Latest news with #Starmer
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Starmer's enslavement to woke ideology is a gift to the new axis of evil
When wokeness in Britain went from being a loony Left preoccupation to a way of life, hot on the heels of America's wokeward tack in 2020, only fools, villains and villainous fools insisted that nothing much was happening – apart from a bit of long overdue fairness. Of course, they said, the old Right-wing cis white straight men and women were squealing about the embrace by the virtuous of 'social justice' and 'equity,' but that didn't mean there was a real culture war afoot. It was obvious to me from the start of the woke era, however, that this was not 'just' a culture war but a real one, in a truly modern sense, with real consequences that would be felt far beyond a few workplaces or university seminar rooms. The vaulting from the seminar room into the world of the ideology linking 'white privilege' to empire to colonialism to the immovable fact of white British guilt has led to poisonous politics on the Left, a troubling reaction on the populist Right, and a ruling class who make decisions with our money, our personal safety and the security of the country based on it. If people have been injured or died already thanks to wokeness – for instance in the failure to confidently and properly police Islamist terror suspects or BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic knife crime), or in the body-destroying treatments handed out by LGBTQ+ allies to kids who said they were trans in the gender movement that followed Black Lives Matter – then much more is set to come. One of the most flagrant case studies in how the woke mindset can be physically dangerous is Starmer's Chagos islands agreement. The 'deal' is to hand the British territory to Mauritius, and lease back the land on the island of Diego Garcia, on which sits a strategically vital, Anglo-American military base. The lease costs £30 billion, and will be paid over 99 years. The Government's strange argument for the deal was that it would prevent the security risks that could come from instability due to international lawfare on this last 'colonial' outpost of Britain's. Starmer, somehow, did not think that it was more of a security concern that Chinese influence in Mauritius is malign and growing: China has now announced that Mauritius will be joining its power-grabbing Belt and Road initiative. Indeed, Starmer's comments about the handover in a press conference were very odd. He said with confidence that only Britain's enemies were against it. 'In favour are all of our allies: the US, Nato, Five Eyes, India. Against it: Russia, China, Iran.' Yet days after it went through, China was celebrating. Beijing's ambassador to Mauritius, Huang Shifang, told guests at the Chinese embassy in Mauritius's capital of Port Louis that China sent 'massive congratulations' to Mauritius on the deal, and that China 'fully supports' Mauritius's attempt to 'safeguard national sovereignty'. It's hard to think of a more cynical, almost joyously so, use of this terminology. China, after all, is a country obsessed with taking by force the democratic, independent Taiwan (Mauritius, China has made clear, supports its doctrine that Taiwan is already part of China); repressing free speech in Hong Kong, where it operates a subtle reign of terror, and subjecting its Uyghur Muslim population in Xinjiang to sadistic treatment in internment camps. And now it gets to set about enjoying all manner of devious proximity to our all-important Eastern base. So yes, Britain's Chagos deal makes delicious sense to China, but makes no sense for us. Unless, of course, you are Starmer and his inner circle, and you're enslaved to the twin ideologies of post-colonialism and 'international law' – which lands you in the awkward and unfortunate position, as we have seen, of ending up in agreement with China on core values like self-determination. It's a mess. All this Chinese gloating disguised as proper appreciation for nations' rights to freedom from colonial shackles serves as a useful reminder of just how suspicious such language has become. Yes, it is mass-peddled by august 'international' bodies, NGOs, courts and the UN. But these have all been corrupted by those with sinister anti-Western agendas. Indeed, the intranational bodies charged with pursuing a kinder world order with 'human rights' pursued through law always seem to favour those who care least about those obligations. It was telling when Lord Hermer, Starmer's attorney general, compared those in favour of withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the Nazi philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, when what membership of the ECHR really means, in practice, is having to treat terrorists and foreign mass murderers with the utmost consideration. The greatest, longest-running example of the hijacking of a world organisation is the UN, which has been faking outrage at violations of 'international law' to endanger and ostracise Israel for decades. As Natasha Hausdorff, the international lawyer known for pointing out the legal flaws in the numerous evil smears levelled at Israel, notes : 'Armies of NGOs [have fed] the United Nations system and international bodies like the ICC and ICJ' so that 'pseudo-legal language permeates public discourse about Israel. This has now broken into public consciousness, but it has been building in the NGO world and UN world for a long time.' The once honourable ICJ – the International Court of Justice – was seized by South Africa to bring a case against Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal even as Israel sacrificed soldiers fighting Hamas in Gaza, resulting in an arrest warrant for the Israeli PM which Britain refuses to reject. As the famous American lawyer and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz says of the ICJ: 'It's not international, it's not a court and it doesn't do justice.' The bloc that still determines the balance of power and the fate of countries – just – is the Western one. And we are now in great peril, due to being gullible and ill-informed, anti-Semitic, terror-appeasing and morally confused. Our cultures swallowed whole by Leftist cultural theories that were meant to never leave academia – those of post-structuralism and post-colonialism – and under their influence we turn our faces towards the lies pouring from the Eastern axis of 'resistance' – with lethal consequences. The international human rights community in all its respectable clout gives this evil nonsense the stamp of approval. Older people just about remember when international law meant something. Some saw first-hand the real genocide of the mid-20th century, others spectacular bloodshed under monsters and in the course of war. Some of us just remember hearing about those times and events, from parents and grandparents. To us, the souring of organisations like the ECHR, ICC, ICJ, UN – the whole concept of 'international law' itself – is bitter and clear. The rising generation, though, those who have taken up en masse the garbage of third-rate academic theories about coloniser and oppressor, who misuse terms including racism, apartheid, genocide, settler-colonialism, fascism and even capitalism, seem to genuinely think these corrupted organisations are the end of the moral and geopolitical rainbow. That reference to their motions and cases and objections and votes must end all arguments; that the old animating force behind international courts for human rights and justice was just a relic of a racist age, and now we know better. In some ways we do. But those who still chase after 'international' legitimacy are barking up the wrong tree – either accidentally or, like China, on purpose. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The National
8 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Labour say Britain will spend £10 billion extra on defence
The UK Government's 10-year defence plan, which is due to be announced on Monday, is said to be 'unaffordable' without the increased spending, The Times has reported. Prime Minister Keir Starmer had previously outlined the 3% target by 2034 as an 'ambition', but Healey has now said it is a certainty. Healey's comments mean the Labour Government would be committed to spending more than £10 billion extra on defence every year despite criticism over proposed cuts to public services. READ MORE: Labour has 'given up' on by-election amid SNP-Reform contest, says John Swinney In February, Starmer announced that the UK would spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by April 2027, raiding the international development budget, which was a decision branded by the Scottish Government as 'deeply disappointing'. At the same time, Starmer also outlined an 'ambition' to reach 3% by 2034, a target which was reportedly described by government sources as still an 'ambition' this week. However, Healey (below) told The Times on Saturday: 'In the next parliament, this country will spend 3 per cent of our GDP on defence.' When pressed whether this was a firm commitment, he said he had 'no doubt' Britain would be spending 3% 'in the next parliament'. He said there was a 'certain decade of rising defence spending', adding: 'It allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.' It is unclear whether Healey's comments were an attempt to pressure the Treasury into approving the spending or if it was a commitment that has been agreed across Whitehall. It was also reported that the review, which was due to be published during VE Day week this month, into Britain's defence spending had been delayed because of rows with the Treasury. One source told The Times there had been 'discontent that the Ministry of Defence is using it to push for more defence spending'. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has estimated that reaching 3% of GDP by the next parliament would cost the UK an additional £17.3bn in 2029-30. The 130-page review reportedly will warn of the 'immediate and pressing' danger posed by Russia and will also describe Iran and North Korea as 'regional disruptors'. The review comes as other government departments are still negotiating how much they will have to spend over the next three years. A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: 'This government has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War — 2.5 per cent by 2027 and 3 per cent in the next parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, including an extra £5 billion this financial year. 'The review will rightly set the vision for how that uplift will be spent, including new capabilities to put us at the leading edge of innovation in Nato, investment in our people and making defence an engine for growth across the UK — making Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.' NATO member states are expected to agree to a defence spending target during a summit in June with the target reportedly possibly being as high as 3.5% of GDP.
New Statesman
11 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
The British left is coming for the Government
Photo byWhisper it as yet, but after five long years of confusion and disarray, the British left is rallying. Local political organisations are coalescing, from Chiswick to Liverpool to Newcastle. The Green Party leadership contest has become a straight fight between an energetic, 'eco-populist' left candidate, and the party's more cautious establishment. The prize is clear: local elections due next May across England's major cities, including London councils. After that, who knows. Could Labour's urban fiefdoms fall victim to the rout northern councils saw in the local elections last month? It won't be easy. Bitterly, almost viscerally unpopular as Labour may be, it is the self-styled insurgents of Nigel Farage's Reform that have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the Starmer slump. Farage himself has been happy to pilfer from the left – a long-time Thatcherite now turned improbable friend of the welfare state. But the Reform squeeze isn't only on Starmer's Labour, who, after talking up their fiscal discipline at huge political cost are now u-turning on its most unpopular consequences. It's also a squeeze on all those on England's left who fondly imagine that the popularity of their traditional policies, from nationalisation to more welfare spending, is enough to win them votes. Instead, they're now seeing those same demands nabbed by opportunists from the radical right, precisely because they are popular. A new programme for 21st-century England will be needed, focused relentlessly on the everyday cost of living and wealth inequality. But new organisations are also needed. Peter Mandelson once spoke of a Labour left buried in a 'sealed tomb' by New Labour. This proved to be optimistic, as the Corbyn surge of the 2010s proved. And fearful of a second Corbyn-style resurrection, Starmer's operation has driven a stake through the left's heart, stuffed its mouth with garlic, placed it in a lead-lined coffin, sealed the tomb, and stationed a grim-faced 24-hour armed guard outside, gripping their pistols and blazing torches. The monster will not now escape. As a political force, the Labour left is finished. The tactic of entryism – entering the Labour party and changing it – is finished too. Instead, the party's steely-eyed Van Helsings should have been looking elsewhere. From the shadows, far away from Westminster, a terrifying new apparition is approaching. Disguised by the size of Labour's majority, the 2024 election saw the non-Labour left win its biggest parliamentary representation in British history, on its biggest vote ever. Four million voters returned nine left MPs, spread between the Greens and five independents, including Jeremy Corbyn in Islington. At the height of its success, in the late 1940s, the Communist Party won two MPs and 94,000 votes. Since the foundation of the Labour Party itself, the non-Labour left has never seen anything like this support. Against a seemingly monolithic Labour majority, this may have mattered little. Britain's perverse voting system found Keir Starmer foisted into Downing Street with a landslide majority, but with half a million fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn lost by in 2019. As a result, the party has been left with more marginal seats than ever before in its history. Fifty-one of its seats were won with a margin of less than 5 per cent. Accurately described after the election by polling expert James Kaganasooriam as a 'sandcastle majority', the turning political tide has now washed away Labour's 2024 support. The main beneficiaries, for now, are Reform, whose spectacular success in the local government elections saw them win control of previously Labour councils from Durham to Derbyshire. Its one-time heartlands in the North of England were already riddled and on the verge collapse, with Boris Johnson's demolition of this so-called 'Red Wall' in 2019 having already delivered the fatal blow. Johnson's failure to hold his new coalition together, coupled with Liz Truss' calamitous 44 days in office, saw many of Johnson's wins fall back into Labour hands five years later – but on the most tenuous and temporary basis. Demographic change, and a great, decades-long shift in the economy from manufacturing to services, has created new heartlands for the party, concentrated in inner cities and major urban areas across the country: a mix of underpaid, insecure younger workers, often with university degrees; more settled ethnic minority communities; and a solid layer of public sector employees, many of whom are now at or approaching retirement. Generally socially liberal, 15 years of persistent economic failure since the financial crisis have shoved this base increasingly to the economic left. And 25 years of failed military interventions have created a deep cynicism about Britain's role abroad – crystallised in the distance between Starmer's government and its voters on Israel. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even before entering Downing Street, the horrors of Gaza, and Britain's complicity in them, had been a powerful solvent on Labour's new base of support. That undermined Labour's vote in 2024, and resulted in the arrival of the 'Gaza independents', the four pro-Palestinian MPs elected in the strongly Muslim areas of Leicester, Blackburn, Dewsbury and Birmingham. Combined with Labour's blunders and cruelties in office, from the Winter Fuel Payment to disability allowance cuts, the party's support has been hollowed out. Its voters won't vote, its activists aren't active, and the party's once-fearsome ground game is crumbling. There was a taste of what could be to come in Haringey last month when a Green Party candidate, Rurairdh Paton, was elected by a landslide in a solidly Labour and solidly working class ward. Tellingly, local campaigners report that Labour grew so desperate for campaigners that local councillors from Folkestone in Kent were drafted in to door-knock. It's the better-established Greens who can seize this opportunity in Labour strongholds. Zack Polanski's leadership bid, and the newly formed internal faction, Greens Organise, have already identified the potential for a breakthrough. Polling shows the Green's support to be younger, and poorer, than the other national parties. These are not the middle-class do-gooders of legend. The broader left, outside the Greens, needs to recognise how the world has changed. Rumours that Jeremy Corbyn was about to set up a new party have swirled around him since his expulsion from Labour, almost five years ago. National negotiations to establish a new party, organised between different chunks of the post-Corbyn left, have come to little. A combination of political caution, and disagreements over a new party's potential direction and leadership have so far scuppered agreement. Perhaps wisely, Corbyn himself has been wary of jumping the gun. The history of left-wing breakaways from Labour, from the Independent Labour Party in the 1930s, to Scottish Labour in the 1970s, to Respect in the 2000s, has not been a happy one. Only George Galloway has, to date, made anything like a success of it, and then only via an increasingly eccentric one-man triangulation between the economic left and 'socially conservative' right. Whatever else he may be, Jeremy Corbyn is not George Galloway. And declaring a new party will not magically reproduce his 2015 breakthrough. Cooperation across the non-Labour left is the order of the day. On the ground, this cooperation is already starting to happen. In Lancashire, Greens have banded together with the newly formed Preston Independents to become the official opposition on the County Council. Greens and Independents are working closely in Islington. Local organisations are being pulled together by prominent independent left candidates, like former mayor Jamie Driscoll in Tyneside, Faiza Shaheen in Chingford, and former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein, who came second place in Keir Starmer's own constituency of Holborn and St Pancras at the 2024 election. Green Party members in all those constituencies are working alongside the independent left. Local alliances can become a national force. Across the channel, France's New Popular Front, an alliance between forces of the traditional left, the left populist France Insoumise, and the French Greens, was pulled together in weeks on a radical programme that catapulted the alliance to top of the polls in the snap elections – and pushed Marine Le Pen's National Rally to third place. France Insoumise MP Danielle Obono spoke at the London Green Party's conference last month on the practical experience of unity. There's a desire to learn from what worked – and what did not. The next general election isn't due until 2029. But a string of local council victories next year would pave the way for an unprecedented challenge to Labour – not from the right, as the party has always had to fight, but from its radical flank. And this new movement could take parts of Labour with them: from the tone of his Guardian op-ed on Wednesday, John McDonnell already regards his party as half-lost. Far from the coming in from the cold, what was once the Labour left has a different goal: burning the house down and building something completely new. [See also: Child poverty is rallying the Labour left] Related
Express Tribune
19 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
Celebrities urge UK to end arms sales to Israel
Lipa has been vocal about genocide in Gaza. Photo: AFP Pop star Dua Lipa joined some 300 UK celebrities in signing an open letter Thursday urging Britain to halt arms sales to Israel, after similar pleas from lawyers and writers. Actors, musicians, activists and other public figures wrote the letter calling on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to "end the UK's complicity in the horrors in Gaza". British-Albanian pop sensation Dua Lipa has been vocal about the war in Gaza and last year criticised Israel's offensive as a "genocide". Israel has repeatedly denied allegations of genocide and says its campaign intends to crush Hamas following the deadly October 2023 attack. Other signatories include actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton and Riz Ahmed, and musicians Paloma Faith, Annie Lennox and Massive Attack. "You can't call it 'intolerable' and keep sending arms," read the letter to Labour leader Starmer organised by Choose Love, a UK-based humanitarian aid and refugee advocacy charity. Sports broadcaster Gary Lineker, who stepped down from his role at the BBC after a social media post that contained anti-Semitic imagery, also signed the letter. Signatories urged the UK to ensure "full humanitarian access across Gaza", broker an "immediate and permanent ceasefire", and "immediately suspend" all arms sales to Israel. "The children of Gaza cannot wait another minute. Prime Minister, what will you choose? Complicity in war crimes, or the courage to act?", the letter continued. Earlier this month, Starmer slammed Israel's "egregious" renewed military offensive in Gaza and promised to take "further concrete actions" if it did not stop – without detailing what the actions could be. Last September the UK government suspended 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel, saying there was a "clear risk" they could be used to breach humanitarian law. Global outrage has grown after Israel ended a ceasefire in March and stepped up military operations this month, killing thousands of people in a span of two months according to figures by the health ministry in Gaza. The humanitarian situation has also sparked alarm and fears of starvation after a two-month blockade on aid entering the devastated territory. Over 800 UK lawyers including Supreme Court justices, and some 380 British and Irish writers warned of Israel committing a "genocide" in Gaza in open letters this week. 1,218 people were killed in the October 2023 attack, according to an AFP tally based on official figures. Israel's military aggression in Gaza has killed 54,084, mostly civilians, in Gaza according to its health ministry, displaced nearly the entire population and ravaged swathes of the besieged strip. AFP
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Everything We Know About The Chagos Islands Deal Between The UK And Mauritius
The United Kingdom has finalized a historic £3.4 billion agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The deal allows the UK to secure a 99-year lease and maintain control of the strategically vital Diego Garcia military base. The BBC reports that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the deal on May 22, 2025. This ends decades of international legal disputes over the remote Indian Ocean archipelago. The controversial agreement will cost British taxpayers approximately £101 million annually. However, it ensures continued access to the joint US-UK military installation that Starmer describes as 'right at the foundation of our safety and security at home.' Mauritius Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam hailed the arrangement as completing 'the total process of decolonization.' At the same time, critics, including some displaced Chagossians, express concerns about their right to return to their ancestral lands. The agreement comes after years of mounting international pressure on Britain to relinquish control of the territory it separated from Mauritius in 1965, before Mauritian independence. The Chagos Islands are about 1,250 miles northeast of Mauritius and nearly 6,000 miles from the UK. The islands became a focal point of controversy when Britain forcibly removed approximately 2,000 islanders between the late 1960s and early 1970s. This deportation occurred to accommodate the construction of a US military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the archipelago. A leaked Foreign Office memo infamously referred to the Chagossians as 'a few Tarzans and Man Fridays,' highlighting the colonial attitudes that facilitated their displacement. Under the new agreement, the UK will pay Mauritius an average of £101 million annually for 99 years to lease Diego Garcia. The payment structure includes £165 million for each of the first three years. This is followed by £120 million annually for years four through thirteen, with subsequent payments indexed to inflation. The deal also establishes a £40 million trust fund to support Chagossian communities. The agreement creates a 24-mile exclusion zone around Diego Garcia where nothing can be built without UK consent. Foreign military and civilian forces are banned from other islands in the archipelago. There are also provisions to prevent Chinese influence in the region. Furthermore, the UK retains veto power over access to the islands. Starmer confirmed that all 'Five Eyes' security alliance partners, the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, support the agreement. Meanwhile, Russia, China, and Iran oppose post Everything We Know About The Chagos Islands Deal Between The UK And Mauritius appeared first on Travel Noire.
