Monday, 7 April 2025

Candour, Indeed

I did not mention that today's hearing was off. Yet by all accounts, none of you turned up.

Not Heritage and Destiny. Not Mankind Quarterly. Not the Ulster Institute for Social Research. Not the British Democratic Party. Not the Homeland Party. Not Roots of Radicalism. Not the United Kingdom Independence Party. Not Resistance GB. Not Turning Point UK. Not the Reclaim Party. Not the Workers of England Union. Not the British Freedom Party. Not the National Front. Not the Traditional Britain Group. Not the League of Saint George. Not Candour. Not Black House Publishing. Not David Irving's Focal Point Publications. None of you.

You have people on the inside. The campaign against me is, at the very least, being pursued in active collusion with you.

Right Beneath Our Feet


The UK can capitalise on a pretty outrageous slice of luck, if this government or the next has the initiative. It just so happens that rare-earth elements coveted by industries the world over – such as lithium, tungsten, tin and copper – exist in abundance beneath our feet. Despite decades of industrial decline, we now find ourselves with a wealth of resources for processing and manufacturing. The question is, can we take advantage of it?

These days, critical and rare-earth elements are invariably discussed in terms of renewable energy and driving the (so far non-existent) ‘green energy revolution’. But this obscures their true potential. Yes, lithium is vital for wind turbines and solar panels, but it’s also critical for common batteries and regular pharmaceuticals. Tin is used for smartphones, laptops and other everyday IT equipment. Tungsten, perhaps the least celebrated of the lot, is increasingly needed in defence technology. Importantly, all of it exists in the UK.

Of all these rare-earth elements, lithium seems set to have the brightest future domestically. Cornish Lithium’s Cross Lanes Lithium Project has received nearly £60million of funding from UK Research and Investment, among others, and nearly £5million from a crowdfunding campaign. The company is working towards annual production of 20,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium by 2030, which would meet around 20 per cent of the UK’s needs. In County Durham, Weardale Lithium is developing what will be another significant source, with a target of 10,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium hydroxide per year.

As promising as this sounds, it is dwarfed by the potential of tungsten deposits at the Hemerdon Mine in Devon. First discovered in 1867, the tungsten deposits happen to be one of the world’s largest. While China currently dominates tungsten production, with around 80 per cent market share, that might be about to change. Tungsten West, the mine’s owner, is hoping to produce 2,900 tonnes of tungsten and 310 tonnes of tin annually when the mine becomes operational. It would make the UK one of the world’s leading exporters of the metal during the mine’s forecast life of 27 years.

Tungsten is incredibly valuable. It is used in military applications, such as armour-piercing projectiles and missile counterweights. It is also used for radiation shielding in medical-imaging equipment, in surgical devices and in renewable-energy systems. Energy secretary Ed Miliband will have to decide if his pursuit of green energy can coexist with mining and processing materials essential for that goal.

Tungsten and lithium mines aren’t the only ones with a future in the UK. Rare-earth-containing minerals like allanite, apatite and gadolinite look to be in plentiful supply on the Isle of Arran, Scotland, and in other old, granite-based landscapes. Alluvial sediments in Northern Ireland may be yet another promising source of rare-earth elements. Even copper may make a comeback in the UK. While there has been no copper mining in Britain for decades, new deposits have been found in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland that could be exploited with new mining techniques.

The UK has been fortunate enough to discover that, like during the Industrial Revolution, it has reserves of raw materials that the world desperately needs and is seeing rising demand for. This is especially vital at a time of increasing uncertainty and insecurity. The re-election of Donald Trump in the US has, if anything, reaffirmed the need for greater economic self-reliance. The idea that resources, supplies and raw materials could be obtained by establishing free-trade deals – often with countries who do not have our best interests at heart – has never looked less certain.

The re-emergence of lithium and tungsten mining is a positive step, but far from enough on its own. The UK has enormous amounts of shale gas, which we refuse to extract yet continue to import from overseas – at increasingly high costs – to meet our energy needs. Labour’s ban on all new offshore drilling licenses in the North Sea is costing the UK hundreds of millions of barrels of oil, not to mention many well-paying jobs.

We need to exploit all of our natural resources, not just those associated with the so-called green-energy transition. It’s time for the UK economy to get its hands dirty once again.

Sunday, 6 April 2025

To Document The Activities

So much for Donald Trump the Anglophile, although cultural Anglophilia has never necessarily translated into pro-British politics in the American elite, of which a second term President is indisputably a member. File alongside the supposedly close intelligence relationship, no British participant in which heard a whisper of the impending Trump Tariff on this country. And even including the United States, is there any State other than Israel that we would allow to treat our MPs as Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang had been treated?

Thoughts and prayers are with the once-New Right that dominates the Conservative Party and defines Reform UK, and with the Old and New Labour Rights alike, which are now as good as the entirety of the Labour Party, as will be shown once and for all by the Commons Divisions on the cuts to sickness and disability benefits.

In stark contrast to what was once the Old Right, which now barely exists anywhere, and to what was quite recently the Labour Left, which remains highly active everywhere except Parliament and the Labour Party, all three of those tendencies are Atlanticist and Zionist supporters of globalisation as first principles. In any other terms, the world simply cannot make any sense to them. Therefore, they now need to get out of the way. Mohamed and Yang were travelling under the auspices of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, which was once a pillar of High Torydom. That world is long gone. But the one that replaced it is also rapidly on the way out.

The abuse of Yang and especially of Mohamed has been drearily predictable, like the hysterical reaction to the BBC's undeniable error of editorial judgement in referring to "Muslim reverts". Those who made quite such a fuss about that ought to be laughed out unless they actively understood our own need for reversion. We need to re-learn structured daily prayer, setting aside one day in seven, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimage, the global community of faith as the primary focus of personal allegiance and locus of personal identity, the lesser outward and greater inward struggle, the need for a comprehensive and coherent critique of both capitalism and Marxism, the coherence between faith and reason, and a consequent integrated view of art and science. The answer to the challenge of the Sunna is Sacred Tradition. The answer to the challenge of the Imamate is the Petrine Office. The answer to the challenge of Sufism is our own tradition of mysticism and monasticism. Liberal Catholics will be the last to see the point.

Would they rather have Trump, and Paula White? Would you? Trump grew up in the Marble Collegiate Church of Norman Vincent Peale, who even took his first wedding there. The Power of Positive Thinking was the old mainline American Protestant tradition reconfigured by the New Thought movement, and the practically indistinguishable Word of Faith movement is that reconfiguration of Pentecostalism.

The mainline has become the oldline by turning to secularism and paganism, very much in the liberal Catholic mould of agreeing with whoever it was talking to by sending different people to different encounters. But it is White who has ties to the Unification Church that the Tokyo District Court has just ordered to liquidate its assets because of its role in the assassination of Shinzo Abe, and through that to the Nation of Islam, with which the Unification Church organises mass events and which promotes Dianetics, the basis of Scientology. There is a better way. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

94 Weeks On

Nominations have been closed for 94 weeks, so when is the election?

If I sought election to any other public position now, then I would rapidly find myself just another death in custody under a Starmer or post-Starmer Government, and most especially if Labour had also taken back control of Durham County Council this year.

But I was a public governor of County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust from 2017 to 2020, having been elected unopposed, an extremely unusual occurrence. Unopposed among the 90,000 or more people in the part of County Durham that I was elected to represent. I failed to be re-elected by three votes, on a recount. Yet I was again elected unopposed not far off two years ago, a double feat that I am not aware that anyone else has ever managed, and which has caused the position to be kept vacant ever since. I am determined to have it for at least as long as I was elected to it. Do your worst. As, now under both parties, you are already doing to far better than I.

This Is No Way To Legislate


My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

I wish to speak with you today about the process in which our Parliament is currently considering legalising assisted suicide through the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. As I have made clear earlier in this debate, as Catholics we have maintained a principled objection to this change in law recognising that every human life is sacred, coming as a gift of God and bearing a God-given dignity. We are, therefore, clearly opposed to this Bill in principle, elevating, as it does, the autonomy of the individual above all other considerations.

The passage of the Bill through Parliament will lead to a vote in late April on whether it progresses further. This will be a crucial moment and I, together with all the Bishops of England and Wales, am writing to ask your support in urging your MP to vote against this Bill at that time.

There are serious reasons for doing so. At this point we wish not simply to restate our objections in principle, but to emphasise the deeply flawed process undergone in Parliament thus far. We wish to remind you that it is a fundamental duty of every MP to ensure that legislation is not imposed on our society which has not been properly scrutinised and which will bring about damaging consequences.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will fundamentally change many of the key relationships in our way of life: within the family, between doctor and patient, within the health service. Yet there has been no Royal Commission or independent inquiry ahead of its presentation. It is a Private Member’s Bill. The Bill itself is long and complex and was published just days before MPs voted on it, giving them inadequate time to consult or reflect upon it. The time for debate was minimal. The Committee examining the Bill took only three days of evidence: not all voices were heard, and it comprises an undue number of supporters of the Bill. In short, this is no way to legislate on such an important and morally complex issue.

One consequence of this flawed process is that many vital questions remain unanswered. Can MPs guarantee that the scope of the Bill will not be extended? In almost every country where assisted suicide has been introduced the current scope is wider than was originally intended. What role, if any, will the judiciary have in the process? We were told that judicial oversight was a necessary and vital part of the process; now we are told it isn’t needed at all. What will protect the vulnerable from coercion, or from feeling a burden on family? Can the National Health Service cope with assisted suicide or will it, as the Health Secretary has warned, cause cuts elsewhere in the NHS? Can MPs guarantee that no medical practitioner or care worker would be compelled to take part in assisted suicide? Would this mean the establishment of a ‘national death service’?

In contrast to the provisions of this Bill, what is needed is first-class, compassionate palliative care at the end of our lives. This is already provided to many in our society but, tragically, is in short supply and underfunded. No-one should be dispatched as a burden to others. Instead, a good society would prioritise care for the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak. The lives of our families are richer for cherishing their presence.

It is sad reflection on Parliament’s priorities that the House of Commons spent far more time debating the ban on fox hunting than it is spending debating bringing in assisted suicide.

I am sure that you will share these concerns. It is now clear that this measure is being rushed without proper scrutiny and without fundamental questions surrounding safeguards being answered. This is a deeply flawed Bill with untold unintended consequences.Every MP, and government, has a solemn duty to prevent such legislation reaching the statute book. So I appeal to you: even if you have written before, please make contact now with your MP and ask them to vote against this Bill not only on grounds of principle but because of the failure of Parliament to approach this issue in an adequate and responsible manner.

In his Letter to the Philippians, from which we heard in the Second Reading, St Paul reflects on the difficulties and responsibilities of life. He speaks of ‘pressing on’ and ‘striving’ for the fullness of life promised in Christ Jesus. Yet he is totally confident in his struggles because, as he says, ‘Christ Jesus has made me his own’.We too have many struggles. We too know that Christ Jesus has made us his own. So we too press on with this struggle, so important in our times.

May God bless you all

And 109 signatories write:

We write as a group of women of faith from different traditions and backgrounds passionate about care for people in vulnerable situations, many of whom have dedicated our professional lives to preventing male violence against women and girls.

We hold a variety of views on the principle of legalising assisted dying. However, we are all clear that the current legislation – The Terminally Ill Adults Bill – progressing through parliament, has insufficient safeguards to protect some of the most marginalised in society, particularly women subjected to gender–based violence, and abuse by a partner, who also experience intersecting barriers to a full and safe life.

We are concerned that the proposed legislation could create a new tool to harm vulnerable women, particularly those being subjected to domestic abuse and coercive control, by helping them to end their lives.

A report out last month showed that the number of domestic abuse victims who died by suicide in England and Wales was higher than the number of people killed by their abusive partner, for the second year running.

We know too that domestic abuse victims who are also women of faith can face a particular form of abuse at the hands of their perpetrators, who may weaponise theologies and culture to harm and control their victims. We are concerned that the assisted dying legislation, as it stands, fails to take account of how faith and its role at the end of life, as well as its use by both perpetrators and the women they abuse, create complex dynamics that can lead to vulnerable women, who may also hold strong religious beliefs, seeing no way out but death.

We know that poverty and other inequalities increase the risk of women and girls being subjected to violence, ill health and the quality of care and support they receive from statutory institutions and civil society. We know too that in a society riven with inequalities, women who are from Black and minoritised communities, disabled women, migrant women and working–class women, struggle to be heard. Their voices are absent from conversations about this bill, and so too are those subjective to coercive control or violence. It is unclear to us how the legislation and its consultative process has taken account of the multiplicity of faiths, cultures, socio–economic and health backgrounds of our citizens and women who make up our country.

Much of the debate inside and outside parliament has been conducted by those empowered to speak of the importance of personal choice, without consideration of those who struggle to be heard in the public square. It is the voices of the unheard, ignored, and marginalised that we are compelled by our faith traditions and scriptures to listen and draw attention to, in the pursuit of good law–making for the common good – legislation that considers and protects the most vulnerable, not just those who speak loudest.

Having followed the progress of the bill through parliament, we are particularly concerned about:

  • The risk that people (mainly women) with controlling and abusive partners (mainly men) will be coerced into assisted death. While we welcome the adopted amendments that stipulate training for the assessing doctors and the panel members, this safeguard only comes into play after someone has already been coerced into declaring that they want an assisted death, and will clearly not catch all cases. We also know, from research and experience, that coercive control is a long–term process that is both insidious and subtle with women often unaware of it until the perpetrator’s behaviour escalates. 
  • The reality that since 2016, deaths by suicide have been included in the scope of domestic homicide reviews and there is growing research on women who die by suicide as directly linked to having an abusive partner. We are concerned that if this legislation passes, women may seek assisted deaths to end their suffering at the hands of an abuser. Domestic Homicide Reviews also reveal the disproportionate number of Black and minoritised women who are failed by statutory and state agencies like the police, social services, health services and specialist services like substance misuse and mental health and women’s services despite their calls for help.
  • There are no longer High Court protections embedded in the Bill.
  • There are insufficient protections for those with learning disabilities and people with anorexia.
  • The use of the vehicle of the Private Member’s Bill for this landmark legislation. This has resulted in the impact assessment being shared after the Bill Committee stage, which makes it difficult for all of us with concerns about inequalities to gauge how this legislation will affect Black and minoritised and faith communities, people with disabilities, and those experiencing economic disadvantage.

If assisted dying is seen as a response to alleviate suffering, without addressing the underlying structural issues that make life difficult and safeguard against harm, it could put undue pressure on vulnerable women to choose death over inadequate care.

This is no way to legislate, especially not on matters of life and death. We have serious concerns about the bill and its lack of safeguards. The bill has too much potential to hurt vulnerable people and so we are uniting as women from across faith traditions to speak up for vulnerable women, including victims of violence against women and girls, and disabled women, and raise our concerns publicly.

This Fountain of Failure


It’s a story of betrayal, of backstabbing and greed, of Wall Street excess and of junk bonds, of corporate decimation and countless lives shattered by sackings, of asset stripping and exploitation and it epitomises the very worst of global corporate finance. It is also a story coming to a water tap near you very soon.

That epic 1989 book Barbarians at the Gate is not a tale of fantasy, it is in reality a first-hand account of the leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco and its subsequent break up — it is also the tale of the rise of American investment firm KKR which has just been announced as the preferred bidder for Thames Water.

Unfathomably, it would appear that even after 35 years of privatisation, a failed experiment in corporate greed, the Government and our water industry regulator Ofwat have learned nothing, and are still prepared to allow the vultures to pick over the bones of our water bills.

It seems remarkable — no, in fact it’s insulting to bill payers’ intelligence, that in a week when our average water bills have gone up 26 per cent, with more to come — that we are still being told the way to solve a problem with a company like Thames Water, currently £19 billion in debt, is to turn it into a company that is £22 billion in debt.

Surprising, given that it is a monopoly supplying drinking water to 15 million captive customers in the Greater London and Thames Valley area. And exactly how woefully incompetent do you need to be? You see Thames Water’s troubles have deep roots and its downfall has been slow and painful.

Privatised, debt free by Mrs Thatcher in 1989 as part of that “everyone, even the small guy can be a shareholder” ideology, it didn’t take long before the venture capitalists started moving in, but it was with the arrival of Macquarie in 2006 that Thames Water’s fate was really flushed down the plug hole.

By the time the vampire kangaroo had finished with it, Thames Water was £10.6 billion in debt and its shareholders £1.1 billion better off. It has never recovered.

Something stinks

And all of that I might add was overseen, if not enthusiastically endorsed, by Ofwat, the water industry regulator, the very organisation supposedly safeguarding consumers and bill payers from that very form of insidious exploitation.

And that’s before we get to the sewage. The foul mess of it all. Last year this newspaper revealed that sewage flowed into London’s rivers for nearly 10,000 hours in 2023. The figures for this literal shit are jaw-dropping.

In 2024, Thames Water pumped raw, untreated sewage into the Thames for nearly six hours at their Crossness pumping station. The company has been fined millions of pounds for this behaviour. We’re talking about sewage that turns river water black and kills fish stone dead — not a nice way to go, is it? But that’s what happened back in 2017, near Gatwick airport.

London’s rivers don’t have to be like this — they could be clean and largely sewage free. Instead, Thames Water appears to be ignoring the environment when it should be respecting it. In February, Ofwat threatened the company with yet more mega multi-million pound fines for failing to complete more than 100 environmental protection projects. To add insult to injury, these are schemes we customers have already paid for through our bills. So we’ve paid for them to improve the quality of water in the Thames and other waterways and they’ve not done.

Is that the “value” Thatcher’s privatisation was supposed to deliver?

Fountain of failure

But it was in the High Court at the end of last year when Thames Water was seeking approval for a further £3 billion bailout that the truly grim reality was revealed. The Kroll report, an independent analysis of the company finances commissioned by the court, spelt it out in bleak, naked starkness — Thames Water had become nothing more than a cash abstraction vehicle for shareholders.

Even the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, rolled his eyes at the High Court when it was explained to the court that £800 million of the first £1.6 billion in bailout money would instantly evaporate to pay for the 9.75 per cent interest charges, the management commissions and arrangement fees. Thames Water’s customers were to be exploited yet again.

The judge described those costs as “eye-watering” and thundered: “Customers and residents who are struggling with their bills will be horrified at these costs and mystified how the Thames Water Group has been able to fund them or why it has agreed to do so.”

And indeed it was government’s absolute dogged insistence, its stubborn refusal to get involved in the Thames Water debacle that has simply exposed customers to yet more greed, more financial engineering and more fiscal abuse. Governments of both stripes — Labour and Conservative — have failed to get a grip on a problem that has been stinking to high heaven for years… What did the Tories do about it all, exactly? And where is Keir Starmer in all this?

I would argue the more prudent, fairer course of action would have been to put Thames Water into special administration, a form of temporary renationalisation until a secure, safe future could be explored and delivered. I am deeply unpersuaded that KKR provides any of that.

Sadly it would appear that Thames Water’s customers are now scripting what I suspect will be the latest chapter in this ongoing sorry tale of incompetence, corporate downfalls and greed — this fountain of failure.

It’s another act of betrayal, only this time at hands of our government and regulators.

A British Proxy War


On March 29th, the New York Times published a landmark investigation exposing how the US was “woven” into Ukraine’s battle with Russia “far more intimately and broadly than previously understood,” with Washington almost invariably serving as “the backbone of Ukrainian military operations.” The outlet went so far as to acknowledge the conflict was a “proxy war” - an irrefutable reality hitherto aggressively denied in the mainstream - dubbing it a “rematch” of “Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.”

That the US has since February 2022 supplied Ukraine with extraordinary amounts of weaponry, and been fundamental to the planning of many of Kiev’s military operations large and small, is hardly breaking news. Indeed, elements of this relationship have previously been widely reported, with White House apparatchiks occasionally admitting to Washington’s role. Granular detail on this assistance provided by the New York Times probe is nonetheless unprecedented. For example, a dedicated intelligence fusion centre was secretly created at a vast US military base in Germany.

Dubbed “Task Force Dragon”, it united officials from every major US intelligence agency, and “coalition intelligence officers”, to produce extensive daily targeting information on Russian “battlefield positions, movements and intentions”, to “pinpoint” and “determine the ripest, highest-value targets” for Ukraine to strike using Western-provided weapons. The fusion centre quickly became “the entire back office of the war.” A nameless European intelligence chief was purportedly “taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his NATO counterparts had become” in the conflict’s “kill chain”:

“An early proof of concept was a campaign against one of Russia’s most-feared battle groups, the 58th Combined Arms Army. In mid-2022, using American intelligence and targeting information, the Ukrainians unleashed a rocket barrage at the headquarters of the 58th in the Kherson region, killing generals and staff officers inside. Again and again, the group set up at another location; each time, the Americans found it and the Ukrainians destroyed it.”

Several other well-known Ukrainian broadsides, such as an October 2022 drone barrage on the port of Sevastopol, are now revealed by the New York Times to have been the handiwork of Task Force Dragon. Meanwhile, the outlet confirmed that each and every HIMARS strike conducted by Kiev was entirely dependent on the US, which supplied coordinates, and advice on “positioning [Kiev’s] launchers and timing their strikes.” Local HIMARS operators also required special electronic key [cards]” to fire the missiles, “which the Americans could deactivate anytime.”

Yet, the investigation’s most striking passages highlight London’s principal role in influencing and managing Ukrainian - and by extension US - actions and strategy in the conflict. Both direct references and unambiguous insinuations littered throughout point ineluctably to the conclusion that the “proxy war” is of British concoction and design. If rapprochement between Moscow and Washington succeeds, it would represent the most spectacular failure to date of Britain’s concerted post-World War II conspiracy to exploit American military might and wealth for its own purposes.

‘Prevailing Wisdom’ 

A particularly revealing section of the New York Times probe details the execution of Ukraine’s August 2022 counteroffensive, targeting Kharkov and Kherson. Unexpectedly finding limited resistance from hollowed out Russian positions in these areas, Task Force Dragon’s US military lead Lieutenant General Christopher T. Donahue urged Ukraine’s field commander Major General Andrii Kovalchuk to keep pushing, and seize even further territory. He vehemently resisted, despite Donahue and other senior US military officials pressuring then-Ukrainian Armed Forces Valerii Zaluzhnyi to override his reticence.

Subsequently, the sense among Kiev’s foreign puppet masters that a golden opportunity to inflict an even more egregious blow on the Russians had been lost was pervasive. Irate, then-British defence minister Ben Wallace asked Donahue what he would do if Kovalchuk were his subordinate. “He would have already been fired,” Donahue said. Wallace succinctly responded, “I got this.” At his direct demand, Kovalchuk was duly defenestrated. As the New York Times explains, the British “had considerable clout” in Kiev and hands-on influence over Ukrainian officials.

This was because, “unlike the Americans,” Britain had formally inserted teams of military officers into the country, to advise Ukrainian officials directly. Still, despite Kiev failing to fully capitalise as desired by London and Washington, the 2022 counteroffensive’s success produced widespread “irrational exuberance”. Planning for a followup the next year thus “began straightaway.” The “prevailing wisdom” within Task Force Dragon was this counteroffensive “would be the war’s last”, with Ukraine claiming “outright triumph”, or Russia being “forced to sue for peace.”

Zelensky boasted internally, “we’re going to win this whole thing.” The plan was for Ukrainian forces to cut off Russia’s land-bridge to Crimea, before seizing the peninsula outright. As the New York Times records though, Pentagon officials were considerably less enthused about Kiev’s prospects. This scepticism seeped out into the public sphere in April 2023 via the Pentagon Leaks. One document warned Ukraine would fall “well short” of its goals in the counteroffensive, forecasting “modest territorial gains” at most.

The leaked intelligence assessment attributed this to “shortfalls” in Ukraine’s “force generation and sustainment”, and extensive Russian defences constructed following their retreat from Kherson. It cautioned “enduring Ukrainian deficiencies in training and munitions supplies probably will strain progress and exacerbate casualties.” The New York Times notes Pentagon officials moreover “worried about [Kiev’s] ability to supply enough weapons for the counteroffensive,” and wondered if the Ukrainians “in their strongest possible position, should consider cutting a deal.”

Even Task Force Dragon’s Lieutenant General Donahue had doubts, advocating “a pause” of a year or more for “building and training new brigades.” Yet, intervention by the British was, per the New York Times, sufficient to neutralise internal opposition to a fresh counteroffensive in the spring. The British argued, “if the Ukrainians were going to go anyway, the coalition needed to help them.” Resultantly, enormous quantities of exorbitantly expensive, high-end military equipment were shipped to Kiev by almost every NATO member state for the purpose.

The counteroffensive was finally launched in June 2023. Relentlessly blitzed by artillery and drones from day one, tanks and soldiers were also routinely blown to smithereens by expansive Russian-laid minefields. Within a month, Ukraine had lost 20% of its Western-provided vehicles and armor, with nothing to show for it. When the counteroffensive fizzled out at the end of 2023, just 0.25% of territory occupied by Russia in the initial phase of the invasion had been regained. Meanwhile, Kiev’s casualties may have exceeded 100,000.

‘Knife Edge’ 

The New York Times reports that “the counteroffensive’s devastating outcome left bruised feelings on both sides,” with Washington and Kiev blaming each other for the catastrophe. A Pentagon official claims “the important relationships were maintained, but it was no longer the inspired and trusting brotherhood of 2022 and early 2023.” Given Britain’s determination to “keep Ukraine fighting at all costs”, this was bleak news indeed, threatening to halt all US support for the proxy war.

Still, there was one last perceived ace up London’s sleeve to keep Washington invested in the proxy conflict, and potentially escalate it into all-out hot war with Moscow. The New York Times reports that in March 2023, the US discovered Kiev “was furtively planning a ground operation into southwest Russia.” The CIA’s Ukraine chief confronted General Kyrylo Budanov, warning “if he crossed into Russia, he would do so without American weapons or intelligence support.” He did so anyway, “only to be forced back.”

Rather than deterring further incursions, Ukraine’s calamitous intervention in Russia’s Bryansk region was a “foreshadowing” of Kiev’s all-out invasion of Kursk on August 6th that year. The New York Times records how from Washington’s perspective, the operation “was a significant breach of trust.” For one, “the Ukrainians had again kept them in the dark” - but worse, “they had secretly crossed a mutually agreed-upon line.” Kiev was using “coalition-supplied equipment” on Russian territory, breaching “rules laid down” when limited strikes inside Russia were greenlit months earlier. 

As this journalist has exposed, Ukraine’s Kursk folly was a British invasion in all but name. London was central to its planning, provided the bulk of the equipment deployed, and deliberately advertised its involvement. As The Times reported at the time, the goal was to mark Britain as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries - particularly the US - would follow suit, and “send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.”

Initially, US officials keenly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion. Empire house journal Foreign Policy reported that the Biden administration was not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”. In a further rebuke, on August 16th Washington prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes was reportedly also a core objective behind Kiev’s occupation of Kursk.

However, once Donald Trump prevailed in the November 2024 presidential election, Biden was encouraged to use his “last, lame-duck weeks” to make “a flurry of moves to stay the course…and shore up his Ukraine project.” In the process, per the New York Times, he “crossed his final red line,” allowing ATACMS and Storm Shadow strikes deep inside Russia, while permitting US military advisers to leave Kiev “for command posts closer to the fighting.”

Fast forward to today, and the Kursk invasion has ended in utter disaster, with the few remaining Ukrainian forces not captured or killed fleeing. Meanwhile, Biden’s flailing, farewell red line breaches have failed to tangibly shift the battlefield balance in Kiev’s favour at all. As the New York Times acknowledges, the proxy war’s continuation “teeters on a knife edge.” There is no knowing what British intelligence might have in store to prevent long-overdue peace prevailing at last, but the consequences could be world-threatening.

Dread, Locked

Without Dan Norris as an MP, there has not been a Labour Government since 1979. He was a Whip under Tony Blair, and he was a Minister under Gordon Brown. Even out of Parliament, he participated first in David Miliband's Leadership campaign, and then in the anti-Semitism scam against Jeremy Corbyn. 

Accordingly, Keir Starmer went to great lengths to secure him the nomination for Mayor of the West of England, refusing to shortlist several popular and credible candidates, including the one who had received the most most nominations, and instead presenting members with a shortlist of two, although even then Norris barely won.

The candidate whom he beat, Helen Godwin, has been selected this time, and her campaign already promised "a new chapter", with no mention of Norris on its website, much less among the list of prominent endorsements. In spite of that, there can be no doubt that, having stood down as Mayor in line with Labour's new rules against double jobbing, Norris would have returned to Ministerial office.

Speaking of double jobbing, if there were to be a by-election at North East Somerset and Hanham, then would Jacob Rees-Mogg risk the mooted ban on MPs presenting television programmes? If he were to join Nigel Farage and Lee Anderson on the green benches, then that ban might be accelerated. Might he even join them on the same green benches? After all, according to their GB News colleague, and Farage's and Anderson's in the House, Esther McVey, plenty of Conservative Party members are also members of Reform UK.

That is contrary to the rules of at least one of those parties, yet it comes as no surprise. Reform, after all, has withdrawn its Whip from an MP who has possibly never been a member of it, but who has just had his gun collection confiscated by the Police for fear that he might murder the Party Chairman. Meanwhile, its founder, albeit under a different name but it is the same entity, is trying to have its Leader prosecuted for fraudulent breach of trust, fraudulent document procedures, harassment, and bullying.

Yet in the midst of that, on the close ties between the Conservatives and Reform, the Labour Party can do no better than this image.


But of course Labour has form. Two years ago this month, it used a trick of the light to make Rishi Sunak's skin darker.



To insinuate a connection to the sexual assault of children. Think on.

Saturday, 5 April 2025

Ghost Brand?

Since "the documentary of the decade", it has taken the better part of two years to charge Russell Brand. Not that I have ever cared for him. I first called him "Toxic Brand" as long ago as 2008, when he had that business with Jonathan Ross and the late Andrew Sachs. Even then, into our thirties, the Blairites thought that they were still my generation's cool kids. And oh, how they hated me for not falling at his feet. There was nothing #MeToo about New Labour in its heyday. As perhaps we have been reminded this evening.

In 2014, when Brand's book Revolution came out as the ideal Christmas present for the relative you hated, then I was as critical as everyone from Sunny Hundal, through Labour Uncut, via the Daily Mirror, to the Morning Star. We all recognised him as a figure of the libertarian ultra-Right, with views indistinguishable from those of Ayn Rand. That fact was also gushingly celebrated by Nigel Farage in The Independent. I offered to pay Brand's rail fare to the Durham Miners' Gala, to see how it would have received him.

Furthermore, I for one recognised a man who was older than I was, who even then was the age of a Cabinet Minister, and who was easily old enough to have had teenage children, yet who thought that 20 lost years of drug-induced torpor made him the voice of youth, or indeed of anything at all. But he is innocent until proven guilty.

The End of Globalisation?

Donald Trump once managed to go bankrupt running a casino, but we live in hope, as Paul Knaggs writes:

Globalisation has enabled corporate profit on an unprecedented scale. For decades, multinational corporations outsourced production to countries where labour was cheap—often exploitative, sometimes forced. Back home, these companies reaped enormous markups, while workers in the West were told to accept their redundancy as part of ‘progress.’ It became more profitable to import than to manufacture, and as a result, nations like Britain were reduced to service-based economies with fragile industrial backbones.

This model has always favoured the few over the many. But now, it is collapsing under its own contradictions.

Donald Trump’s imposition of sweeping global tariffs—25% on EU goods, 10% on UK imports, and a staggering 35% on Chinese products now reciprocated—may prove to be an unexpected catalyst for a new economic awakening. Trump is calling it “Liberation Day” for American workers, and while his rhetoric is laced with nationalism, the underlying logic cannot be dismissed so easily: nations must begin making the things they use.

In many ways, this is a long-overdue reckoning. Western economies have for too long depended on a supply chain powered by sweatshops and environmentally destructive practices in the Global South. Goods may have arrived cheaply, but the true cost was outsourced—in lost jobs, collapsed communities, and mounting inequality. The illusion that we could sustain vibrant consumer societies without productive economies is now crumbling.

Market Panic: The Sound of Profit Models Collapsing

The immediate aftermath of Trump’s tariff announcement has been predictable—global markets are in freefall. Wall Street closed to a sea of red on Friday, following Thursday’s rout that marked the worst day in US markets since the COVID-19 pandemic. All three major US indexes plummeted by more than 5%, with the Nasdaq officially entering bear market territory, down 22% from its December peak.

The UK’s FTSE 100 suffered its worst daily drop in more than five years, closing down 4.95%—a level not seen since March 2020. Asian markets followed suit, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 dropping 2.75%, now down 20% from its recent peak.

But this isn’t merely a market correction—it’s a fundamental repricing of an economic model built on exploitative global supply chains. The panic selling reflects the sudden recognition that the era of outsourced production and inflated margins is ending. Trump’s unapologetic response on Truth Social—”only the weak will fail”—may be callous, but it captures a brutal truth: businesses that cannot adapt to a world of local production and fair labor costs will not survive.

For decades, shareholders have reaped the rewards of globalisation while workers bore the costs. Now that equation is being forcibly rebalanced, and the market’s reaction reflects the terror of those who profited most from the old order. What investors see as catastrophe, unemployed factory workers in post-industrial towns might view as long-overdue justice.

From Sweatshops to Sovereignty: The Unintended Consequences of Trump’s Tariffs

What comes next could be nothing short of revolutionary. If imported goods become too expensive, nations will have no choice but to develop comprehensive industrial strategies. This isn’t simply about bringing factories back; it’s about reimagining how we produce value in a world reshaped by energy crises, automation, and climate breakdown.

What comes next could be nothing short of revolutionary. If imported goods become too expensive, nations will have no choice but to develop comprehensive industrial strategies. This isn’t simply about bringing factories back; it’s about reimagining how we produce value in a world reshaped by energy crises, automation, and climate breakdown.

A modern industrial strategy must be built on four pillars: energy security, robotics, AI, and skilled manual labour. Green energy infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, and digital technologies must work in tandem with a renewed respect for tradespeople and domestic production. People need work, not just to earn, but to participate in the economy meaningfully. We cannot buy what we do not produce.

This moment is a crossroads. We either continue down the path of corporate globalism—a path that hollows out our democracies and deepens inequality—or we take a new course that prioritises national resilience, fair wages, and democratic ownership of resources. The consequences of this choice were foreseen by political thinkers across decades, from Jack London’s prescient fiction to Michael Parenti’s clear-eyed analysis of imperial capitalism.

“The struggle between labour and capital cannot be reconciled,” London warned through his revolutionary protagonist Ernest Everhard in The Iron Heel. “It is the natural law of capitalist development that profits concentrate while workers compete against each other in a race to the bottom.” Written over a century ago, London’s dystopian vision of oligarchic rule through international commerce now reads less like fiction and more like historical documentation.

Parenti’s critique cuts even deeper: “The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralised humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force.”

This is the ultimate endpoint of unfettered globalisation—a world where capital moves freely while human beings remain trapped in increasingly desperate circumstances. Trump’s tariffs, whatever their intent, have inadvertently shattered this trajectory. The question is what will replace it.

Nations now face a stark choice: continue clinging to the fading paradigm of borderless capital, or embrace a new model of economic sovereignty that prioritises domestic resilience and fair distribution. The former path leads to increasing instability as the contradictions of globalisation intensify; the latter offers the possibility of rebuilding shattered industrial communities and restoring meaningful work.

Globalisation, as we have known it, is dying. But its death need not mean collapse. It could mark a rebirth—a fourth industrial revolution that doesn’t merely advance technology but fundamentally reorganises who benefits from production. The question is whether our political class is brave enough to seize this moment—or whether they will let it pass while clinging to the wreckage of neoliberalism.

Either way, the age of cheap goods, silent factories, and outsourced responsibility is over. What comes next will define the century.

Over, Then

Sent a month ago, this letter of mine appears in this month's Village Voice, having been overtaken by events, making it all the more imperative to elect Jamie Driscoll in 2028:

Both Luke Akehurst MP and Councillor Doug Oliver are right to raise the issue of the buses, and I am sure that we are all grateful for the work that they and others are doing. The return fare has gone up to five pounds (it would have been six if Jamie Driscoll had not run Kim McGuinness so close for Mayor and was not clearly planning to stand again), but the Durham Day Rover ticket is still only four pounds, so if your journey would not involve leaving County Durham, then buy that. Of course, there does have to be a bus at all. Over, then, to our MP and to our Councillors.

Friday, 4 April 2025

Let There Be Light

Absolutely catastrophic news from Whitehaven, where West Cumbria Mining has officially abandoned its application for Britain’s first deep coal mine in more than 30 years.

There is always climate change, and any approach to it must protect and extend secure employment with civilised wages and working conditions, encourage economic development around the world, uphold the right of the working class and of people of colour to have children, hold down and as far as practicable reduce the fuel prices that always hit the poor hardest, and refuse to restrict travel opportunities or a full diet to the rich. In Britain, we must be unequivocal about regretting the defeat of the miners in 1985.

We sent our manufacturing to India and China, yet we have the gall to criticise their carbon emissions. And we expect to depend for energy on the Sun, the wind and the tides, precisely because it is beyond our power to stop them from doing what they do and we just have to live with it, yet we also expect to be able to stop climate change rather than finding ways of living with it. Let there be solar, wind and tidal energy in the mix. The base of that mix is nuclear and coal. The coal without which there can be no steel, and thus no wind turbines or tidal turbines, just as there could be no rigs, pipelines, or power stations. Britain stands on one thousand years’ worth of coal, and was the world leader in clean coal technology until the Miners’ Strike. Again, do not vote for anyone who will not say that the miners were right.

Fracking? There is no problem with any energy source in principle, but none of that shale gas has turned up yet, and if it is anywhere, then it is in heavily populated areas that could do without the earthquakes, the poisoned water, and all he rest of it. Any economic arrangement is a political choice, not a law of physics, and the “free” market cannot deal with climate change while defending and expanding our achievements. That is precisely why it is being promoted. But instead, we need the State, albeit a vastly more participatory and democratic State than has often existed. The energy sources to be preferred are those which provided high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs.

Say it again, let us harness the power of the State, and deliver an all-of-the-above energy policy based around civil nuclear power and this country’s vast reserves of coal. Around those twin poles of nuclear power and of clean coal technology, let there be oil, gas, lithium, wind, solar, tidal, and everything else, bathing this country in heat and light. This is why we have a State.

Where is the limit? The sky. Ours is an improbably dominant species. Something much bigger, and endowed with fangs, or claws, or talons, or venom, or what have you, should have seen us off long you. Yet we are still here, and we alone have been to the Moon. Within two generations of that, though, we are afraid of words. Either we go to Mars, and then beyond, or we accept that we have entered our decline, the endpoint of which could only be extinction.

Yet space is being both privatised and militarised, a very common combination but always a lethal one, and that by the country that does not recognise it as a common resource for all humanity. There needs to be a return to President Eisenhower’s proposal, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September 1960, for the principles of the Antarctic Treaty to be extended to Outer Space.

If God had not intended us to be a spacefaring species, then He would never have put anything up there for us to find. People who think that these missions impoverish anyone, even as an initial outlay, do not understand how the money supply works. As a sovereign state with its own free-floating, fiat currency, Britain has as much of that currency as it chooses to issue to itself, with readily available fiscal and monetary means of controlling any inflationary effect.

Why, though, spend that currency on this? Welcome to the Anthropocene, that is why. Life is the geological force that shapes the Earth, and the emergence of human cognition fundamentally transforms the biosphere, not least by the uniquely human phenomenon of economic growth, so that human mastery of nuclear processes is beginning to create resources through the transmutation of elements, enabling us, among other things, to explore space and to exploit the resources of the Solar System. Vladimir Vernadsky and Krafft Ehricke will yet have their day. They may be having it now.

“To increase the power of Man over Nature, and to abolish the power of Man over Man,” said Trotsky. “Dominion,” says the God of the Bible. Dominion over the beasts, thus over the land, and thus over everything on and under the land. Dominion over the fish, thus over the waters, and thus over everything in and under the waters. And dominion over the birds, thus over the sky, and thus over everything in the sky, as far up as the sky goes, and the sky goes up a very long way.

That dominion is entrusted so that we might “be fruitful and multiply”. Entrusted as it is to the whole human race, its purpose is, “To increase the power of Man over Nature, and to abolish the power of Man over Man.” Celebrate the full compatibility between the highest view of human demographic, economic, intellectual and cultural expansion and development, and the most active concern for the conservation of the natural world and of the treasures bequeathed by such expansion and development in the past. That means growth, industry, what someone once nearly called “the white heat of technology”, and the equitable distribution of their fruits among and within the nations of the world, for everyone to enjoy at least the standard of living that we ourselves already enjoyed.

Thursday, 3 April 2025

In The Waterworks

Olly Haynes writes:

Thames Water’s preferred investor KKR, previously signed a deal to manage the US municipal water company of Bayonne New Jersey which “sent bills soaring” and has been described by residents of the city as “drowning us”.

On Monday Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water supplier, which has been struggling under mounting debt, announced the American private equity firm KKR as its preferred buyer in a bid to prevent nationalisation. KKR is expected to acquire a stake of around £4 billion in Thames Water.

While KKR has some experience managing water companies, both in the UK and the US, the company has not always left customers happy.

In 2012, the New Jersey city of Bayonne signed a deal with KKR and Suez to manage their municipal water system which was in dire need of repairs to its crumbling infrastructure.

In 2016, the New York Times reported that “those crusty brown pipes have been replaced by shiny cobalt-blue ones” but this came “with a hefty price tag — not just to pay for new pipes, but also to help the investors earn a nice return”.

The deal the financially desperate city signed with KKR and Suez guaranteed the company a return of over half a billion dollars over 40 years. However, water rates rose 28% between the signing of the deal in 2012 and 2016 and continued to rise afterwards. The deal promised residents a four year freeze on water rates, which never materialised because of the revenue guarantee.

KKR sold its share in Bayonne’s water company to Argo in 2018, making a return of 2.8 times the amount invested, though the deal signed alongside Suez remains in place.

The company also has a record of overseeing price rises, and allegations of sewage dumping in the UK.

At Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey criticised Kier Starmer’s refusal to bring Thames Water into special administration by while raising KKR’s previous investment in Northumbrian Water.

He said “three years ago the American private equity firm KKR bought a 25% stake in Northumbrian Water, since then people across the North East have seen their water bills soar, while last year alone Northumbrian Water has dumped nearly one million tonnes of raw sewage in to Durham’s Whitburn coast conservation area”.

Davey asked if Starmer would guarantee that Thames Water would not be allowed “to pull the same trick of raising bills and dumping raw sewage at the same time”.

Matthew Topham of the campaign group We Own It told Byline Times “KKR inspired a book and film called Barbarians at the Gate precisely because of its rampant profiteering and financial abuse of service users so we know that it is completely ill suited to delivering a public service that works in the interests of its users and the environment”.

KKR claims to have moved beyond its asset stripping past. In a 2019 Forbes article titled “Gentleman at the Gate” Henry Kravis one of the co-founders stated “You can’t buy a company and strip out all the costs. It’s not a sustainable business model […] “If you’re not putting money back in to come up with new products, new plants and new ways of doing business in new geographies, you’ll die eventually”.

In July last year KKR bought FibreCop from Telecom Italia, the major Italian telecoms network. In September 2024, Fibrecop announced that they were cutting 1300 jobs through a voluntary redundancy scheme.

In January the CEO of Fibrecop Luigi Ferraris quit the company with no explanation given by Fibrecop following a “tense” board meeting in which the CFO disclosed that 2025 pre-tax earnings would be €449m lower than initially forecasted in KKR’s original business plan.

The financial situation of Fibrecop under KKR’s tenure has Italian trade unions worried. Daniele Carchidi of SCL CGIL, the Italian communication workers union told Byline Times that Ferraris quit due “to a contrast in perspectives with KKR” and that when KKR bought the company it “was expected to result in a series of investments in new technologies and widespread coverage of fibre optics and therefore a three year postponement for the first dividends, but apparently KKR has no intention of waiting three years for profit distribution”.

He added that among the unions “the concern is starting to increase, considering the reasons for the CEO’s resignation and the rumours of redundancies”.

Topham told Byline Times that references to “Gentleman at the Gate” and a changed KKR were “just boilerplate stuff that they put on over the same model. It has literally not changed for 40 years. Because of how the legal corporation is structured, because of how the regulatory system is structured, they just have to prioritise returns to shareholders and to capital more widely over the interests of service users”.

Byline Times asked Thames Water if KKR had given them assurances about job cuts and proposed a deal that would be fair to the consumer. Thames Water suggested Byline Times direct those questions towards KKR. KKR in turn did not respond to a request for comment.

Asked if they thought KKR was an appropriate buyer, a UK Government spokesperson said, “The company remains stable and the government is closely monitoring the situation. It would be inappropriate to comment further on the financial matters of a private company.”

But Sandra Laville writes:

A group of anglers trying to restore the ecosystem of a river have seen off a challenge by the environment secretary, Steve Reed, who claimed that cleaning up the waterway was administratively unworkable.

Reed pursued an appeal against a group of anglers from North Yorkshire, who had won a legal case arguing that the government and the Environment Agency’s plans to clean up the Upper Costa Beck, a former trout stream devastated by sewage pollution and runoff, were so vague they were ineffectual.

The environment secretary decided, after Labour won the election last year, to continue the challenge, which had begun under the previous Conservative government.

On Wednesday, the appeal court found in favour of the anglers, the Pickering Fishery Association.

The judges dismissed Reed’s argument that it was administratively unworkable to develop specific measures to clean up individual rivers, lakes and streams as is required by law under the water framework directive – legislation that aims to improve the quality of rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

Andrew Kelton, a solicitor from Fish Legal, which represented the anglers, said: “This case goes to the heart of why the government has failed to make progress towards improving the health of rivers and lakes in England.

“Only 16% of waterbodies – 14% of rivers – are currently achieving ‘good ecological status’, with no improvement for at least a decade, which comes as no surprise to us having seen how the Environment Agency at first proposed, but then for some reason failed to follow through with, the tough action needed against polluters in this case.”

He said the Upper Costa Beck was just one of 4,929 waterbodies, but was a case study in regulatory inaction in the face of evidence of declining river health.

The Costa Beck has failed to achieve good ecological status under the water framework directive regulations partly because of sewage pollution and runoff from farms.

The anglers, who have spent more than 10 years trying to get the authorities to clean up the river, took the government and the EA to court in an attempt to force action. They successfully argued that the plan by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the EA to improve the stream lacked the legally required measures necessary to restore it – for example, it did not include the tightening of discharge permits for sewage treatment works.

The judge in the high court found that the government had unlawfully failed to assess and identify specific measures to achieve the legally mandatory targets for the waterbody. That ruling was on Wednesday upheld by the appeal court.

Penelope Gane, the head of practice at Fish Legal, said Reed could show a real commitment to restoring rivers and lakes. “What we need is meaningful action to clean up rivers,” she said. “Anything short of that will be a tacit admission that the government has abandoned its environmental ambitions for water.”

Defra has been approached for comment.

Alternative Economic Strategy

Donald Trump's doolally formula for calculating tariffs proves once and for all that he has no idea what he is talking about, and no connection to any political tradition that understood the proper role of protectionism, be that Hamiltonianism or the Alternative Economic Strategy of Tony Benn, who would have been 100 today. But there is no way that Trump devised that formula. Someone else is also to blame.

Britain is on the same tariff as Iran, but there is none on Russia or North Korea. Neither of those may trade much with the United States, but nor is either inhabited solely by penguins. Britain matters to the US no more than Iran does, and less than Russia or North Korea. At least we matter more than Israel, or Japan, or South Korea, or Thailand, or anywhere in the European Union, including Italy or Ireland.

If we have such a close intelligence relationship with the Americans, then how come our spooks never saw this coming? And Marco Rubio has a nerve, ordering other NATO Foreign Ministers to increase military spending to five per cent of GDP hours after Trump's speech. So as to buy weapons from whom, do you reckon? At least we are presumably not be represented much longer in such deliberations by David Lammy, since he is going to have to resign in order to vote against Shabana Mahmood's Bill to override the sentencing guidelines that gave effect to his commissioned advice to the previous Conservative Government. Or have I missed something?

A judge can order a pre-sentence report on anyone, does not have to give a reason, and would not dream of doing so. There would be no way of proving that a judge had implemented the paused guidelines, which were in force for an entire morning's sitting, and there would be no reason for a judge to care that you could. Not that I agree with them, I must add. I first gave a speech against the division and weakening of the Left by identity politics in 1997. Today's Benn centenary is the ideal opportunity to implore the voters of Runcorn and Helsby to make that point by electing the eminent Peter Ford of the Workers Party.

Softening Up Public Opinion

John Pring writes:

The broadcasting watchdog has failed millions of disabled people by clearing two television programmes of disability discrimination and causing offence, including one in which some young people on disability benefits were described as “parasites”.

One disabled activist warned that Ofcom’s decisions had “opened the floodgates” to further unevidenced attacks on disabled people by broadcasters.

Disability Rights UK said both “offensive” programmes had been made “when disability hate crime is rising, when disabled people on benefits are struggling to meet the costs of food and energy and when the government was scapegoating disabled people”.

The Ofcom decisions have emerged at a time when concern is rising about disabled people being blamed for the country’s financial problems, particularly in the wake of the Labour government’s disability benefits green paper and the announcement of billions of pounds of cuts to social security.

The first decision relates to 24 complaints lodged late last year about comments made by Isabel Oakeshott, international editor for TalkTV, after she criticised chancellor Rachel Reeves for failing to use her budget to announce a “crackdown” on young people who were “supposedly too sick to work and being supported by the state”.

Oakeshott said Reeves’ budget had removed resources from those who work “in order to keep on sustaining those who frankly can’t be bothered to get out of bed and get themselves out… to… any kind of job and prefer to just sit on the sofa and order their Deliveroo and drive their Motability free vehicle and take everything that the state can offer”.

The former political editor of The Sunday Times told presenter Kevin O’Sullivan on 31 October that “people like you and me and our very many listeners” were “grafting just to try to make ends meet, and basically these people are frankly parasites”.

But Ofcom has decided not to “pursue” complaints that the programme breached its rules on causing offence and disability discrimination.

An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We recognise that Ms Oakeshott’s comments had the potential to cause offence to some viewers.

“In line with the right to freedom of expression, however, our rules allow for the broadcast of controversial and provocative opinion on topical issues, which regular viewers would expect from this programme.

“We also took into account that Ms Oakeshott’s comments were not exclusively targeted at disabled people and did not suggest that all benefits claimants were making false claims.”

Ofcom also decided not to pursue 88 complaints – again relating to rules on causing offence and disability discrimination – following a Dispatches documentary for Channel 4, Britain’s Benefits Scandal, which was broadcast on 2 December.

The programme was described by the grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RiTB) as an “atrocity” and by Disability Rights UK as “an insult to the millions of disabled people on the poverty line”.

The Benefits and Work information and advice website suggested that the “shamefully inaccurate and prejudicial” documentary was part of attempts at “softening up British public opinion” before the government’s green paper was published.

Many disabled people on social media were even more scathing and angry, describing the programme as “quietly hateful”, “dehumanising”, “scapegoating”, “distressing” and “demonising”.

But Ofcom has again decided not to pursue complaints about the programme.

An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We carefully considered complaints that this programme discriminated against people receiving benefits.

“In our view, the purpose of the programme sought to highlight failures in the system, rather than criticising people on benefits.

“While there was a brief reference to a minority of people abusing the system, we found that interviews with claimants were sympathetic and the programme recognised that there were many people with genuine needs and claims.”

Disability Rights UK (DR UK) said this week that Ofcom had shown its “utter lack of understanding of ableism and disability discrimination” in its two decisions.

Dan White, DR UK’s policy and campaigns officer, said: “These decisions have let down millions of disabled people.

“Both communications deliberately failed to address the real hardships faced by disabled claimants, such as appallingly low benefit levels and hostile benefit processes.

“Instead, they demonstrated considerable bias, attacking disabled benefit recipients, in one case resorting to offensive language and stereotypes.

“If the producers and researchers of [the two programmes] really wanted to expose the truths about disabled people and the benefits system, they could have spoken to the many thousands of disabled people living on low benefits, that leave them drowning in poverty.

“Exploring these issues would have been a genuine exposure of the benefits system whilst also informing the wider public of the true facts of living in the UK with a disability.”

RiTB was also highly critical of Ofcom.

An RiTB spokesperson said: “As we have seen with the water regulator and the utilities regulator, they are captured by the industry they are supposed to be regulating.

“Ofcom likewise is protecting bigoted corporate journalists so they can spread hate speech with impunity.”

Dr Jenny Ceolta-Smith, a disabled activist with long Covid, one of those who complained to Ofcom about the Oakeshott comments, said its responses to both sets of complaints were “not good enough”.

She said: “They fail to acknowledge the seriousness of the complaints made and to hold anyone to account.

“I cannot comprehend how Ofcom concluded that it is acceptable to make reference to people being ‘parasites’ if they are unable to work and/or have a mobility car because they receive financial support from the state.

“Essentially, Ofcom has opened the floodgates for further harmful unevidenced-based claims to be made in broadcasts without any repercussions.

“This outcome will no doubt encourage many viewers to question the legitimacy of people’s illness, disability and benefit claims.

“There is evidence of such questioning across social media, for example, and it is dangerous, fuelling prejudice and encouraging hatred towards disabled people at a pivotal time with the green paper proposals.”

County Lines, Indeed


Some ex-detectives get an allotment. Liam investigates barbershops. He isn’t a policeman anymore, but old habits apparently die hard. For eight years, he worked undercover, posing as a junkie to score 20 quid deals of crack and heroin. The baggies are gone now, but Liam is still as inquisitive as ever. “Did you see the Turkish barbershop as you drove in?” he asks, shaking his head. “They must charge 500 quid for a short back and sides. I did a Companies House check: they turned over half a million last year.”

The place he’s talking about isn’t Turkish — nor is it much of a hairdresser. But it is almost certainly laundering drug money. Most UK high streets have similar barbershops, or nail bars, or mysteriously diner-free restaurants. Speaking under a pseudonym, Liam meets me not on a gritty housing estate, but in rural Hampshire, in a village with a green and a coaching inn. It’s hard to think of a better example of modern British drug dealing, of county lines stretching right across the nation.

The phenomenon has usually been depicted as an invasion of urban street gangs, trafficking narcotics to far-flung provinces. These days, though, the model has evolved, “growing arms and legs” as we used to say on the force. Dealers once ran drugs from their city redoubts. Now they’ve moved the business model into local communities. With the dealers, of course, comes misery: eye-watering violence, yes, but also innocents pressured by gangs into ruining their lives. It demonstrates how buyers are complicit in the suffering of others — and how even law-abiding Brits now struggle to escape the chaos, as disorder creeps from London estates to the leafy Home Counties.

The most obvious way of understanding Britain’s drug problem is by the numbers. Official statistics put the annual value of the country’s narcotics market at £10 billion, even as drug-related crime costs about the same again. This is before you consider the wider culture of drugs. Our national appetite for narcotics is insatiable. Gak. White. Chop. Chisel. Luca. Drugs permeate our society, like needles in an addict’s arm. A new Danny Dyer movie is called Marching Powder, for fuck’s sake. Apparently it’s a romantic comedy.

Then there are the gangs themselves, bewildering in their variety. Somali gangs from southeast London traditionally ran drugs down to Kent, from Mogadishu to Margate if you will. All the while, Albanian and Turkish gangs from north and east London work Hertfordshire and Essex; west Londoners, mainly Afro-Caribbean, take Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey. As those Home Counties names imply, this is a business that long ago transcended its urban roots. One year, a detective told me, the biggest post-Carnival party happened in that famous west London neighbourhood — Basingstoke.

Given this ubiquity, across the southeast and beyond, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Britain’s drug trade happens more or less openly, clear enough when I swing by that barbershop in Hampshire. It’s a sepia-coloured, dusty sort of place. Quiet. The sign looks amateurish. A young woman appears in the doorway, smoking a cigarette and checking her phone. She looks up and down the street, then disappears back inside.

The obviousness of the façade is almost comical, even as these places are the terminus of the whole business. Cash-only, high turnover businesses like barbershops are ideal places for laundering money. Some of the proceeds of drug-dealing enters the cash register dirty, coming out the other end as clean as a head of freshly washed hair. They are quickly set up and closed as necessary. And, in quiet rural communities, they can hide in plain sight.

At the other end of the funnel are mostly North African and Albanian mafias, importing drugs through corruption-addled ports like Rotterdam and Le Havre. Drugs are smuggled in lorries, cars and even body-packed. They come in on cargo ships, yachts and barges. The ingenuity of the smugglers is driven by profit and demand. These networks are violent and determined, prepared to murder judges, journalists and politicians. Parts of the Low Countries increasingly resemble soggier analogues of Juarez.

Then there’s the middle-market, the retailers, who brazenly use social media to plug their wares. They offer cheap drugs as tasters, to get users hooked. They also offer ubiquity and ease of supply. Cocaine dealers will always promise the best stuff, even though it’s often heavily cut.

For low-level dealers and for many users, this is basically victimless crime. The punters crave and the market provides. They’re wrong. Liam mentions an operation where a teenage runner kept hassling him to score cannabis. Liam wasn’t interested — he was after Class A drugs — but made the buy to get the kid off his back. When the police raided the teen’s house, they found a Kalashnikov in his bedroom. “People fail to appreciate how young they are,” one officer tells me. “These kids literally have nothing. They join gangs for a new pair of trainers.” The lines have swallowed an entire generation of underclass children, lost boys and girls disappearing into an underbelly of near-Victorian squalor.

If you know where to look, there’s even worse here too. Another detective once told me about a North London drugs line operating in semi-rural Scotland. A local dealer “skanked” the gang out of £200. To set an example, London gang members forced him to have sex with a dog. At gunpoint. This isn’t an Irvine Welsh novel. This is real life.

All the while, dealers and runners bully vulnerable people into surrendering their homes to use as bases of operations — a practice known as “cuckooing”. This remains a hidden crime, far from the stereotypical Top Boy world of street gangs, zombie knives and drill music. It is, however, as crucial to the whole business model as those deserted rural barbers. Among other things, cuckooing offers cheap, discreet accommodation. It also provides a steady source of slave labour.

To understand how cuckooing works, I visit Catalyst Support. A charity supporting victims, it’s based in Woking, a commuter town off the M25. Hardly the hood — but Surrey is county lines turf now. Nick, a veteran caseworker, has the air of a man who’s seen and heard it all.

“We had one client coerced into moving county line gang members into his elderly parent’s house,” he tells me. “They ended up using the place to store and deal drugs.” Age seems to be no barrier to falling victim to cuckooing. In fact, middle-aged and older people, especially those with learning difficulties, are especially vulnerable.

Catalyst Support can offer assistance, but one theme is grimly familiar. As Nick says of another cuckooing case, which took place in a small English village, “it was obvious. A vulnerable person, living alone, suddenly has loads of new visitors? Yet none of the neighbours said a thing.” I can’t help but think of Liam’s barbershop, and how drugs are a “crime accelerator” prompting other types of offending. I’m thinking here of a spate of cashpoint thefts plaguing quiet service stations, gangs using gas tanks to blast ATMs from garage walls.

There are victories. The charity assisted the Home Office and other public bodies to formulate legislation that will make cuckooing a specific criminal offence. That’s progress, especially when victims are sometimes offenders too. Making it a specific crime, the charity suggests, helps clarify the status of cuckooing victims. Still, issues remain. Cuts often hit preventative services like Catalyst Support. Then there’s the perennial bane of third-sector organisations: performance indicators used to justify funding. Whitehall targets are often aimed at eye-catching problems like knife crime, rather than the hard yards of crimes like cuckooing.

The police have responded too: mapping gangs, markets and trafficking routes. In law enforcement vernacular, this is “Level Two” cross-border crime under the National Intelligence Model. Chief officers love theoretical models. They offer an illusion of control, despite highlighting the essentially parochial nature of UK forces. Criminals, it goes without saying, don’t recognise borders. But the cops? The border between Orpington and Swanley — marking where the Met gives way to Kent Police — once resembled the 38th Parallel.

This was a weakness gangs took advantage of, until police changed tactics. They formed cross-border task forces, to proactively target offenders. Even so, austerity-decimated local constabularies often found operations too time-consuming and resource-intensive. By the time they caught up, the lines were dug in. To be fair, officers tell me, support from the centre has improved significantly. That’s especially true around identifying offenders from communications data.

Yet all the while, organised criminal groups have multiplied. This is partly due immigration patterns. For example, gangs from Sub-Saharan Africa are slowly replacing the Somalis who dominated southeast London a decade ago. Then there are settled ethnic gangs from Eastern Europe, who’ve been in the UK for decades. Criminals also rely on refugees from war-torn nations: young men used to chaotic lifestyles involving violence. And, crucially, these gangs quickly cross-pollinate with local, white criminal groups in provinces outside the big cities. The county lines are a truly multinational, multicultural enterprise.

These new criminals are offering new products too. After the Taliban stymied heroin production in Afghanistan, the street price in Britain rocketed, leading to an increase in highly dangerous synthetic opioids from China. According to investigators, drugs like Nitazenes are the next big thing. Cheap to produce, and offering a fuzzy, heroin-like high, they offer a huge return on investment. If misused, they can also be very dangerous — Nitazenes can be 800 times as potent as the equivalent dose of morphine.

What hasn’t changed is the young age of offenders, both dealers and runners alike. Once ensnared, and subject to violence and sexual abuse, some became dealers themselves. “The question I’d ask,” one officer wonders, “is how did we get to this point? There’s a massive failure of parenting and education in the UK.”

I’m soon tempted to ask myself the same question. In another semi-rural town, this time in Surrey, I see another barbershop. Two kids in hoodies loiter outside a newsagents, like meerkats, their eyes scanning the streets for trouble. An Audi SUV is parked nearby, cannabis smoke bleeding from the semi-open, blacked-out windows. I’m not even looking for this stuff, but here it is. I wonder what the kids are thinking. In their minds, is this pretty village their corner? Their ends?

It’s impossible not to see this as a symptom of full-spectrum societal failure — and those kids are just the start. I’m reminded of the familiar argument: if you saw how meat pies were made, you’d never eat one. Perhaps well-heeled Surrey commuters, ordering their weekend baggies of poorly-cut cocaine, should set foot in a traphouse or watch a teenage runner bleed out on the pavement. In the lines business, that’s exactly how the pie is made. Yet this weekend alone, nearly 50 kilos of dirty powder are destined to hit London’s collective septum. For some reason, our opinion-forming and media classes rarely protest about that particular drug. Then again, they’ve probably never been cuckooed.