburb of Beirut.
As usual, before any ceasefire gakes place, they do their worst to sabotage it, as it is a main goal for them to continue this genocide agaisnt our people.
No details abiut casualties yet.
Last strike on Dahiyeh 2 weeks… pic.twitter.com/rzjkLEa8qq

— Hadi Hoteit | هادي حطيط (@HadiHtt) June 14, 2026

This was in response to Hezbollah drones striking an illegal Israeli military zone in the Northern occupied Palestinian territories early on Sunday.

Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine

Smotrich called for the IOF to use the ‘Dahiya Doctrine’ — an explicitly genocidal doctrine. This is Israel’s policy of using overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilian areas to “deter attacks”. It was named after a suburb of Beirut, which the IOF flattened in 2006.

Smotrich called on Netanyahu to:

implement it with determination and force and to demolish buildings in Dahiya today as well.

We are in critical days of shaping the space for many years to come.

As the Canary previously reported, Paul Rogers, emeritus professor of peace studies, explained Dahiya in the context of Gaza in December 2023. When looking at the early devastation, he described the horrors as:

a specific Israeli way of war that has evolved since 1948, through to its current Dahiya doctrine, which is said to have originated in the 2006 war in Lebanon.

Rogers said:

In July of that year, facing salvoes of rockets fired from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah militias, the IDF fought an intense air and ground war.

However:

Neither succeeded, and the ground troops took heavy casualties; but the significance of the war lies in the nature of the air attacks. It was directed at centres of Hezbollah power in the Dahiya area, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, but also on the Lebanese economic infrastructure.

It was there in Dahiya that Israel’s genocidal impulses mutated into a new policy of annihilation.

Disproportionate force

Rogers explained:

This was the deliberate application of “disproportionate force”, such as the destruction of an entire village, if deemed to be the source of rocket fire.

One graphic description of the result was that “around a thousand Lebanese civilians were killed, a third of them children. Towns and villages were reduced to rubble; bridges, sewage treatment plants, port facilities and electric power plants were crippled or destroyed.

Advertisement

In short, Israeli policy goes far beyond fighting ‘terrorists’ and aims to destroy the very means of life.

Israel jeopardising the ceasefire

Iran had warned that any attack on Beirut would trigger an Iranian response, which could reignite full-scale war across the region. Importantly, though, this is what Israel does. Whenever Iran and the US are close to a ceasefire agreement, Israel drops more bombs and screws it up.

Ahead of a potential U.S.-Iran deal, the Israelis do exactly what everyone expects them to do. Bomb Beirut’s southern suburbs. https://t.co/ejkRiNe3kb

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) June 14, 2026

Israel knows that its goal of a ‘Greater Israel‘ cannot be achieved if it actually adheres to a ceasefire, so why would it?

Iran has emphasised that the ceasefire must include Israel’s illegal attacks on Lebanon. This means a strike on Dahiyeh could complicate Trump’s efforts to finalise the ceasefire.

‘Self defence’

Two Israeli fighter jets struck a residential building in Beirut at least four times.

Footage of today’s Israeli strike on a residential building in Beirut, Lebanon.

2 fighter jets were involved, 4 munitions dropped. pic.twitter.com/4cyCaSPDxQ

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Of course, Israel claims the strike on Dahiya is self-defence. But no such thing under international law.

Once again lsrael claims to have bombed Beirut in “self-defense” following Hezbollah rockets/drones launches towards invading Israeli forces & northern settlements.

*Hezbollah has been responding to Israel violations of the ceasefire & invasion by firing rockets/drones towards… https://t.co/yfTtuf0mxa pic.twitter.com/Ve9enDdvsD

— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) June 14, 2026

On the other hand, anyone living under illegal occupation has the legal right to armed resistance and self-defence, under international law.

You cannot invade and illegally occupy sovereign territory and expect the native population to just roll over.

Israelis are living in an alternate reality. One in which Arab lives don’t matter, and actions don’t have consequences.

Feature image via Ryan Murphy/Getty Images

By HG

Source link