StephenKMackSD's Blog

With the Gaza Genocide, and its political corrilary of the Genocide in Lebinon, Nancy Jacobson political loyalties are explored below. Political Observer comments.

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 16, 2026

Nicholas Kristof and the Collapse of Journalistic Standards

COMMENTARY

By Nancy Jacobson

How can the American people know what to believe anymore? They’re supposed to be able to turn to the New York Times and other legacy newspapers for impartial facts. Although that aspirational view was never as true as many of us supposed it to be, it’s become scandalously untrue today.

The Times this week played host to one of the most astonishing examples of journalistic malpractice in recent memory. It was perpetrated by Nicholas Kristof – a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist turned progressive columnist and aspiring Democratic politician. Hiding under the cloak of the Times’ opinion section, Kristof ran a report alleging shocking and lurid claims of widespread, systemic sexual assault by Israeli prison guards against Palestinians.

This would be horrifying if true, except we have little reason to believe it is. To justify his claims, Kristof relies on Hamas-linked organizations, anti-Israel activists, and anonymous accounts that lack any semblance of independent verification. He also regurgitates a monstrous claim – that Israel trains dogs to rape prisoners – that is widely believed to be impossible, let alone unsubstantiated.

Let’s start with Kristof’s marquee source: the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. He calls it “a Geneva-based advocacy group often critical of Israel,” which is like calling the DNC “a Washington-based political group often critical of Republicans.” Euro-Med exists to oppose Israel. Many of its leaders, including its founder and chairman, are linked to Hamas. The group has a track record of promoting unverified or false anti-Israel claims, including the exact “dogs trained to rape prisoners” story Kristof repeated.

…

Viewed that way, the op-ed begins to look much like the rest of the discourse from aspiring candidates in America – where facts take a backseat to agendas, and claims are measured more by whether they hurt the opposition than whether they capture the truth.

The difference is, this claim appeared in the New York Times, bringing us back to the question: How can the American people know what to believe?

…

Editor: Reader note that this hystical chatter is yet further evidence of the loyalty of a Zionist Apologist. I trace the evolition of a her politics over time.

Nancy Jacobson is a founder of No Labels, a national organization of Democrats, Republicans and independents dedicated to a new politics of problem solving.

No Labels

Jacobson founded No Labels in 2010 with the stated goal of promoting bipartisanship.^[9] The organization has put forth ideas that it claims will “put problem solving above politics”,^[10] and purports to support centrist, moderate social and economic policies.

The No Labels group has been instrumental in the creation of the Problem Solvers Caucus.^[11][12][13] A number of proposals supported by the group have been signed into law.^[14][15][16] In 2021, the Problem Solvers Caucus, composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, released a “Building Bridges” blueprint for a bipartisan infrastructure deal. It was the first deal to be endorsed by Republicans and Democrats during that budget cycle.^[17][18] In connection with her work with No Labels, New York Times columnist David Brooks described her in 2016 as an “undeterrable” leader.^[1]

No Labels has also been criticized of fostering a toxic environment by former employees, according to Politico.^[19]

Other Activities

Jacobson is serving as a co-chair of the 2026 Jerusalem Post Miami Summit, an event focused on strengthening support for Israel amidst rising global antisemitism. In an interview prior to the summit, Jacobson emphasized the ‘unbreakable bond’ between the U.S. and Israel, arguing that their shared democratic values and cooperation against common threats make the world safer for Americans and ‘free-thinking people everywhere’.^[20]

Editor : That Jacobson was the co-chair of the 2026 Jerusalem Post Miami Summit, an event focused on strengthening support for Israel amidst rising global antisemitism. Is demonstartive of her actual loyalties!

Political Observer.

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 16, 2026

In a last-ditch attempt to save his dying leadership, Keir Starmer had a message for millions of people who are sick and tired of soaring rents, rising bills and endless war: it’s not that bad. ‘Like every government, we’ve made mistakes’, he said, ‘but we got the big political choices right.’ In the wake of Labour’s disastrous local election results, pressure has mounted for the Prime Minister to resign, and lobby journalists have been lining up to ask Starmer how he intends to cling onto power. I would have asked him a different question: why have you failed to use this power to improve ordinary people’s lives?

If the establishment media won’t scrutinise Starmer’s claim that he has got the big political choices right, then we will. Cutting winter fuel. Slashing disability benefits. Refusing to scrap the cruel and immoral two-child benefit cap. After fourteen years of Conservative rule, you’d think that a Labour government would be bursting with impatience to deliver policies to benefit working people. This Labour government couldn’t wait to impoverish them.

Eventually, twenty months into office, following speech after speech in which the government told us they simply did not have the money to lift children out of poverty, they were finally forced to scrap the two-child benefit cap. In doing so, they admitted they had been keeping children in poverty for no reason whatsoever. At the same time, the Labour leadership boasted about record increases in military spending. Austerity for the poor. Profits for war. From the moment this government was elected, it has decided there isn’t any money to feed, house or care for people — but there is always money to bomb, kill and injure them.

Another of Starmer’s ‘big political choices’ was to allow failing water companies to rip us off. Soaring profits. Sewage in our rivers and seas. This is the consequence of our government’s dogmatic refusal to do the common-sense thing: bring water into public ownership. It could have ended the failure of privatisation. Instead, it decided that ordinary people should pay the price for corporate negligence and greed.

This government chose not to bring in wealth taxes, not to implement rent controls, not to make the kind of public investment in council-housing that is needed to tackle the housing crisis, and chose not to redistribute resources from those who wield it to those who need it. It chose to give a top political job to a man with an established relationship to a convicted sex offender — a man who just so happened to pride himself on his opposition to our mass movement for social justice and peace.

Rather than rewriting the rigged rules of corporate Britain, the government also chose to blame a different group of people for the problems in our society: migrants and refugees. It went after the rights of migrants who have contributed so much to this country and demonised human beings seeking asylum. It mimicked the politics of Reform UK and rolled out the red carpet for Nigel Farage.

There is perhaps one political decision that will leave the greatest stain of all. As Israel embarked on the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, this government could have defended international law and called for peace. Yet it chose to facilitate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. And it chose to launch a systematic assault on the civil liberties of those who protested against the government’s complicity (alongside its outrageous decision to erode jury trials, the cornerstone of our justice system). This government’s enduring legacy will be its complicity and participation in the greatest crime of our age. And we will never, ever forget.

These decisions are the root cause of the chaos that Starmer is now trying to temper — and unless these root causes are addressed, we will continue to lurch from one political crisis to the next. It’s not enough for Starmer to go. What needs booting out is the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant policies and endless war.

For much of our media, the past few weeks and months have been a golden opportunity to indulge the endless psychodrama of Westminster and speculate about Starmer’s successor. For millions of ordinary people, they have been a depressing reminder of how yet another government has refused to implement policies that can improve their lives. I support calls for the Prime Minister to resign for the same reason I refuse to get excited about any of his possible replacements: our political class is unwilling to bring about the transformative change this country needs. I haven’t heard anything from his main contenders about the need to end corporate greed, the need for rent controls, or the need for a mass redistribution of wealth and power. I certainly haven’t heard any calls for an investigation into British complicity in genocide — presumably because that investigation would implicate them as well.

In his speech yesterday, Keir Starmer broke the record for the most number of cliches in half an hour. Yet he managed to hide the real record beneath his rhetoric: child poverty, inequality and genocide. Those are the government’s big decisions. And that is how this government will be remembered.

If we want real change, then we need to mobilise in our hundreds and thousands for the kind of policies Starmer could — and should — have implemented from the start: rent controls, caps on energy prices, controls on basic food prices, public ownership, a National Care Service, an uplift in child and disability benefit, a defence of our civil liberties; and a redistribution of resources away from weapons and war, toward education, housing and our NHS.

We are at a critical juncture in British politics — but we have hope on our side. During last week’s elections, we saw Your Party-backed independents, Green Party candidates and others fighting back against austerity, privatisation and fear. They proved what can happen when grassroots campaigns stand up for all communities, defend the humanity of Palestinians, and vow to make life affordable for all. Alone, there is only so much we can achieve. Together, we can change British politics forever. And we can bring about a new kind of society built on a radical idea: that everyone deserves to live in dignity.

Contributors

Jeremy Corbyn is the Member of Parliament for Islington North and a member of the Independent Alliance group of MPs.

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 14, 2026

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 14, 2026

Editor: What can the reader of this latest political histeria of a reification of Jewish Victimhood! While the crimes of Gaza Genocide, and its political corilary of the Lebanon Genocide, are the proof that the Myth of that victiomhood, the heue and cry of the toxic Zionist/Murderious Cadre. The reader in the neverending fictional creshendo of Israle’s ‘Right To Exist’ merde, via Zanny Mentions Beddoes mendacious chatter!

U.C.L.A. Considers New Tactics to Combat Antisemitism

The Trump administration has sued the university, saying it didn’t do enough to protect Jews on campus.

…

Some of the recommendations in Thursday’s report fall beyond U.C.L.A.’s authority. For example, the group suggested that the University of California as a whole consider using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.

The definition, developed in 2016, describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” But the definition’s critics have said that accompanying examples, such as contending that Israel’s existence is “a racist endeavor,” appear intended to suppress free speech.

Dozens of American universities have adopted the definition, including Columbia and Harvard last year. In March, the University of California, Berkeley, agreed as a part of a legal settlement that it would continue to consider the definition and its examples “whenever investigating or assessing claims of discrimination or harassment against Jews or Israeli individuals.”

The president of the University of California system, James B. Milliken, did not immediately commit to embracing the definition across its 10 campuses. But Mr. Milliken hailed U.C.L.A.’s efforts as “important and impressive” and said, “Antisemitism is antithetical to the core values of the University of California, and it is essential that we continue to demonstrate this principle through our policies and actions.”

Newspaper Reader.

Newspaper Reader awards the “the crown” to the James Heale!

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 14, 2026

Ethan Croft

Good morning. In the narrow window of time set by us excitable lobby journalists, the push to topple Keir Starmer failed when the sun set on Westminster yesterday: there was no “big beast” resignation from the cabinet and no leadership challenge launched.

The PM stood firm, telling cabinet to back him or sack him, and insouciantly started replacing the various parliamentary private secretaries and junior ministers who resigned yesterday in an effort to pressure him to go. The consensus of commentary vertiginously changed once again. It was not the end – perhaps Starmer had seen off the challenge.

But just as it was premature to say a challenge was make or break yesterday, it would be equally premature to say that he is safe. The King’s Speech today, in which the Labour government’s agenda for the next parliamentary session will be set out, has created an interlude in which all sides think it is polite to stay quiet.

The PM had a brief meeting with Wes Streeting this morning at No 10 but both sides are keeping schtum about what was said. We will have to wait until Thursday to see if there is a more concerted push from the ambitious Health Secretary, who is due to make a media intervention that day anyway because the NHS’s latest waiting-list data is being released.

An extra day could allow Streeting to get his ducks in a row. Note that his natural supporters on the right of the party are not yet united behind the idea of challenging Starmer right now – many of their names appeared in an open letter signed by 110 MPs yesterday pledging support for the Prime Minister.

The most damning development for Starmer’s long-term prospects was a statement from Labour’s 11 affiliated unions this morning. They declared: “It’s clear that the Prime Minister will not lead Labour into the next election, and at some stage a plan will have to be put in place for the election of a new leader.”

That’s every union, from the left-wingers of Sharon Graham’s Unite through to the once reliably leadership-supporting moderates at Usdaw and Unison. This puncturing of the life raft will prove more significant than any ministerial resignation we have seen so far.

Keir today, gone…?

by James Heale

It has been an utterly surreal day in parliament. This morning Wes Streeting’s allies briefed that the Health Secretary intends to resign tomorrow and challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership. But this afternoon the Prime Minister stood at the despatch box giving his response to the King’s Speech, manfully ploughing on. On a day when constitutional nicety met with political reality, Starmer signalled that he intends to keep fighting until the bitter end.

Starmer is often viewed as a wooden parliamentarian, ill-attuned to the mood of the House. Yet such was the extent of the absurdity this afternoon that even he could successfully make light of his current situation. With almost 100 Labour MPs calling for him to quit, he made a joke at his own expense. Mentioning backbencher Naz Shah’s new book, he noted that it had been endorsed by ‘well over a hundred’ members of the House. ‘At last Mr Speaker,’ he said, ‘a list that we can all get behind.’ Streeting, sat near him on the frontbench, certainly enjoyed that one.

It was a moment of levity in an otherwise black day for the PM. Kemi Badenoch, speaking for the opposition, had fun at Starmer’s expense. The Tory leader asked why the government has ‘learnt no lessons’ from its time in power so far. ‘I suppose the Health Secretary has been a bit distracted lately, hasn’t he?’ she quipped, asking Streeting: ‘Why don’t you just do your job?’ She added that she felt ‘sorry for Labour backbenchers’, whose legacy will now be ‘breakfast clubs and Peter Mandelson’.

Outside the chamber, Labour MPs continue to plot. As Streeting’s conspirators plan their pitch, the soft left is completely split. Senior figures fret that Angela Rayner simply is not up to the job, amid concerns about her character and HMRC’s inquiry into her tax affairs. Andy Burnham, fresh from his train journey south, is meanwhile still not able to find a suitable parliamentary seat in which to stand. So there is increasingly momentum behind Ed Miliband – recognised by all wings as an effective minister – as the only viable candidate on the pitch who can take on Streeting.

The final word ought to go to Sir Ed Davey, who called today’s speech the ‘most surreal’ Humble Address he has ever experienced, out of the 23 he has heard. ‘Everyone in this House and everyone in the country knows this Prime Minister may soon not be in power,’ he said. Starmer knows that better than anyone else.

Newspaper Reader.

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 11, 2026

Europe | Turning the tide of war

Russia is stumbling on the battlefield

As casualties soar in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin looks ever more beleaguered at home

…

Rubbing in the insult Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, issued a decree to “permit” the parade to proceed, saying that Red Square would not be attacked. This came shortly after Ukraine and Russia agreed to a three-day ceasefire brokered by America, though by May 10th both sides were accusing the other of having violated it. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, speaking after the parade, said he thought the war was “coming to an end”.

…

As of May 2026, Ukrainian forces are conducting regular, high-volume drone strikes deep into Russian territory, frequently utilizing long-range, domestically produced drones, with reports suggesting some production or assembly of components occurs in European nations. These stealthy, often AI-enabled, strikes target oil depots, airfields, and logistics hubs thousands of kilometers from the front lines. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key Aspects of the 2026 Drone Campaign:

• Manufacturing & Supply: Reports indicate that a significant portion of Ukrainian drone production and component sourcing has moved to countries like Germany, Great Britain, Czechia, and the Baltic states to avoid Russian strikes.
• Tactics & Scope: Ukraine has escalated to using thousands of long-range drones, sometimes over 7,000 in a month, targeting sites from Moscow to the Urals. Recent operations, such as “Operation Spiderweb,” involved coordinated, deep-penetration strikes.
• Targeting & Impact: Attacks have targeted major infrastructure, including oil refineries in the Leningrad Oblast, hundreds of kilometers from the Ukrainian border.
• NATO Airspace Incidents: There have been incidents of drone activity near NATO borders (Latvia, Lithuania), with some reports of Ukrainian drones, possibly misdirected by electronic warfare, crashing on NATO territory.
• Russia’s Response: Russia has experienced difficulties in defending against these widespread attacks, which are impacting military capabilities and causing severe damage to infrastructure. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Note: The situation is highly dynamic, and claims about the origin of launches, particularly from foreign territory, are part of intense information warfare and military intelligence operations. [1, 2[

Newspaper Reader.

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 11, 2026

Morning Call: The edge of destruction

Starmer’s fate hinges on one speech and one disgruntled backbench MP

Ethan Croft and The New Statesman

May 11

Good morning. Keir Starmer will try to save his political career this morning by giving a speech in which he will admit mistakes and say “incremental change won’t cut it”. The most immediate consequence of the speech will be whether it makes Catherine West – the backbencher threatening to launch a leadership challenge this morning – think twice.

West has said she might step down her plot if Starmer shows sufficient rhetorical fire in his belly. But that will be quite a difficult metric for outside observers to judge – and so we will have to wait and see how West responds to the speech. As she told me in an interview at the weekend, her decision to challenge Starmer was done on the fly – she had not read the party rules on launching a contest before announcing) and motivated by a visceral reaction to the results in which one of her best friends lost their safe Labour council seat in North London.

…

Editor: There is nothing so full of political pathos as manufactured by The New Statesman, that long ago betried Sidney and Beatrice Webb, with significant support from George Bernard Shaw and other Fabian Society members.

Newspaper Reader.

Lindsey German

Good morning.



How bad did the election results have to be before Keir Starmer resigned? Worse than the loss of 44 Labour councillors in Newcastle? Or the wipeout of Labour members in the Welsh Senedd? Or the collapse to Reform in the former mining areas of Barnsley and Wakefield? Or the rout of Labour across much of inner London to the Greens, including the latter winning three boroughs outright and sending several more into no overall control?



Starmer’s response has been to say he ‘will not walk away’ – yet that is clearly what voters want him to do. Everywhere, reports from canvassers are the same: whatever the other issues motivating them, intense dislike of the prime minister was high on the agenda. At present his cabinet are publicly rallying round: he will do a big speech on Monday, promising a reset. Already he has announced the appointment of former prime minister Gordon Brown and former interim leader Harriet Harman as advisers. I can’t imagine what good he thinks this will do him.



The simple truth is this: Labour cannot begin to regain votes until Starmer goes. And the longer he stays the more he will strengthen Reform. It is a mark of the inability of Labour politicians to think clearly outside their own narrow factional interests that this truth has not already forced Starmer out. Instead leading cabinet figures and allies of supposed prince over the water Andy Burnham are putting their own interests before the urgent need to get rid of Starmer and they will pay a price. For this result will mark the end of Labour in many areas once regarded as its heartlands. The history of Scotland in the last decade demonstrates that there is no automatic likelihood of the party bouncing back.



And why should it? Labour, founded to represent the trade unions in the electoral field, has been on a long march away from the working class it is meant to stand for. It has presided over governments of privatisers who have seen a working class fall in living standards and done little to change anything. It has seen students forced to pay higher fees and get into debt and done nothing about it. It has allowed employers and landlords free rein, only acting to make the most minimal changes to protect workers. Its ‘solution’ to the housing crisis is to allow developers to build unaffordable houses while doing virtually no council house building. It has also echoed the far right in scapegoating migrants, waving the flag and promising far more money on ‘defence’.



The result? Reform’s right-wing populism has won in many places especially in the old industrial areas where secure and relatively well-paid jobs have been replaced by the opposite, as workers are forced to accept ever worse conditions in companies owned by billionaires. And those repulsed by Reform’s politics are also alienated by Labour’s mimicking of them, so look for alternatives to the left. The Greens and Plaid Cymru have been the big winners from this trend.



One reason that Labour politicians are so incapable of movement in the face of this is that there needs to be fundamental change in its policies – but that isn’t going to happen, because it would mean dismantling decades of New Labour policies. So the decline of Labour and Labourism will continue, surely accelerated by these results, but with its adherents unable to comprehend how and why it has happened.

…

Lindsey German

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 10, 2026

This article. published in Philosophy 70 (1995), 243-62 and reproduced here by permission of the Editor, is derived from (but not a transcript of) ‘Better than the Stars’, my 1978 radio portrait of F. P. Ramsey, streamable from http://sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/20145. Page numbers after quotations from Ramsey refer to F. P. Ramsey: Philosophical Papers, edited by D. H. Mellor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Cambridge Philosophers I: F. P. Ramsey D H Mellor

…

I should like to let Ramsey have the last word. In the summer of 1929, shortly before he died, he wrote a note on ‘Philosophy’ which Braithwaite published in his 1931 collection of Ramsey’s work [and is republished as Chapter 1 of my 1990 edition of Ramsey’s Philosophical Papers]. Most of Ramsey’s work is within philosophy rather than about it; but this note expresses his view of the subject as well as his attitude towards it and his way of doing it. So here, to conclude, are some excerpts:

Philosophy must be of some use and we must take it seriously; it must clear our thoughts and so our actions. Or else it is a disposition we have to check, and an enquiry to see that this is so; i.e. the chief proposition of philosophy is that philosophy is nonsense. …

And again we must then take seriously that it is nonsense, and not pretend, as Wittgenstein does, that it is important nonsense! … In philosophy we take the propositions we make in science and everyday life, and try to exhibit them in a logical system with primitive terms and definitions, etc. Essentially a philosophy is a system of definitions or, only too often, a system of descriptions of how definitions might be given …

I used to worry myself about the nature of philosophy through excessive scholasticism. I could not see how we could understand a word and not be able to recognise whether a proposed definition of it was or was not correct. I did not realise the vagueness of the whole idea of understanding, the reference it involves to a multitude of performances any of which may fail and require to be restored …

Philosophy is not concerned with special problems of definition but only with general ones: it does not propose to define particular terms of art or science, but to settle e. g. problems which arise in the definition of any such term or in the relation of any term in the physical world to the terms of experience …

[But] it seems to me that in the process of clarifying our thought we come to terms and sentences which we cannot elucidate in the obvious manner by defining their meaning. For instance, … theoretical terms we cannot define, but we can explain the way in which they are used, and in this explanation we are forced to look not only at the objects which we are talking about, but at our own mental states …

I find this self-consciousness inevitable in philosophy except in a very limited field. We are driven to philosophise because we do not know clearly what we mean; the question is always ‘What do I mean by x?’ And only very occasionally can we settle this without reflecting on meaning. But it is not only an obstacle, this necessity of dealing with meaning; it is doubtless an essential clue to the truth. If we neglect it I feel we may get into the absurd position of the child in the following dialogue: ‘Say breakfast.’ ‘Can’t.’ ‘What can’t you say?’ ‘Can’t say breakfast.’

But the necessity of self-consciousness must not be used as a justification for nonsensical hypotheses; we are doing philosophy not theoretical psychology, and our analyses of our statements, whether about meaning or about anything else, must be such as we can understand.

The Cold War Keeps Re-Einveting Itself!

stephenkmacksd.com/

May 10, 2026

Newspaper Reader.

May 10, 2026

Headline: We’re entering a sectarian age — playing to extremes wins votes

Sub-headline: A Green Party activist who responded to a solemn post commemorating the victims of the October 7 attacks with a laughter emoji has just been elected.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/age-of-sectarian-politics-extremes-gaza-green-party-tq5f5ttf9

Editor: I provide a sampler of Mr. Colevile’ s retorical posturing:

…

But one of the biggest stories of the local elections this year — and certainly the most depressing — has been the rise not of MPs but councillors for Gaza. The Henry Jackson Society think tank, which rebranded itself “Sectarian Watch” for the vote count, has been following 171 “Muslim sectarian” council candidates: that is, candidates for whom issues such as Palestine or Kashmir are not a feature of campaigning but the entire core of it.

…

And of course, there has been a reaction. The Jewish parts of north London are now monolithically Conservative: in Golders Green, site of the latest antisemitic atrocity, the leading Tory candidate received an extraordinary 69 per cent of the vote. Meanwhile, Rupert Lowe of Restore — the party for those who think Nigel Farage is frankly a bit wet on the whole Muslim thing — has led its local offshoot, Great Yarmouth First, to a crushing win in East Anglia, although to be fair its campaign focused rather more on seeing off the threat of rule from Norwich than the need to re-Christianise the streets.

…

As George Galloway repeatedly proved during his parliamentary career, candidates who get elected on an anti-Israel ticket rarely place a high priority on sorting out the bin collections, or dealing with constituents’ other concerns. Indeed, their incentive is to cater even more narrowly than usual to a particular slice of the electorate, even though there are plenty of constituents of other faiths, skin colours and backgrounds who find themselves locked out of local politics.

…

And of course this cycle feeds on itself. The more voters defect to the Greens and Muslim independents, the more pressure Labour will be under to pander to the Gaza vote to win them back. And social media definitely doesn’t help, by privileging those with the most extreme views.

Just look at the career of Mothin Ali. When he made that speech, the Green Party promised a full investigation. It must have gone well. Within 16 months he’d won the ballot to be deputy leader.

…

Editor: That the pressing question of the ‘October 7 attacks’ against the Zionist Faschist State were the product of a protrated genocidal attack, on the whole of Gaza, aided and abettoed by American money and materiel. Place the self-serving denuded political chatter of Mr. Colevile’s ascription, of the irrelevance of local elections, to the concerns of citizens and their extended families demonstartes an inexcusable myopia!

Newspaper Reader.