The rest of the blog
The chancellor’s proposed income tax shuffle is clever accountancy but toxic politics — a pledge-break disguised as fiscal discipline, and proof that Labour has trapped itself in rules it cannot escape.
More than 200,000 young men aren’t “signed off for life”—they are the reserve army of labour, conscripted into the Telegraph’s morality tale to prepare the ground for austerity.
David Frost calls it a new “Red Terror.” The truth is plainer: it’s the Right’s wars, coups and crackdowns that have spilt the deepest blood in politics.
Trump’s latest “kinetic strike” killed three unknown Venezuelans he labelled “narco-terrorists.” The phrase is not law but incantation, a word that strips away humanity and legitimises killing. From Vietnam body counts to Obama’s “signature strikes,” America has always named its enemies into existence, and into death.
To call Robinson’s rally “populist” or “right-wing” is to miss the point. Fascism doesn’t require every marcher to be a coherent ideologue; it requires a mass, a scapegoat, and leaders prepared to turn grievance into violence. That is what we saw in London.
The events of Saturday (13/09) prove that Britain can go fascist. Musk calls for violence, the Telegraph and Times launder his words, and Starmer clings to the flag. We must name the danger or watch it grow.
Camilla Tominey’s sainthood act for Charlie Kirk trades politics for piety. The Right already owns the machinery (press, finance, courts, police) and Kirk was part of the drive shaft. A death certificate doesn’t wash clean a career built on making violence respectable.
The ONS reports zero growth in July. The papers call it “grim news” for Rachel Reeves. In reality, it is the latest entry in a long obituary for British capitalism — a system now sustained only by euphemism, stagnation, and decline.
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.