Whether it’s their actions in local government, or Nigel Farage’s latest scandal or what their candidates and members are up to, here’s where it’s gone wrong for Reform this week.

1. ‘Reform don’t care about working class kids’: Farage U-turns on lifting two child cap

Farage has faced growing criticism this week after saying he will oppose the Labour government’s decision to lift the two child benefit cap, which will see hundreds of thousands of children across the country lifted out of poverty.

The Reform leader says he now opposes lifting the cap, despite the party previously committing to abolishing the policy.

Far from being anti-establishment, Farage supports a Tory policy to push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty.

2. Reform Chairman had 10 firms struck off for breaking company law

Yet another Reform UK politician has hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons, for having at least 10 companies struck off for breaking company law.

Far from being the party of law and order, Byline Times has revealed that Paul Donaghy, who stood for the North East Mayoral post and in the Washington & Gateshead South constituency last year and who remains the Washington & Gateshead South Chairman, has had 10 companies struck off for ‘failing to submit legally-required documents including accounts’.

3. Journalist shouted down at Reform press briefing when asking Nigel Farage about alleged racist and antisemitic comments

An ITV journalist was shouted down at a Reform UK press briefing earlier this week, when he questioned Nigel Farage about his alleged racist and antisemitic abuse against fellow pupils at Dulwich College.

Over recent weeks, Nigel Farage has been hit with allegations of racism and antisemitism dating back to his time as a student at Dulwich College in the 1970s and 80s.

At a press briefing, ITV News correspondent Shehab Khan asked Farage once more about the allegations and if he would apologise to his former classmates, only to be shouted down and told ‘boring’ from some members gathered.

That a journalist was shouted down with shouts of ‘boring’ over such serious allegations of racism and antisemitism shows you how disgraceful Reform UK are.

4. Farage slammed for ‘parroting the Kremlin line’ over Ukraine troops stance

Nigel Farage has been criticised this week for “parroting Kremlin lines”, after the Reform leader said he would vote against any government plans to deploy British soldiers in Ukraine.

Speaking on LBC this week, Labour MP Pat McFadden described the government’s plans to deploy troops if a peace deal is agreed as “a really important statement of intent”.

The cabinet minister then laid into Farage, saying: “That’s why it’s so concerning to me to see some politicians, like Mr Farage, for example, immediately come out, parrot the Kremlin line and say he wouldn’t support this.”

5. Nigel Farage took £10,000 gift from Gulf state

Nigel Farage accepted a £10,000 gift from an autocratic petrostate, the United Arab Emirates, the latest update to his register of Members’ interests shows.

The entry states that Farage accepted £10,000 from the Government of Abu Dhabi, run by Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to attend the Formula 1 and “meetings” in December.

The UAE has often been described as a monarchic dictatorship and authoritarian state, because political power is concentrated in the hands of its hereditary rulers.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

The post 5 Reform disasters this week: Your weekly round up of where it’s going wrong for Farage’s party appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Trump’s first presidency was a half-hearted dry run at Orbánisation.  His second is the real McCoy. The US’s experience of the last 10 months demonstrates that a government that chooses to ignore the normal rules of the game, circumvent its constitution and crash through democratic guardrails wields virtually limitless power and can overturn, astonishingly quickly, deeply entrenched democratic and human rights.

As the Financial Times’s US correspondent wrote: It took years for Viktor Orbán to consolidate strongman rule in Hungary. Trump is trying to pull off an equivalent system-change within months.

The scale of the democratic rout in the US is being documented in detail in the Trump Action Tracker created by Professor Christina Pagel.  Strangely the tracker is not always accessible because it keeps getting reported as a dangerous webpage.  It isn’t.

The UK is waking up to the reality that the UK is also vulnerable to the equivalent of the US’s Project 2025: the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the Trump administration.  My organisation, Unlock Democracy, has christened the threat Project 2029.

Key elements of Project 2029 are starting to fall into place.  And people are noticing. This is certainly true of Unlock Democracy supporters who are contributing generously to our annual Crowdfunder which focuses heavily on Project 2029.

It was reported on Sky that a new think tank, originally named Resolute 1850, has been set up with £1million in funding pledged.  This Maga-style think tank will drive Project 2029. Its stated mission inter alia is to ‘foster stronger transatlantic relationships’. Unless it is going to be more open about its sources of funding than its likely stablemates, the ASI, the IEA, the Taxpayers’ Alliance and Policy Exchange, there will be little or no transparency over how much of its funding comes from abroad and the agenda of its donors.

An eco-system of supportive new media, social media and old media is already in place to support and amplify a Project 2029 agenda.

Echoes of the US Project 2025 already feature in the rhetoric of some of the UK’s political parties, for example:

• Reshaping government by expanding executive power
• Rolling back civil liberties and minority rights
• Dismantling the administrative state
• Replacing non-partisan civil servants with political loyalists
• Challenging academic independence

An incoming government, elected with fewer than 3 out of 10 votes but securing a comfortable working majority, would have no difficulty implementing Project 2029.  It could overturn swathes of UK legislation without any serious resistance, including laws considered of a constitutional nature such as the Human Rights Act.  Lord Hailsham’s ‘elective dictatorship’, 50 years after he first floated the danger, would become a reality.

Many of the UK institutions would also be at risk and their vulnerability to government interference should not be under-estimated.  Professor Christina Pagel,  Professor Martin McKee CBE and Luke Flynn have analysed the vulnerability of the UK’s scientific institutions to political interference in their paper, Strengthening the institutions: ensuring their effectiveness and independence. The report does not make reassuring reading.

The peril Project 2029 poses to UK democracy has prompted the 99% Organisation and Unlock Democracy to come together, with other experts, to work on a Defensive Constitutional Reform Report.

We will be publishing it soon. It lists the tactical steps that the UK government could take in the short to medium term to reduce the risk that the next election could be stolen by a group of powerful, uber rich overseas backers and minimise the damage Project 2029 could inflict on the British people after the next General Election.  We will argue that Project 2029 could affect democracy and people’s well-being and security, on the scale of another pandemic or multiple natural disasters and requires a national preparedness strategy to alleviate its impact.

John F. Kennedy said that “Democracy is never a final achievement. It is a call to an untiring effort.” 

We can only hope that the government realises this, acknowledges that Project 2029 represents a real threat to our democracy, and takes urgent steps to neutralise it.

The post Project 2029 poses a real threat to our democracy: We must act appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Reeves’ remarks are the latest in a series of interventions that signal a growing confidence among ministers in openly criticising Brexit. But while the government starts to finally acknowledge the damage, the right appear to be gearing up for the next big rupture, with potentially even more far-reaching consequences – leaving the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Hijacked by the immigration debate

On the eve of the Conservative Party’s annual conference, and under intense pressure from Reform, Kemi Badenoch announced that the Tories would withdraw the UK from the ECHR, if they win the next election. Seeking to toughen the position she inherited from Rishi Sunak, Badenoch, like many on the party’s right, blames the ECHR for blocking tougher measures on migrant deportations. The Tories are likely still reeling from the embarrassment of June 2022, when their controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was halted at the last minute by a ruling from the ECHR, dealing a major blow to Boris Johnson’s government.

“I have not come to this decision lightly,” Badenoch said. “But it is clear that it is necessary [leaving the EHCR] to protect our borders, our veterans, and our citizens.”

After all, Kemi Badenoch can’t afford to be appear weak on immigration, especially when Nigel Farage has vowed that his first act as prime minister would be to pull the UK out of the ECHR.

Yes, Reform UK has gone all-in on the claim that the ECHR is the key obstacle to fixing the UK’s immigration system. Farage argues that leaving the ECHR, and other international treaties, would allow the government to crack down harder on illegal immigration.

In August, Farage announced that a Reform UK government would introduce an Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill, and to make it law, would withdraw from the ECHR altogether. In its place, he pledged to introduce a new British Bill of Rights. For now, however, there are no details about what Farage’s proposed Bill of Rights would actually contain.

The Reform leader also insists that “three quarters of the country would cheer to the rafters,” at such a move.

Public opinion tells a different story

But Farage’s claims are not backed by public opinion. A recent YouGov survey shows that the public are opposed to leaving the ECHR, with 46 percent saying we should remain a member compared to 29 percent saying we should withdraw. The remaining 24 percent are unsure.

Support for leaving is highest among Reform UK voters, with 72 percent in favour. Among Conservative voters, that figure drops to just 44 percent. In contrast, 82 percent of Labour supporters, 76 percent of Lib Dems, and 85 percent of Green voters want the UK to remain a member.

The European Convention of Human Rights came into force in 1953 as part of the post-war creation of a rule-based international order in place of brute force international politics. It was established by the Council of Europe to protect fundamental rights and freedoms across the continent. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was established by the ECHR to enforce the rights guaranteed in the Convention. 

Drafted largely by British lawyers in the aftermath of World War II, the ECHR has strong British roots, with Winston Churchill being a key architect. It aimed to enshrine a “never again” commitment to prevent the atrocities seen under fascist regimes. Since then, it has protected people in the UK from torture, unlawful killing, slavery, and arbitrary detention. It also safeguards freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and privacy. Existing to safeguard all of our rights, leaving this Convention risks the rights of all of those who live in the UK.

The ECHR is not part of the European Union. It’s a separate legal framework under the Council of Europe, of which all 27 EU countries are members, but so are others, including post-Brexit Britain.

A country can leave the Convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe, as the two are dependent on each other.

But only two countries have ever left the ECHR.

Russia’s ECHR expulsion

Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe in March 2022, following its invasion of Ukraine, which ended its membership in the ECHR. Greece withdrew from the ECHR in 1967 under its right-wing military dictatorship, a regime marked by the suspension of civil liberties, widespread censorship, and the jailing, torture, and exile of political opponents, but was readmitted in 1974 after democracy was restored.

Ed Davey, leader of the Lib Dems, who have long opposed right-wing calls to leave the ECHR, noted that Russia remains the only country to have withdrawn from the Convention.

“Kemi Badenoch has chosen to back Nigel Farage and join Vladimir Putin,” he said, adding “this will do nothing to stop the boats or fix our broken immigration system.”

Yet in the summer, Davey, who fought a general election on a promise to cancel Brexit, suggested a different position, saying he wouldn’t be opposed to rewriting the Convention. “If you could do it collectively, working with the court, with European colleagues, yes, one could look at that,” he said. This suggests that there is a much wider perception that it is important to periodically revisit any historic international settlement to test its validity in current circumstances which is, of course, a long way from what the right are looking for. 

What about Labour?

Labour, meanwhile, is, typically, treading a far more cautious path. Rather than challenging the right’s framing of the issue, the party is focused on reviewing how the ECHR is interpreted by the courts and even floating the idea of amending it. Keir Starmer  told the BBC he doesn’t want to “tear down” human rights laws, but does support changing how international law is applied to prevent unsuccessful asylum seekers from blocking deportation.

It’s classic Starmer, the former barrister who edited a textbook on European law in 1998, trying to avoid alienating voters on the right while clinging to progressive credibility.

And Labour’s positioning on the ECHR has grown more complicated over the past year. In March, then-home secretary Yvette Cooper said the party was reviewing how the Convention was being interpreted by the courts, particularly Article 8 concerning the right to family life, and how it was being applied in immigration cases. 

A few months later, two ambitious Labour backbenchers, Jake Richards and Dan Tomlinson, joined the chorus, penning a joint article in the Times, calling for “reform” of the Convention to deport more foreign criminals.

Nigel Farage claims that he has changed the terms of the debate, that the liberal establishment is panicking because of his campaign against the ECHR.

Though this is perhaps a bit naïve – or hopeful – from Farage. It is certainly a wild over statement of his influence. Nothing new in that though.

In May, nine EU leaders, led by the far-right prime ministers of Italy and Denmark, published an open letter to launch an “open-minded conversation” about the “interpretation” of the Convention.

It’s safe to assume, that the open letter from Giorgia Meloni and Mette Frederiksen, the latter having taken a hardline stance on immigration, outflanking parties traditionally to the right of her Social Democrats, was not prompted by Reform’s success in British opinion polls. At the end of the day, we all know that any changes to current legal frameworks motivated by anti-immigrant sentiments, will look very different from those which proceed on the basis of a shared humanity.   

Would leaving ‘stop the boats’?

In the UK, there is also the Human Rights Act, which means ECHR cases can be dealt with by its own judges.

A University of Oxford study by the Bonavero Institute for Human Rights found that fewer than 1% of foreign criminals appealing deportation in the UK succeeded on human rights grounds. When cases reached the ECHR, most were thrown out.

Lord Sumption, former Supreme Court justice, says the ECHR is “certainly an additional difficulty, but not as great a difficulty, as is suggested.”

The real challenge, he told the BBC, is “finding a place which will take them [deportees] and which is not unsafe,” alongside obligations under the Refugee Convention, which requires the UK to assess asylum claims and grant rights to those who arrive, “even if they got here illegally.”

The cost to human rights

UK in a Changing Europe warns that leaving the ECHR, would strip individuals of a final avenue for justice when domestic courts fail, and remove international scrutiny of Britain’s human rights record. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement also requires the ECHR to remain part of Northern Ireland law, and withdrawal would breach the agreement and risk destabilising the peace process, damaging relations with Ireland, the EU, and the US.

And as Professor Vernon Bogdanor of King’s College London notes, both the ECHR and the 1951 Refugee Convention protect asylum seekers from being sent to countries where they risk persecution. “Would anyone wish to deport women to Afghanistan or dissidents to Iran?” Even Farage seems to have had second thoughts on that one after initially seeming to suggest that women and children could be returned to Afghanistan.

Human rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich warns that leaving the ECHR would undermine vital protections, such as Article 2, the right to life, which enabled inquiries like the Hillsborough inquests to expose state failings. “If we withdraw fully… it’s those rights that are going to suffer,” she says.

Yet hostility to the ECHR is becoming a new badge of toughness on immigration. As Dr Alice Donald, professor of human rights law at Middlesex University, observes, “calls for withdrawal vastly overestimate the marginal effect that the ECHR has on immigration decisions.”

We should have learned from Brexit, which weakened Britain in every sense. Now the same voices want to abandon the ECHR. We know where that road will lead.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author Right-Wing Watch

The post The new immigration hot potato: How the ECHR was hijacked by the right appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

While Tory leader Kemi Badenoch announced this week that her party would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights if it wins the next election, more voters prefer the UK to remain a member of the ECHR than those who wish to leave it, a new poll has found.

The poll, carried out by YouGov, found that Britons want to remain a member of the ECHR by 46%, compared to 29% who prefer to withdraw.

The Conservative Party claims that staying in the ECHR blocks migration reform and is being used to obstruct efforts to deport foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers.

However, Badenoch has been criticised for her proposals which seek to mimic those being put forward by Reform UK, with the Prime Minister previously warning that leaving the ECHR  would put the country in the same “camp” as Russia and Belarus.

“Let’s be clear: the ECHR underpins key international agreements on trade, security, migration and the Good Friday agreement. Anyone who is proposing to renegotiate the Good Friday agreement is not serious”, the government previously warned.

Thankfully the British public also prefers to remain part of the ECHR according to the latest polling, though no doubt the right will continue to whip up a moral panic over the issue, with progressives needing to make a strong argument for remaining in.

The Trades Union Congress has warned that withdrawing from the ECHR would also amount to an attack on workers rights as it ‘underpins many of the rights that protect workers in the UK’.

Through its incorporation into domestic law via the Human Rights Act, it guarantees key workers’ rights principles like:

The prohibition of slavery and forced labour

The right to a fair trial

The right to privacy and family life

Freedom of association (including the right to join a union)

Protection from discrimination

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

The post Unlike Kemi Badenoch voters want the UK to remain a member of the ECHR, poll finds appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The report and accompanying documentary, Criminal Catches: How to Stop the Supply of Illegal Seafood to the UK, were released by the Coalition for Fisheries Transparency, which includes the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Open Seas. These organisations advocate for sustainable fishing practices and responsible seafood sourcing.

Based on official UK data and years of investigative work by the EJF, the findings reveal disturbing connections between UK seafood imports and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, particularly from China’s distant-water fishing fleet. These vessels have been linked to both environmental violations and human rights abuses, including forced labour, human trafficking, and slavery.

Despite receiving approximately 1,000 catch certificates annually from China, equating to around 58,000 tonnes of seafood, the UK has only rejected four consignments from the country since 2012, “indicating these imports are not being properly screened,” the EJF states.

Since leaving the EU, the UK has drastically reduced checks on imported seafood, a move the report warns has left regulators “effectively blind” to the origins and conditions under which the seafood is caught. This regulatory gap increases the risk of products tied to human rights violations and ecosystem destruction ending up on British dinner plates.

In 2024, more than a quarter of UK seafood imports came from countries issued with a “yellow card” warning by the European Commission, meaning they are not adequately addressing IUU fishing practices.

Steve Trent, founder and CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation, noted the UK’s crucial role in shaping global fishing standards. “Over 80% of the fish eaten in the UK is imported,” he said, “meaning the UK has the power, opportunity and responsibility to drive powerful change across the global fishing industry.

“By taking a more proactive approach, the UK can protect its market from illegally caught fish, uphold human rights at sea and safeguard marine ecosystems long into the future.”

The report calls for urgent government action and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) receive adequate funding to restore lost monitoring and reporting capabilities, ensuring that seafood entering the UK meets both environmental and ethical standards.

The post UK seafood imports at risk of human rights abuses, report finds appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

During a press conference earlier today, Farage pledged to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, scrap the Human Rights Act, and vowed to deport all illegal immigrants, saying that even women and children would be detained. As part of his policy offer, he also said he would be fine with Britain funding despotic regimes in Iran and Afghanistan, in order to negotiate return agreements to take refugees fleeing their regimes.

His pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act has resulted in widespread condemnation, with progressives warning that it would have disastrous consequences for all of our human rights.

Labour MP Stella Creasy posted on X: “Farage says trust in politicians never been lower, so his answer is to remove the protection you have from Governments abusing your rights.

“The Human Rights Act protects everyone. Including you. He wrecked your economy with brexit, don’t let him wreck your freedoms with this.”

Peter Stefanovic posted on X: “The ECHR has protected British people from abuses of power by its own government. Will Nigel Farage be mentioning that fact today when he announces his proposals for mass deportations, Prison camps, leaving the European Convention on Human Rights & scrapping the Human Rights Act, quitting the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention against Torture?”

Peter Tatchell also condemned Farage’s proposals, posting on X: “Nigel Farage would begin mass deportations of migrants & refugees, including children

“He would send them back to countries where they could face torture & execution

“He wants to tear up the Human Rights Act, which protects us all against state repression.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

The post Nigel Farage’s vow to scrap Human Rights Act leads to stark warnings about how it would undermine all of our rights appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Farage has set out a plan to detain and deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers if his party gets elected in 2029.

At the press conference, Paul McNamara from Channel 4, said to Farage: “There is a realistic possibility that if you go forward with this, there might be a case where someone arrives in the UK by small boat, you send them back to the country from which they came, and they will be tortured or killed because of a decision you’ve made.”

He asked: “How does that sit with you?”.

Farage failed to answer the question about risks to asylum seekers’ lives, and instead replied: “Well the alternative, of course, is to do nothing”. 

“That’s the very clear alternative, we just do nothing,” Farage repeated, adding: “We just allow this problem to magnify and grow.”

Farage then claimed that if people who arrive on small boats aren’t deported, it will lead to civil disorder. He added: “And I don’t want this to happen so we can prevent civil disorder from happening, but that is the direction this country is going in.”

Ironically, Farage has been one of the main right-wing figures encouraging far-right activists to protest outside migrant hotels. 

The Reform leader added: “We cannot be responsible for all the sins around the world.”

In his speech today, the Reform leader said his party would rip up international human rights agreements, by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention against Torture, and repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The removal of these human rights laws would weaken protections both for UK citizens and asylum seekers.

Asked by the BBC’s Ben Wright whether the possibility of thousands of asylum seekers facing imprisonment, torture or death if they were returned to their home countries “bother[s] him at all”, he claimed it does bother him.

However, he added: “What really bothers me is what is happening to British citizens, what really bothers me and you’ve seen this from the Bell Hotel onwards, is the growing concern with justifiable evidence that women and girls are far less safe on the streets than they were before all this began.”

It has been pointed out that Farage didn’t raise the issue of women’s safety before more people started arriving in the UK on small boats. 

In 2015, before small boats started arriving, 103,614 sexual offences were recorded in one year, with almost 35,000 reports of rapes, 68,000 reports of other sexual offences. Yet Farage wasn’t talking about women’s safety back then. 

Kolbassia Haoussou, director of survivor leadership at Freedom from Torture, has reacted to Reform saying it would leave the 1951 Refugee Contention and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Haoussou said: “The UN Convention Against Torture is a promise to defend our shared right to live a life free from torture. For centuries, the UK has been a leading voice against torture, helping to shape the very international laws that Reform proposes we destroy. 

“These laws were created in the aftermath of the second world war to protect us all. If Britain were to abandon this legacy it would hand repressive regimes around the world a gift and undermine one of humanity’s clearest moral lines. We must not stay silent.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Nigel Farage dodges questions on returning asylum seekers who could be tortured or killed appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Mainstream media and political leaders suffer from ‘geopolitical drag’ that inhibits the expression of honesty on the reality of events. Gaza is a killing field and yet the UK government’s long-standing geopolitical entanglements with Israel mean they can’t articulate this for what it is, any more than they can take an honest stand against Donald Trump.

It was the same with Boris Johnson. We could all see the appalling chaos he created, the negligence leading to so many unnecessary Covid deaths, the self-serving lies and corruption, the extreme administrative incompetence. We could all see a man, led by deeply misplaced self-belief, playing at leadership. It was there in technicolour, every day.

Yet politicians and the press mostly tiptoed round Johnson’s massive failings. Only after he left could they concede that he’d been a disaster. In the meantime, we all staggered on with the ghastly status quo, just as we are doing now with Benjamin Netanyahu, Farage and the abominable Trump.

Inevitable noise

The leadership and press ‘delicacy’ we are sold is fundamentally a moral failing. That Netanhayu’s Gaza attacks violate the Geneva Convention is beyond debate now. Nor is there any possible world in which Trump, a felon hellbent on upending the global economy, violating human rights and shutting down US health, education and science, is a good leader. These conclusions no more have two sides than does the ‘flat earth’ debate.

And yet our leaders and press chunter dishonestly on. Occasionally something breaks through the slumber. Series like Adolescence and Mr Bates vs the Post Office managed to cut through, like wakeful murmurings in an otherwise deep sleep. But for the rest, the media ensures that our moral outrage is woven into the backdrop of daily political life as inevitable ‘Left of field’ noise.

The real battle

We use ‘Left-wing’ and Right-wing’ as identifying markers on the political spectrum. But ‘Left vs Right’ isn’t the key battle now. Nor is the battle usefully conceived as between Democrats and Republicans or, more broadly, ‘authoritarianism vs liberal democracy’ or ‘neo-liberal oligarchies vs democratic socialism’.

The real battle is essentially between humanity and inhumanity. It is our humanity that is under assault.

And let’s call the battle precisely this because our humanity underpins everything else. Democracy, economics, and sovereignty are not ends in themselves. Their purpose is to uphold human rights by creating systems of governance, trade and national autonomy that help protect us from harm, preserve our liberty, and flourish as a species. “Liberal democracy is built on the concept that every human being has inherent dignity and universal rights” (Hope Not Hate).

These rights have an inbuilt societal dimension which follows from the universal logical principle that we should treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves, with fairness, dignity and compassion. This societal dimension enshrines our responsibility to protect the rights of others and extends to our communities and beyond, meaning we must at least care and strive to act. Geopolitics may obstruct our responses to famines and wars in other countries but must not de-sensitise us. Our responsibilities also include respect for diversity (ethnic, gender, religious, cultural, creative), and for society’s survival: climate activism is about preserving our planet for the future of others.

In the ring

As regards this mother of all battles, in one corner of the ring is humanity.

In the other corner is inhumanity, represented by the far-right mindsets of Vladimir Putin, Trump, Viktor Orban and their global network. These dictators are ‘inhumanitarians’ in having no conception of human rights and, as autocracy scholar Ruth Beh-Ghiat notes, “no morals or values beyond power”. They lack empathy, profoundly fear difference, are compelled by vindictiveness, and feel driven to control and dominate.

Trump has no moral qualms about cuts to Harvard medical research funding or the thousands devastated by USAID cuts. His challenges to the sovereignty of Ukraine, Canada, Gaza and Greenland are inhumanitarian because they threaten the self-determination of these regions and the individuals within them. MAGA is an inhumanitarian mindset because it is indifferent to humanity beyond a nativist subset of citizens within its own shores.

Inhumanity isn’t confined to ‘the Right’. Labour’s disability benefit cuts constitute “performative cruelty”, as does it’s shameful aping of Reform by parading images of guards loading deportees onto planes. The moral outrage these actions triggered was germane to voters defecting to other parties in the recent local elections.

The ‘bucket’ tactic

The most profound scam in this political culture is its weaponisation of the label ‘Left’. Right-leaning politicians (including Blue Labour) and their press use this label as a political bucket in which to dump opponents. Humanitarian concern is lampooned as militant Left extremism, with “woke” serving as the Right’s attack term for displaying often visceral levels of contempt.

Hence, respect for gender diversity as a human right is re-formulated as ‘the woke left corrupting school children and flouting biological science’. Outrage at the genocidal killings in Gaza becomes ‘antisemitism’, or ‘the rantings of “radical left lunatics”. Calls for increased benefits for vulnerable people becomes ‘the Left welcoming exploitative scroungers’. Concern for the plight of migrants becomes a ‘dangerous Leftie plan to open the Uk’s floodgates’.

But these aren’t ‘left-wing’ concerns. They are humanitarian ones. Re-branding them as ‘left’ is a ruse, a silencing strategy that reduces our basic humanity to mere ideological opinion which can then be ignored or rejected a priori.

I hear you but …

The bucket tactic also eases guilt. Inhumanitarians can say ‘I hear your fury about the dead refugee boy washed up on the beach, at US deportations of innocent people, at the rioters’ attacks on UK Muslims. Somewhere in the recesses of my subconscious I hear the rightness of this rage. But if I can silence your voice by putting your concerns in the bucket of ‘Leftie ranting’ then I have an alternative explanation that prays less heavily on my conscience. And the more revulsion I can muster for the ‘woke-Left’ narrative, the harder my own conscience is to reach.’ It’s an ongoing, self-reinforcing process.

Simplistic Naïvety ?

The status quo defender will protest that these ‘Left concerns’ deserve lampooning because they fail to grasp the geopolitical complexity of the issues.

Views like ‘no migrant should be turned away’ are simplistic. The meaningful ‘Left’ demand though is that humanitarian concerns should become central to government policymaking and media messaging.

Willingness, within reason, to pay is a marker of a society’s humanity. Saying ‘we’re cutting Personal Independence Payments and funding arms and military intelligence for Israel’ simply doesn’t wash.

Nor is it acceptable, whilst grappling with migration, to slide into racist demonisation that undermines the rights of migrants to respect and compassion.

It must also be acknowledged that some anxieties about migration deserve a hearing, and that some forms of migration do put some pressure on some resources. A nuanced understanding of both sides of the debate is essential but with ethical solutions as the bottom line.

Here the ‘simplistic naivety’ charge is turned on its head since calling for ethical funding, respect for diverse rights, and for policies that work but avoid ‘othering’, recognises the complexity of meaningful solutions to the big issues (the Israel / Gaza conflict, migration, trans rights, benefits, fair taxation). It is inhumanitarian approaches, like harsh treatment to deter migrants, and forcing vulnerable groups into employment, that are lazily simplistic.

The power of exposure

But can perceptions be shifted if humanitarian arguments are invariably ring-fenced as ‘from the suspect Left’?

When Channel 4 had the bright idea of posting a small group of vehement British anti-migrants to Syria and Somalia, the participants altered their views through exposure. They changed, not by moving from right-wing to left-wing, but by meeting and communicating with people needing to migrate, by experiencing for themselves the dangers of crossing a mountain pass, and of negotiating the Channel in an overloaded dingy in pitch darkness. They changed because they were placed in circumstances that enabled them to rediscover their humanity. This has nothing (and yet everything) to do with politics.

Not so much Left as right

But beyond the odd televisual breakthrough, humanitarians are still shouting to be heard from the recesses of their bucket, surrounded by mufflers. Their responses to the raw horror of human rights abuses are silenced by the very act, used by politicians and the media, of politicisation, of rebranding justified moral outrage as ‘the Left viewpoint’.

Since “silence is complicity” then we should be vocally angry with our news media for its cowardly conceit of ducking the glaring truth, for wooing us into complacency in the face of political evil, and for using paralysing both-sidesism to divert us from the inhumanitarian abuses being conducted by malevolent leaders.

Trumpism should be galvanising us, stirring our humanity and highlighting its precious significance. We should, therefore, be loudly resisting the UK’s somnambulant Farage-led drift into Trumpesque authoritarianism we witnessed in the latest elections.

To fight a Trumpesque future we should abandon the useless straight jacket of ‘Left vs Right’ and replace it with the more powerful, crystal-clear moral axis of right vs wrong. This viewpoint recognises the complexity of today’s big issues but helps fundamentally to change our approach, our priorities, and to expose the political strategies holding our tribal blindfolds in place.

Claire Jones writes and edits for West England Bylines and is co-ordinator for the Oxfordshire branch of the progressive campaign group, Compass

The post It’s not Left vs Right anymore. It’s humanity vs inhumanity. appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Last week the Government announced £5bn of welfare cuts, which will see the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) tightened, and the health element of universal credit reduced for new claimants. The DWP’s own impact assessments show that the impact of the cuts will be brutal, with 250,000 people, including 50,000 children pushed into poverty. 

For many of the 16 million people in the UK already living below the poverty line the impact will be further destitution. Many more people will have to rely on food banks and plunging into debt to eat, stay warm, and prevent their children from living in poverty. These changes to social security create a brutal domino effect where people’s right to food, health and housing collapse one after another. For instance, a disabled person loses their PIP, meaning their carer also loses their Carer’s Allowance, meaning the carer faces sanctions for not finding work, and then on top of losing their PIP, the disabled person loses the support they need to wash, use the toilet, dress and eat. 

We will ultimately see vulnerable people left at extreme risk of harm, and many others forced into debt, poverty and extreme stress, causing a further rise in mental and physical health problems across the country. This will put even more strain on the NHS and local authorities, requiring the Government to make bigger investments in an attempt to solve problems caused by their own cuts.  

This government seems to have forgotten that social security is a human right and the bedrock of a civilised society. The protection that social security provides is how we ensure people can eat and live safely with their families and in communities, no matter their circumstances. It’s how we ensure that everyone in our society, no matter their challenges, can live their lives in dignity and with their basic needs met.  

The Government likes to boast that the UK leads the world in respecting international law. But that includes economic, cultural and social rights, the right to food and a home for instance, which as the cuts to disability benefits show, the Government is failing to provide to many of its own citizens. Indeed, only last month, the UN concluded that the UK Government is failing in their approach to tackling poverty in the concluding observations on the UKs report to the Committee for Cultural, Economic and Social Rights. 

The Government justifies these cuts by claiming that they are ‘getting people back into work’. But to do so in a meaningful way would require them to acknowledge the interdependencies in peoples’ lives that act as a barrier to them engaging with work or earning enough to make ends meet. Many people living in poverty are in work in the UK, and DWP research from 2025 found that 41% of people who claim health or disability benefits were on an NHS waiting list and half felt their ability work was dependent on getting this treatment. People need support to overcome the barriers into decent work, investment in skills, decent social care, childcare, timely healthcare and where these are not in place or someone simply cannot work, they need social security to step in not punishment and stigma. 

Poverty is a political choice. Ending it is perfectly possible should those in power choose to, but tragically successive Governments have instead chosen to exacerbate the problem without a clear mechanism to be held accountable. When it comes to balancing the books, successive Governments have chosen to put the squeeze on the people with the lowest incomes first rather than look to those who can afford to contribute more. Instead of investing in social security they’ve chosen to run roughshod over our human rights, at huge personal cost to families across the country. 

The social security system isn’t fit for purpose, and it needs reform to recentre human rights principles, dignity and respect to protect people from hunger and hardship. It must be non-negotiable in a relatively wealthy country like ours that the government prioritises reversing poverty not worsening it.  

Image credit: Lauren Hurley / 10 Downing Street – Creative Commons

The post Cuts to disability benefits are riding roughshod over human rights appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

In a truly bleak assessment, Amnesty International said Britain had breached international human rights commitments at a “perilous” time in global history, as a result of the UK government’s policies targeting asylum seekers and protesters. 

Amnesty’s 2024 annual global report notes Britain’s weakening global and domestic human rights protections for the sake of the government’s own political gain, and at a time when the global community is failing to uphold international law.

Amnesty also accused the UK Government of ‘grotesque double-standards’ for bolstering the actions of Israel and the US in Gaza, as the UK continues to arm Israel while failing to condemn Israel’s actions in the region which ‘likely amounts to war crimes’. 

The UK’s weak support for the international criminal court (ICC) investigation into human rights violations in Israel and Palestine was also condemned, along with its failure to stand up as a strong voice in the UN to stop human rights violations in Gaza. 

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive said: “There’s no doubt in my mind that the UK will be judged harshly by history for its failure to help prevent civilian slaughter in Gaza.”

When it comes to the ability to defend human rights at home, Amnesty lists the UK among countries affected by new laws which restrict citizens’ rights to freedom of expression. 

Furthermore the universal application of human rights had in effect been ended by the UK government, as Amnesty said the Illegal Migration Act, and government rhetoric around it, were in conflict with the UK refugee convention and European convention on human rights – “switching off” protections for refugees. 

The report also noted the increased use of facial recognition technology to police public protest and sporting events in the UK, along with India, Brazil and Argentina, and how this discriminates against marginalised communities.   

In the hard-hitting review Deshmukh said: “The UK is deliberately destabilising the entire concept of universal human rights through its appalling domestic policies and politicking.”

What a legacy the Tory government will leave behind. 

Amnesty International’s 2024 State of the World’s Human Rights report documents human rights concerns last year in 155 countries.

(Image credit: Richard Potts / Flickr)

Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Amnesty condemns UK for ‘appalling’ domestic policies in damning report appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.