Police carry off a Youth Demand protester during a demonstration against the state opening of parliament, July 17, 2024Photo: Youth Demand
POLICE stormed a cafe and arrested activists before they had even begun marching today in the latest crackdown on the right to protest.
The Youth Demand activists were sipping their morning coffees in a branch of Leon in central London, ahead of a peaceful pro-Palestine demonstration planned by the group.
The activists were due to march towards Parliament, where the state opening was taking place, to urge the new government to suspend arms to Israel and halt all oil and gas licences granted since 2021.
Ten activists were arrested in the cafe for “conspiracy to commit public nuisance.”
“How is this more harmful than the people arming Israel?” one of the activists shouted as they were dragged away by police.
Shortly after, in Victoria Embankment, another group of activists were kettled in by police before the march commenced. Dozens more were arrested on the same charge.
Among those arrested was Violet Powell, a 23-year-old student.
She said: “Our leaders hide behind pomp and ceremony while a genocide is going on, and our new government are refusing to take action beyond making meaningless platitudes.
“Young people will not allow yet another government to continue ‘business as usual,’ when that business is killing countless people.”
Zionist Keir ‘Kid Starver’ Starmer. Image thanks to The Skwawkbox.
Capital Gains Tax is paid at a lower rate than Income Tax so that unearned income is taxed less than earned income: rich people who don’t even have to watch it coming in are taxed less than the hard-working families that we hear so much about. The Green Party argues that hundreds of thousands of children can be lifted out of poverty if Labour committed to equalising capital gains tax to pay to scrap the two-child benefit cap. The four newly elected Green MPs, will be proposing a reasoned amendment to the King’s Speech that includes the scrapping of the two-child benefit.
The IFS estimates that the cap will impact 2.63 million children by the end of this parliament and that scrapping the cap would cost in the region of £3.4billion – before taking into account the wider economic impact of poverty on health and welfare systems. In their recent manifesto, the Green Party estimated that making Capital Gains Tax fairer could raise £16bn, a move that would impact less than 2% of income taxpayers. This £16bn figure is supported by research conducted by Arun Advani, a tax expert at the University of Warwick, who estimated that equalising CGT and income tax rates would raise £16.7bn a year.
Green MPs will today propose an amendment to propose the government scraps the two-child benefit cap. Green Party Co-Leader and Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer, speaking on behalf of the Green group of MPs said
“I think Labour are serious when they say they want to change the country. But the change they are looking to achieve will always be hamstrung for as long as they limit their own potential to raise additional revenue to spend on frontline services. The impact of this approach is already clear. Every day we have children going hungry, unable to concentrate in school or struggling to ascertain even the very basics – this is the real world impact of child poverty. And so today we’re offering Labour a positive fairer taxation that will allow them to redistribute money from some of the wealthiest to some of the very poorest. This is a political choice that they must now make.”
Green Party Work, Employment and Social Security Spokesperson, Prof Catherine Rowett said, “Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is a moral and practical imperative. It is a matter of social, economic and racial justice. Today we have outlined one way that Labour, if they had the political will, could choose to help millions of children. And child poverty blights lives and costs millions, as generations of children are condemned to lower achievement and a lifetime of poor health. When they say there is no money, remember this is a political choice – they’re ignoring the political, social and economic costs of keeping children in poverty.”
I’ll be looking at why Keir Starmer is keen on restricting spending except on militarism and war. I suspect that that I know exactly where to look: It’s not as if there isn’t New Labour heritage and precedent.
Israeli tanks stand near the Israel-Gaza border as seen from southern Israel, July 14, 2024
FOREIGN Secretary David Lammy should focus on halting arms exports to Israel instead of associating with war criminals, campaigners charged today.
The calls came as Mr Lammy visited Israel and the occupied Palestinian West Bank on his first trip to the Middle East in his new role.
Today, he shook hands with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who last December was pictured proudly signing a shell headed for Gaza.
Mr Lammy said he hoped to see a hostage deal emerge “in the coming days” and a ceasefire to bring “alleviation to the suffering and the intolerable loss of life.”
Failing to lift the suspension of vital funding to the UN Relief & Works Agency, which the government gave £35 million last year, he announced that a slimmer sum of £5.5m would be given to medical aid charity UK-Med.
Vote For Genocide Vote Labour.Zionist Keir Starmer is quoted “I support Zionism without qualification.” He’s asked whether that means that he supports Zionism under all circumstances, whatever Zionists do.
Protest against nuclear war outside Westminster Abbey, London 2019 | Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images
What’s the difference between the defence policies of Labour and Conservatives? Spoiler alert: there isn’t one
Days after Rishi Sunak announced the country would be going to the ballots, Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg released a campaign video in which he declared “security is at the forefront of this general election”.
It was a grand claim, but an astute one. Sunak and Keir Starmer have indeed spent much of the past six weeks fighting over who is leading the party of defence, while the subject has also dominated headlines (or it did until Nigel Farage re-entered politics and made the election considerably more about immigration).
From existential concerns about the size of the British army to debates about who supports Trident (and who doesn’t) and the shock announcement of the possible return of National Service, you’d be forgiven for thinking the election is less about voting red, blue, green or yellow, and more about what shade of camouflage you’d prefer your leaders in.
But how, exactly, do Labour and the Tories differ when it comes to matters of defence? And how will rising fears from politicians and pundits over threats from Russia, Iran and China affect British politics?
Early on in the election campaign, Labour leader Starmer declared his the ‘party of national security’ – a sentiment echoed by his shadow defence secretary, John Healey, who said “Labour is now the party of defence.” Their claims came weeks after Starmer took to the pages of the Daily Mail, not his natural ally, to proclaim: “We will back our Armed Forces. We will back our nuclear deterrent. We will back Britain.”
This messaging appears to be working. That same pro-Tory paper reported in March that Labour is now more trusted than the Conservatives on defence, with voters reportedly associating the latter with cutting military spending, not increasing it.
This is all quite a reversal. For a time, much of the media painted Labour as actively hostile to the military. It led to the BBC even asking “Has Jeremy Corbyn ever supported a war?” And, in 2019, when a video emerged showing members of the British parachute regiment firing at a poster of the then-Labour leader at a target range in Kabul, it seemed to reflect a wide sentiment that the military and the left were no longer friends.
Matters military, it was long felt, were best left to the Tories. After all, in 2021, a Byline Times analysis found that 91% of the veterans who sit in either the House of Commons or the Lords were Conservatives. Of the 44 veteran MPs, 40 were Conservative, while only 2 were Labour.
It was not always thus. The 1945 General Election, for instance, held as an army of men returned home from World War Two, saw a massive victory for Labour in the UK. Labour won decisively with 393 seats, the Conservatives securing only 197. Labour’s emphasis on social reform clearly resonated with those who had served – the promise of a better country for those who had been ready to die defending it.
It could be that Starmer is seeking to reignite this spirit, where national defence and the left are not deemed antithetical. And there are some canny election reasons for this.
At Action on Armed Violence, we analysed the locations of the ten arms manufacturers based in the UK that have received the highest value and quantity of domestic defence contracts over 2022/3 – finding a significant Conservative bias. The ten firms have 130 locations (listed offices or factories) across 94 parliamentary constituencies – 67% of which are represented by Tory MPs. Labour represents just 16% of the seats.
Of the 20 constituencies with two or more arms manufacturers present, 14 were held by Conservative MPs and just three by Labour. But predicted voting data suggests the Tories will hold onto just two of them on 4 July, while 13 will switch to Labour.
It is no wonder the Starmer wrote in the Mail: “With Labour, the defence industry will be hardwired into my national mission to drive economic growth across the UK.” If polls are to be believed, the military-industrial complex is about to be painted red – and it’s no coincidence that at least 14 prospective MPs standing for Labour today are ex-military.
Where does this leave the Tories, then? Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) is frantically coming up with new, harder-right ideas to separate the party from Labour. Its National Service ploy, Sunak claims, is “to strengthen our country’s security”. Exactly why battalions of 18-year-olds on Salisbury Plain will make the UK more secure than its nuclear arsenals is not clear.
As for other differences, while the Conservatives focus on defence spending and global strategic engagement, Labour emphasises European alliances and a broader security perspective. The Liberal Democrats and SNP, meanwhile, both advocate for strong European ties and proactive foreign policies, and the Greens prioritise environmental security.
In truth, though, there is seemingly not much to distinguish Labour and Conservatives when it comes to matters of defence. As with Starmer working to avoid the red-tops claiming the nation is not safe in his hands, Labour has been deafeningly silent on issues such as the inquiry into Special Forces’ extra-judicial killings in Afghanistan, the widespread concerns about misogyny, sexual assault and systemic racism in the British military.
When there is not so much as a camouflage fag paper between the defence policies of the right and the left, the danger is that there are no oppositional voices of any merit. And, in a world where sentiments of war seem to be spreading much faster than sentiments of peace, this lack of critique could easily lead us all to very bad places indeed.
