Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during a reception to celebrate St Patrick’s Day at 10 Downing Street, London, March 19, 2025
…
[T]he Starmer-Reeves agenda is entirely dictated by the needs of finance capital, mediated through the Treasury and the military.
There is no question, of course, of arms spending being affected by this renewed austerity — on the contrary it is slated to carry on rising for the next decade. Critics of the welfare cuts should not be reticent about making this connection.
Trying to protect spending on services without challenging this renewed militarism hands the Starmerites a free pass by allowing a key argument to go unchallenged.
Starmer’s priorities have a mounting number of victims. Again in Commons questions, Northern Ireland social democrat Colum Eastwood identified one, a deeply disabled constituent able to access benefits under the Tories but now facing destitution as her personal independence payments are withdrawn.
Eastwood then asked the key question. Given all that — what is the point of Labour?
It is a question millions across the country, including many who voted Labour last July, are now asking. This is governance in the interests of capital, not labour by any stretch.
The left in Labour must transition from protest to action against the government if there is to be any positive answer to Eastwood’s question. Issuing statements is not enough if Starmer and Reeves can continue to count on votes in Parliament and canvassers in the country for their anti-worker programme.
Absent that fighting approach, the logical conclusion must be that something new, articulating the values of socialism, is needed.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.Keir Starmer commits to play the caretaker role for Capitalism through the “hard times”.
Brazil’s top prosecutor has filed federal charges against Jair Bolsonaro, alleging that the former president attempted a coup in 2023. Focus Pix / Shutterstock
The Brazilian attorney-general has charged the country’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, with participating in a plot to cling to power through a coup d’etat in 2023 milo. If Bolsonaro is convicted, he could spend between 38 and 43 years in prison.
Bolsonaro, who governed Brazil between 2019 and 2022 but lost his attempt at re-election to current president Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, is one of 34 people to be formally charged for offences related to the alleged coup. These include high-ranking serving and retired members of the military, as well as former ministers and politicians.
The charges levelled against them are involvement in an attempted coup d’etat, violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, and criminal organisation.
According to the attorney-general’s 272-page indictment, Bolsonaro became increasingly inclined to pursue anti-democratic measures in the months before the election. He allegedly considered taking steps to retain power even before the first round of voting.
Then, after his defeat by an extremely narrow margin, the indictment claims that Bolsonaro and his alleged accomplices decided to implement the plan before Lula took office in January 2023.
An investigation by Brazil’s federal police in November found that the insurrection in the country’s capital Brasília on January 8 2023, where rioters invaded the presidential palace, congress and supreme court, was part of this plan. The same investigation suggested the plan also included a plot to assassinate Lula and his vice-president Geraldo Alckmin, as well as supreme court judge Alexandre de Moraes.
Bolsonaro denies any wrongdoing and – at least in public – is bullish about his fate. Speaking to journalists hours before the charges were filed, he said: “I have no concerns about the accusations, zero.”
The case will now be considered by the Supreme Court, whose judges will decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings against Bolsonaro and the other defendants. This is expected to happen over the coming weeks. If the judges accept the charges and proceedings are established, the defendants will be called to answer them.
This is the first time in Brazilian history that high-ranking members of the armed forces have been indicted and charged with crimes associated with a coup d’etat. According to the indictment, the intention was for the armed forces to be called upon to act as a “moderating power”, with the aim of overturning the election result.
Army generals Augusto Heleno, Walter Braga Netto and Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira are among those who have been charged. These men served as ministers in the Bolsonaro government, with Braga Netto also running as the vice-president on Bolsonaro’s ticket in 2022.
Another high-ranking member of the armed forces charged by the attorney-general is Almir Garnier Santos, the commander of the Brazilian navy. These four men were allegedly part of the inner nuclei that planned and prepared the attempted coup.
Several other servicemen, including generals, colonels and other officers, were charged with crimes related to the planning and execution of the initial phases of the coup. The sentences for all of these men could amount to up to 30 years in prison.
Like Bolsonaro, Braga Netto denies any guilt. In a statement released on February 18, his lawyers called the charges a “fantasy”. Lawyers for Garnier Santos and Heleno have chosen not to comment until having fully reviewed the charges.
Unlike those in the military, some of the political figures charged by the attorney general had criminal antecedents. One of the politicians named in the indictment is Filipe Martins, Bolsonaro’s former international affairs adviser and a “disciple” of the deceased far-right polemicist, Olavo de Carvalho. Martins’ lawyers released a statement on February 18 calling the accusations “unfounded”.
In December 2024, Martins was convicted of making a gesture alluding to white supremacy during a virtual session of the senate. He initially received a sentence of two years and four months in prison for inciting racial prejudice, which was replaced by 850 hours of community service.
Far-right commentator Paulo Figueiredo Filho, the grandson of Brazil’s last military dictator, João Figueiredo, was also charged. He appeared on a podcast on February 19 to criticise the charge. Figueiredo lives in the US, where he was arrested in 2019 because of problems with his immigration status.
Lessons from and to Brazil
Brazil has already offered some lessons to other countries facing similar authoritarian challenges. Its response to the insurrection in Brasília was swift and robust. Within days, hundreds of rioters had been arrested and the state governor of the federal district was suspended for his sluggish response.
Then, in 2023, Bolsonaro was banned from running for office for eight years over false claims that the electronic ballots used in the previous year’s election were vulnerable to hacking and fraud. Those involved with the attempted military coup have also been investigated and some subsequently arrested.
But the coup plot case can also serve as a lesson to the country. Brazil has a history both of successful and unsuccessful military coups. The last successful military coup led to a dictatorship that lasted from 1964 until 1985.
Brazil also has a history of amnesties, whereby crimes committed during these coups and authoritarian regimes have been pardoned. There have been 48 amnesties in Brazil since 1889, with the most recent one, in 1979, allowing the dictatorship to self-amnesty its crimes.
For over 45 years, it has hindered criminal accountability for the perpetrators of the crimes of the dictatorship. This included the murder of politician Rubens Paiva, whose disappearance was the focus of the 2024 Oscar-nominated film, I’m Still Here.
Bolsonaro and other individuals charged, as well as their supporters and aligned politicians, have been demanding a “humanitarian amnesty” for those who allegedly participated in the coup plot.
Given Bolsonaro’s history, this seems paradoxical. Throughout his decades-long public career, Bolsonaro has consistently celebrated the crimes of the military dictatorship and supported violations of human rights. At the same time, he has also opposed individuals and organisations that advocate for victims of the dictatorship.
If Bolsonaro and his alleged accomplices are found guilty, it could be an unparalleled lesson for Brazil. Punishing anyone convicted would be an opportunity to step away from the country’s tradition of impunity and move towards addressing systemic injustices.
“We’re just bringing the super-rich into the same tax bracket as the middle class,” said Barreirinhas
Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad’s policy of taxing the “super rich” yielded unprecedented returns of R$ 20.6 billion (US$ 3.32 billion) to the South American country’s coffers in 2024, Federal Revenue Secretary Robinson Barreirinhas confirmed Tuesday. The strategy focuses on exclusive investment funds and offshore assets, it was explained.
Under the new scheme, previously untaxed exclusive funds now contributed R$ 13 billion (US$ 2.10 billion), while offshore investments added R$ 7.67 billion (US$ 1.24 billion), thus closing legal loopholes allowing the wealthy to dodge substantial contributions. “This is about justice,” Barreirinhas argued. According to Brazilian Government figures, the economy grew by around 3.5% last year.
CodePink led a November 2, 2022 rally against the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba outside the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo: CodePink)
“Seriously? You wait until six days before leaving office to do what you promised to do during your 2020 campaign?” said one observer.
In a move likely to be reversed by the incoming Trump administration, President Joe Biden on Tuesday notified Congress of his intent to remove Cuba from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, a designation that critics have long condemned as politically motivated and meritless.
Noting that “the government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism” and has “provided assurances” that it will not do so in the future, the White House said in a memo that the Biden administration is moving to rescind the first Trump administration’s January 2021 addition of Cuba to the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list and take other measures to ease some sanctions on the long-suffering island of 11 million inhabitants.
Cuba’s SSOT designation was based mostly on the socialist nation’s harboring of leftist Colombian rebels and several U.S. fugitives from justice for alleged crimes committed decades ago, even though no other country has been placed on the SSOT list for such a reason and despite right-wing Cuban exile terrorists enjoying citizenship—and even heroic status—in the United States.
“Despite its limited nature, it is a decision in the right direction and in line with the sustained and firm demand of the government and people of Cuba, and with the broad, emphatic, and repeated call of many governments, especially Latin America and the Caribbean, of Cubans living abroad, political, religious and social organizations, and numerous political figures from the United States and other countries,” the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
“It is important to note that the economic blockade and much of the dozen coercive measures that have been put into effect since 2017 remain in force to strengthen it, with full extraterritorial effect and in violation of international law and human rights of all Cubans,” the ministry added.
For 32 straight years, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted for resolutions condemning the U.S. blockade of Cuba. And for 32 years, the United States, usually along with a small handful of countries, has opposed the measures. Last year’s vote was 187-2, with Israel joining the U.S. in voting against the resolution.
Cuba followed Biden’s move by announcing it would “gradually” release 553 political prisoners following negotiations with the Catholic Church, The New York Timesreported.
Many progressives welcomed Biden’s shift. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Cuba’s SSOT designation “has only worsened life for the Cuban people without advancing U.S. interests” and “has made it harder for Cubans to access humanitarian aid, banking services, and the ability to travel abroad.”
“It has also deepened food and medicine shortages and worsened the island’s energy crisis, especially after Hurricane Rafael,” she added. “These hardships have driven an unprecedented wave of migration, leading to the largest exodus in Cuba’s history.”
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called Biden’s move “a long overdue action that will help normalize relations with our neighbor.”
“This is a step toward ending decades of failed policy that has only hurt Cuban families and strained diplomatic ties,” Omar added. “Removing this designation will help the people of Cuba and create new opportunities for trade and cooperation between our nations. I look forward to continuing the work to build bridges between our countries and supporting policies that benefit both the American and Cuban people.”
David Adler, the co-general coordinator at Progressive International, called the delisting “far too little, far too late.”
“POTUS removing Cuba’s SSOT designation in the final days of his presidency only means one thing: He knew—from day one—that the designation was simply an excuse to punish the Cuban people,” Adler added. “But he maintained it anyway. Sickening.”
The peace group CodePink released a statement welcoming Biden’s shift, but adding that “it is unacceptable that it took this administration four years to address these injustices.”
“President Biden made the inhumane decision every single day to not alleviate the suffering of millions of Cubans by keeping this designation in place,” the group added. “As we mark this overdue progress, we can only hope that the Trump administration does not reverse these crucial steps towards justice and diplomacy.”
Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the son of Cuban immigrants and a fierce critic of Cuba’s socialist government. In 2021, Rubio introduced legislation aimed at blocking Cuba’s removal from the SSOT list. Trump has also tapped Mauricio Claver-Carone—a staunch supporter of sanctioning Cuba—as his special envoy for Latin America.
Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Tuesday that “while this decision, which comes years after 80 members of Congress urged Biden to reverse Trump’s ‘total pressure’ approach should have been made long ago, it is better late than never.”
“Sixty years of failed policy should be more than enough, and hopefully the new administration will have the wisdom and the courage to pursue a new course, one that’s in the best interest of both the U.S. and the Cuban people,” Main added.
Cuba was first placed on the SSOT list by the Reagan administration in 1982 amid an ongoing, decadeslong campaign of U.S.-backed exile terrorism, attempted subversion, failed assassination attempts, economic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a futile effort to overthrow the revolutionary government of longtime leader Fidel Castro. Cuba says U.S.-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.
In stark contrast, Cuba has not committed any terrorism against the United States.
Former President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the SSOT in 2015 during a promising but ultimately short-lived rapprochement between the two countries that abruptly ended when Trump took office for the first time in 2017.
“Cuba will continue to confront and denounce this policy of economic war, the interference programs, and the disinformation and discredit operations financed each year with tens of millions of dollars from the United States federal budget,” the Cuban Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. “It will also remain ready to develop a relationship of respect with that country, based on dialogue and noninterference in the internal affairs of both, despite differences.”
The Biden admin has taken the long overdue step of removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terror list. Congratulations & thank you to @dsa_cuba organizers and our friends @AllianceForCuba@LAWGaction, @NNOCuba, & everyone who helped make the case for Cuba at home & in… pic.twitter.com/6fJkVF1Ldz
David Adler, the co-general coordinator at Progressive International, called the delisting “far too little, far too late.”
“POTUS removing Cuba’s SSOT designation in the final days of his presidency only means one thing: He knew—from day one—that the designation was simply an excuse to punish the Cuban people,” Adler added. “But he maintained it anyway. Sickening.”
The peace group CodePink released a statement welcoming Biden’s shift, but adding that “it is unacceptable that it took this administration four years to address these injustices.”
“President Biden made the inhumane decision every single day to not alleviate the suffering of millions of Cubans by keeping this designation in place,” the group added. “As we mark this overdue progress, we can only hope that the Trump administration does not reverse these crucial steps towards justice and diplomacy.”
Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the son of Cuban immigrants and a fierce critic of Cuba’s socialist government. In 2021, Rubio introduced legislation aimed at blocking Cuba’s removal from the SSOT list. Trump has also tapped Mauricio Claver-Carone—a staunch supporter of sanctioning Cuba—as his special envoy for Latin America.
Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Tuesday that “while this decision, which comes years after 80 members of Congress urged Biden to reverse Trump’s ‘total pressure’ approach should have been made long ago, it is better late than never.”
“Sixty years of failed policy should be more than enough, and hopefully the new administration will have the wisdom and the courage to pursue a new course, one that’s in the best interest of both the U.S. and the Cuban people,” Main added.
Cuba was first placed on the SSOT list by the Reagan administration in 1982 amid an ongoing, decadeslong campaign of U.S.-backed exile terrorism, attempted subversion, failed assassination attempts, economic warfare, and covert operations large and small in a futile effort to overthrow the revolutionary government of longtime leader Fidel Castro. Cuba says U.S.-backed terrorism has killed or wounded more than 5,000 Cubans and cost its economy billions of dollars.
In stark contrast, Cuba has not committed any terrorism against the United States.
Former President Barack Obama removed Cuba from the SSOT in 2015 during a promising but ultimately short-lived rapprochement between the two countries that abruptly ended when Trump took office for the first time in 2017.
“Cuba will continue to confront and denounce this policy of economic war, the interference programs, and the disinformation and discredit operations financed each year with tens of millions of dollars from the United States federal budget,” the Cuban Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. “It will also remain ready to develop a relationship of respect with that country, based on dialogue and noninterference in the internal affairs of both, despite differences.”
As the government unveils its plans for NHS patients to be treated privately in a bid to cut the waiting list backlog, former Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn says this administration is repeating the mistakes of the last
…
During the general election, I stood on a platform that pledged to defend a fully public, fully funded healthcare system. We knew Labour’s decision to drop its previously held manifesto promise that “the NHS is not for sale” was no accident. We said the future of our NHS was on the line – and we were right.
This week, the government announced that private operators will receive an extra £2.5bn a year in government funding. Under their plans, the role of the private sector in providing outpatient appointments will rise by 20 per cent. Meanwhile, the secretary of state for health, Wes Streeting, refuses to rule out the involvement of the private sector in a reformed care service – a refusal he will no doubt maintain for the next four years until elderly and disabled people are finally allowed to hear his plans.
To the prime minister and health secretary, welcoming privatisation is proof of their commitment to pragmatism. “We will not let ideology… stand in the way.” To anyone who knows the reality of privatisation, their dogmatic refusal to look at the evidence is the very definition of ideology itself.
A privatised health service leads to worse quality care, higher mortality rates and a reduction in staffing. Privatisation has even been linked to higher rates of patient infections, in part because cleaning staff are typically the first to be cut in the name of efficiency. There is only one beneficiary of privatisation: investors and shareholders making money out of people’s ill health.
