Right-wing blog Guido Fawkes to be taken over by Boris Johnson aide who was made one of UK’s youngest peers

Basit Mahmood 

15 November, 2024 
Left Foot Forward

In yet more proof that Guido is firmly part of the Tory establishment, Kempsell - was the former prime minister’s spokesman and reportedly his tennis partner.

Right-wing Tory supporting blog Guido Fawkes is set to be taken over by former Boris Johnson aide Lord Ross Kempsell, after owner Paul Staines announced he was stepping down as editor this week.

Lord Kempsell ‘has been appointed to the role of publisher and will look at how to grow Guido’s audience and revenue, and eventually the size of the newsroom’, Press Gazette reports.

In yet more proof that Guido is firmly part of the Tory establishment, Kempsell – was the former prime minister’s spokesman and reportedly his tennis partner.

The Independent also reports that a PR firm set up by Kempsell, accumulated more than £2m in assets in just 12 months – and includes Mr Johnson as one of its clients.

So much for Guido being a radical blog which campaigns against sleaze, cronyism and hypocrisy.

News of Staines stepping down came ahead of Guido’s 20th anniversary dinner being held this week.

Press Gazette also reports: “Staines is stepping aside at the same time as standing up against a libel claim brought by Dale Vince over the reporting of comments the Ecotricity founder made on Times Radio relating to Hamas – even though Guido has previously used “safe haven protection” against legal action because Staines is based in Ireland and the site’s servers are based in Washington DC.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

UK

What we need to learn from Donald Trump’s election victory

Dawn Butler 

15 November, 2024 
LEFT FOOT FORWARD

Columnists Opinion

Trump's victory is a wakeup call. It is time to regroup and get serious about the world we want to live in

.


I am still in the early stages of processing the news of a Donald Trump victory in the US election.

I understand that there has been a spike in Google searches of ‘how can I reverse my vote’. The thing is, that is democracy. We are very fond in the UK of saying the electorate is never wrong. I think that if the number of people who are seeking to reverse their vote is true then maybe misguided might be a better word to use in this situation.

My only caveat to the above is that we need to listen to people who were persuaded to vote for Trump. He will have his core supporters and that is democracy in action.

Trump has been clear there will be more chaos, more incompetence, and more division.

My views on Trump are well documented and have not changed. Because they are based on things he has said. I am very concerned, like so many people, that so many hard-won rights are at serious risk, again.

It is said that when America sneezes, the UK catches cold. I believe that. There is no doubt that the far right will feel emboldened by Trump’s victory – not just in America, but here at home too.

That is why we must be vigilant to ensure that the rights of women, vulnerable men and people from Black and ethnic minority backgrounds, are not eroded. I stand in solidarity with all those affected and worried.

There is no doubt that the UK needs to and must continue to work closely with the US, on a whole range of issues from trade to defence. But it does not mean we must agree with, or support, all they do. We must be strong enough to be a critical friend.

The truth is, there may now be a void when it comes to standing up for important values – like equality, equity, diversity, truth, and democracy. The UK must champion these values around the world. The task ahead of us will be like nothing we have ever known with social media and world-wide connections like no other.

We must stand up for the rights of women around the world, including defending freedom to choose. And we must stand up for LGBTQI+ people, so many of whom now feel threatened. Because all of the talk of going back to a time where women were in the kitchen, or when women have no say over their bodies is a dangerous narrative, that if not challenged will grow. Just look at the rise of INCELS.

The UK also has an important role to play in leading the fight to tackle climate change, which we know is far from a priority for Trump. We cannot allow the world to go backwards. Some may think they will live forever, the truth is we are in this world for such a short period of time, what are we leaving to the next generation.

And the UK must stand up for world peace. We do not yet know what Trump’s victory means for wars in Ukraine and in Gaza, but the UK must continue to speak up for justice and international law.

I am so proud that, in the face of a Trump presidency, we have a Mayor of London in Sadiq Khan who will continue to fight for London’s values. As Sadiq said, in London we are proud of our diversity and proud of the contribution of all our communities and proud of our spirit of unity.

I am a Londoner and am proud that we are strong in our resolve as shown when the racists threatened to gather in our streets. I’m pleased that no matter who is President in the US, our commitment to these values of openness and acceptance in London will not cease. And I certainly will not shy away from speaking out.

I have suffered from many negative headlines recently and threatening communications, and I know this is the cost of being a straight talker who says it as it is, someone who does not shirk from difficult conversations. But it doesn’t make it any easier.

People may not like it, or some people may like it. What I say may be in line with their thinking or it may not be. For some, what I say may be a different and interesting way of looking at things. The reality is I am disagreeing with what someone else has said, I have not been aggressive or threatening, unless my very existence is a threat.

I am a civil rights campaigner. I’ve fought passionately for the rights of women, vulnerable men and for Black, Asian and minority ethnic people. I have also fought to support men at risk of suicide; one of the leading causes of death. And I have co-signed many debates to mark International Men’s Day in Parliament.

I am a campaigner for progress for all people – as I always say, equality is equality, you cannot pick and choose. We must fight for the rights of everyone as if they were our own.

But to secure that progress we must be vigilant. So, when we put a brick down to build a bridge, we must be vigilant about those who are kicking it away. That is what the next four years could look like.

I want to get to a stage where everybody is accepting of difference – not just tolerating of difference. I hope for a world we learn to get on and celebrate each other’s differences.

Politics is often so polarised that we are resistant to a different point of view. Sometimes I am guilty of being so exasperated by an opposing view that I switch off. But this time I feel differently about the US election because I sense something deeper going on here.

We must acknowledge that Trump is a manifestation of men feeling unempowered in a world of social progress. Some feel things are being taken away from them, rather than accepting change around them, whether it is women in leadership, more diversity in the workforce, or women having control over their own bodies.

We must acknowledge there is a conflict over what masculinity looks like in a modern world, as some disgruntled men feel emasculated and look for a Trump or an Andrew Tate to look up to. Old fashioned notions are being perpetuated to support hierarchical control. I understand that some may see Trump as president and think if he can do it, so can I.

So, the question is, how do we stop the rise in Trump and Tate support happening? We need to get those especially young minds on board.

It’s time to stop assuming that everyone has a liberal way of thinking. We need to promote good ethics and fight for our values, British values – democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs.

I would swap tolerance for acceptance but it is important to celebrate our British values as loudly as possible with our full chest, as the young people would say. We also need to teach men about the protection of women. Being a man isn’t about controlling a woman or beating up on a woman, it is about being caring and protecting.

And we need to get the message out there that the true sign of a masculinity is protecting women – not making decisions for them. It’s time to re-educate what masculinity means. We also need to highlight that porn websites are not what a loving relationship looks like. With the age of kids as young as 11 accessing porn this conversation is overdue.

Being a techy I understand that we need to tackle this now, as in the coming years as tech and AI continues to develop at pace. It’s an increasingly dangerous world when it comes to violence against women and girls and legislation and understanding in this space will be so important.

Trump’s victory is a wakeup call. It is time to regroup and get serious about the world we want to live in.

The UK can and should take the lead, wherever the US may fail in the next four years, in standing up for the values and principles that are so important to many of us.

Dawn Butler is the Labour MP for Brent Central

Image credit: Gage Skidmore – Creative Commons

Why we need to urgently reform the House of Lords

Prem Sikka

15 November, 2024 

Left Foot Forward


The UK and Lesotho are the only two countries to have an entirely unelected parliamentary chamber.

The House of Lords, the UK’s second parliamentary chamber, is primarily a revising chamber and urges the government of the day to rethink some aspects of its proposed legislation. However, it is unelected and unrepresentative of the population and needs to be reformed.

There are two issues facing the UK’s Labour government. Firstly, how to get its legislation through the House of Lords where Labour is heavily outnumbered by the opposition parties? Secondly, how to reform the unelected and unrepresentative House of Lords? At the outset let me state that I favour replacing the Lords with an elected and representative chamber.

Immediate Problem

The UK and Lesotho are the only two countries to have an entirely unelected parliamentary chamber. The House of Lords has a long history, dating back to the Eleventh century. For a long time, individuals (men) were appointed to the Lords because they were favoured by the monarch. Their descendants inherited the titles and law making powers. The Life Peerages Act 1958 enabled the Prime Minister to nominate and the monarch to appoint people to the Lords for the remainder of their lives. As the Monarch is also head of the Church of England, the House of Lords has 26 reserved seats for archbishops and bishops from England. There are no reserved seats for representatives of any other religious affiliation.

Becoming a lifelong legislator on the basis that that someone’s ancestor was once favoured by a medieval monarch has no place in the modern world. That came to head in 1999 and the Labour government with a large majority in the House of Commons sought to end the hereditary principle. The House of Lords Act 1999 stated that “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”. The government encountered resistance and eventually permitted 92 hereditary peers, mostly Conservatives, to remain in the Lords until a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords could take place. The size of the House of Lords was reduced from 1,330 members to 669, and most of the peers in the current House are appointed by Prime Ministers.

Since then the size of the House of Lords has grown as successive Prime Ministers have handed out peerages to donors, advisers, former members of parliament and others, with plenty of accusations of nepotism and corruption. After 14 years of Conservative rule, the composition of the House of Lords is highly skewed.

After the July 2024 general election, the House of Commons has 650 members, of which 412 are Labour members. In contrast the unelected House of Lords has 827 members, of which around 500 are active in the chamber. Out of 827, only 186 are Labour Members. The Conservatives with 121 seats in the House of Commons have 272 seats in the Lords. Liberal Democrats with 72 seats in the Commons have 79 seats in the Lords. Crossbenchers, independents and non-affiliated peers hold 230 seats. The convention is that no political party should be able to control the upper chamber though some have bigger representation. The problem is that Labour is by far the biggest party in the Commons but that is not matched in the Lords. The opposition parties can unite to prevent the government from pushing its legislation through the Lords.

The government has chosen to eliminate all 92 hereditary peers, which includes 4 Labour Members, through the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. It has been passed by the House of Commons and will soon be debated in the Lords. However, Labour has chosen to retain 26 archbishops and bishops even though the country is secular.

The expulsion of hereditary peers will change the numbers in the upper chamber but the opposition parties will still have disproportionately large presence. To seek some kind of parity, the Prime Minister can create new Labour life peers and navigate the government’s legislative programme through the Lords. However, that too is problematical. Why should Prime Minister of the day have power to appoint membership of the second/upper chamber? Such an arrangement is always open to charges of bribery, corruption and nepotism, and is highly undemocratic. The only effective option is to replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber.

Deeper Reforms

Popular opinion favours replacement of the House of Lords by an elected chamber, but how will it be elected and will it be representative of the population as a whole? What should be the size of the elected chamber? There is a class and geographical imbalance in the House of Lords as the rich, corporate elites and individuals from London and South East are over represented at the expense of regions and working class.

The House of Commons does not provide a suitable model. Currently, its 650 members are elected by the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system. The outcome does not reflect the citizen’s preferences. For example, in the 2024 general election, Labour Party received 33.7% of the popular vote but ended-up with 64% of the seats in the House of Commons. The FPTP system does not represent the popular vote and needs to be replaced by an alternative. Proportional representation, which has many variations, is one such system. In a 2011 referendum, 67.9% of voters opposed changing the electoral system to the Alternative Vote. The voting system is unlikely to be changed without a referendum. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, governments seem to have little enthusiasm for referendums.

Direct election of both Houses can produce tensions. Currently, as a result of past political settlements the House of Lords can delay legislation passed by the House of Commons for up to one year but cannot block a bill altogether. It is also unable to amend or initiate any ‘money bills’, which are bills that the Speaker of the Commons considers related to national taxation, public money or loans. Ultimately, the Lords must yield to the elected Commons. But if both Houses are elected by the people, they can both claim equal legitimacy and a legislative deadlock can result. One possibility is that members of the Lords could be elected by members of local councils and county councillors instead of the population at large. This means that in a conflict, Commons can claim seniority and that would help to prevent deadlocks.

However, the difficulty is that the intrusion of party machinery into elections for the upper chamber would annihilate the presence of independent voices in the Lords. Currently there are 230 crossbench, independent and non-affiliated members of the Lords. They would not have the resources to match the might of political parties and would be ousted. The loss of independent voices weakens democracy.

With direct elections, both chambers could come under the control of the same party. This would result in rudimentary scrutiny of government and legislation and result in poor laws and public accountability. That issue needs to be addressed.

One possibility is that all candidates for the upper chambers should stand as independents, and not as members of any political party. They can speak freely, not be silenced by the whipping system and vote according to their conscience. This would strengthen democracy but would make it difficult for the government to steer its legislative programme through parliament.

All of the above difficulties can and must be surmounted in the quest for democracy. The feudal system of appointing legislators by the monarch or the Prime Minister must end. However, the popular election for both chambers creates illusions of democracy because it does not address one major problem. That is the power of big corporations and the rich. They finance political parties and hand lucrative consultancy contracts to legislators. The wealthy elites control think-tanks, media and most of the means of production. They use their power and resources to colonise policymaking spaces, subvert emancipatory change and effective regulation, and shape public policies. There is an urgent need to end corporate funding of political parties and legislators, and corporate control of everyday life. Yet no major political party is willing to tame or democratise corporations. If anything, governments are rowing back regulation, removing hard-won social rights, and are handing swathes of public services to corporations. In such an environment, the probability of creating democratic and accountable institutions is low though the recurring crisis of capitalism continues to provide opportunities to advance competing discourses and possibilities of emancipatory change.

CANADA AND AUSTRALIA HAVE UNELECTED 'SENATES' THAT ARE MODELED ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS

The ‘Budapest playbook’: A blueprint we can’t afford to follow

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

16 November, 2024 
Right-Wing Watch

Orbán’s authoritarian playbook, which Trump and his fellow MAGA Republicans seem to idolise, shows just how vulnerable democratic institutions are in the face of rising populism, and how quickly democratic models can be eroded. The need for a robust defence of democratic values has never been more critical.

As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, far-right populist leaders across Europe are celebrating, using his victory as a rallying cry for their own nationalist agendas.

Among them is Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, who sees Trump’s success as a transformative moment for global nationalism. “History has accelerated… The world is going to change,” he said.

And Trump makes no secret about his admiration for Orbán, having referred to him as a “strongman” and a “real boss.”

This raises an urgent question: Could Orbán’s Hungary serve as a blueprint for Trump to follow, and even more concerning, could such a model be applied in the UK, where Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration party has also achieved electoral success?

Reform MP and the party’s former leader Richard Tice said that the US election had been a “comprehensive rejection of the status quo” and voters “have had enough of classic, smooth wafflers who talk a good game but fail to deliver.”

The MAGA movement

Those who are celebrating Trump’s return in Europe share ideological affinities with Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that stronger borders, lower taxes, better international agreements, Conservative judges, more freedom, and anti-migration policies are what define the MAGA movement for Trump supporters.

And these MAGA Republicans have been described as being ‘obsessed’ with Viktor Orbán. JD Vance, Trump’s 2024 running mate, said that the US “could learn a lot” from Hungary, while Trump himself said, “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter, or a better leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic.”

The winning side of history?

Orbán, once politically isolated in Europe, has positioned himself as the leading figure in the far-right movement, promoting a vision of a Europe that resists multiculturalism and globalism. He has long asserted that he and his growing coalition of nationalist allies are destined to emerge on the winning side of history.

And it’s not difficult to understand the far-right’s adulation of Orbán. While electoral success is one thing, maintaining power is another, and Orbán has been prime minister of Hungary, with a constitutional majority, for 14 consecutive years. As such, he has had remarkable influence on reshaping the country to his own vision.

Similar to Trump and Nigel Farage, some of Orbán’s appeal is owed to his ability to address people with convincing messages centred on national pride, defending borders, prosperity and more, in a simple way.

However, Orbán’s ‘success’ is, more broadly, rooted in his ability to avoid unpopular measures by constructing a political, media and economic infrastructure on personal connections.

Under his leadership, Orbán and his party have effectively seized control of Hungary’s democratic institutions. Today, every major institution is headed by individuals that have been hand-picked by Orbán.

Hungary has also seen the orchestration of a nationwide right-wing media network that promotes government narratives and suppresses dissent, creating a political climate reminiscent of propaganda regimes.

The Voice of America reported in 2022 that Orbán’s allies “have created a pervasive conservative media ecosystem that dominates the airwaves and generally echoes the positions of the Orbán government.”

Additionally, Orbán’s government has manipulated electoral processes to maintain its grip on power. This has included gerrymandering electoral districts and staffing critical institutions with loyalists.

The same can be said about Hungary’s judiciary system. In 2018, a law was passed to set up courts overseen directly by the justice minister. Critics warned that the move would allow interference in judicial matters and further undermine the rule of law.

“[The law] is a serious threat to the rule of law in Hungary and runs counter to values Hungary signed up to when it joined the European Union,” said the rights group Helsinki Committee.

The same year, the European Parliament voted to impose sanctions on Hungary for flouting EU rules on civil rights, democracy and corruption. Hungary rejected the accusations. So far, the EU, which Hungary has been a member of for almost 20 years, has suspended around 20 billion euros in funding for Hungary due to concerns over democratic backsliding and rule-of-law violation.

Exploiting state-of-emergency laws

Just last week, Orbán secured parliamentary approval to extend his authority to govern by decree for another six months, extended until May 2025. Being able to legislate by decree can occur in democracies during periods of crises, and Orbán cited the ongoing state of emergency related to the war in Ukraine as such a crisis. In 2016, he declared emergency powers because of the migration crisis and did the same in 2020 during the Covid pandemic.

His continuing reliance on state-of-emergency laws has raised concern. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have warned that state-of-emergency laws are being exploited to weaken checks and power balances, diminishing the role of other governing bodies with little connection to the emergency at hand.

A ‘heroic protector’?

To sustain his populist appeal, Orbán presents himself as a “heroic protector” of Hungary against external threats, particularly from the European Union.

He regularly uses ‘national consultation’ surveys to give the illusion of democratic inclusion, but which are really manipulative surveys designed to solicit public support for anti-EU sentiments. Critics argue these consultations serve as propaganda tools rather than genuine democratic engagement.

Hungary under Orbán has been described as a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy,” where elections are held without adhering to fundamental democratic principles. A 2022 report by Members of the European Parliament concluded that Hungary is no longer a fully functioning democracy, attributing this decline directly to Orbán’s policies.

“There is increasing consensus among experts that Hungary is no longer a democracy,” the lawmakers said, citing a series of international indexes that have in recent years downgraded Hungary’s status.

In their resolution, MEPs blamed Viktor Orbán, and condemned his government’s “deliberate and systematic efforts” to undermine the EU’s core values.

“Everything has fallen apart in Hungary. The state essentially does not function, there’s only propaganda and lies,” said Peter Magyar, the leader of the Respect and Freedom, or TISZA, party, which has campaigned on promises to root out deep-seated corruption in the government. Magyar has been outspoken about what he sees as the damage Orbán’s “propaganda factory” has done to Hungary’s democracy.

“It might be very difficult to imagine from America or Western Europe what the propaganda and the state machinery is like here,” Magyar said in an interview before the European elections with the Associated Press.

Hardline position on immigration and LGBTQ+ rights

Orbán’s government has also faced criticism for its hardline position on immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. His administration has enacted controversial laws, including the ‘Stop Soros’ legislation, which criminalises assistance to asylum seekers and positions migrants as a threat to national identity, fuelling anti-immigrant sentiment within Hungary and beyond.

In 2018, Orbán called refugees “Muslim invaders” as he defended his country’s refusal to take part in the EU’s resettlement programme. He added that a large influx of Muslims “inevitably leads to parallel societies”. He claimed Christian and Muslim communities “will never unite”.

“Multiculturalism is only an illusion,” he said.In 2021, in a long-running row over Hungary’s migrant rules, the EU’s top court ruled that the nation’s law criminalising activists and lawyers who help asylum seekers was in breach of European law. Orbán said Hungary had no plans to change the controversial laws.

A UN report into the state of democracy in Eastern Europe found that democracy in Hungary under Orbán has deteriorated more than any other country in the region except Russia. The report noted that in 2022, Hungary was 43 percent democratic compared to 45 percent a year earlier, the report noted.

The report particularly denounces the conduct of the last parliamentary elections, which were marred by “irregularities, abuse of administrative resources and media distortions,” as well as “the Orbán regime’s growing intolerance for dissenting voices.”

The threat of a broader resurgence of authoritarianism

As Europe’s far-right parties gain momentum, with Orbán’s Hungary serving as a model, the threat of a broader resurgence of authoritarianism is increasingly concerning, especially with Trump’s imminent return to the White House. While, as Magyar remarked, Americans and Westerners may struggle to comprehend the extent of propaganda and state machinery in Hungary, they may soon face similar challenges at home.

Like Orbán, Trump has long targeted the mainstream media. He has routinely labelled the press as ‘dishonest’ and ‘scum’ and has singled out individual news organisations and journalists. As well as a distrust in the media, both leaders share the same populist, nationalist, anti-immigration, centralisation of power, and cultural conservatism values

.

But what about in Britain, where, with Labour landsliding in July, the political landscape has diverged from the growing far-right momentum seen across Europe and now, in the US?

We might now have a centre-left government but admiration for Viktor Orbán is not absent in Britain. In 2023, three veteran Conservative MPs – Sir Edward Leigh, Ian Liddell-Grainger, and Sir Christopher Chope – were criticised for their close association with Orbán during a conference in Budapest, where they mingled with leaders from other far-right parties such as Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Spain’s Vox. Leigh even tweeted a photo of the trio with Orbán, bragging they had been “learning about his country’s effective ways of combating illegal migration.”

In 2022, Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party helped topple the Conservatives in July and who is of course a close friend of Trump, was among a number of right-wing speakers at America’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The event, which took place in Hungary, also featured Viktor Orbán. Just days before it, Orban had made reference to the ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory which claims that there is a liberal elite plot to replace the white populations of Europe and the US through immigration and demographic growth with non-white people.

The event marked the first time that CPAC was held in Europe, as was seen as part of wider efforts to cement bonds between far-right movements both in Europe and America.

Having exited the EU, and with Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House, Keir Starmer finds himself somewhat politically isolated on the global stage. Instead of the centre-left/social democratic alliance he may have dreamt of, Starmer faces a US administration that is not only ideologically distant but also openly hostile to Labour, which Trump’s campaign labelled as “far left.”

Meanwhile, Orbán’s authoritarian playbook, which Trump and his fellow MAGA Republicans seem to idolise, shows just how vulnerable democratic institutions are in the face of rising populism, and how quickly democratic models can be eroded. The need for a robust defence of democratic values has never been more critical.

“The great hope is that the ‘Budapest Playbook’ never becomes an international bestseller and eventually fades into irrelevance, even in Hungary,” wrote Tibor Dessewffy, a council member of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Right-wing media watch – Daily Mail accused of ‘rank hypocrisy’ after running to ECHR

If there’s one newspaper that has called the loudest for Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it’s the Daily Mail.

‘Rishi Sunak leaves the door open to Britain quitting ECHR – as he ‘would choose UK’s security over being a member every single time,’ was a headline in January.

In February, Daniel Hannon, a columnist for the paper and staunch Brexiteer having co-founded Vote Leave, wrote: ‘If Euro judges block Rishi Sunak’s new plan to stop small boats, quitting the ECHR is the only way to protect our borders.’

And last month, the Mail shouted about Boris Johnson’s calls for the UK to have a referendum on its ECHR membership. Johnson is, of course, also a columnist for the Mail and vocal campaigner for quitting the Strasburg court.

This week, news emerged that the publisher of the Daily Mail has won a court battle in the ECHR, leading to cries of ‘rank hypocrisy.’

The publisher took the UK government to the court in Strasbourg about its own human rights, which it claims were breached by being forced to pay “success fees” to lawyers representing people it had paid damages to.

Associated Newspapers won the ruling opposing “excessive” costs incurred by claimants in privacy and defamation cases. The publisher argued that its right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention, had been breached.

It won on conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) and the UK was ordered to pay it €15,000 in costs and expenses. A further decision will be made on any pecuniary damages. But Associated Newspapers was not successful on the part of its case relating to After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums for two recent cases for which it had to pay the extra costs.

News of the hearing sparked disbelief, ridicule and calls of ‘hypocrisy.’

“Daily Mail wins ECHR case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers, well well. Daily Mail having slagged off ECHR (Court) endlessly for clickbait…goes “bleating” to the court Funny how their “human rights” matter to the Mail when money is involved!” Carol Vorderman posted on X.

“Beat this for rank hypocrisy. The Daily Mail has been calling for the UK to leave the ECHR for years, yet when they think their human rights have been breached what do they do?…” wrote Leeds for Europe in a Facebook post.

Another reader simply asked:

“Just how hypocritical can you get?”

Smear of the Week – Right-wing press continue its absurd campaign to paint Starmer as an antisemite

It seems we’re witnessing something of a (watered-down) replay of 2019, when the right-wing media used every vitriolic headline in the book to present Jeremy Corbyn as an antisemite.

Fast forward five years, and the same media outlets are now targeting Keir Starmer with similar accusations. Having regularly expressed solidarity with Israel and whose formula of moderation and caution about the Gaza conflict and lack of speed in pressing for a ceasefire, has upset many on Labour’s left, you would think that Starmer would be absolved from such accusations.

But that’s not been the case.

In an article headlined: “Starmer accused of allowing anti-Semitism in Britain to ‘deteriorate,’ the Telegraph describes a “string of “performative” policies which “only serve to satisfy an extreme cadre” of ultra-left-wing groups.”

Jewish Labour members, according to the article, assert that Starmer’s actions have emboldened “increasingly aggressive” pro-Palestinian protests and have “added to a climate of intolerance and hate” faced by British Jews.”

The Telegraph cites Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS), a grassroots group of predominantly Jewish party members, who criticise government actions such as the embargo on arms sales to Israel and the resumption of funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) after claims of its members’ involvement in the October 7 attacks.

The irony of the article did not go unnoticed.

Posting the article on X, children’s author Michael Rosen wrote: “Poor old Starmer. He purges the Labour Party of antisemites, he says he a Zionist, he says Israel has the right to defend itself, he says he ‘does Friday nights’ with his Jewish wife, and yet… he’s still dodgy.”

The latest feeble attempt to associate Starmer with antisemitism, follows absurd claims in September when the PM made a slip during his conference speech, inadvertently calling for a “return of the sausages” when addressing the subject of Gaza.

The gaffe was seized upon by Allison Pearson – described by comedian Stewart Lee as Britain’s worse columnist – who suggested that it proved that Starmer doesn’t care about Israel.

“If the Labour leader can’t make a minor slip in a speech without being accused of being anti-Israel, no wonder he’s retreated to Arsenal’s corporate box,” Lee mocked.

Ultimately, smear articles like these only serve only to blur the lines between credible, fact-based journalism and right-wing ‘news’ opinion and misinformation. They degrade political discourse and distract from meaningful debate, revealing more about the smearers than their targets.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch


Related posts:

Viktor Orbán is taken apart in European Parliament and told he’s the ‘useful idiot of Russia and China’

Suella Braverman to speak alongside far-right Viktor Orban at Conservative event

Labour can’t afford complacency about the ethnic minority vote

‘Brexpress’ accused of stooping to ‘new low’ for column moaning about resignation of far-right Hungarian Brexit sympathisers

As winter approaches, UK pays more for gas than EU, sparking anger among Remainers

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


‘Endless is the victory.’

As it tries to outbid neighbouring countries for limited supplies as we head into winter, Britain is paying more for natural gas than continental Europe.

Data by the pricing agency Argus Media which was published by the Financial Times, found that UK gas prices for delivery rose to more than €1.6 per megawatt hour above the European benchmark, while prices for delivery next month have reached €1.5/MWh higher than Europe.

Both levels mark the widest points relative to Europe since late 2021, when Russia began reducing the amount of pipeline gas it sent, although the gaps have since narrowed slightly.

Gas storage facilities in Europe are almost full but is not enough to meet what Europe will need this winter. As a result, Europe will need to continue importing pipeline gas and liquified natural gas (LNG), meaning it will be in competition with the UK for supplies.

As the FT reports, the price difference has been worsened by structural problems in the UK’s gas system, including a lack of storage and high transmission costs. Britain can only store a maximum of 3.1bn cubic metres of gas, meaning demand has to be mostly met with imports. Conversely, countries like France, Germany and Italy, have between 15 and 25bn cubic metre capacity, meaning they rely less on imports. European nations are also interconnected with a network of pipelines, allowing flexible supplies between countries.

Around half of the UK’s gas needs are currently met by imports, and National Gas, which owns the country’s main transmission network, expects more than 60 percent of the UK’s gas to come from imports this winter.

Additionally, a shortage of available liquefied natural gas globally, means the UK is having to offer a much higher price to try to secure the supplies it needs.

If this winter is colder than average, the UK could pay even more over European prices, analysists have warned.

“Now that colder weather is setting in, driving up households’ gas use, the UK must compete with EU markets for available LNG and pipeline gas supply,” said Natasha Fielding, head of European gas pricing at Argus Media

The FT’s report sparked anger among Remainers who were quick to remind how Brexiteers promised the UK cheaper energy bills.

Boris Johnson made the claim several times during the EU referendum campaign in 2016. Leave campaigners argued Britain’s energy bills will be slashed by £2 billion a year if voters back Brexit because it would allow ministers to scrap the ‘unfair’ VAT tax on gas and electricity.

Boris Johnson told the Sun: ‘In 1993, VAT on household energy bills was imposed. This makes gas and electricity much more expensive.

“EU rules mean we cannot take VAT off those bills. The least wealthy are hit particularly hard. As a proportion, the poorest households spend three times more of their income on household energy bills than the richest households spend.

“As long as we are in the EU, we are not allowed to cut this tax. When we vote Leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax.

Remainers dismissed the claims at the time, with then chancellor George Osborne and former PM David Cameron branding it ‘fantasy economics.’

“Endless is the victory” wrote Sheffield for Europe, in response to the recent news that the UK is paying more for natural gas than continental Europe as we head into winter.

“Heating or eating? Since Brexit, energy costs have surged, forcing people to make impossible choices. The promises were cheaper bills; the reality is colder homes,” wrote the Rejoin EU Party on X.

UK
Right-wingers’ launch annual ‘Christmas is cancelled’ outrage

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead

Yesterday
LEFT FOOT FORWARD

'As by magic, poppy rage gives way to “they’re banning Christmas.'

We’re halfway through November, the time of year when the enraged cries of ‘Christmas is cancelled’ hit the pages of the right-wing press.

The Daily Express, Daily Mail, and GB News haven’t held back this year, targeting a primary school in Hampshire.

‘Fury erupts as school bans Christmas references from festive panto to be ‘inclusive’ seethed the Express.

‘Christmas is CANCELLED’: Festive references ‘banned’ from school pantomime performance to be ‘more inclusive to all faiths,’ was a GB News’ headline on November 12.

But it was the Mail that nailed the ‘exclusive’

The story focuses on a village primary school in Hampshire which reportedly incited anger by informing parents that their production of Jack and the Beanstalk would omit Christmas elements. Following a ‘backlash’ from parents, the headteacher sent out a clarifying letter, stating:

“As this is not a Christmas event, but a pantomime, it can be enjoyed by everyone with the changes we have requested. We are keen that ALL of our children should enjoy the pantomime and for it to be a fully inclusive event, have removed Christmas songs from the production. Children will continue to enjoy our usual Christmas events as we progress through the remainder of this term.”

The Mail’s report cited a number of grievances by parents, claiming that the exclusion from the pantomime undermines the Christian tradition. One said:

“This shouldn’t be allowed. Christmas is celebrated all over the UK and the world, and you just can’t eradicate it so a few people will not be offended.”

“A pantomime is only ever held at Christmas, but it’s crazy that there can be no mention of the word.”

Another said: “The head is wrong pandering to the whim of a small minority of parents.”

Right-wing commentators seized the moment, with GB News columnist Alex Armstrong, posting on X: ‘Leave Christmas alone. We are a Christian country, end of story. We need a Trump level overhaul of our education system.’

The right’s outcry sparked a backlash of its own on social media, where users criticised the hyperbolic response.

“As by magic, poppy rage gives way to “they’re banning Christmas,” remarked one user. Another commented: “No we really don’t [need a Trump level overhaul of our education system] We are an inclusive society.”

As always, these ‘Christmas is cancelled’ stories rarely, if ever, involve anyone saying ‘you’re not allowed to say Christmas.’ Instead, they focus on efforts to be more inclusive.

As Adam Miller, a reporter for the Herald aptly pointed out during a similar outcry in 2022:

“These pundits know that. It’s all part of the grift. Tap into the prejudices of your audience with these dog-whistle talking points regarding the people within British society who don’t celebrate Christmas, and they’ll keep buying your paper, watching your show or boosting your online engagement stats.”

The annual ‘Christmas is cancelled’ uproar is a classic example of advocates of inclusivity striving to accommodate diverse beliefs, while those resisting change resort to clickbait, sensationalism and misinformation.

 

Preparations for dismantling of Italian steam generators

Thursday, 14 November 2024

Societa Gestione Impianti Nucleari SpA (Sogin) announced it has opened a dedicated area at the shut down Latina nuclear power plant for the dismantling of its six steam generators.

The Latina plant (Image: Sogin)

The Latina plant, comprising a single 210 MWe Magnox graphite gas-cooled reactor, began operating in January 1964. It was permanently shut in December 1987 as a result of the Italian referendum on nuclear power that followed the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Sogin - the Italian state-owned company responsible for dismantling the country's nuclear power plants - took over ownership of the site in November 1999.

Whilst in operation, the steam generators (also referred to as boilers) - positioned outside the reactor building - allowed the heat to be transferred from carbon dioxide to water, thus producing the steam needed to drive the turbines and produce electricity.

Sogin described the dismantling of the steam generators as "a particularly complex activity because it involves components positioned at high altitude of large dimensions". Each one is 24 metres high with a diameter of 6 metres, with a combined weight of 3700 tonnes.

"Work is currently under way to build the confinement structures that will allow the areas affected by the boiler cutting and material handling activities to be isolated and kept safe from the external environment for the entire duration of the operations," Sogin said.

The project involves the subsequent sectioning of each boiler into nine cylindrical parts, each weighing approximately 90 tonnes, proceeding progressively from top to bottom. The technique adopted will be diamond wire-cutting, which simultaneously allows the internal components of the steam generator to be sectioned (tie rods, spacers, brackets, sheets, etc).

The cylindrical portions will be lowered to the ground using a special crane and then transferred to the Materials Treatment Station, which has already been built, where the tube bundles will be removed, the external casing will be cut into smaller parts and decontaminated with high-pressure water. Most of the operations will be carried out using high-tech robotic systems.

The metallic materials resulting from cutting the casing will be released and sent for recycling, while the tube bundles will be treated by melting by a qualified operator, in line with Sogin's circular economy strategy based on minimising radioactive waste.

Italy's Ministry of Economic Development issued a decree in 2020 authorising Sogin to begin the initial phase of decommissioning the Latina plant. The main activities envisaged during this initial phase concern the dismantling of the six boilers and the lowering of the reactor building height from 53 to 38 metres. Buildings and auxiliary systems will also be dismantled. These operations are in addition to those already carried out or in progress at the plant.

By the end of this phase, all previous radioactive wastes generated through the operation of the plant or those produced by the dismantling of structures, systems and plant components will be stored safely at the site. These wastes will be stored both in a new temporary storage facility and in some specifically adapted reactor building premises. This initial phase of decommissioning the Latina plant is expected to be completed in 2027 and to cost EUR270 million (USD284 million).

With the availability of a planned national repository, it will be possible to start the second and final phase of the decommissioning of the plant with the dismantling of the graphite gas reactor. Once all the radioactive waste has been transferred to the repository and the temporary storage facilities demolished, the site will be released, without radiological restrictions, and returned to the community for its reuse.

 

Orano prioritises Niger employees as financial situation worsens

Friday, 15 November 2024

Days after Mining Minister Ousmane Abarchi said that Niger was actively seeking to attract Russian investment in natural resources including uranium, Orano has said the financial situation for its majority-owned SOMAÏR subsidiary - operator of the Arlit mine - is still deteriorating.

The First Ministerial Conference of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum took place in Sochi on 9–10 November (Image: Kirill Kazachkov/Roscongress)

The board of SOMAÏR has approved a motion to introduce protective measures which Orano says are essential for preserving the cash required to pay salaries and maintain the safety and integrity of industrial sites. "The Board is requesting a temporary halt to expenditure related to mining and processing ore, until such time as it resumes the export and sale of its products," the French company said.

Orano owns 63.4% of SOMAÏR, with the remaining 36.6% owned by Niger state-owned mining assets company SOPAMIN.

SOMAÏR has been facing financial difficulties since the July 2023 coup d'état in Niger. Mining activities at the mine resumed after the coup, but the country's border with Benin - the main supply and export corridor for the Arlit uranium mine - has remained closed and the company has been unable to resume sales. In October, Orano announced a decision to suspend mining activities at Arlit and use SOMAÏR's remaining cash reserves to prioritise the payment of salaries and the upkeep of vital site functions.

Orano reaffirmed this commitment in a 12 November vote on a proposal to direct its remaining available cash reserves in this way. "The administrators representing SOPAMIN left the meeting room during that vote, choosing to abstain," the French company said.

"Today, SOMAÏR is stifled by the debts accumulated by its shareholder SOPAMIN, and by its inability to export and obtain proceeds from the sale of its products, even though it has quality industrial facilities and mineral reserves which should permit production to continue until 2040; as well as a competent and highly-qualified Nigerien workforce, which has demonstrated commendable professionalism and resilience in this trying time," Orano said.

"It is important to note that what is being announced is in no way a cessation of operations or closing of the site, but merely the decision to place a stop on all non-essential expenditure in the current configuration. As an operator, Orano has always made sustainable investments in SOMAÏR and regrets this situation and the difficult consequences it will entail for the 750 employees of SOMAÏR and the firm’s sub-contractors as well as the local economy."

Russia statements 'regrettable', says Orano
 

Earlier this week, Abarchi told Russia's RIA Novosti press agency that Niger was actively seeking Russian interest in its uranium and natural resources sector.

"We have already met with Russian companies that are interested in coming to Niger and exploring and extracting natural resources. And this area is not only about uranium. Indeed, we invited them to come to Niger for this," he said in an interview on the sidelines of the first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi.

Russia is also working on the practical steps to open an embassy in Niger - it closed its embassy in Niamey in 1992, and Russian interests there are currently represented by the Russian Embassy in the Republic of Mali. Speaking ahead of a meeting in Sochi with his Nigerien counterpart Yaou Sangare Bakary, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the two nations' "mutual commitment to expanding bilateral interaction" had been re-affirmed with the recent resumption of operations of the Nigerien embassy in Moscow, closed since 1995. By reopening "in the near future" the Russian embassy in Niamey "we will restore a robust diplomatic infrastructure which will be beneficial for bilateral relations", he said.

Orano described Abarchi's statements in Sochi as 'damaging' and said they would not alter the company's position.

"Orano considers the statements by the Minister for Mining made to foreign media to be regrettable, as they indicate a choice which will not resolve the problems facing SOMAÏR … Only a united effort by all stakeholders to progress towards stability, and measures to stabilise operations over the long term, can allow SOMAÏR to resume its activities in peace."

 

Silvercorp, Salazar announce positive Ecuador court ruling

 2 days ago 

Silvercorp Metals Inc. [SVM-TSX, NYSE American] and Salazar Resources Ltd. [SRL-TSXV, SRLZF-OTCQX, CCG-FSE] said they have obtained a positive Provincial Court ruling in Ecuador affirming their right to continue construction of the El Domo-Curipamba copper-gold project.

The Provincial Court of Bolivar in the province of Ecuador where the project is located dismissed an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirming a lower court decision that the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition of Ecuador correctly discharged the environmental consultation obligations prior to issuing an environmental license for the project.

Salazar shares were unchanged at $0.08 and trade in a 52-week range of 12 cents and $0.045. Silvercorp eased 2.8% or 16 cents to $5.44. The shares trade in a 52-week range of $7.34 and $2.98.

Silvercorp secured a majority interest in the asset back in April, 2024 via the acquisition of Adventus Mining Corp. which held a 75% stake in El Domo. At its maiden discovery, Curipamba, Salazar Resources has a 25% stake fully carried through to production.

Adventus earned its majority interest in Curipamba via a 2017 deal with Salazar. Under the agreement, Adventus pledged to provide US$25 million for exploration and development expenditures over five years, while meeting certain development obligations. Adventus also agreed to fund capital costs to production and receive 95% of the free cash flows until all of its investments since 2017 are repaid, after which the project cash flows will be shared on a 75% and 25% to Salazar basis.

In December 2021, Adventus published a feasibility study covering the open-pit mineral reserve of the El Domo – Curipamba project. It is based on proven and probable reserves of 6.5 million tonnes of grade 1.93% copper, 2.52 g/t gold, 2.49% zinc, 45.7 g/t silver and 0.25% lead. The feasibility study envisaged a 10-year mine life with average annual production of 21,390 of copper equivalent.

The initial capital cost was pegged at US$248 million, with a payback period estimated at 2.6 years.

Back in January, 2022 Adventus and Salazar secured US$235.5 million for development of the Curipamba Copper Project via financing deals with Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (WPM-TSX, WPM-NYSE) and Trafigura Pte Ltd.

In its latest news release, Silvercorp also announced a repayment of funds previously drawn by Adventus from Wheaton Precious Metals under the previous precious metals purchase agreement.

As of September 30, 2024 Wheaton had advanced US$13.25 million. Under an agreement, Adventus was required to deliver approximately 92.3 ounces of gold per month (at today’s gold prices, this is the equivalent to an annual interest rate of approximately 18.5%), starting July 2024, until construction of El Domo reached certain milestones or these funds were repaid. As a result of the repayment, the precious metals purchase agreement’s (PMPA) full $175.5 million cash contribution will be available to be drawn by Silvercorp during construction, subject to certain conditions.

Trump chooses oil fracking boss as energy secretary

Bloomberg News | November 16, 2024  

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Chris Wright, who runs a Colorado-based oil and natural gas fracking services company, to lead the Energy Department.


Wright, the chief executive officer of Liberty Energy Inc., has no previous Washington experience. He’s made a name for himself as a vocal proponent of oil and gas, saying fossil fuels are crucial for spreading prosperity and lifting people from poverty. The threat of global warming, he has said, is exaggerated.

“Chris has been a leading technologist and entrepreneur in Energy,” Trump said in a statement Saturday. “He has worked in nuclear, solar, geothermal, and oil and gas. Most significantly, Chris was one of the pioneers who helped launch the American shale revolution that fueled American energy independence, and transformed the global energy markets and geopolitics.”

Trump said Wright, if confirmed, would also sit on the newly formed Council of National Energy that will be chaired by Doug Burgum, Trump’s nominee to lead the Interior Department.

The Energy Department has a disparate mission that includes helping to maintain the nation’s nuclear warheads, studying supercomputers and maintaining the US’s several hundred million-barrel stockpile of crude oil.

It also plays a key role in approving projects to export liquefied natural gas, something that was paused during Biden’s administration. Trump has vowed to undo the pause.

While the department has little authority over oil and gas development, Wright will play a leading role in helping Trump carry out his energy priorities.

Trump’s selection of Wright, whose company is among the largest providers of fracking services globally, is a show of support for the hot-button oil and gas extraction method that Trump frequently touted during the campaign to attack his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris.

Harris said she’d consider banning the technique during her 2020 primary run and reversed course in her 2024 campaign.

‘No climate crisis’

Wright’s company published a 180-page paper this year that concluded climate change “is far from the world’s greatest threat to human life,” and that “hydrocarbons are essential to improving the wealth, health, and life opportunities for the less energized.”

“There is no climate crisis. And we are not in the midst of an energy transition either,” Wright said in a video posted on his LinkedIn page. “Humans, and all complex life on earth, is simply impossible without carbon dioxide — hence the term carbon pollution is outrageous.”

Wright holds engineering degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California at Berkeley. He describes himself on his Denver-based company’s website as a “tech nerd turned entrepreneur and a dedicated humanitarian.”

While Wright has warned that subsidies for wind and solar drive up power prices and increase grid instability, he does support alternative energy. He serves on the board of small modular reactor developer Oklo Inc., and his company is an investor in geothermal energy and sodium-ion battery technology.

“I’m not here to protect market share for oil gas,” he said during a 2022 interview with Bloomberg Television. “We should do credible things, mostly driven by market forces. But shoveling subsidies at wind and solar, which are 3% of global energy, that’s not meaningfully going to change greenhouse gas emissions. But it is going to drive electricity prices up.”

Wright is also on the board EMX Royalty Corp., a global mining royalties firm, according to his company bio.

Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy, speaking at the ALEC Annual Meeting in Denver in October 2024. Credit: The American Legislative Exchange Council

Trump named Wright with backing from Continental Resources chairman Harold Hamm, a Trump energy adviser and donor. Hamm said in an interview with the Houston-based trade publication Hart Energy that Wright was his choice for the job.

If confirmed by Congress, Wright would play a leading role in Trump carrying out his campaign pledge to declare a national emergency on energy. Trump has cast such a declaration as helping increase domestic energy production — including for electricity — which he says is needed to help meet booming power needs for artificial intelligence.

Under the first Trump administration, the Energy Department played a critical role in the president-elect’s efforts to revive US coal power, an initiative he’s hinted he may attempt again.

Wright would also oversee Trump’s promise to refill the nation’s emergency cache of crude oil. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has a capacity of more than 700 million barrels, reached lows not seen since the 1980s following the Biden administration’s unprecedented drawdown of a record 180 million barrels in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Trump’s first energy secretary, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, called for eliminating the agency entirely during a run for president in the 2012 cycle. He later apologized and vowed to defend the agency “after being briefed on so many of the vital functions” it plays.

(By Ari Natter)