Monday, August 04, 2025

Palestinian Solidarity Is Achieving Critical Mass

No other country, no other conflict, no other cause has permeated public spaces as profoundly as that of Palestine.



Demonstrators protest in support of Palestine in Rome, Italy, on July 30, 2025. 
(Photo: Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Ramzy Baroud
Aug 03, 2025
Common Dreams

I rarely visit Rome without stopping at the Campo de' Fiori to pay homage to Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher who, in 1600, was brutally burned at the stake by the Roman Inquisition. His crime was daring to challenge entrenched dogmas and to think freely about God and the infinite nature of the universe.

As I stood beneath his imposing statue, a strange ruckus suddenly erupted, growing louder as a sizable group of protesters drew closer. Dozens of people of all ages banged on pots and pans with fervent urgency.

Following the initial shock and subsequent confusion, it became clear that the protest was an urgent attempt to awaken people to the horrific famine unfolding in Gaza. In no time, more people spontaneously joined in, some clapping, having arrived unprepared with their own tools for protest. Waiters from the square's osterie instinctively began to bang their hands on anything that could generate sound, adding to the growing clamor.

The square stood momentarily still, pulsating with the collective noise before the protesters marched on to another square, their numbers visibly swelling with each step.

Palestinians, Arabs, and all supporters of justice worldwide must urgently seize this critical opportunity to decisively defeat the Israeli Hasbara for good.

In the bustling streets of Rome, Palestinian flags were conspicuously the only foreign flags to occupy public spaces. They hung from light poles, were glued onto street signs, or flew proudly atop balconies.

No other country, no other conflict, no other cause has permeated public spaces as profoundly as that of Palestine. Though this phenomenon is not entirely new, the ongoing Israeli war and genocide in Gaza has undeniably amplified this solidarity, pushing it fiercely beyond the traditional confines of class, ideology, and political lines.

Yet, no other space in Italy can truly be compared to Naples. Palestinian symbols are everywhere, permeating the city's fabric as if Palestine is the paramount political concern for the entire region's populace.

What was particularly fascinating about the solidarity with Palestinians in this vibrant city was not merely the sheer volume of graffiti, posters, and flags, but the very specific references made to Palestinian martyrs, prisoners, and movements.

Pictures of Walid Daqqa, Shireen Abu Akleh and Khader Adnan, alongside precise demands tailored to what would have been considered, outside of Palestine, largely unfamiliar specifics to a global audience, were prominently displayed.

How did Naples become so intricately attuned to the Palestinian discourse to this extent? This vital question resonates far beyond Italy, applying to numerous cities across the world. Notably, this major shift in the deeper understanding of the Palestinian struggle and the widespread embrace of the Palestinian people is unfolding despite the pervasive and unrelenting media bias in favor of Israel and the persistent intimidation by Western governments of pro-Palestinian activists.

In politics, critical mass is achieved when an idea, initially championed by a minority group, decisively transforms into a mainstream issue. This crucial shift allows it to overcome tokenism and begin to exert real and tangible influence in the public sphere.

In many societies around the world, the Palestinian cause has already attained that critical mass. In others, where government crackdowns still stifle the debate at its very roots, organic growth nevertheless continues, thus promising an inevitable and fundamental change as well.

And this is precisely the haunting fear of numerous Israelis, especially within their political and intellectual classes. Writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on July 25, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak sounded the alarm once more. "The Zionist vision is collapsing," he wrote, adding that Israel is "stuck in a 'war of deception' in Gaza."

Though Israel's pervasive Hasbara machine is relentlessly striving to stave off the surging flood of sympathy with Palestine and the rising tide of rage against Israeli alleged war crimes, for now its focus remains intently fixed on complicating the extermination of Gaza, even at the high price of global condemnation and outrage.

When the war is finally over, however, Israel will undoubtedly exert its utmost efforts, employing numerous creative new ways to once more demonize the Palestinians and elevate itself—its so-called democracy and the "right to defend itself."

Due to the growing international credibility of the Palestinian voice, Israel is already resorting to using Palestinians who indirectly defend Israel by faulting Gaza and attempting to play the role of the victim for "both sides." This insidious tactic is poised to grow exponentially in the future, as it aims directly at creating profound confusion and turning Palestinians against each other.

Palestinians, Arabs, and all supporters of justice worldwide must urgently seize this critical opportunity to decisively defeat the Israeli Hasbara for good. They must not allow Israel's lies and deceit to once more define the discourse on Palestine on the global stage.

This war must be fiercely fought everywhere, and not a single space must be conceded—neither a parliament, a university, a sports event, or a street corner.

Giordano Bruno endured a most horrific and painful death, yet he never abandoned his profound beliefs. In the Palestine solidarity movement, we too must not waver from the struggle for Palestinian freedom and the accountability of war criminals, regardless of the time, energy, or resources required.

Now that Palestine has finally become the uncontested global cause, total unity is paramount to ensure the march toward freedom continues, so that the Gaza genocide becomes the final, agonizing chapter of the Palestinian tragedy.

'Stop Genocide!' 300,000 March Across Sydney Bridge for Gaza


"One has to be blind not to see that Israel has completely lost the majority of the world—including in the West."



Protesters march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge during the rally. Thousands of protesters took part in the "March for Humanity Save Gaza," crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge to call for an end to Israel's military assault on Gaza and demand immediate humanitarian aid access. The march was part of a broader movement across Australia condemning the bombardment, displacement, and civilian deaths in the besieged territory.

(Photo by Ye Myo Khant/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


Common Dreams Staff
Aug 03, 2025

Organizers estimated that 300,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in Australia's most populous city on Sunday in demonstration against the ongoing genocide being carried out by Israel and its international backers in Gaza.

Footage being shared widely online showed throngs of people unbowed by the rain crossing the iconic bridge in a flood of umbrellas and ponchos, many carrying signs that said, "Feed Gaza!"; "Let Aid In"; and "Stop Genocide!"
Solidarity actions for the people of Gaza—organized under the banner of "March for Humanity - Save Gaza"—were also held in Melbourne and other cities, but the crowds were largest in Sydney.


 
Protesters march ahead toward the Sydney Harbour Bridge during the rally. Hundreds of thousands of protesters took part in the "March for Humanity Save Gaza," crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge to call for an end to Israel's military assault on Gaza and demand immediate humanitarian aid access. (Photo by Ye Myo Khant/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)



"It's even bigger than my wildest dreams," Josh Lees, one of the the key organizers of the protest, told Guardian Australia while walking near the head of the march. "It's a mass march for humanity to stop a genocide, our politicians have to now listen to the will of the people and sanction Israel."

Observers said the scale of the demonstration shows that international support for Israel's attack on Gaza, even among countries that have long been allies, is fracturing in the face of the undeniable evidence that atrocities are taking place against the Palestinian people on a daily basis and in a coordinated manner.

"One has to be blind not to see that Israel has completely lost the majority of the world—including in the West," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the U.S.-based Quincy Institute, pointing to footage of the protest. "No level of intimidation, surveillance, or threats can force the majority of humanity to support and defend apartheid and genocide."


As the crowd approached a police line near the bridge, reported The Age newspaper, rally organizer Mohammad Sharab called on protesters to "prove to the world that this is not a movement that will clash with police" and asked people to stay back from the police or sit down peacefully in protest.

"They are holding their guns, their weapons, against people who are protesting peacefully," he said of the officers. "Shame on Victoria Police, shame."



Sharab said the protests were about peace and humanity and he criticized the media personalities and Australian politicians for characterizing as "extremists" those calling for a cease-fire and an end to the policy of starvation in Gaza.

"We stand for justice," said Sharab. "We are not ashamed of it. For those who call us extremist and antisemitic for standing against genocide, these extreme comments make you the extremist. That's my message to [Premier] Jacinta Allan."

 

Camila Vallejo Warns About the Right Wing Downplaying the Coup in Chile: “It’s a Risk to Democracy”

“The far right has not only downplayed the human rights violations and the coup d’état that took place in our country—they have justified them or called them inevitable.”

The far-right in Chile are making open statements of support for the brutal 1973 coup and Pinochet’s dictatorship. Chilean newspaper El Siglo reports on Government spokesperson Camila Vallejo response.

Camila Vallejo’s voice carries weight amid a tense political climate. In an interview with El Diario de Cooperativa, the government spokesperson directly criticised recent statements by opposition candidates Evelyn Matthei (Chile Vamos) and Johannes Kaiser (Partido Libertario), accusing them of trivialising—even justifying—the coup and Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.

“The far right has not only downplayed the human rights violations and the coup d’état that took place in our country—they have justified them or called them inevitable,” Vallejo said. She added bluntly: “It’s a risk to democracy that, in the 21st century, there are people threatening to repeat torture, extermination, forced disappearances, or the rape of women by shoving rats into their vaginas—and I apologise for speaking so plainly, but that’s the reality—when they claim these acts were inevitable or could happen again.”

A Context of Dangerous Statements

Vallejo’s remarks did not come out of nowhere. In April, Evelyn Matthei stated in an interview that the democratic breakdown of 1973 “was necessary. Otherwise, we’d have gone straight down Cuba’s path. There was no alternative.” At the time, the comment went almost unnoticed, but now it takes on new significance amid growing tensions over historical memory.

Meanwhile, Johannes Kaiser went even further in a YouTube programme aired in early July: “I would support a new coup d’état, whatever the consequences.” His remarks prompted complaints from MPs to Chile’s National Television Council (CNTV) and a debate over the limits of free speech and the media’s role in amplifying hate speech.

Without naming them directly, Vallejo framed these ideas as a latent danger: “I’m not pointing fingers at any candidate—I’m talking about the ideas being defended lately, which concern the human rights of our compatriots and the reality of our country, where people endured the pain of democratic rupture in their bodies and life stories.”

Normalising the Unacceptable

The minister stressed that such rhetoric must not be normalised. “In the 21st century, we cannot trivialise these kinds of statements,” she insisted. For Vallejo, the downplaying—or worse, the glorification—of human rights violations poses a direct threat to democratic coexistence and to generations raised on testimonies of torture, murder, and forced disappearances.

Her warning aligns with international concerns about the far right’s rise. At the recent “Democracy Always” summit, leaders like Lula da Silva and Gustavo Petro cautioned against “Nazi-fascist behaviour” and disinformation campaigns orchestrated by far-right factions. Yet in Chile, the debate over memory and democracy remains an open wound.

A Sign of the Electoral Climate?

Vallejo’s analysis can also be read as a diagnosis of the upcoming electoral landscape. Polls place Jeannette Jara in the lead, followed by José Antonio Kast and Evelyn Matthei. Meanwhile, Kaiser is courting a far-right electorate with increasingly aggressive and provocative rhetoric.

In this context, some sectors appear to be reopening old wounds to rally a radicalised base. But the question lingers: to what extent are these ideas a political calculation, and how much do they reflect genuine contempt for democratic values?

Vallejo’s Warning

Vallejo closed with a message that transcends the current moment: “We cannot allow those who defend torture and forced disappearances to have a platform in democratic debate as if their views were just another opinion. This isn’t just history—it’s a risk to the present and future of our democracy.”

As extremist rhetoric gains ground in Chile and globally, the spokesperson’s warning is significant. The challenge now is whether Chilean society will set clear boundaries—or whether, once again, it will let the normalisation of horror erode the democratic pact forged after 17 years of dictatorship.


  • This article was originally published in El Siglo on 23 July 2025, and was translated to English by Dr Francisco Dominguez.


































UK Cunliffe Water Report – Rinsing Us Again

“For 35 years, profit has come first – and our waters have paid the price. Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services.”
Giles Bristow, chief executive at Surfers Against Sewage

Dave Kellaway responds to the report recently released by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s ‘independent’ commission on the water industry.

The Labour government set up an independent commission led by a non partisan specialist to look into the terrible state of our privatised water supply. You might think great, this is being led not by the government nor by a corporate water boss but someone independent.

Reality is a lot different.

A government can nullify the effect of any commission by defining its terms of reference. In other words which issues can be investigated and which proposals made. Despite there being consistent opinion poll majorities for taking back the water companies into common ownership the new Labour government, which claims to be for change, has ruled out renationalisation. Starmer claims it would cost £100 billion which is a blatant falsehood we will explain below.

The other way this commission was set up not to be independent was to put a ‘safe pair of hands’ in charge of it. Usually it is a Lord, a retired banker or a corporate boss who will put on a good show of being reasonable and tap a few knuckles, but will essentially not change much at all. They might criticise the private management of water but their role is to set up the conditions for the privatisation to continue with a few reforms and a bit more regulation. The aim is to calm public anger about the price rises and the way our rivers and seas are used for sewage.

A safe pair of hands

Step up Jon Cunliffe who is both a knight of the realm and a former Bank of England governor. He is somebody unlikely to rock any boats and will not seriously question the role of capitalist profit in the provision of a vital human need like water. Most commissions and inquiries work along the same lines – it is part of British political culture. The PR has to be well orchestrated so this time Ofwat, the water industry regulator, was well and truly blasted.

It will be eliminated… and a new type of ‘stronger, better’ regulator established. Some other rules will be established and there may be a cheaper tariff for the really poor but the privatized companies have been well and truly reprieved.

A progressive government that actually listened to ordinary people or even considered renationalization might have thought about putting up a trade unionist knowledgeable about the water industry. Or propose an environmental specialist who had campaigned for clean sea and river water such as former Undertones frontman and water campaigner Feargal Sharkey. Unfortunately he can only react to the whitewash report: released last week

“I think Steve [Reed, minister responsible] has got to reflect very carefully on the shambles that the last 12 months has been. He should go.

The Labour government has had 14 years to look at this, he should have walked into the office on July 5th last year and taken control of the industry. He has failed to do so.”

Regulation yes but we want public provision

In themselves nobody would oppose some of the proposals for improving regulation and monitoring. A publicly owned, regionally accountable water provider would still require external checks and controls. Public transparency in real time of all sewage releases into the environment and the end to all self-monitoring would apply to a public body too.

An ombudsman could be an additional level of jurisdiction. Re-organising the water regions by the major river basins also makes sense. Rationalising all the different environmental and other bodies dealing with water issues is not a bad idea. We are in favour of new protections for consumers and fairer prices.

Nevertheless the commission has had to waste a lot of time working out ways of regulating capitalist companies to avoid a repeat of the way huge profits were given to shareholders through the leverage of debt whilst investment in infrastructure was never adequate. The issue of foreign ownership, bonuses and salaries also have to be regulated externally if you leave the industry privatized. Consequently the whole Cunliffe operation – as the Surfers against Sewage aptly describes it – is like putting lipstick on a pig. 

Giles Bristow, chief executive at Surfers Against Sewage, says:

“Look past the glossy veneer of today’s Independent Water Commission recommendations and you’ll see it utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit. This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig – and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land. Prime Minister, you must abandon the dangerous fantasy that the current privatised water industry can be patched up – it can’t, and the public knows it. Your party was elected on a pledge to clean up our rivers and coasts; now deliver on that promise, and go far beyond these half measures.

For 35 years, profit has come first – and our waters have paid the price. Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services.

Indeed, Giles was correct about the champagne flowing – Shares in private water companies have gone up: Pennon Group (owner of South West Water, Bournemouth Water and Bristol Water) is now up almost 1.5%. Severn Trent has gained 0.5% while United Utilities is up 0.6%.

Fines but no fines

Cunliffe also made it clear that the new regulatory body would still provide loopholes for private companies to avoid fines for failing to meet environmental rules. It is worth quoting directly from the report on this crucial question:

“The Commission believes it is important that, where companies fail to comply with requirements, there is accountability and consequence. However, these may sometimes need to be pursued within the context of the broader public interest.”

A turnaround regime would comprise a set of defined tools for the regulator to deploy when a company enters the regime, the Commission explains, adding:

“These tools would include both supportive levers to improve performance, and sanctions to ensure there is sufficient consequence that prevents moral hazard and that ensures enforcement in relation to regulatory breaches.”

In plain English this means as long as you can argue some ‘broader public interest’ or invoke ‘supportive levers’ you can avoid paying any fines out of your profits. So the Labour government protects profits but socializes losses or problems, and we have to pay for their incompetence. 

From the beginning the privatisation of a basic service that is a monopoly means that the normal risk involved in any capitalist enterprise is largely eliminated. It is not like these companies have to compete for market share against other brands like a car maker.

Since the clamour for taking water back into public ownership is very strong Cunliffe had at least to refer to the issue even if it was not dealt with.

“I understand that many people who responded to our work are concerned about profit in the provision of water through a monopoly system and how that has impacted what has happened.”

He then swiftly buries the argument by saying that pre-privatisation Britain was the dirty man of Europe. Whether that was the case is at least debatable but in one fell swoop he ignores all the profiteering and environmental damage of the last forty years or so. Even if environmental standards pre-privatisation were not optimal at least consumers did not pay above inflation prices and nobody was making huge profits, salaries or bonuses out of the industry.

It is not easy to find many endorsements of Cunliffe, the GMB union, UNITE and the Greens all denounced the report. Even the Lib Dems and Reform were more critical of it than Labour. The official Labour response was that abolishing Ofwat was the answer and pollution and price rises would now be resolved. Pigs may fly. Already it is baked in that the average consumer will be paying above inflation bills and any social tariff system would only compensate the poorest.

What about the so-called clincher argument that Labour continually use to reject taking water back into common ownership – it will cost us £100 billion?

Is Labour right to say renationalization would cost £100 billion?

David Hall, a visiting professor at THE PSIRU (Public Services International Research Unit), said previous court decisions were clear that the basis for compensating shareholders was decided by parliament on a case-by-case basis, taking account of a range of relevant matters, including public interest objectives, and the particular circumstances of each case. The PSIRU have calculate it could cost as little as £14 billion

He said the courts had consistently confirmed that public policy considerations were paramount, and there was no general right for investors to be paid full market value as compensation (Guardian article 2022).

A report by the Common Wealth written by Ewan McGaughey, professor of law at King’s College London says that water could be renationalized at far less than £100 billion if it were valued correctly. The £100 billion figure is based on the water industry’s own valuations. US private equity company KKR is currently offering a £4bn injection of equity to take over Thames Water, when its supposed regulatory capital value is nearer £20bn. Why should the state pay to cover the debts these companies have accrued?

Shareholders as they say could take a hair cut – why should they get an inflated market value. Northern Rock shareholders were not compensated by the government when it crashed. Shares could be exchanged for long term bonds. Government can still borrow much more cheaply that private capital and will reap the surplus once water is back in public hands.

If you compared the cost to the new spending on of military hardware then the potential sums involved are not a problem. Providing water cleanly is a much more positive and productive process than using arms to destroy people and property.

The Labour movement and environmentalists should reject the Cunliffe report framework and continue to campaign for taking water back into common ownership. Clive Lewis MP and Momentum are heading up a campaign for a People’s Plan for Water which includes renationallisation. Starmer’s government is wedded to a disastrous policy of a strategic partnership with capital to provide growth and trickledown benefits. Water shows this is an illusion. We need to impose a different way forward, both to defend living standards and to protect our precious seas and rivers.


  • This article was originally published by the Anti-Capitalist Resistance on 28 July 2025.

 UK

Diane Abbott: She’s Walked the Line

“Diane Abbott has proved herself a consistent friend of workers in struggle over many years, which just might be another factor explaining why she is not welcome in Keir Starmer’s PLP.”

By George Binette

In contrast to all too many members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), Diane Abbott has visited a fair few picket lines in her 38 years as the MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington. That might explain why several unions were keen to contribute to her re-election campaign last year after the Labour leadership finally re-admitted her to the PLP in late May 2024.

In total, Diane’s campaign received £9,000 from three Labour affiliates – the CWU, FBU and Unite – and £5,000 from what is arguably Britain’s most militant major union, the RMT, which found itself expelled from Labour more than two decades ago. There was never any real doubt that Diane would retain her seat last July, though her protracted suspension from the PLP and the party leadership’s support for Israel’s merciless war on Gaza did erode her previously thumping majority. The unions that contributed to her campaign did so in recognition of the role she had played both at Westminster and in showing solidarity publicly for workers fighting back.

During my six-and-a-half-year stint as her local party’s Trade Union Liaison Officer, I frequently called on Diane to send messages of support and visit picket lines. She invariably responded. In June and early July lecturers belonging to the NEU stood outside Hackney’s BSix college. Though Diane was ultimately unable to make a picketing session, her message of support received a warm welcome, not least because she had joined these NEU members when they had walked out in previous disputes, not least during her time as Shadow Home Secretary.

A week before the General Election, when many Labour candidates would have found alternative routes to avoid a picket line, the candidate for Hackney North & Stoke Newington joined Unite members battling for union recognition at the Sanctuary housing association, which now manages some 980 flats on the borough’s Kingsmead estate.

Within the hour, Diane was standing at the entrance to the nearby Homerton Hospital with BMA members striking as part of their long-running pay dispute with the then Tory government, where she also met with angry women, several of them UNISON members, working on an outsourced contract with the Danish-based multinational ISS. These workers, cleaners and catering staff, had worked throughout the Covid pandemic and yet had not received the so-called Covid bonus of at least £1,655 awarded to all directly employed NHS staff.

In June 2022 Diane addressed a lively RMT-organised rally at the start of the mini-strike wave that both reflected and accelerated the collapse in support for the Tory government. Less than a month later, she twice joined striking RMT members from London Underground on blazing hot mornings outside the Seven Sisters depot in neighbouring Haringey. They were defending their Transport for London pension scheme in an ultimately successful battle.

Before the year was out, she appeared next to CWU members at Stamford Hill’s Royal Mail delivery office in quite different weather conditions – one reason she received a rapturous reception from posties at a December 2022 strike benefit her CLP organised. Just under a year later she addressed a rally outside Amazon’s London headquarters midst frigid temperatures in solidarity with GMB members in Coventry striking in pursuit of union recognition.

Diane Abbott joins a CWU picket line outside a Royal Mail delivery office in Stamford Hill.
Diane Abbott joins the Amazon workers’ solidarity rally in Shoreditch on 27 November 2023.

In short, Diane Abbott has proved herself a consistent friend of workers in struggle over many years, which just might be another factor explaining why she is not welcome in Keir Starmer’s PLP.


  • George Binette is a former secretary of Camden UNISON and the former Trade Union Liaison Officer for Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP between autumn 2017 and spring 2024.
  • You can add your name to a petition in support of Diane Abbott here.
Foreign state-owned investors cleared to hold 15% stake in UK newspapers

Yesterday
 Left Foot Forward

The policy may have passed for now, but, as the 170-year-old Telegraph edges closer to foreign-backed ownership, the debate over who funds the British press, and what influence that buys, is far from over.



A major media policy shift has been quietly passed, as the government, with the backing of Tory frontbenchers, successfully fended off a move to block foreign state-owned investors from owning up to 15 percent of UK newspaper companies.

It marks a critical moment in the long-running Telegraph sale saga and may signal the final chapter in a story that has stretched out for years.

Or perhaps, not quite.

In the House of Lords, the Liberal Democrats led a push to keep the foreign state ownership threshold at 5 percent, citing concerns over press freedom and undue influence from authoritarian regimes. Their efforts were roundly defeated in a 267–155 vote, with a majority of 112 in favour of raising the cap.

Critics argue that the move undermines UK media independence and opens the door to forms of foreign influence, even if ownership remains officially “passive.”

Supporters of the change, however, insist it’s a pragmatic move aimed at securing much-needed capital and ensuring the financial viability of British media outlets.

The new rules now clear the path for a takeover of the Telegraph by a consortium involving RedBird IMI, a joint venture between US-based RedBird Capital and Abu Dhabi’s state-backed International Media Investments (IMI).

RedBird is seeking to purchase a controlling stake in the Telegraph group for around £500 million, with IMI expected to hold a 15% minority share, right at the newly permitted threshold.

The deal had previously been stalled due to regulations introduced by the former Tory government to curb foreign state control of UK media. Now, the law has shifted to accommodate precisely what it once blocked.

Meanwhile, other media conglomerates are circling. The Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), which owns the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Metro, and the i, is also reportedly interested in acquiring a stake.

Media minister Baroness Twycross said the rules would only allow backing from state-owned investors such as sovereign wealth funds and pension schemes.

She told peers: “It does not apply to states themselves or other state bodies, so a foreign government cannot buy and own a newspaper.”

“The regulations include a strict requirement that the state-owned investor must hold the investment passively.

“They must have no right or abilities to appoint or fire directors or other officers, and they must have no ability to direct, control or influence a newspaper’s policy or activities,” she added.

But this assurance was met with criticism. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Fox derided the notion of “passive” investment in a high-stakes media context: “Traffic humps are passive, but they certainly change the way we drive.” He questioned the credibility of assuming investors with significant financial stakes would remain disinterested in the direction and policies of the newspapers they bankroll. “This is just not plausible,” he argued.

The policy may have passed for now, but, as the 170-year-old Telegraph edges closer to foreign-backed ownership, the debate over who funds the British press, and what influence that buys, is far from over.
HIP CAPITALI$M

A flurry of music acts are pulling their music from Spotify – here’s the full list


1 August, 2025
 Left Foot Forward

Is this a growing movement?

\

A growing number of bands and musicians have begun to pull their music from Spotify. Most of them have done so following the news that the streaming giant’s co-founder and CEO Daniel Ek’s investment firm has made major investments in the defence company Helsing. Helsing is a defence firm involved in producing military drones and artificial intelligence for battle scenarios.

One of the first to make headlines for withdrawing from Spotify was the influential indie band Deerhoof, who released a statement at the time which said: ”Daniel Ek uses $700 million of his Spotify fortune to become chairman of AI battle tech company” was not a headline we enjoyed reading this week. We don’t want our music killing people. We don’t want our successes being tied to AI battle tech.”

Since then, many more have followed suit. Here are the other acts who have made public their decision to pull their music from the platform:David Bridie. Writing for the Guardian, Bridie said: “In recent years, we’ve witnessed the horror of AI drone wars in Ukraine and Gaza – children killed and hospitals destroyed with the press of the space bar. Ek is investing in technology that can cause suffering and death. Spotify used to seem like a necessary evil. By association, it now just seems evil.”

King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard. In a statement, the band said: “A PSA to those unaware: Spotify CEO Daniel Ek invests millions in AI military drone technology. We just removed our music from the platform. Can we put pressure on these Dr. Evil tech bros to do better? Join us on another platform.”

Leah Senior. In a post on Instagram, Senior said: “[Spotify] have always been dogs but this is the final straw. Stop funding the war machine. Support the artists you love! Hopefully music will be down asap. I encourage other artists to do the same.”
Muddy Summers and the DFWs. In a post on Instagram, the band said: “You won’t find our albums on there anymore as we took them off due to their funding of #AImilitary Disappointing to see so many acts claiming to be #antiwar and #antigenocide still peddling on there.”

Xiu Xiu. In an Instagram post, the band said: “We are currently working to take all of our music off of garbage hole violent armageddon portal Spotify. It is taking longer than we had hoped due to procedurally [sic] complications but will be compeleted soon. Thanks for all the support and patience. 

For all the reasons you already know – PLEASE CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION WITH SPOTIFY.

Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

Image credit: Ronaindras – Creative Commons

UK

‘A strategy for sharing wealth should be at the heart of Labour’s programme’


Photo: BradleyStearn / Shutterstock.com

Wealth is now emerging as a key political battle ground with Labour resisting growing calls for a wealth tax. 

Yet the case for tackling Britain’s towering, and increasingly concentrated, wealth mountain is overwhelming. 

Private wealth holdings have surged. They stand at more than six times the size of the economy, up from three times in the 1970s. This sustained wealth boom has been a party open only to the fewWhile aggregate wealth in the UK grew by £5.68 trillion between 2010 and 2018, the poorest half gained just 6% of this rise.

An economy geared to enrichment of the few is not a recipe for a dynamic and stable democracy. The patron saint of economics, Adam Smith, warned in 1759 of how the rich use their power to rig economies in their interest. Far from a reward for a more productive and innovative economy, many of today’s largest fortunes have been driven by predatory and extractive business methods, with a growing number of large companies turned into cash cows or private fiefdoms. Large parts of the economy have been turned into a system of open cheques for the few. This is one of the key explanation for Britain’s low productivity, low growth and low investment economy. 

A return to the Victorian era

Real wealth creation that boosts entrepreneurship and builds social infrastructure is vital for rising prosperity. But ‘creating wealth’ is a slippery concept. The founding economists drew an important distinction between new wealth creation that contributes to the common good, and extraction of existing wealth that serves the interests of a powerful few.  Such ‘appropriation’ was widespread in the Victorian and inter-war eras, less prevalent in the post-war era of social democracy, but has returned since the early 1980s. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of all things Labour – and follow us on  BlueskyWhatsAppThreadsX or Facebook.

One of the most damaging effects of the role of extraction in Britain’s process of wealth accumulation has been to steer precious national resources – the workforce, land and capital infrastructure – into low value activity. Scarce land and building resources are used to construct walls of multi-million pound luxury flats and mansions, often bought for speculative purposes by the mobile super-rich. It hosts vast and lucrative industries, from tax avoidance to lobbying, whose sole purpose is to protect the wealth of the super-wealthy.  

The result is a return to the Victorian era of over-consumption by the rich and under-consumption on the everyday goods that sustain decent opportunities. ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much,’ declared the American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, ‘It is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.’ Yet Britain’s capacity to meet essential needs – from children’s services to social and health care and adequate social housing – has plunged.

A strategy for sharing wealth

Despite the growing importance of the role played by wealth in the economy, the income from capital  (on dividends, capital gains and inheritance) is much less heavily taxed than income. Take the role of inheritance on the shape of the economy and the growing divide in life chances. While the economic weight of such transfers continues to rise, only 3.7 per cent of deaths in the UK result in an inheritance tax charge. A power to dispose of estates forever is manifestly absurd’ declared the patron saint of economics, Adam Smith250 years ago ‘The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity.’  

The debate around wealth taxes has been largely about the need to boost revenue for national renewal. Yet there is a much wider case for tackling the malign impact of today’s pro-rich model of wealth accumulation, including the need to correct for the way today’s booming wealth pool is overwhelmingly privately owned. Indeed the share held in common has fallen from 30% in the 1970s to 10% today. 

A strategy for sharing wealth more evenly should be at the heart of Labour’s programme. How this high profile political conflict – over how wealth is acquired and shared – is resolved  will have deep implications for both economic strength and social resilience but also Labour’s political soul.