Britain
The Free Speech Martyrdom of Lucy Connolly
Keir Starmer’s law-and-order theatrics have handed the far right its new saint: a self-styled free speech Joan of Arc—except this saint didn’t want to be burned, she wanted others to be.
The rest of the blog
Keir Starmer’s law-and-order theatrics have handed the far right its new saint: a self-styled free speech Joan of Arc—except this saint didn’t want to be burned, she wanted others to be.
Paul Bristow cites the Epping Forest ruling to demand hotel closures for asylum seekers, but offers no plan for what follows. The Conservatives built the hotel system; Labour inherits it; local politicians weaponise planning law while migrants disappear from view.
The arrest of a part-time cleaner for sharing Facebook posts backing Palestine Action shows how Britain’s response to Gaza has drifted from foreign policy into domestic repression.
Farage brings the noise, Starmer brings the law. The country falls apart to the sound of flags snapping and doors slamming while capital quietly clears the till.
Robert Jenrick’s Union Jack pantomime isn’t patriotism; it’s a confession of weakness. A dying political class turns to flags and ladders because it has nothing left to offer but theatre.
By sanctioning International Criminal Court judges and prosecutors, Trump’s America has openly declared that empire stands above the law. Europe and Britain now face a stark choice: defend the court’s independence, or accept a world where justice stops at Washington’s door.
The Alaska talks were not a breakthrough but a trap. A “peace deal” that rewards Russian aggression is appeasement by another name. Ukraine’s fight is for survival, and any settlement must be on its terms—not Moscow’s.
The High Court’s ruling in Epping shows how Britain has turned planning law into a border regime, feeding jealous politics of scarcity and erasing the very category of the refugee. Now with Labour councils as willing collaborators.
Trump hasn’t changed, he’s doing what strongmen do: cutting deals, starting wars, appeasing generals. It’s Dugin who’s panicking. The fantasy’s collapsing, so he calls it a globalist takeover. The world isn’t ending. Just his script.
A bureaucratic blueprint for empire cloaked in civilisational jargon, Russia 2050 lays out a revanchist plan for domination—one now legitimised by Western contrarians too busy opposing the West to see they’re cheering on its mirror image.
Russia is at war with Britain. The US can no longer be trusted. And our government’s response? First aid classes and cadet training. If this is what cohesion looks like, we are in real trouble.
Jeffrey Sachs wants you to believe the world’s problems can be solved by breaking U.S. dominance and letting other powers rise. But that’s not anti-imperialism, it’s just a multipolar fantasy.
As Putin wages a war without end, Britain prepares for conflict in the only way it knows how, by cutting everything except the military.
Donald Trump claimed he would end the war in Ukraine on “day one,” yet 54 days into his presidency, the conflict rages on, because his so-called peace plan is nothing more than a capitulation to Putin’s imperial ambitions.
The left’s long struggle against empire has often been distorted by its own blind spots, nowhere more so than in the contradictions of campism, where opposition to Western imperialism too often becomes an excuse for silence, or worse, complicity, in the face of other empires.
Crisis is the word that keeps coming back to haunt us. Whether it’s the crisis of democracy, the crisis of liberalism, or the overarching notion of a time of crisis, we seem perpetually embroiled in a state of polycrisis.
In an era of escalating global tensions and the rise of new geopolitical powers, the debate over the alignment of socialist movements has become increasingly pressing. The slogan “neither Washington nor Moscow” is more relevant than ever. This article argues that adopting this stance is crucial for preserving Marxist principles and resisting the phenomenon of campism, where socialist movements align uncritically with one global power against another. By embracing this slogan, we can safeguard the integrity of our struggle.
Some on the modern left have engaged in ‘apologism’ for oppressive regimes, whether whitewashing Stalin’s crimes or reflexively supporting authoritarian “anti-imperialist” states. This post argues that defending past and present authoritarianism fundamentally contradicts core progressive principles of liberation, democracy, and human rights.