Connect with us

Politics

Trump ‘Very Disappointed’ In Starmer Over Iran Hesitation

Published

on

Trump 'Very Disappointed' In Starmer Over Iran Hesitation

Donald Trump has said he is “very disappointed” in Keir Starmer for not initially allowing the US to use British military bases to strike Iran.

The White House wanted to use the UK-US base in Diego Garcia – part of the Chagos Islands – to launch its attacks against Iran on Saturday, but the UK government refused.

The US president told The Telegraph that such a rejection had “never happened between our countries before”.

He said it “sounds like” Starmer was “worried about the legality” of using the base.

Advertisement

The prime minister then announced last night that Britain had allowed the US to use UK bases for “defensive” purposes to strike storage depots and missile launch sites in Iran.

However, Starmer made it clear the UK would not be getting involved with the offensive elements of this conflict.

In a video statement, Starmer suggested this move would allow Britain to adhere to international law.

Trump, who has recently U-turned on his previous support for the UK’s deal to hand sovereignty over Chagos to Mauritius, claimed Britain’s plan is a “very woke thing”.

Advertisement

“It would have been much better on the legal front if he just kept the ownership of the land and not given it to people that weren’t the rightful owners,” the president claimed.

While Labour want to give the archipelago to Mauritius, it has also proposed paying £99 billion lease over the next 99 years which would allow the Diego Garcia base to operate as usual.

However, Trump’s criticism of the deal last week saw minister Hamish Falconer admit the government had “paused” its plans while discussing it further with the US.

The president said: “All of a sudden [Mauritius] was claiming ownership. He should have fought it out and owned it or make him take it, if you want to know the truth. But no, we were very disappointed in Keir.”

Advertisement

Trump claimed Britain should have allowed the States to use Diego Garcia from the start because Iran is responsible for killing “a lot of people from your country”.

The Conservatives’ shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said Trump’s reaction was “no surprise”.

She said: “The Labour government’s response to the crisis in Iran has been shameful.

“We should have been supporting our allies, not making it harder for them. Even now Starmer is still trying to sit on the fence, which is a complete failure of leadership.

Advertisement

“This is another reminder that Starmer’s Chagos surrender is not in our national interest. When I was in Washington last week, everyone I spoke to was critical of the deal. It is undermining the Special Relationship and should be scrapped.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Majority of Americans oppose Trump’s Iran strikes, per new polling

Published

on

Majority of Americans oppose Trump’s Iran strikes, per new polling

Americans broadly disapprove of the Trump administration’s military strikes on Iran, according to several polls conducted after the U.S. attacked Tehran early Saturday morning.

Nearly six in 10 Americans said they oppose the decision to take military action against the Middle Eastern country, according to a text poll conducted by SSRS for CNN on Saturday and Sunday. A separate SSRS poll, conducted via text message for The Washington Post, found that more than half of Americans disapprove of the strikes, with 52 percent opposing and 39 percent supporting.

The lack of public support for President Donald Trump’s decision to move forward with airstrikes comes as White House allies worry the move could throw the GOP’s fragile coalition into jeopardy ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. A POLITICO poll conducted in January, when the president was still weighing diplomatic and military options, found that nearly half of Americans opposed the possibility of military action in Iran.

Support for the attacks was largely split along partisan lines, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to say they opposed Trump’s decision.

Advertisement

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted over the weekend, which closed before the U.S. military announced the first American casualties in the war, found that 55 percent of Republicans approved of the strikes — but 42 percent said they would be less likely to support the attacks if they resulted in American troops being harmed or killed.

The Washington Post poll also found that Americans varied widely in their impressions of the Trump administration’s primary goal in the conflict, with some respondents citing regime change and others pointing to oil or regional stability.

The administration has repeatedly said that the strikes were motivated by the goal to destroy Iran’s conventional and nuclear weapons programs — despite Trump’s insistence that the country’s nuclear capabilities were “totally obliterated” in limited airstrikes last year.

A majority of the people surveyed by CNN said they anticipate that a long-term military conflict between the U.S. and Iran is likely, a possibility Democrats are raising alarm about as they push for a vote on congressional war powers resolutions. Trump said Monday his administration had initially “projected four to five weeks” of conflict but had the capability to fight for longer, if necessary.

Advertisement

Support for the war also plummeted when Americans were posed with the possibility of gas prices rising due to the conflict. More than a third of Republicans polled by Reuters said they would be less likely to support continued attacks if oil or gas prices increased in the U.S., and 38 percent of registered voters polled by Morning Consult on Saturday said the U.S. should seek a diplomatic solution if the conflict leads to “significantly higher gas prices.”

That comes after oil prices jumped more than 10 percent Sunday after Tehran launched retaliatory attacks on several oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which facilitates more than a fifth of the world’s waterborne crude oil transportation.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Israel fanatic fucked around and found out

Published

on

Israel fanatic fucked around and found out

Hillel Fuld is a notorious and fanatical American Israel propagandist who, in 2025, was denied entry to Australia over his Islamophobic comments. In August 2025, as Israel continued to bomb and murder Palestinians in an already-flattened Gaza, he crowed that this was a case of ‘FAFO’. FAFO stands for ‘fuck around, find out’ – and Fuld was sick of ‘sob stories’ empathising with Israel’s victims:

While such sociopathy is certainly abherrant in human terms, it isn’t for Zionism. And it wasn’t some kind of one-off for Fuld, who responded to the occupation military’s ‘regret’ for killing civilians when it bombed a hospital by saying “People die in war. I don’t understand why we have to apologize”:

Advertisement

Israel fanatic celebrates murder of kids

And Fuld is perfectly happy to extend that murderousness to kids – though he appears to have later deleted the second post:

And he’s certainly very, very happy to celebrate the US and Israel’s murder of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family. This was just one of many nauseating posts on that topic:

So far, so expected.

But Fuld, like is always the victim and he appears to have no more shame than any Zionist. So when Iran retaliated – how dare they – and an Iranian missile hit an Israeli town housing military personnel, Fuld was quick to express his ‘heartbreak’ and say it made him “sick to my stomach”.

The IDF is believed to have shot down the missile and caused it to hit the suburb, but it later denied trying to shoot it down. So either the IDF caused the strike, or didn’t try to stop it. Neither is a good look, but Fuld ignored both possibilities:

The post triggered approaching seven thousand replies reminding him that it’s ‘FAFO’ and pointing out his (and all Zionists’) hypocrisy. Here are just a few of them:

Advertisement

Israel has FA’d. It is now FO. Any civilian death is appalling, but after two-plus years of genocide there isn’t a violin tiny enough to play the lament Israel deserves.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

FIFA aren’t about to condemn the US and Israel any time soon

Published

on

FIFA aren't about to condemn the US and Israel any time soon

It took FIFA only hours to condemn Russia in 2022 and just four days to impose a ban on its teams. But it would be foolish, given their rampant hypocrisy, to expect any such thing after the US and Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran. 

Iran reconsider FIFA tournament participation

Iran’s participation in the 2026 World Cup remains uncertain, according to statements by the head of the Iranian Football Federation, Mehdi Taj, who confirmed in statements to Iranian television that the escalating military tensions make participation “unlikely,” and that the final decision rests with the country’s sports leadership.

Taj said:

It’s not possible to say exactly, but there will certainly be a response. This will surely be studied by the country’s high-ranking sports officials and there will be a decision on what’s going to happen.

But what we can say now is that due to this attack and its viciousness, it is far from our expectations that we can look at the World Cup with hope.

Advertisement

In a move that increases the uncertainty, the Iranian Football Federation announced the suspension of all domestic sporting activities until further notice, leaving open the possibility that the national team will not be sent to the World Cup.

The draw placed Iran in Group G, alongside Belgium, Egypt, and New Zealand. The matches will be held in the United States.

FIFA regulations stipulate that if Iran withdraws, the team can be replaced by another, most likely Iraq or the UAE, to ensure the tournament is completed with a balanced schedule.

FIFA’s Stance and official reactions

Despite the unfolding situation, FIFA has not issued any official condemnation of the attacks or taken a clear political stance. The FIFA Council Secretary General stated that the federation is monitoring events “closely,” emphasizing that the primary objective is to organize a safe tournament for all teams.

Advertisement

This delay in condemnation has drawn criticism from sports observers and analysts, particularly in comparison to FIFA’s swift response in 2022 when it imposed sanctions on Russia just days after the invasion of Ukraine.

The Iranian crisis extends beyond the realm of sports, encompassing global political and security implications.

Tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel are casting a shadow over all aspects of sporting activity. While the United Nations and international organizations have expressed concern about the escalating violence and called for peace, there has been no direct pressure on FIFA to impose sporting sanctions, unlike in previous cases.

No guesses needed as to why.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Spanish football player escapes Iran via land

Published

on

There is no 'liberal' Zionism: Polanski criticised over fluffed LBC interview

Amid the ongoing military conflict in Iran, Spanish-Moroccan player Munir El Haddadi found himself in an unusual situation. His flight to Tehran was canceled due to the closure of Iranian airspace following unprovoked attacks from the US and Israel.

El Haddadi, who plays for Esteghlal FC, was on a plane preparing to return to Spain when passengers were ordered to disembark immediately due to an emergency security situation. This forced him to quickly find an alternative way to leave amidst the chaos at the airport.

El Haddadi managed to secure a land route, embarking on a journey of approximately 16 hours towards the Turkish border. He arrived safely and is now awaiting the completion of procedures for his return to Spain, according to the newspaper Marca.

El Haddadi’s land travel was part of a broader effort by Spanish professionals in Iran to leave the country following recommendations from authorities in Madrid to do so as the conflict escalated.

Advertisement

This situation raises renewed questions about the potential impact on player contracts and their professional stability, particularly in leagues that rely on foreign investment and foreign professionals.

The war has also led to the postponement of sporting activities in some neighboring countries, in addition to the potential impact and absence of the Iranian national team from the 2026 World Cup due to its being held in the United States.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

LIVE: Badenoch Gives Speech in Westminster

Published

on

LIVE: Badenoch Gives Speech in Westminster

Live at think tank Policy Exchange…

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Study finds men struggle more with dating options

Published

on

Study finds men struggle more with dating options

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”0b5ae166-bde5-4c56-a152-f40ff74c8c09″}).render(“69a5d3c6e4b033a04535ffa7”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Parliamentary Staff Furious Over MPs Getting Bigger Pay Award

Published

on

Parliamentary Staff Furious Over MPs Getting Bigger Pay Award
Parliamentary Staff Furious Over MPs Getting Bigger Pay Award

Parliamentary staff are outraged by MPs receiving a larger pay increase than them for the next financial year (Alamy)


3 min read

Parliamentary staff are furious over MPs being offered a larger pay increase their employees, despite staff bearing the brunt of increased casework loads.

Advertisement

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) announced on Monday that MPs’ basic salary will rise by 5 per cent to £98,599 a year from April, while also aiming to move towards a salary of around £110,000 by the end of the Parliament, due in 2029. The MPs’ pay decision for 2026-27 includes a 1.5 per cent benchmarking adjustment, as well as a 3.5 per cent cost-of-living increase.

IPSA chairman Richard Lloyd said the role of an MP had “evolved”, with parliamentarians “dealing with higher levels of complex casework, and abuse and intimidation”.

However, MPs’ staff are only being offered an ‘optional’ 3.5 per cent pay increase, despite months of lobbying by the trade union and some MPs for a substantial rise in staffing budgets due to low pay and unsustainable workloads.

Advertisement

One parliamentary staffer, granted anonymity to speak freely, called IPSA “a bunch of useless bean-counting morons”.

“I can’t tell you the level of fury among MPs’ staff about this announcement from IPSA,” they said.

They called the decision to raise MPs’ salaries to nearly £100k to include a “cost of living” increase “mind-blowingly tone deaf”.

Advertisement

“It’s staggeringly incompetent and makes MPs’ and their staff’s lives harder. In a nutshell, IPSA treats MPs’ staff with total contempt. Not just on this issue, the whole thing needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt from scratch.”

PoliticsHome understands that some parliamentary staff were on a call with IPSA to discuss the pay increase last week, with some in attendance feeling that concerns about workload were met with a dismissive response.

MPs also have the authority to block their staff from receiving the pay rise. PoliticsHome understands some parliamentarians, including Labour MPs, signed to prevent their staff from getting pay uplifts last year.

Lisa Gillmore, GMB MPs’ and peers’ staff branch president and senior parliamentary researcher, said: “The GMB MPs’ and Peers’ Staff Branch wants to see a fair pay deal for everyone working in Parliament, but struggle to understand why IPSA think the cost of living is 1.5 per cent lower for caseworkers, researchers and office managers than it is for MPs.

Advertisement

“Staff handle the complex casework and safeguarding issues, and face escalating abuse. Many of those same staff are earning just above the minimum wage.

“MPs’ staff have experienced a pay cut of 14.6 per cent since 2019 based on RPI, while workloads have increased significantly, leading to long hours, stress, and burnout. 58 per cent of our members feel that their salary does not reflect their responsibilities and workload. If rising living costs justify a 5 per cent increase for MPs, IPSA must explain why this does not extend to staff.”

Another parliamentary staffer said: “The most offensive thing about the 5 per cent rise for MPs is that their justification – rising casework, increasing abuse, new demands on time – are all borne first and foremost by staff. 

“We’re the ones who pick up the phone, or read the emails, or go through the social media feeds reading bile and looking for death threats. We’re the ones who, despite a significant increase in casework and demands on time, have to make do with the same budgets and staff numbers.”

Advertisement

Parliamentary staff have pointed out that their pay consistently lags behind the civil service, despite fewer opportunities for growth and promotion. For many junior staff working in Westminster, they now earn barely more than the living wage.

IPSA has been contacted for comment.

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Iran war is illegal, say ex-US military officials

Published

on

Iran war is illegal, say ex-US military officials

US President Donald Trump’s war on Iran is illegal. That’s the view of former senior US military officials. And Keir Starmer and other allies need to adjust their involvement accordingly.

Former air force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham served as chief of international law at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). She told the Intercept on 1 March:

Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

Here’s some of the key legal context:

The United Nations Charter generally restricts the use of force to cases of self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. The Constitution separately gives Congress the power to authorize offensive war.

Clearly Trump and Israel hit first on 28 February. There was no imminent threat. In fact, negotiations with Iran had made unprecedented advances in the hours before the attack.

Advertisement

The Intercept reported:

The War Powers Resolution also requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits how long those forces can operate without congressional approval.

VanLandingham said:

This is an introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities. It absolutely triggers the 48-hour notice requirement.

The US – and now, the UK – are at war with no democratic debate or approval having been established. The fact four US military personnel were killed in Kuwait adds more urgency to the issue:

The fact American service members died in the operation raises further legal concerns, she said, as Congress is intended to decide when American lives are placed at risk in offensive wars.

Trump and unauthorised use of force on Iran

Even Democrats – who haven’t resisted the war, but rather asked to have oversight – have been calling for a vote:

Advertisement

Rep. Becca Balint told the outlet:

Speaker [Mike] Johnson must immediately reconvene the House so we can pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in this unauthorized use of our military and taxpayer dollars.

Retired Air Force special operations member Wes Bryant also spoke to the Intercept. He also served as:

chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.

Bryant warned:

To say there’s no risk to U.S. troops … I wouldn’t call it naive. I’d call it a pure lie.

He was concerned about ‘mission creep’ as the war escalated:

Advertisement

Bryant said the scope of the strikes suggested major combat operations that could quickly tip toward large-scale conflict in a densely populated country, with predictable risks to both U.S. troops and civilians.

Adding:

I’m surprised it’s only been three deaths. It will be more if this continues and we lose the initial shock value.

Former US Marine and State Department official Matt Hoh told the Intercept:

If these reports are accurate, this should be very concerning to U.S. forces. Iranian missiles and drones were able to breach U.S. defenses very early in the conflict.

But what role is domestic ambition playing in Trump’s drive to war?

Domestic politics drives Trump

After the strikes began Trump repeated an old conspiracy theory that Iran had interfered with the 2020 election results. VanLandingham said this was important. Trump’s attack is partly driven by domestic politics and an urge for revenge.

Advertisement

What’s chilling is that he’s tying this attack against another country to domestic politics as a way to further consolidate power over his base and potentially link the use of force to domestic use of force this fall.

She added:

It’s mind-boggling. But when you look at it, it makes rational sense for him to say, ‘I’m doing this because I’m taking out everyone who stood in my way in 2020″.

VanLandingham said:

He is linking it to his own domestic grievances because he is laying the groundwork, I strongly believe, to use the U.S. military improperly.

The Pentagon has confirmed that Iran had no intention of launching strikes prior to the US-Israel bombardment.

The US seems determined to keep bombing for now. And Trump seems determined to use the opportunity to shore up his power at home. The fact that his ambitions have already cost hundreds of lives in Iran, across the region and among his own citizens is unlikely to slow him down.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Hegseth: War Is Hell

Published

on

Hegseth: War Is Hell

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”669b70c2-3215-465c-9c24-156126d7b642″}).render(“69a5b7a1e4b0d383f5045077”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

SNL air heinous Tourette’s ‘jokes’

Published

on

SNL air heinous Tourette's 'jokes'

Hollywood is still hell-bent on attacking a man with Tourette’s. Most disgusting of all was Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) sketch in which celebrities who’ve been accused of various harmful actions ‘jokingly’ blamed their actions on Tourette’s.

Last week was absolutely horrific to witness as a disabled person. In the aftermath of the BBC airing a man with Tourette’s shouting the N word at two black actors, disabled people, and particularly people with Tourette’s, faced off-the-scale hatred.

SNL airs fucking disgusting sketch

Don’t get me wrong, Black people had every right to be hurt and upset about what happened, even though many attacked them for being hurt. And, disabled people were shot down when it came to correcting misinformation. Social media, the papers and TV were full of people essentially saying that people with Tourette’s should not be allowed in public.

Seeing that was bad enough, but then Saturday Night Live aired a fucking horrific sketch.

Advertisement

In the skit, celebrities who are seen as ‘controversial’ speak to the camera in a personal service announcement style. They tell the audience that actually their horrific behaviour isn’t their fault. In the scenario they realised, thanks to the BAFTA incident, that they have Tourette’s.

Firstly, we see a comedian playing Mel Gibson excusing his own behaviour with Tourette’s. Just to remind everyone, Gibson previously said that Jews rule the world and told his ex-girlfriend she should be raped by Black men. This attempts to place intentional racism as somehow comparable to something involuntary i.e. Tourette’s tics. Thus, the ‘joke’ suggests says that John Davidson was intentionally racist.

But it gets worse.

Advertisement

The sketch also features several known abusers, excusing their actions with Tourette’s. Louis CK blaming exposing himself to women on Tourette’s; Armie Hammer excusing mentally and physically abusing women via Tourette’s; Bill Cosby saying he drugged and raped multiple women because he has Tourette’s.

The message is clear: we don’t believe you

By ‘excusing’ intentional abuse, harm, and other heinous actions via Tourette’s, it’s portraying the condition itself as an excuse. As last week has brought to the fore, Tourette’s is not intentional, and people with the condition are often deeply distressed by their tics.

The message to people with Tourette’s is clear: we don’t believe you and think you’re weaponising your disability

But it also sends a clear message to all disabled people who’ve been trying to raise awareness of a deeply misunderstood condition.

Advertisement

It’s bad enough to see a disabled man mocked by the biggest comedy show in the world. But to then have his disability used to excuse some of the most horrific celebrities who have committed the very worst crimes is inexcusable. SNL knew exactly what they were doing. They took a scenario that sparked widespread anti-Blackness and ableism, and made a further mockery of people with Tourette’s.

The video is the very definition of punching down.

Featured image via X

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025