China beat the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36% approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31% for the U.S., according to the latest Gallup polling released last week.

While neither country commands broad support, China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36% approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31% for the U.S. pic.twitter.com/7fIXcYzIQc

— Gallup (@Gallup) April 3, 2026

China is letting Trump damage Brand USA

For the last 20 years, Gallup has asked people worldwide to rate the leadership of the U.S., China, Russia, and Germany.

Reactions from X showed many celebrating the US’s fall from grace, especially under Trump.

Arnaud Bertrand joked, sharing the news that Trump is nicknamed “Chuān Jiàn Guó” in China, which means “Trump builds China.”

There’s a reason why Trump is nicknamed 川建国 (Chuān Jiàn Guó) – “Trump build China” – in China. https://t.co/31BSgs1jnl

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) April 5, 2026

Make China great again ！Trump did it！👏👏👏 https://t.co/qM8egcMZUN

— Rachel（互fo） (@miranda7x07mwq) April 5, 2026

Even the pro-American Economist published a cover of Chinese President Xi overshadowing Trump that read – “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

We spoke to diplomats, advisers, scholars, experts and current and former officials in China. Almost all of them see the war in Iran as a grave American error. Register for free to read why: https://t.co/0CDHuDCMDW pic.twitter.com/KCTtaPO1Kf

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) April 1, 2026

British ruling class still licking Trump’s arse

Meanwhile, in the American vassal state of the UK, Labour was busy licking Trump’s arse and whitewashing their heinous crimes.

Featured image via the Canary

Media in Israel have claimed that a warship struck by a Hezbollah missile 68 nautical miles (nm) off the Lebanese coast was British, not Israeli. The Lebanese group had announced it struck an Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) ship with a “naval cruise missile” after several hours of monitoring it preparing to attack Lebanon. There appear to be no disputes that a warship was struck, only about whose navy it belonged to.

The UK Ministry of Defence has denied a British warship was hit. The distance at which the ship was hit means the vessel was very likely within Lebanon’s maritime ‘Exclusive Economic Zone‘ or ‘maritime continental margin’, which extends 200nm from its 120nm-long shoreline, though limited by the presence of Cyprus some 93nm away. It also puts the ship many miles from the RAF’s Akrotiri base, which UK and US warplanes are using to defend Israel and/or attack Iran – and half-way or more toward Lebanon.

Israel claims complicate tense situation

Some news outlets have reported that Hezbollah “mistakenly” targeted the vessel, implying it was operating alongside Israeli vessels in the area – particularly as the group claimed it had observed it for hours making offensive manoeuvres and preparations.

Whether an IOF or UK ship was hit, either scenario poses thorny questions for a Starmer government that has claimed it is only carrying out ‘defensive operations’. Either an IOF warship was hit and Israel has thrown the UK under a bus to deflect for propaganda purposes. Or a UK ship was hit, meaning it was very likely operating offensively alongside Israeli warships.

Foul play from a supposed UK ‘ally’ – or the exposure of more lies from ‘Zionist without qualification‘ Starmer and the UK helping aid heinous attacks on Lebanon, just as it aided Israel’s genocide in Gaza?

Featured image via the Canary

NHS England has warned of disruption to its services as resident doctors begin six days of strike action on 7 April.

The government had previously threatened to withdraw an offer of thousands of new training posts for resident doctors, unless the British Medical Association (BMA) called off its strike within 48 hours.

On 2 April, after the deadline passed without any movement from the BMA or resident doctors, the government cancelled the training positions. The strike is now going ahead as planned.

NHS bosses ‘disappointed’

On 6 April, the night before the strike began, NHS England released a statement warning of disruption, which also criticised the BMA:

Disappointingly, the BMA resident doctors committee (RDC) has announced industrial action from 7am on Tuesday 7 April to 6.59am on Monday 13 April 2026.

The announcement of industrial action follows months of intensive talks between the BMA and Government. This culminated with the BMA’s RDC both rejecting the deal their leadership had worked on with us and refusing to put the deal to their membership.

The statement follows on from NHS England’s previous disregard for striking workers. Last year, the Canary reported that NHS boss James Mackey “is known for having a track record for telling hospitals to disregard union-recommended staff safety levels.”

In light of this most recent industrial action, the advice from NHS England remains the same:

Resident doctors can be redeployed during industrial action if this is necessary to ensure patient safety and no other staff are available to cover.

Wes Streeting criticises strike

Secretary of state for health and social care, Wes Streeting, also remains “eager to paint the resident doctors as the villains in the story and turn the public against them.”

Speaking to the Guardian about the cancelled training posts on the first day of the strike, he said:

We rushed through emergency legislation to prioritise UK graduates for training places, reducing competition from four to one to less than two to one. This deal would have gone further by introducing up to 4,500 additional specialty training posts over three years, including 1,000 this April, alongside support such as reimbursing mandatory exam fees that can cost thousands.

Instead of accepting this offer, the BMA rejected it outright and announced immediate strike action. Not only does this torpedo the pay rises and training posts available to resident doctors, but it also puts at risk the recovery of the NHS.

As ever, Streeting places all the blame on doctors themselves, ignoring his own responsibility for worsening working conditions. As the Canary‘s Skwarkbox argued last year:

Streeting and his boss Keir Starmer are not just scaremongering – like any Tories, they are actively and intentionally pushing the NHS further into collapse.

The latest round of strike action will continue for one week, ending on 13 April.

4 min read22 min

Thankfully the ‘colour line’ is not a phrase often heard today, but the history behind boxing’s racist exclusion of black fighters should not be forgotten.

From the 1870s until the late 1930s, black boxers were forbidden from competing for world titles in a conspiracy maintained by white fighters, administrators and promoters.

This excluded black athletes from a what was one of the great pinnacles of world sport at the time – heavyweight boxing.

There is a long list who should have been given title shots and were not.

Some of them, almost certainly, would have been champions. The most egregious example was Harry Wills, who time and again was prevented from fighting for a world title.

Wills was an exceptional boxer and an unusual character. In an era when boxers, regardless of ethnicity, had a marked tendency to live very fast and die young, Wills lived a very sober life. He invested shrewdly, becoming a successful businessman after his career in the ring was over. He also experimented with diet and different methods of training.

Other black fighters held back by the white establishment included Joe Jeanette, Sam McVey and Sam Langford. Langford in particular was a truly formidable opponent; small for a heavyweight yet often listed among the biggest hitters in boxing history.

The ‘colour line’ effectively broke when Joe Louis became world champion just before the outbreak of the Second World War. But before Louis, another man had overcome the bigotry. Jack Johnson, a black man from Texas, had faced acute racism from birth. He developed into an immensely powerful and skilled fighter who white fighters were keen to avoid.

In 1908, the world heavyweight champion was a Canadian called Tommy Burns. Burns revelled in racism, deploying all the usual vile epithets in his abuse of black fighters. He also clearly underestimated Johnson, who was not a man to be intimidated. Johnson took to following Burns everywhere he went, accusing him of cowardice. He even followed Burns to Australia and turned up every time Burns appeared in public.

This finally got under Burns’ skin. He said he would fight Johnson for the unheard-of fee of £30,000, clearly believing that no promoter would pay such a colossal sum, which just goes to show how wrong you can be. A colourful Australian entrepreneur, Hugh D “Huge Deal” McIntosh, came up with the sum and the fight went ahead. Johnson battered Burns to a standstill over 14 rounds.

The white establishment immediately rounded on Johnson. Distinguished writers such as Jack London and Henry Lawson abused him in the most viscerally racist terms and former champion Jim Jeffries was persuaded to come out of retirement to put the upstart in his place. Fairly predictably, Jeffries also lost.

Back in the US, Johnson was then framed by police officers and the legal establishment and was facing a long prison sentence when he fled to Europe. He was then offered a deal: lose a title fight to white challenger Jess Willard and he would not face prison. Johnson took the deal and Willard became champion. White fighters continued their uninterrupted dominance until the arrival of Louis, who became one of the greatest boxers and athletes of all time.

Jack Johnson was not perhaps an ideal role model. As soon as he had defeated Burns, he made it very clear that he would not face black opponents because boxing white men paid better. Nevertheless, as Ken Burns put it in his great documentary Unforgivable Blackness, “When whites ran everything, Jack Johnson took orders from no one.” That sheer determination and bloody mindedness is at least deserving of respect.

Lord Cryer is a Labour peer, served on the British Boxing Board of Control and is a patron on the East London Boxing Academy

It’s easy to understand why moving from military service into civilian employment can feel like a difficult and uncertain step. Many veterans leave the armed forces with valuable professional experience, but translating those skills into a completely different working environment isn’t always straightforward.

Recognising these challenges and the opportunity to make better use of this talent, British Safety Council has launched From Service to Safety, a new charitable initiative designed to support unemployed veterans across the UK. From Service to Safety provides a clear and structured route into the occupational health and safety sector, which matches free training and pastoral support with eligible candidates to bolster the occupational safety and health (OSH) sector, an area experiencing a shortage of skilled workers and one that remains vital to the wellbeing of UK PLC as a whole.

It is entirely fitting and proper to support those who have given so much to their nation and dedicated a large part of their lives to the service of others. This initiative seeks to do good today and have a compounding effect for generations to come, leading to safer and healthier workplaces where workers can thrive.

At the heart of the initiative is a commitment from British Safety Council to support and develop the next generation of health and safety professionals. Throughout 2026, 100 veterans will have the opportunity to complete the NEBOSH National General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety, free of charge. This qualification gives learners a strong, practical understanding of how to keep people safe at work, including how to identify risks and prevent accidents.

With no cost to eligible applicants, the programme removes financial barriers and opens the door to those who might not otherwise be able to access this training. Delivered through live online sessions by British Safety Council’s industry-leading trainers, the course is accessible to veterans nationwide and will be paired alongside pastoral support from veterans already working for and with British Safety Council.  

The initiative is delivered in partnership with NEBOSH, which is supporting the programme by funding examination fees and resits, and eligible candidates are being referred by the Career Transition Partnership (CTP). The CTP is the official provider of resettlement for the Armed Forces and has supported 340,000 service leavers over more than 27 years.

Beyond the direct benefits to those taking part, From Service to Safety seeks to foster the next generation of health and safety leaders, who will work to create the safer workplaces of the future. It also seeks to increase the number of experienced professionals entering the sector, which has long suffered from declining numbers and poor retention. To keep the workers of the future safer, we need bold and experienced professionals who understand risk awareness and risk aversion, and who can communicate this to those they work with.

From Service to Safety builds on the history of British Safety Council, which was founded in 1957 by James Tye. Tye was inspired to dedicate his life to safety following national service during the Second World War and became one of the UK’s leading safety voices. This golden thread between Tye’s own service and the service of others is something that British Safety Council is proud to honour as we approach our 70th anniversary in 2027.  

As From Service to Safety moves forward, it represents more than a pathway into employment; it is a commitment to an ideal that safe workplaces and thriving workers are not only possible but deliverable. By investing in those who have already demonstrated commitment, discipline and resilience, we are not only supporting veterans in their next chapter but strengthening the future of workplace safety across the UK. In doing so, British Safety Council continues a long-standing tradition: turning service into lasting impact and ensuring that the experience of the past helps to protect the people of tomorrow.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has taken to social media to celebrate Labour’s so-called achievements.

Rachel Reeves, are these meant to be wins?

Reeves said:

Minimum wage rising.

State pension increasing.

Two child limit abolished.

Advertisement

Child poverty falling.

Rights at work strengthened.

Labour promised change. We are delivering change.

These policies are a shambles and miss the reality of an extremely economically unequal society.

Wages should be progressive

Minimum wage is rising by around 50p compared to last year. Accounting for inflation, it’s a £2 increase on its level a decade ago.

But this is nothing for large corporations, while adding significant costs to small businesses. The issue with across the board minimum wages is they ignore the capabilities of companies. For example, Vodafone makes £154,236 annual profit per employee. They can afford to pay their workers a significant amount more.

Meanwhile, small businesses with 1-9 employees have an average yearly profit of £22,000. Last year, Labour’s increase to the minimum wage added a yearly cost of around £8,000 to a small business with five employees. That’s quite the hit, but also affordable, assuming the person running the business is taking their own salary.

The minimum wage should certainly apply, but it should be progressively implemented. Small businesses pay the minimum while profit-linked wage increases apply for companies like Vodafone.

That said, the reason Vodafone is so profitable is because everyone needs to communicate. In other words, telecommunications is an essential that should be in public ownership, because it’s a risk free venture for the government. Failing that, some form of profit-sharing with workers, mandated cheaper prices and higher taxes could go some way to improve the situation.

State pension increasing? Just a Tory policy

The state pension has increased over the years and will do with Labour continuing the Conservatives’ policy of linking increases to inflation, average earning rises or 2.5% (whatever’s highest).

Nonetheless, it’s not enough for less well off pensioners who do not have the supplementary income of a private pension. 16% of pensioners are in relative poverty.

The universalism of the state pension does contribute to giving everyone a stake in the economy. But it also doesn’t make sense for multi-millionaires to receive it. Re-imagining the system through a mixed economy of common, non-profit, community and private ownership could deliver less economic inequality, while maintaining the universalism of a state pension.

Labour flailing

Labour’s workers’ rights package brings paternity and sick leave rights to day one of employment. Although, minimum sick pay is only £123.25 per week. Again, this should be progressively implemented. Companies that can afford to pay should maintain a workers’ salary. Meanwhile, companies that can’t should be topped up by the state.

Reeves and Labour shouldn’t be celebrating their achievement of very little after almost two years in power. They should actually take the initiative and improve the country.

Featured image via the Canary