New nuclear plants a difficult option for Switzerland

04/07/2026 By Le News
Switzerland does not need new nuclear power stations to complete the energy transition, according to a report by 19 energy specialists from ETH Zurich and the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), the country’s leading nuclear-research centre. They conclude that a system based on hydropower and solar energy, supplemented by wind power and electricity storage, can provide a secure supply without building new reactors.
…………….. For new nuclear plants to become commercially viable, several conditions would need to be met. The technology would require substantial government support, as other low-carbon energy sources already receive. Investors would also need state guarantees to cover the financial risks. Above all, construction costs would have to fall well below those of recently completed projects in France and Finland, both of which suffered major delays and cost overruns.
The report reinforces conclusions reached in two other recent assessments: a review by the Swiss Academies of Sciences published last year and an analysis by the energy company Axpo earlier this year. All three conclude that new nuclear power is technically possible but highly uncertain. The main obstacles are economic rather than technological. Any serious accident abroad, similar to the Fukushima disaster, could also rapidly alter the political climate.
The studies also agree that Switzerland has credible alternatives. Expanding solar generation is generally regarded as quicker, cheaper and politically easier than building new reactors. Continued investment in battery and other storage technologies could increasingly offset the intermittent nature of renewable electricity generation.
The debate is therefore less about whether nuclear power is technically feasible than whether it represents the most practical route to decarbonisation. The Federal Council and a majority in Parliament have recently backed lifting the ban on new nuclear power stations. Because the change would almost certainly face a referendum, the final decision is likely to rest with Swiss voters.
The three reports are also sceptical about the prospects for so-called Generation IV reactors. Advocates argue that these designs will be safer, cheaper and produce less radioactive waste. But for now those claims remain largely theoretical. Axpo, together with most of the scientists involved in the latest studies, concludes that such reactors are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to Switzerland’s electricity supply before 2050. https://lenews.ch/2026/07/04/new-nuclear-plants-a-difficult-option-for-switzerland/
U.S.-Israel Military Merger Delayed: Here’s Why and How You Can Stop It
A procedural vote bought Congress—and the American people—one more chance to defend American sovereignty. Welcome to civics class, Washington, D.C. style.
The Kucinich Report, Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Kucinich, Jul 03, 2026
The U.S.-Israel military merger has not become law – yet.
Not because Congress rejected it, but because the House unexpectedly voted down the procedural rule governing debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
That vote delayed consideration of the bill, but it did not remove the military merger from it. When the House returns, Congress will almost certainly have another opportunity to consider the legislation.
The American people now have another opportunity to stop it.
What Happened?
The Massie-Khanna Amendment, which would have removed the military merger from the bill, was not made in order by the House Rules Committee, which serves as the traffic cop on legislation, deciding which bills and which amendments move forward.
In this case, the Rules Committee played dirty cop and the fix was in to make sure the House would not be able to vote on the military merger because the amendment was simply not placed in the rule. In fact, the amendment was not taken up by the committee and did not even receive a vote.
It was ignored.
Welcome to civics class, Washington, D.C. style, on how a bill isn’t made
How Congress Was Prevented from Voting
Every piece of legislation has its own specific rule, which determines, among other matters, how much time will be permitted for debate, what amendments are made in order, whether legislation can be further amended from the House floor, and whether a point of order can be raised to challenge the bill.
The Rules Committee makes up the rules for each bill as it goes along.
And it does.
Since Republicans control the House, they determine the committee’s membership. The Rules Committee consists of nine Republicans and four Democrats.
This particular rule governed consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, legislation that would increase annual Pentagon spending by an astonishing 67 percent to $1.5 trillion. The rule, approved by the committee on a partisan vote at the request of the President, also combined the NDAA with the so-called SAVE Act, restricting voter registration.
Before Members can vote on the underlying legislation, they must first vote separately on the rule. The rule establishes the terms of debate and determines which amendments may be considered.
If the rule goes down, the bill goes down with it.
Why Was the NDAA Vote Delayed?
Here is what happened.
Because of a dispute over the SAVE Act, the House voted down the rule. The NDAA never came before the House for debate or final passage. A disappointed Speaker adjourned the House until July 13.
As a consequence, the NDAA has not passed and the U.S.-Israel military merger it authorizes has not become law.
Yet.
The Fight Continues………………………………………………..https://kucinichreport.substack.com/p/us-israel-military-merger-delayed?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1441588&post_id=204708708&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Starmer Lied: Britain Is Cutting £11 Billion from Frontline Defence
The new Defence Investment Plan delivers almost nothing for our armed forces in the near term
Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Jul 02, 2026
The United Kingdom is in effect going to spend up to £11 billion less per year on the day-to-day running of its armed forces under Keir Starmer’s Defence Investment Plan — and that’s before we even take inflation into account.
Despite the apparent uplift in spending toward 2.7% of GDP by 2029, the UK will get no meaningful increase in front-line conventional capability or personnel.
Our armed forces are at their smallest size in two hundred years, and that situation is not going to change under this plan.
Spending on long-term nuclear capabilities — programmes that will not deliver anything usable until the 2030s and 2040s — is absorbing the great majority of the headline increase.
This comes at a time when the government claims Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO by the end of this decade.
At the heart of the problem is a foreign policy that wants to confront multiple adversaries while maintaining armed forces that simply do not have the mass or readiness to do so credibly.
Important to point out that I am the son of a former British soldier and I am incredibly proud of the armed forces and anyone who serves this country. I also served alongside the British Army in Helmand province in 2010 and worked with some truly remarkable people. I am not criticising the men and women who put on the uniform. I am criticising how badly led we are as a country.
Keir Starmer announced the UK’s long-awaited Defence Investment Plan yesterday, 30 June. To describe it as a damp squib would be generous. It is a document that confirms the continued stagnation of the UK armed forces and the deep sclerosis at the heart of defence procurement.
Do not believe the headlines and the spin.
This plan will not transform our hollowed-out forces.
The British Army is already at its smallest size since 1823. That will not change.
There are no new soldiers being recruited in any significant numbers. Money available for the day-to-day operation of the armed forces is not going up — in real terms it is under severe pressure.
Having crunched the numbers, it’s clear to me that yearly spending on the actual running of the armed forces has effectively declined by up to £11 billion per year under this plan, set against the government’s claim of a £15 billion per year increase by 2027…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The outgoing UK Prime Minister has declared a big increase in defence spending, yet we are getting no new troops and very little new conventional capability in the near term.
Why?
Because the great majority of the additional money is being directed into nuclear programmes and a procurement system that has repeatedly failed to deliver on time or on budget.
………………………………………………….. As I write, I understand that all of the Astute-class submarines are operationally unavailable.
……………………the largest cost increases and overruns have been in the nuclear and naval programmes.
………….As the National Audit Office reported in 2023, the combined costs of nuclear and naval programmes rose by £54.6 billion between 2022 and 2023, with the nuclear element increasing by £38.2 billion.
The three biggest programmes are the SSN-AUKUS attack submarines, the Dreadnought ballistic missile submarines, and the new Astraea nuclear warhead.
The first UK-built AUKUS submarines are not expected until the late 2030s.
We already have ballistic missile submarines maintaining Continuous At-Sea Deterrence.
We already have attack submarines, even if they cost too much, took too long to build, and don’t work.
We already have nuclear warheads. Do we really need a slightly flashier design folks? Serious question.
The plan is being presented as a response to current and near-term threats, while a war continues in Ukraine and with political leaders abandoning diplomacy.
……………………I have a clear alternative. We should cancel or significantly scale back the highest-risk and longest-lead nuclear programmes — particularly the new Astraea warhead and major elements of the SSN-AUKUS programme.
The savings should be redirected into fixing and sustaining the equipment we already possess, improving the availability of existing platforms, and beginning the serious work of rebuilding conventional force numbers and readiness for the core task of defending the United Kingdom and its immediate interests………………………….. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/starmer-lied-britain-is-cutting-11?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=204491995&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Say goodbye to independent assessments of nuclear projects in Canada
3 July 2026
The Nuclear Fist: Five Federal Initiatives Pushing and Promoting Nuclear Power
There are currently five federal nuclear related initiatives / announcements: “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms” announced May 8th with the deadline now extended to July 22; the electricity strategy “Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy” which was announced May 14 with comment invited but no deadline; the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment electrification study with the deadline – and the study – now extended to mid-September; the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada announced June 22 with no comment invited and so no deadline for comment, and the June 24 announcement of the potential “listing” of the NWMO DGR under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5), also no public comment period.
Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to end independent assessment of nuclear projects and hand over this responsibility to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. READ SUBMISSIONS
Why is this a bad idea?
The CNSC cannot be trusted because it:
- Is led by industry insiders
- Often is seen as a promoter and co-proponent of nuclear projects
- Reports to the Minister who promotes nuclear power
- Has never denied a licence application
- Often excludes the public from its hearings
- Does not have the required independence from the nuclear industry
- Secretly authorised transport of radioactive fuel waste from Gentilly-1 nuclear plant across Quebec into Ontario
Nuclear power is uniquely complex and risky.
Fast-tracking nuclear projects is outright dangerous:
- Accidents can have catastrophic consequences
- Nuclear materials are toxic and radioactive – some literally forever!
- Nuclear power is linked to nuclear proliferation
Decisions about nuclear projects must be based on sound information that has been examined and tested by the public, independent experts and an independent review panel. Social concerns, protection of public health and the environment, and economic value must all be considered.
What can you do?
Between now and July 22 you can provide comments on the government’s discussion paper. Following that, when legislation is tabled, you can comment on the legislation. Throughout this time, contact your Member of Parliament and members of Cabinet by email, phone and in-office visits and share your concerns about these changes, and the speed with which they are being made.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://nuclearwastewatch.weebly.com/assessing-nuclear-risk.html
MSP says ‘no’ to nuclear power plant as UK Government eyes Fife
Dunfermline Press 1st July 2026
Fife has been revealed as a potential site for a nuclear power plant in a new UK Government report – but a local MSP says it “wouldn’t go down well” with communities.
The document, titled ‘Potential future nuclear power plant siting in Scotland ‘, published on Tuesday, June 30, was penned by both the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Great British Energy – Nuclear.
The report sets out to offer “technical advice” on potential future sites.
In a section called ‘Land Areas of Interest ‘, Fife was identified as part of areas across eastern Scotland which could be eyed up for new development by the UK Government.
The report read: “The northern shore of the Firth of Forth benefits from a strong industrial heritage, existing brownfield land, good transport connections and historic use of river water for power station cooling.
“The presence of previous energy generation sites and proximity to major industrial hubs supports technical suitability.”
However, it did note that flood risks were a notable constraint, with some areas identified as high likelihood for coastal flooding and limited existing defences.
It continued: “The proximity of major COMAH sites and oil and gas infrastructure, including the Forties Pipeline System, introduces additional safety and planning complexity.”
MSP for Cowdenbeath, David Barratt said: “The document implies quite heavily, I would say, about nuclear power at Longannet. It’s talking about a site on the north side of the Forth, in close proximity to areas of flood risk and oil and gas.
“The SNP’s position aligns, from my perspective, closely with what communities think. I don’t think if you went to any community and asked them whether they like a nuclear power station next door, I struggle to imagine any in Fife, or along the Forth shore, would say yes please.
“I don’t think that would go down well at all with communities (near Longannet) who have put up with enough environmental consequences of that site. Scotland is blessed with an abundance of renewable sources, and we don’t require nuclear.”…………….. https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26243980.mps-says-no-nuclear-power-plant-fife-uk-government-eyes-fife/
Westminster’s nuclear obsession will cost us dearly – Scotland
The irony of Scotland’s sky-high bills is that we sit on one of the goldmines of clean, renewable energy potential in Europe.
Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will.
the SNP, 12 July 26, https://www.snp.org/westminsters-nuclear-obsession-will-cost-us-dearly/
The case for transferring full control of energy policy to the Scottish Parliament has never been more urgent.
As we head toward what is shaping up to be a winter of deep financial hardship for households across the country, it is clearer than ever that the only way to secure affordable, stable energy bills for the people and businesses of Scotland is to take control of our own immense resources from Westminster.
Before taking office, Labour campaigned heavily on a promise to lower energy bills for families across Scotland by £300. The reality since July 2024 has been a story of utter failure to deliver.
When Labour entered government in July 2024, the Energy Price Cap stood at £1,568 per year. To fulfil their signature pledge, that cap should heading towards £1,268.
Instead, fresh analysis from Cornwall Insight shows that the price cap is set to soar to £1,849 by this October.
That leaves Scottish households facing a staggering bill that is £581 higher than what was promised.
It is a profound injustice that in energy-rich Scotland, citizens are paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe while the country is haemorrhaging up to 1,000 energy sector jobs every single month.
The irony of Scotland’s sky-high bills is that we sit on one of the goldmines of clean, renewable energy potential in Europe.
Scotland regularly produces more clean electricity than it actually consumes, achieving an historic milestone where renewable generation already reached the equivalent of 113% of our gross electricity consumption in 2024.
Our natural landscape and seas make Scotland a significant green powerhouse:
- Wind Power: Scotland is often described as the “windbreak of Europe”, holding over 11GW of installed wind capacity – which makes up roughly 39% of the entire UK capacity.
- Hydro Power: Scotland commands 85% of the UK’s total hydroelectric resource.
- Increased Generation: The Scottish Government has expanded its offshore wind targets to a massive 40 GW by 2040.
Instead of letting Westminster mismanage this wealth, these resources should be utilised directly to lower local energy tariffs in Scotland and build a thriving green economy, much like Norway has done with its own native energy supplies.
Rather than supporting Scotland’s booming renewables sector or honoring promises to fund vital carbon-capture carbon capture infrastructure, Westminster remains locked into an obsession with nuclear energy.
Reports indicate that Labour’s GB Energy has secretly identified multiple sites for nuclear plants across Scotland, completely ignoring the Scottish Government that was democratically elected last month.
The push for nuclear power ignores the hard economic and environmental facts:
1 It is the most expensive power generation: Nuclear energy is financially draining. Industry experts and watchdogs routinely highlight it as one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation on Earth, with ballooning strike prices that lock consumers into high bills for generations.
2 t takes decades to come online: Major projects are notoriously crippled by logistical failure. For example, the flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset was originally expected to cost £18 billion and open by 2025; it has now spiralled to an estimated cost of up to £46–£48 billion and is delayed until at least 2030 or 2031. Future projects like Sizewell C are projected to face similarly restrictive timeframes and even higher starting expenses.
3 A deadly legacy of radioactive waste: Nuclear reactors leave behind hazardous, highly radioactive waste that must be managed and monitored for centuries. The most toxic components of this spent fuel remain lethal to human life and the environment for up to 100,000 years, passing a dangerous and expensive ecological debt onto dozens of future generations.
Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will. The Scottish Parliament has already passed an SNP motion demanding that power over our energy resources be fully devolved to Holyrood.
If the Westminster government is truly committed to the principles of devolution, they must listen to the Scottish people, remove the punitive taxes currently stifling our domestic energy markets, and transfer energy powers to the hands of the people who live here.
With the fresh start of independence, we can finally link Scotland’s immense natural wealth directly to lower, affordable bills for everyone.
Billionaire to invest £35bn in small modular nuclear reactors rollout across UK

Consortium led by Michał Sołowow planning enough SMRs to power equivalent of 8m homes for more than 60 years.
Jillian Ambrose, 2 July 26
A consortium led by the billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow has announced plans to build 14 small modular nuclear reactors on three sites across the UK, including the location of a former nuclear plant in Gloucestershire..
The Polish entrepreneur and rally driver plans to use £35bn of private capital to roll out enough small modular reactors (SMRs) to power the equivalent of 8m UK homes for more than 60 years, or even power datacentre investments alongside Google.
Sołowow’s nuclear development company, SGE, plans to make the “significant investment” of between £2.2bn to £2.5bn in each 300 megawatt reactor alongside a string of industrial partners including the US manufacturer GE Vernova and Japanese industrial conglomerate Hitachi, which are responsible for the design.
The consortium, known as SGE SMR, hopes to secure three sites for the boiling water reactors (BWRs) by this time next year as well as a government support contract which would guarantee a “competitive” price for its electricity once it starts generating in 2034.
It has not disclosed which sites it hopes to use for the GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 design, or which energy company would be the operator. However, the Guardian understands the consortium has submitted an application to use the Oldbury site in south Gloucestershire which was earmarked earlier this year for the development of SMRs under the government’s advanced nuclear framework.
Sołowow said the government’s framework, which aims to fasttrack the rollout of nuclear technologies, had created “a clear path to market” in the “home to one of the world’s most experienced nuclear workforces”.
Because of this, I am confident we will set a new standard for nuclear development by combining our disruptive business model with the BWRX-300’s 10th-generation proven technology. We will rely strongly on the UK supply chain; it is a critical element for our project. Our project will create a distinct competitive advantage for the UK economy,” he said.
The Labour government unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power across England and Wales within months of coming to power, with Keir Starmer calling for tech companies to work alongside the government to build SMRs to power energy-intensive AI datacentres across Britain.
SGE’s plans will put it in competition with Rolls-Royce to be the first to roll out SMEs in the UK, after the British engineering company won a government competition earlier this year to allow it to start generating power by 2032 at the earliest.
SGE’s joint venture agreement, signed this week in London, includes Google Cloud, which Sołowow hopes will also partner on investing up to £4.5bn in datacentres to make use of the nuclear output. The Guardian understands this is viewed as an accompanying proposal which is not part of its current application.
Instead, the consortium hopes to secure a similar deal to the contract offered to the Hinkley Point C nuclear project. It has opted for the contracts for difference scheme, which pays a fixed rate from energy bills once the project begins generating electricity, rather than the controversial model used to fund the Sizewell C project. Under that scheme the developer is paid during the construction phase, meaning billpayers risk bigger costs if there are delays.
Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the nuclear industry association, said SGE’s SMR plans showed the government’s nuclear framework “has really revived and spurred interest in privately led nuclear projects”.
No nuclear energy in Scotland – Greens
1 June 26, https://greens.scot/news/no-nuclear-energy-in-scotland
Labour’s plans to build nuclear power plants all over Scotland would be a costly error, says Scottish Green MSP Kristopher Leask.
This week saw the publication of a report by Great British Energy Nuclear, ordered by Ed Miliband, which identified multiple sites in Scotland which could be used if the Scottish Government’s opposition to nuclear was to change.
The report was publicly welcomed by Anas Sarwar, Michael Shanks and other Scottish Labour bosses.
Kristopher said:
“Labour’s obsession with forcing a new generation of nuclear power on Scotland rides roughshod over devolution and ignores the will of the Scottish Parliament.
“Opening new plants across Scotland would be a huge waste of time and money. It would swallow billions of pounds and take decades to deliver, while doing nothing to tackle energy bills or the climate crisis.
“Focusing on nuclear energy would be a huge missed opportunity. It would mean turning our backs on Scotland’s world-leading renewable resources.
“Instead of pouring money into expensive nuclear projects, the UK Government should be backing renewable energy that can create jobs, cut bills and strengthen energy security at a fraction of the cost.
“Our priority should be creating clean, green, secure jobs that support nuclear workers into new industries while revitalising communities across Scotland.”
Israel Is An Apartheid State – And Its Weird Marriage Laws Show Us How

in 2018 the Israeli government passed a Nation-State Law declaring that Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, not to all citizens who live there.
Israeli nationality exists only as a fiction on Israeli passports to allow the population to travel internationally. Inside Israel, everyone is identified by their confessional group.
In Israel, “Jewish” is treated as a nationality. Remember the 2018 Nation State Law. What it declared is that the state of Israel belongs exclusively to the “nation” of Jews – that is, to every Jew around the globe, not just those living in Israel.
July 1, 2026 , Jonathan Cook
Israel is the only country in the world that does not recognise its own nationality. Why? Because a common national identity would sabotage Israel’s carefully veiled system of segregation
Israel’s supporters have gone apoplectic over a short post on X from the journalist Mehdi Hasan, highlighting Israel’s peculiar marriage laws.
Hasan asks: “Did you know that you can’t have a civil or secular marriage in Israel?”
Did you know that you can’t have a civil or secular marriage in Israel?
Michael A. Cohen (NOT TRUMP’S FORMER FIXER) @speechboy, 71Jun 28
Something like 40 countries have an official state religion. Israel is not one of them! In fact, that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state is not even a religious designation. That Mamdani continues to make this mistake and continues to focus on the world’s one Jewish Show more 4:24 AM · Jun 29, 2026
He’s not wrong. Israel has banned civil marriage. You can wed only in a ceremony strictly controlled by religious authorities. If you want a civil marriage, you have to travel to another country.
Why, you might reasonably wonder. Isn’t Israel a modern, secular, western-style liberal democracy? After all, that’s what our politicians and media keep telling us.
The most popular rejoinder to Hasan from Israel’s apologists – that the situation is no better in Saudi Arabia – is not quite the flex they seem to imagine. So Israel offers the same human rights protections as Saudi Arabia? Impressive.
Others have pointed out that Israel inherited the so-called “millet” system from the Ottoman empire, which gave the leaders of each confessional group across the Middle East autonomous control over their community’s religious affairs.
Doubtless, 150 years ago the system worked relatively well in reducing communal tensions in religiously diverse parts of a large empire. It prevented officials in Constantinople – modern-day Istanbul – from getting dragged deeply into the day-to-day affairs of its often distant subjects.
But 150 years ago, Britain sent children up chimneys to sweep them. The law was changed around that time to stop this abusive and dangerous practice.
Israel was established nearly eight decades ago, supposedly as a secular, western-style liberal democracy. It has had 78 years to change those archaic Ottoman marriage laws.
Why hasn’t it done so?
All the bluster decrying Hasan’s post is a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that Israel’s antiquated marriage laws survive because they are useful to Israel.
In fact, they are more than that. They are a core component of Israel’s version of apartheid – a racist system of segregation Israel has successfully shielded from the view of western publics with the help of western politicians and media.
‘Demographic threat’
Israel’s ban on civil marriage is central to its efforts to prevent what past racist societies, such as apartheid South Africa and the American Deep South, termed “miscegenation” – that is, sexual relations between different ethnic groups. You might remember that the Nazis had unpleasant views on this subject too.
Here is the current finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, opposing miscegenation in 2016:
“Preventing assimilation in the Jewish state is completely legitimate and not at all racist. You are assuming as a basis for the discussion that preventing intermarriage is wrong, while ignoring the fact that most [Jewish] girls who go with Arabs are poor girls who are being used.”
Former education minister Rafi Peretz called mixed marriages involving Jews a “second Holocaust”.
In Israel, such views are entirely mainstream. In 2018, Yitzhak Herzog, Israel’s current president and the former leader of an ostensible leftwing Israeli party, described mixed marriages among American Jews as a “plague” for which a “solution” had to be found – presumably by copying Israel’s approach.
In Israel, the chief concern is not about marriages between Jews and the Palestinians under occupation – which Israel and its supporters like to present, bogusly, as a straightforward “security” matter.
In the occupied territories, Israel uses far blunter methods than laws to prevent any kind of intimate relations developing between Jews and a captive Palestinian population. It prefers physical containment and violence.
Palestinians under occupation are forcibly separated from Israeli Jews. They are hemmed into their own tightly confined ghettoes by Israel’s network of steel and concrete barriers; by the Israeli army; by checkpoints; by separate, apartheid roads in the West Bank; and by Jewish militias living on stolen lands in so-called “settlements”.
There is little chance of interaction, let alone intermarriage, in such circumstances – except when Israeli soldiers or armed Jewish settlers come rampaging into Palestinian communities to destroy crops, kill livestock, poison wells, torch homes and cars, and beat up – and sometimes kill – the inhabitants.
Nonetheless, there is still a potential vulnerability in Israel’s system of segregation.
In 1948, Israel expelled 80 per cent of the Palestinian population from their homes and lands in an area that was henceforth to be called, not Palestine, but the “Jewish” state of Israel.
A few Palestinians remained, however, inside those borders – mostly from oversight or error. Despite covert efforts by Israel for several years after the 1948 war to force them out of the state, its officials soon came under international pressure to give these stranded Palestinians citizenship – even if in practice, as we shall see, this conferred on them very inferior rights.
Even today, Israel is extremely worried about a supposed threat from its third-class Palestinian “citizens” – officially termed “Israel’s Arabs”. Given a higher birth rate, their numbers have grown exponentially over eight decades. They now comprise a fifth of Israel’s population.
Israeli journalists, academics and politicians, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regularly call the country’s Palestinian citizens a “demographic threat”, and endlessly worry about the “Palestinian womb”.
No state of all its citizens
But Israel faces a countervailing pressure. If it makes its treatment of Palestinian citizens too obviously racist and oppressive, some outsiders might start to realise it is not the secular western-style liberal democracy it claims to be.
You will hear the pro-Israel lobby in the West tell you that so-called “Israeli Arabs” have exactly the same rights as Israel’s Jewish population, guaranteed by Israel’s Declaration of Independence. That is not even remotely true.
Adalah, a leading legal rights group in Israel, has a database showing more than 70 laws that explicitly discriminate between Jewish citizens and Palestinian citizens. These laws form the core of Israel’s apartheid system.
Israel’s Basic Laws, a sort of constitution, explicitly exclude any principle of civic equality. Every attempt by a Palestinian party in Israel to get a debate in the parliament on Israel becoming a “state of all its citizens” – that is, a liberal democracy – is barred from discussion. And in 2018 the Israeli government passed a Nation-State Law declaring that Israel belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, not to all citizens who live there.
As with Palestinians under occupation, Israel has almost entirely confined its Palestinian citizens to their own segregated, underfunded, under-resourced communities (townships) on less then 3 per cent of the country’s territory.
A small minority of Palestinian citizens inside Israel live in segregated, deprived neighbourhoods of what are misleadingly termed “mixed” cities. Other Palestinian citizens, the most oppressed of all, live in communities inhabited by their families for centuries but which have been criminalised by an Israeli state that refuses to recognise them.
Many hundreds of Jewish rural communities, by contrast, operate effectively as exclusive membership clubs. They have the power to exclude Palestinian citizens – a right they take full advantage of.
Separate planning structures ensure massively overcrowded Palestinian communities inside Israel are unable to build new homes and expand. Palestinian children are schooled in a separate and much inferior education system.
For the who wish to dig deeper, I have written a lengthy essay setting out the details of Israel’s apartheid system here.
The ban on civil marriage inside Israel’s borders is not usually cited, even by critics, as an example of its apartheid system of rule. But the ban persists because it is the ideal way to conceal segregation under the veneer of equal treatment.
Israel’s Palestinian citizens must marry in ceremonies conducted by their religious community’s leaders: by Muslim clerics, or by various Christian churches, or by the Druze clergy.
It is the same for Jews in israel. They must be married by an Orthodox rabbi.
So everyone faces the same restrictions. But the point is this: the equality of treatment ensures very unequal outcomes. It is designed that way.
Fascist thugs
Inside Israel, intermarriage is only possible if one party can convert to their partner’s religion.
Israel’s Orthodox rabbinate makes it impossible for Palestinians under occupation to convert to Judaism in Israel, with the head of its conversion authority stating in 2016 that any such applicants are rejected “without review because of their ethnic origin”.
Meanwhile, Israel makes it almost as difficult for anyone else considered a non-Jew to convert to Judaism, most especially Palestinian citizens. Over decades, there have been only a handful of such cases.
In practice, this means that in any relationship between a Palestinian citizen of Israel and an Israeli Jew, it almost always falls to the Israeli Jew to convert to the religion of the Palestinian citizen, whether a Muslim, Christian or Druze. That entails the Jewish partner losing their Jewish status and the many consequential privileges inside Israel that derive from that status.
Israel has found this is a much better solution than apartheid South Africa’s, where blacks and whites were explicitly barred by law from marrying. Israel can achieve the same result more quietly.
Given the entirely segregated structure of Israeli society, and the strong social taboos among Israeli Jews on “miscegenation”, the number of intermarriages in Israel between Jews and Palestinian citizens barely reaches double digits each year.
There are even groups like Lehava – Israel’s version of the Ku Klux Klan – that go around beating up Palestinians caught anywhere near the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem and terrorising any young Jewish women suspected of being romantically involved with a Palestinian. Lehava hold noisy and disruptive protests to shame the odd Jewish woman who converts and marries a Palestinian citizen.
All of this happens with a quiet wink from the authorities. The current police minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has long been a patron of the fascist, Jewish supremacist thugs of Lehava.
In the rare cases of a Jew converting and marrying a Palestinian citizen, the Palestinian partner faces innumerable legal and social obstacles to integrating into a Jewish community to which they do not belong.
Instead, the Jewish partner moves to a Palestinian community – an Israeli version of a township like Soweto – and educates their children inside the vastly inferior “Arab” school system. The former Jew loses most of the ethnic privileges they previously enjoyed inside the world’s only “Jewish” state.
Faced with this as their future, such couples often seize the opportunity for neither to convert and instead marry and live abroad.
Unwelcome guests
None of these difficulties are accidental. It is exactly how you would expect an apartheid system that prefers to obscure its apartheid character to structure its laws – and thereby help its lobby in the West, including the western political and media class, to claim that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East”.
Israel learnt from the mistakes of the old South Africa. It mastered the modern arts of public relations – or at least it did until Benjamin Netanyahu tore up the script by erasing Gaza.
Inside Israel, the apartheid system extends far beyond marriage laws to touch all areas of life.
Here is another way Israel has obscured its apartheid system – again not in the occupied territories, but inside Israel itself.
The same system that denies Israelis the possibility of a civil or secular marriage also refuses to recognise that they have any kind of civil or secular identity, simply as Israelis. By law, everyone in Israel must belong to a confessional group, identified as a Jew, Muslim, Christian or Druze.
Which makes sense of another little-known fact about Israel: Israel is the only country in the world that does not recognise its own – in this case, Israeli – nationality. Why? For the simple reason that, were Israelis to share a common national identity, it would be much harder for the Israeli state to operate its apartheid system.
Israeli nationality exists only as a fiction on Israeli passports to allow the population to travel internationally. Inside Israel, everyone is identified by their confessional group.
In Israel, “Jewish” is treated as a nationality. Remember the 2018 Nation State Law. What it declared is that the state of Israel belongs exclusively to the “nation” of Jews – that is, to every Jew around the globe, not just those living in Israel.
Muslims and Christians are lumped together into a similarly artificial “Arab” nationality, while the Druze have their own, different nationality. The same Nation State Law makes clear that the state of Israel does not belong to these other, non-Jewish “nations”, despite their families having lived on the same lands for centuries. Palestinian citizens are nothing more than guests – and unwelcome ones at that.
This segregation carries through to Israel’s ID cards. These cards, which must be carried at all times, used to include a section that expressly showed the “nationality” of each Israeli. But this section attracted uncomfortable scrutiny during a lengthy and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by a group of dissident Israelis seeking recognition of an Israeli nationality. Officials removed the category from the card. However, Israel’s population register still includes a nationality classification.
In addition to Jew, Arab and Druze, there are more than 120 other categories to deal with all the anomalies. I was just one such anomaly after I married a Palestinian Christian and entered a lengthy and difficult naturalisation process. My nationality was classed as “British”.
Why all this complexity? Why all this unique weirdness?
Because Israel needs to conceal its system of apartheid. The old South Africa simply said: one law for whites and another for blacks.
Israel knows this no longer plays well. So it has devised a convoluted, baffling system that few understand as a way to avoid attracting attention and criticism.
Special Jewish rights
So let’s end with just one example of how Israel’s apartheid system works in practice.
Notionally, Israel confers on all its citizens – Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze – equal rights as citizens. But with a sleight of hand, it then undermines those equal rights by conferring superior “national” rights on one group only, Jews. If there is a conflict between a citizenship right and a Jewish “national” right, you’ve probably already guessed that the Jewish national right takes precedence.
Education is a good illustration. All Israeli citizens enjoy a right to have their children educated, because education is a citizenship right. But lots of veiled manoeuvres – like extra budgets for National Priority Areas, special subsidies for Jewish religious schools, funding from the diaspora, and bigger tax disbursements from central government for Jewish local authorities – mean Jewish schools are far better funded than “Arab” schools.
Education for Israel’s Palestinian citizens has been underfunded for eight decades. So even though Israel’s apologists will claim the funding gaps are slowly narrowing, the continuing shortfall simply compounds a decades-long historical injustice. Arab schools are so far behind they can never catch up without aggressive additional funding Israel clearly has no intention of ever providing them with.
There are massive shortages of classrooms and staff in dilapidated school buildings. Old books are often grossly outdated and poorly translated into Arabic by the state. Palestinian educational leaders have no input into the curriculum the community’s children are taught. There are strict controls by Jewish (usually racist) officials over what can be taught and who can teach. And on top of all this, huge cultural biases in qualifying tests make it far harder for Palestinian citizens to gain entry to universities in Israel.
There are many other problems in education. For example, nearly one in 10 Palestinian children in Israel live in historic communities built on lands that the Israeli state now wishes to “Judaise” – reserve for the Jewish population – and are therefore denied all recognition.
Treated like criminals, these children rarely have schools in their communities because no permanent buildings are allowed. What buildings there are cannot be connected to the electricity or water grids. Even children of kindergarten age must typically travel long distances – sometimes close to 60 km a day – to get to a licensed school.
The forms of discrimination in education alone are endless. But they do not stop there. The discrimination is replicated in all major facets of life for Israel’s more than 2 million Palestinian citizens through these conceptual and legal contortions over religion, citizenship and nationality.
None of this should be a surprise. It is exactly what you would expect in an apartheid state like Israel.
The plot to subvert the midterms is getting stranger and more dangerous

Right-wing media figures including Steve Bannon, John Solomon, and Cleta Mitchell appear to be weaving together a narrative about interference by China in US elections to justify a national emergency to curtail voting rights
MEDIAMATTERS, John Knefel, 07/02/26
Over the last several weeks, the outlines of a plot have begun to emerge that could signal how President Donald Trump, along with MAGA media figures and activists, could attempt to severely curtail voting rights under the pretext of declaring a national emergency posed by China.
The details of the scheme remain publicly vague, and may not yet come to pass, but the short version looks something like this: First, the White House would declassify and release documents purporting to show foreign interference in U.S. elections, especially by the Chinese Communist Party.
Next, Trump would use that supposed “proof” of a stolen election to declare a national emergency, thereby — according to those pushing this idea — giving him extraordinary powers over the upcoming midterms. That move would serve as a way to advance the anti-voting rights measures in the SAVE America Act, like forcing voters to prove their citizenship, without having to actually pass the law — which Congress, so far at least, appears reluctant to do.
The main players here come not only from the fever swamp backwaters of MAGA media, but also from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the White House. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon is a central node, attempting to advance the operation on his War Room podcast, aired on right-wing network Real America’s Voice, long a major source of misinformation about the 2020 election.
Bannon’s RAV colleague John Solomon, whose role in the plot appears to be running the declassification effort, was recently appointed to a White House “task force” into supposed election integrity. Solomon was Media Matters’ Misinformer of the Year in 2019 for his role in laundering misinformation about the Bidens and Ukraine through his opinion columns.
Also in the mix is Peter Schweizer, who founded the Government Accountability Institute with Bannon and has moved from spreading misinformation about the Clintons to claiming that China is taking over the United States by exploiting birthright citizenship.
Then there’s Cleta Mitchell, a right-wing lawyer who was on the January 2021 call when Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough ballots to tip the state his way. She referenced Schweizer in a June 20 appearance on War Room, positively paraphrasing an argument he made on his podcast acknowledging that much of the voting activity he wants to suppress is actually legal.
“Peter Schweizer put it pretty well last week in a podcast that he does with Eric Eggers, and the question they posed is: If fraud is made — if election fraud is made legal, is it still fraud?” Mitchell asked. “Because what’s happened in California over the last decade is that the far-left Democrat, socialist, Marxists, communists have completely upended every vestige of election integrity.” (Bannon had teed her up by referencing the Los Angeles mayoral primary, claiming without evidence: “They stole it right in front of our face and laughed at us the entire time.”)
Mitchell is supported by a loose array of election deniers who have called on Trump to issue an executive order to seize “king-like powers” over voting systems, supported by the national emergency decree…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Bannon stated plainly on June 29 that Solomon’s “task force” and “also Pulte” would be central to creating a “predicate” for the declaration of a national emergency and subsequent executive order achieving the anti-voting rights goals of the SAVE America Act.
On June 30, Bannon interviewed another of his RAV colleagues, Wayne Allyn Root, who further elaborated what a national emergency declaration could look like.
“Stop talking about the SAVE Act and do a national security emergency for elections, which is the SAVE Act, which contains everything that’s in the SAVE Act, Steve, and more and more,” Root said.
Just days earlier, on June 24, Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill to pressure Congress to pass the stalled out SAVE America Act, which he referred to as a “National Emergency.”
The “predicate” Bannon is hoping to manufacture could also be for other election initiatives the administration is working on — such as trying to force courts to give the administration access to various state voter rolls — an issue the administration is facing significant resistance to.
Whether this harebrained plot congeals into an active conspiracy to subvert the midterms remains to be seen, but given that Trump has already tried to overturn one election it would be a mistake not to take these rumblings seriously. There may indeed be an emergency — it’s just not the one that Bannon and company are talking about. https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/plot-subvert-midterms-getting-stranger-and-more-dangerous
SNP blocks new nuclear power
SNP blocks new nuclear power despite ‘high-potential’ sites. A
Westminster-backed study identified places capable of hosting future
reactors, but the Scottish government’s longstanding opposition remains
unchanged. The SNP has shut down any hope for new nuclear power in Scotland
after a Westminster-backed report that highlighted the “high potential”
for projects. “The Scottish government is focused on supporting the
development of Scotland’s renewable energy potential, which provides
jobs, are safer and doesn’t leave a legacy of nuclear waste.
Times 30th June 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-blocks-new-nuclear-power-high-potential-sites-vfrcjx5ns
Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution – It’s the Problem! NO CANDU!

F. R. Greening Ph.D. 3 July 26
Carney’s Liberal Government has recently become fixated on promoting nuclear power as the best way for Canada to generate so-called “clean”, carbon-emission-free, electrical energy. In support of this policy the government likes to boast about Canada’s past accomplishments in developing and exploiting nuclear engineering technology through our very own, home-grown expertise.
Now this view may have had a basis in truth back in the 1970’s when Chalk River Laboratories truly was a center of nuclear research excellence that led to the development of the CANDU reactor. It’s also true that the first generation of CANDU reactors, located at Pickering and Bruce, were quite successful, with operating capacity factors well over 80% during their first 10-years of operation.
But this was back in the 1970s; fast forward to 2026 and, with all of these first generation CANDU reactors either refurbished or permanently shut down, we are left with a somewhat uncertain future for nuclear energy in Canada. Indeed, I believe we are now in an electrical energy crisis here in Ontario because our home-grown nuclear power stalwart – the CANDU reactor – has been in failure mode for at least the past 10 years.
This decline is due to the aging of Ontario’s fleet of 18 CANDU reactors: 6 at Pickering, 8 at Bruce and 4 at Darlington. All Pickering and Bruce Units are now over 40 years old, and it is important to note that these nuclear reactors were designed and built using 1960’s technology, with 1960’s computers. Thus, it is impressive that Pickering B and Bruce B units lasted 40 years before requiring major refurbishments.
However, the performance of Darlington is another story because all four Darlington units required refurbishments after only about 30 years of operation, thereby creating a short-fall in Ontario’s nuclear energy production. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, below, which shows Ontario’s nuclear power output has declined from about 92 TWh in 2014, to a current value of about 75 TWh – a loss of about 20 % in Ontario’s electric power output in just 12 years. But to make matters worse, it is predicted that this decline will continue to about 60 TWh by 2030, before all existing CANDUs have been refurbished, and/or new reactors have been built and commissioned.
[Greening supplies graphs on this issue
the percentage of Ontario’s electricity derived from natural gas has increased substantially from about 10% in 2015 to 30% in 2026. Furthermore, extrapolation of these data points predicts that natural gas as a source of electricity for Ontario will exceed nuclear generated electricity production by 2028.
It is indeed ironic that “Climate-Change Carney” recently, (Canada Day!), declared:]
“We can’t afford to restrain the growth of an important part of our energy mix – natural gas – to meet a short-term goal. I want to be clear on this point. The changes we have made will mean that our GHG emissions will be higher in the next few years than were projected under the previous (Liberal!) government’s plan”.
What Carney fails to acknowledge, however, is that when it comes to Ontario’s electrical energy short-fall, nuclear power is not the solution; it’s the problem! If Ontario’s CANDU reactors were performing up to expectations, there would be no need for OPG to rely on natural gas combustion,
, with the associated annual release of tens of Megatonnes of CO2, as a viable alternative. And Carney et al’s blind faith in Canada’s alleged nuclear prowess, as exemplified by the CANDU reactor, is in reality a myth that is not supported by fact!
By way of proof of Canada’s less than excellence in its CANDU reactor’s performance, consider lifetime capacity factor data, (derived from the IAEA PRIS website), for seventeen countries with extensive nuclear power programs. Sad to say, Canada has the lowest lifetime capacity factor, a miserable 68.2%, compared to any other country on the list.
Canada’s Nuclear Energy Strategy a “Cash Cow” for the Nuclear Industry.

Gordon Edwards, 30 June 2026
| Ottawa – Critics from civil society organizations and academia are calling out the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada released by the Federal Government as a cash cow for the nuclear industry and a hubris-driven attempt to grab world “energy superpower” status based on past-Century technology. The Strategy, released on June 22, is an ambitious agenda to spend public funds on new nuclear reactors to the detriment of readily available clean renewable sources, and to short-circuit independent oversight of nuclear projects. The document reads like a wish list of nuclear developments, including the goal of 10 new large reactor projects in Canada by 2040. It parallels a US announcement made the next day, also promising 10 new large reactor projects and standing to benefit some of the same corporations. Critics are calling the Canadian strategy a gross economic mistake, dangerous for human health and security, and a diversion from urgently needed action on safer, faster and cheaper energy alternatives. The federal initiative would seriously delay or derail an urgently needed energy transition, buying time for the fossil fuel sector and funneling billions of tax dollars to well-connected nuclear industry players. “While the world moves urgently to clean renewables and storage to meet electricity needs, Canada is diverting major resources to dirty, dangerous and absurdly expensive Cold War era technology which will burden future generations,” commented J. P. Unger, director with the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital. “The strategy reads like a public relations fantasy rather than the cost data and financial risks analysis that would attract private investment” said Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Sustainability and Environmental Studies Program, St. Thomas University. “Lost is the memory of massive cost overruns and extensive delays that plagued the construction of the current fleet of reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s. Those decisions led to the demise of “Ontario Hydro” – death by drowning (in debt),” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. “Gone is the “sticker shock” that caused Ontario to cancel the last push for a nuclear “renaissance” in the early 2000s. Forgotten are the financial realities of previous international sales, where Canada swallowed huge losses (Argentina) or accepted goods like strawberries rather than actual money (Romania) in exchange for the CANDU reactors they were peddling overseas”. The document also promises to “streamline” the regulation of nuclear projects by removing independent oversight and speeding up approvals. This presents a huge public risk when dealing with inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power. The government is also promoting the export of home-grown CANDU reactors, something that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as happened when Canada gifted reactor technology to India, sparking an arms race in South Asia. “Putting all our eggs in the nuclear exports basket completely ignores the risk of a major nuclear accident anywhere in the world, which history has shown will immediately tank enthusiasm for this technology,” said Anne Lindsey, an organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition’s No-Nukes campaign The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwich “This strategy is not fooling anyone who is serious about the energy transition. Private money is pouring into wind, solar and energy storage developments, not nuclear energy – by far the most expensive way to generate electricity.” “Lost is the memory of massive cost overruns and extensive delays that plagued the construction of the current fleet of reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s. Those decisions led to the demise of “Ontario Hydro” – death by drowning (in debt),” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. “Gone is the “sticker shock” that caused Ontario to cancel the last push for a nuclear “renaissance” in the early 2000s. Forgotten are the financial realities of previous international sales, where Canada swallowed huge losses (Argentina) or accepted goods like strawberries rather than actual money (Romania) in exchange for the CANDU reactors they were peddling overseas”. The document also promises to “streamline” the regulation of nuclear projects by removing independent oversight and speeding up approvals. This presents a huge public risk when dealing with inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power. The government is also promoting the export of home-grown CANDU reactors, something that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as happened when Canada gifted reactor technology to India, sparking an arms race in South Asia. “Putting all our eggs in the nuclear exports basket completely ignores the risk of a major nuclear accident anywhere in the world, which history has shown will immediately tank enthusiasm for this technology,” said Anne Lindsey, an organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition’s No-Nukes campaign The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwiched into the section of the strategy on massive expansion of uranium production, with false claims and reassurances that the problem has been solved by handing the long-term management of nuclear waste over to the nuclear industry. A deep geological repository for high-level waste proposed for northwestern Ontario is taken as if already established despite major questions and opposition, including legal challenges. Two days after the Nuclear Strategy was released the federal government announced that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository was being considered for listing as a “Project of National Interest” under the Build Canada Act, meaning that its approval would be guaranteed. “Designating NWMO’s DGR project as a Project of National Interest would be a betrayal of public trust”, commented Brennain Lloyd with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch. “The project is unprecedented, it’s still at a conceptual stage of development, the transportation will impact millions along the route, and the waste is lethal virtually forever. That project approval could be a foregone conclusion – despite the lack of evidence that the project can be done safety – is absolutely beyond reason”. The nuclear strategy followed the discussion paper Getting Major Projects Built in Canada and the National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy, both released in early May. The discussion paper announces plans to gut the impact assessment process for nuclear projects, while the electricity strategy promotes nuclear power ahead of lower cost options such as renewable energy and energy efficiency which could be brought online much more quickly. Unlike the discussion paper and the electricity strategy, there is no public comment period on the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada. |
UK: Inside Labour Together’s secret war against Jeremy Corbyn

Documents disclosed to Corbyn expose covert efforts by Starmer’s former chief of staff to combat the British left
DECLASSIFIED UK, PAUL HOLDEN, Jessica Murray and JOHN McEVOY, 24 June 2026
- Labour Together monitored views on antisemitism in Labour while stoking that crisis
- Media outlet The Canary was targeted amid concerns it was trusted among Labour members
- John McDonnell says new information about Labour Together “makes a call for a public inquiry overwhelming”
Newly released documents reveal the inner workings of Labour Together and its role in covertly undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party.
The documents were disclosed to Corbyn in response to a subject access request. They contain emails from Labour Together’s two key figures Morgan McSweeney and Josh Simons.
McSweeney went on to be Keir Starmer’s chief of staff while Simons became a cabinet minister until he resigned following revelations that he had hired a reputation management firm to “proactively undermine” journalistic investigations into Labour Together, McSweeney and Sir Keir Starmer.
Simons subsequently vacated his Makerfield constituency seat for Andy Burnham.
Internal documents detail how Labour Together under McSweeney’s watch (2017-20) conducted polling of the Labour membership to monitor its views on the incidence of antisemitism in the party.
This polling allowed McSweeney and his allies to track responses to the antisemitism narrative that they were simultaneously helping to sustain by placing arguably alarmist stories in the media.
The documents further detail how The Canary media outlet was highly trusted among Labour members and identified as a political challenge because it defended Corbyn amid antisemitism accusations.
The Canary was subsequently targeted by the McSweeney-linked Stop Funding Fake News campaign with an advertiser boycott, which helped to diminish its revenue.
Weaponising antisemitism
McSweeney quietly inflamed the “antisemitism crisis” that would dog Corbyn’s leadership from at least 2018.
He did so by seeding and placing stories into the press that helped to build the narrative that Corbyn’s Labour had become riddled with antisemitism and that this flowed inexorably from a resurgent left-wing anti-imperialism.
At the same time, the new documents show, Labour Together was paying YouGov to repeatedly poll Labour members on whether they agreed with the framing of the party as a hotbed of antisemitism.
The goal was apparently to gain a detailed guide to the opinions of the party’s membership as McSweeney sought to detach it from Corbyn’s leadership.
Although the precise cost is unknown, polling of this kind was likely to be expensive.
It was also at this time that Labour Together unlawfully failed to declare most of its donations, amounting to over £700,000, with key funders of the organisation including hedge fund manager Martin Taylor and pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn.
‘Deliberately exaggerated’…………………………………………………..
‘Dreadful performance’…………………………………………………..
The Canary……………………………….
Stop Funding Fake News
When read against other emails and Labour Together’s polling, the briefing note points to concerns about how The Canary was undermining the antisemitism narrative that McSweeney and his allies were covertly helping to inflame in this period.
In March 2019, McSweeney and his ally Imran Ahmed would launch the Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN) campaign, which sought to demonetise The Canary by pressuring companies to withdraw advertising from its website.
While being led by factional Labour insiders, the SFFN campaign presented itself as a project run by committed grassroots activists who were concerned with the proliferation of “fake news”.
Interestingly, the internal briefing note, which appears to have been a precursor to the SFFN campaign, made no mention of the accuracy of The Canary’s reporting.
The emphasis was on its political influence, strongly suggesting the subsequent campaign was initiated in response to The Canary’s challenge to the political ambitions of Labour Together, onto which claims of “disinformation” were grafted.
Indeed, McSweeney reportedly told Labour Together colleagues: “Destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us”.
That campaign, alongside changes to social media algorithms, played a powerful role in circumscribing the impact and reach of The Canary by late 2019.
By then, Labour Together’s plan to install Sir Keir Starmer as the leader of the Labour Party was well-advanced.
McSweeney and Labour Together’s fixation on polling would carry over the organisation while led by Josh Simons (2022 – 2024).
These intense polling efforts apparently also helped the organisation to create caricatures of target voters for the Labour party which were at once crude, bizarre, and insulting.
A version of the “Workington Man” curated by Labour Together was 62 years old, white, “absolutely despised Jeremy Corbyn”, “hates Europe and European culture”, drives an “Audi A4”, and “thinks South Asians who live nearby are terrible drivers”…………………………………………..
Labour Together is now called ThinkLabour. Think Labour, Josh Simons, Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney were asked to comment.
Paul Holden is a journalist for Shadow World Investigations and author of the book The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney and the Crisis of British Democracy. Between 2020 and 2021, Holden worked directly with the Zondo Commission to assist its investigations into complex money laundering schemes used to hide and dissipate state capture loot in South Africa. https://www.declassifieduk.org/inside-labour-togethers-secret-battle-against-jeremy-corbyn/
Jeffrey Sachs: The Greater Israel Project is Collapsing
June 27, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-greater-israel-project-is-collapsing/
For further reading, the interview references the article “Stop ‘Greater Israel’ to Make Peace”: In which Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares argue that the ideology of “Greater Israel” has become the driving force behind decades of conflict across the Middle East, describing it as an expansionist doctrine that continues to fuel war rather than security.
Sachs and Fares argue that lasting peace in the Middle East requires rejecting the ideology of “Greater Israel,” which they contend has driven decades of conflict in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and, most recently, Iran. The authors claim that Israeli expansionism—backed by both secular nationalists and religious extremists, and enabled by unwavering U.S. political support—has repeatedly fueled wars that have devastated the region while ultimately undermining Israel’s own security and international standing. They maintain that the recent U.S.-Iran ceasefire demonstrates diplomacy is more effective than military force and argue that a durable peace depends on ending the war in Gaza, halting Israeli occupation and expansion, withdrawing from neighboring territories, and establishing an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel within the 1967 borders.
The authors highlight what they characterize as increasingly hardline rhetoric among Israel’s leadership, writing that the ideology is rooted in “secular hardliners like Netanyahu who say that Israel must control all the land from the river to the sea to be safe, and damn the eight million Palestinians in the way.” They also point to statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has declared there is “no such thing as a Palestinian” and vowed that Israel “won’t commit suicide to make them happy” by relinquishing military control of the West Bank, Gaza, or occupied territory in Lebanon and Syria. Sachs and Fares contend that these views help explain continued military action despite diplomatic breakthroughs, arguing that “Greater Israel” advocates view peace itself as a setback. As evidence, they note that “even after the deal was sealed, Israel has continued to bomb Lebanon,” arguing that the ideology remains a major obstacle to a lasting regional peace.
Click the Image Below [on original]to Read the Full Article
-
Archives
- July 2026 (251)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS



