Russia Will Not Tolerate Powers Alien to Black Sea to Establish Permanent Naval Presence There
Sputnik – 11.11.2024
Moscow is not going to allow powers alien to the Black Sea to maintain a permanent naval presence there, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev has said.
Russia has no intention of letting anyone weaken its positions in the region in question, Patrushev said during an interview with a Russian newspaper, adding that permanent naval presence of non-Black Sea countries in the waters “in violation of the Montreux Convention” will not be tolerated.
He further pointed out that the Russian Black Sea Fleet still retains its combat capabilities and is ready to repel all naval threats, despite the fact that Kiev’s “aggressive actions” in the region are being “coordinated by NATO specialists.”
In the meantime, Patrushev pointed out, the US and the UK have since lost much of their once-considerable naval power.
The British navy, for example, suffers from a severe deficit of sailors because naval service is simply no longer prestigious there, he said.
“The signs of naval power decline are seen in the US as well,” Patrushev added. “They have a massive fleet on paper, but in reality there is low morale among the seamen, chronic lack of personnel, the lack of repair capabilities and shipyard workers.”
Russia, on the other hand, maintains its status as one of the world’s leading naval powers and the Russian navy continues to perform all its duties, “including the most important one – nuclear deterrence.”
“Our opponents should know that Russia’s naval nuclear shield always stands guard over our country,” Patrushev stated.
He mentioned during the interview that while the US and its European allies pursue militarization of the Baltic Sea, Russia is taking additional measures to protect itself after Sweden and Finland joined NATO and against the backdrop of the Nord Stream blasts.
“Currently, ensuring security in the Baltic is the most important military and political task. Since the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, as well as against the background of the Nord Stream blasts, Russia has been taking additional measures to protect its territorial integrity and economic sovereignty,” Patrushev told the newspaper.
US Lawmakers Investigate Biden White House-Affiliated UK Censorship Group’s Plot To “Kill” Elon Musk’s X
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 8, 2024
Among the investigations currently carried out by the US House Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is the one into a case involving UK-based “censorship group” – the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
In a letter dated November 7, Committee chairman Jim Jordan is asking CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed to, by November 21, comply with a subpoena issued on August 30, 2023.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
According to Jordan, it covers the group’s activities as well, including documents showing the Biden-Harris administration’s alleged collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans’ lawful online speech.
Another point the letter makes is the plan to “kill Musk’s Twitter” – which communications recently revealed suggest was being hatched by CCDH. And Jordan reminds Ahmed that this, too, is with the subpoena’s scope.
On August 3, 2023, the Committee asked CCDH to present it with communications it had had with the US government as well as third parties regarding “moderation of online content” – and what role the government played in this (by exerting pressure on social platforms).
The letter then cites internal CCDH documents that recently came to light – particularly emails that show “killing Musk’s Twitter” was made a priority for the group this year.
Prior to that, the letter notes, CCDH in 2020 communicated with Twitter – then under its previous ownership – to identify content and accounts that should be censored, while earlier this year, CCDH “held a private event tat included (US) Executive Branch personnel.”
Last month, UK media reported about CCDH’s effort against X, as well as a formal request from then presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign suggesting the ruling Labour party was essentially interfering in US elections.
Not only were Labour advisers dispatched to the US to help Kamala Harris’ effort to remain in the White House – it was also revealed that CCDH has ties to UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer’s party.
Namely, Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi’s Disinformation Chronicle named Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney as the (co) founder of CCDH. And it just so happened that “strengthening ties with senior Democrats” features as one of the controversial group’s priorities, right along with, “killing Musk’s Twitter.”
Western liberalism has ‘degenerated’ – Putin
RT | November 7, 2024
Liberalism in the West has devolved into an aggressive and intolerant ideology in which freedom, democracy, and human rights take a back seat to power, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
His remarks were part of a keynote address at the 21st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on Thursday.
“Today’s Western liberalism, in my opinion, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative, towards any sovereign and independent thought, and now justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even mass genocide of the civilian population,” Putin said.
Moscow has traditionally considered the “collective West” to consist of the US and its allies in North America, Europe, Australia and East Asia. Their once-liberal governments have transformed their guiding ideology into something “totalitarian in essence,” the Russian president argued.
“Democracy is increasingly being interpreted as minority rule rather than rule of the majority, and traditional democracy is even being put at odds with some abstract freedom, for the sake of which – as some believe – democratic procedures, elections, the opinion of the majority, freedom of speech and impartiality of the media can be disregarded, or even sacrificed,” said Putin.
The Russian president called this trend towards tyranny as one of the biggest threats to the emerging multipolar world order.
The plenary session at which Putin spoke was titled ‘Security for Everyone. Together – Into a New World’. This year’s Valdai meeting is taking place under the motto ‘A Lasting Peace – On What Basis? Universal Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21st Century’.
UK government crackdown on pro-Palestine support may turn to lawfare against political dissidents
By Muhammad Hussein | MEMO | November 6, 2024
Throughout the past year of Israel’s war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the purported objective of wiping out Hamas, many governments across Europe have served as a kind of buffer for Tel Aviv, stopping at nothing to crush pro-Palestine protests. Demonstrators have been arrested and protests have been banned. The shameless labelling of all and any advocates for Palestinian rights as “Hamas sympathisers” and “anti-Semites” has exposed the obvious bias of European policymakers and police forces towards Israel and the Zionist narrative.
After around a year of such incidents and power games, the UK — the quiet repressor of dissent and rare expresser of policy positions — stepped up its own crackdown, arresting journalists or raiding their homes because of their support for Palestine and its people, as well as their criticism of Israel and its genocide in Gaza.
Last month, for example, British counter-terrorism police raided the home of journalist Asa Winstanley as part of “Operation Incessantness”, reportedly linked to his pro-Palestine social media posts. Although the specific posts were not detailed by reports, the authorities claimed that they were possible offences under sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 Terrorism Act, which pertain to the “encouragement of terrorism”.
Others to fall foul of this official crackdown in the UK include Palestine solidarity activists Mick Napier and Tony Greenstein, who were arrested last year over their expressions of support for legitimate Palestinian armed resistance and resistance movement Hamas itself. More recently, activist Sarah Wilkinson had her home raided by counter-terrorism police, and journalist Richard Medhurst was detained under the Terrorism Act upon arrival at Heathrow Airport.
Such raids, arrests and detentions by the British authorities are part of the wider repression of civil, political and press freedoms across the West as a whole.
First glimpsed during the “war on terror” years, we have seen the implementation of legislation granting governments greater freedom to monitor their citizens. The crackdown on hard-won freedoms was felt more heavily during the Covid pandemic. Many people who had not felt the weight of counter-terrorism policies realised suddenly that they too might not be exempt from being subject to pressure from the state, overreach and enforcement.
Today, with Western governments crushing expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or opposition to the Israeli occupation and genocide in Gaza, we are witnessing the next level of repression, symbolised by the way that the Establishment is protecting a rogue state which treats international laws and conventions with contempt — Israel — and the war crimes and crimes against humanity which are the inevitable result of such protection.
The repression is expected to get worse, with the UK in particular on a very worrying downward trajectory.
Following the election in July of the new Labour government under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, there was a brief moment when it looked as if the UK was ready and to offer more diplomatic and humanitarian support to the Palestinian people. There was even hope that the British government would not intervene to stop the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants sought for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and (now former) Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Now, though, we see the Labour government putting the brake on soon-to-be applicable legislation in order to cancel pro-Palestine activism on university campuses. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by the previous Conservative government in order to protect freedom of speech in universities and student unions by obliging them to take “reasonable steps” to promote free speech at the risk of facing legal action.
According to Labour’s Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, the government is applying the brake just days before the legislation is due to come into force, “In order to consider options, including its repeal.” She claimed that it “could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses.”
Despite the UK government insisting that it remains “absolutely committed” to freedom of speech, it is suspected by many of seeking to avoid at all costs the possibility of higher education institutions, figures and even officials being held to account over censorship of pro-Palestinian views and criticism of Israel.
Tragically, the state crackdown in the UK and other parts of the Western world could have serious implications for campaigners who refuse to stop advocating for Palestinian rights. The days of assassination, indefinite detention without trial or state-sponsored kidnapping of dissidents’ family members have generally long passed in the Western world — for now, at least — but so-called “extraordinary renditions” of dissidents to more brutal Western allies around the world are not unknown.
Western states and intelligence agencies have another trick up their sleeves, however, and one that is perhaps more powerful due to its facade of legitimacy: lawfare. False allegations, heavy-handed investigations and legal action under draconian laws look like being the bludgeon of choice for governments to attack political and other dissidents, including journalists and activists. Anything is possible in the clamour to protect the Zionist state of Israel.
Character assassinations are likely, and even so-called “sexpionage”.
The Western media is already largely complicit in such acts, being very pro-Israel in any case, so they would come as no surprise to anyone engaged in pro-Palestine, pro-justice activism.
Individuals and organisations in Britain have already faced such attempts to discredit them. No evidence is ever produced; it is enough for Israel to say “terrorist” and Western governments and media join the fray. Once the “terrorist” genie is out of the bottle, it is very difficult to get it back in. Mud sticks, whether thrown legitimately or not. The intention, of course, is to intimidate people into submission, so that Israel can continue to act with total impunity, free from criticism.
Even ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan has faced allegations of sexual misconduct recently. Is it coincidental that these allegations have surfaced when he is seeking the aforementioned arrest warrants against Israeli leaders over war crimes, and shortly after a pro-Israel group threatened him with legal action if he failed to reconsider his efforts?
Another key example of political lawfare in contemporary times is none other than Donald Trump, who has faced countless allegations, lawsuits and character assassinations that have never truly stuck. He may not be the finest moral example, nor is he any great advocate for the Palestinians, but it is naive not to acknowledge that many of the attempts to discredit him have been politically-motivated.
According to US Senator Chuck Schumer in 2017, Trump was “being really dumb” for taking on the US intelligence community regarding its analyses of Russia’s reported cyber activities. “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” said Schumer in as clear an admission you can hear that if the government and its agencies truly decide to discredit anyone, they can and will do so.
That is true for most Western states, including the UK. If allegations of Anti-Semitism and support for Hamas don’t stop pro-Palestine activists, then lawfare surely will. That’s the Starmer government’s hope, anyway. And given that very few individuals have the same wealth, tenacity and popular support as someone like Trump to help them fight against the allegations, self-confessed Zionist Starmer is probably right to be optimistic. We are heading into dark times, and all in order to protect an alien state engaged in genocide. It’s a shocking and disgraceful situation.
Lavrov warns NATO of missiles red line
RT | November 5, 2024
Moscow would not hesitate to respond to “aggressive actions” by NATO, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned. Allowing the Ukrainian military to use Western-supplied long-range weapons for strikes deep inside Russia would be treated as one such step, the diplomat told Rossiya Segodnya on Tuesday.
Kiev’s forces would not be able to operate such weapons independently, and would require the presence of NATO specialists as well as intelligence data obtained through the bloc’s satellite systems, Lavrov stated.
“If such weapons are used, that would mean that not just Ukraine but the NATO nations are openly at war with Russia,” the diplomat stressed. “The nature of this conflict, which the Western leaders sought to conceal… would literally come out.”
According to Lavrov, Moscow is well aware of the US-led military bloc’s aggressive policies. It has designated Russia as the biggest direct threat to its security, and NATO troops are being trained to launch offensive operations based on this, the diplomat added.
“Europe is being militarized at a quickened pace,” Lavrov stated.
“Our opponents should not be mistaken. In case of any aggressive actions by NATO or its member states against our nation, adequate retaliatory measures will be taken in full compliance with Russia’s right for self-defense embodied in the UN Charter,” the diplomat said, adding that Moscow would use “any means to ensure its security.”
“No one will be able to sit it out either beyond the Atlantic or the English Channel,” the minister warned.
Russia has repeatedly stated that it would treat Ukrainian attacks deep inside its territory using Western-supplied long-range missiles as a direct assault by the countries that supplied those weapons. Last month, President Vladimir Putin expressed hope that NATO had “heard” Moscow’s warning about the possible consequences of such actions.
Moscow would have to respond accordingly, the president said at that time, adding that “our military is thinking about this and will be offering various options.”
Kiev has for months been pushing the US and its allies to lift a ban on strikes deep inside Russia with Western-supplied long-range weapons. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky included this request in his so-called ‘victory plan’. The recently unveiled wish list for a conclusion to the ongoing conflict has been met with caution by many Western leaders.
The New York Times reported in late October that Zelensky had secretly asked Washington for Tomahawk missiles in order to strike deep into Russia. With a range of up to 1,500 miles (2,400km), Tomahawks have a greater reach than any of the Western-made weapons previously supplied to Kiev.
The Kremlin responded to the news by saying that Kiev is only seeking to drag its Western backers “into war as quickly as possible.”
Israel secures victory over the biggest terrorists in Gaza: aid workers
Laura and Normal Island News | November 4, 2024
Israel has finally cancelled its agreement with the only organisation capable of getting significant quantities of food and medicine into northern Gaza: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Israel has decided Unrwa is guilty of “terrorism” because it has been getting food and medicine to civilians designated for extermination, an accusation Unrwa does not deny. Thankfully, Israel put a stop to this terrorism at the start of October and now every civilian in northern Gaza is at imminent risk of death. As everyone knows, the only way to defeat terrorism is to kill enormous numbers of civilians (who have the wrong skin colour and/or religion).
Israel is rightly outraged that Unrwa employs terrorists because the only organisation allowed to send terrorists into Gaza is the IDF. Outrageously, I’m told Unrwa incinerated civilians from Apache helicopters on October 7th, a privilege reserved only for IDF pilots following the Hannibal Directive.
An investigation found no evidence of Israel’s central allegations against Unrwa, but Israel Katz crayoned a picture of an Unrwa worker holding a severed baby’s head. If you question Israel’s evidence, I honestly don’t know what to say to you.
After a year of starving Palestinians, Israel has assured us it will get the necessary aid into Gaza. This is the most sensible move since Dr Harold Shipman decided to administer medicine to his patients. The IDF says it will try to resist gunning civilians down as they queue for aid, but obviously it can’t make any promises. Antony Blinken said that if Israel does attack the aid queues, he expects the killers to investigate themselves. This is a privilege reserved for the only democracy in the Middle East.
Israel has been so angry with Unrwa workers who fed and treated Palestinians that it initially wanted to blow them all up. Thankfully, Israel has shown restraint and only blown up 102 of them. Israel was particularly angry with the people whose job it was to vet Unrwa workers, until it realised that was Israel’s job. This was a tiny bit embarrassing so never mention it again, okay?
While Israel is courageously tackling terrorism in Gaza, British police are doing everything they can to defeat terrorism back home, including beating the shit out of anyone who expresses solidarity with Unrwa. Well, they’ve not done that yet, but I remain optimistic.
The United Nations is now a proscribed terrorist organisation, all criticism of Israel has been banned, and in unrelated news, several government ministers have really nice holiday homes. Mossad has clarified that just because its spies were arrested for blackmailing officials in Italy, does not mean they would behave like this in the UK. Blackmail is unnecessary here because our officials are much more open to bribes.
You will be pleased to know British police are taking their role as enforcers of the Israeli state so seriously that they’ve arrested a Jewish Israeli academic because he explained Israel is fighting an unwinnable war. Professor Haim Bresheeth pointed out that British police have been arresting people for opposing genocide, leaving police with no choice but to arrest him under the Terrorism Act. I literally can’t tell the difference between this professor and ISIS.
Metropolitan police explained they actually arrested Prof Bresheeth for “expressing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation”. Awkwardly, a recording of his speech shows he said no such thing, but anyone who shares the footage online risks being visited by a Hermes drone. Be warned, Mossad has your IP address as part of Twitter’s terms and conditions and those drones don’t have to come far because they are made in Leicestershire
BBC’s Steve Rosenberg amplifies President Putin’s message
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 1, 2024
The BBC’s Moscow correspondent, Steve Rosenberg, made a splash in British media by asking a question of President Putin during his press conference at the BRICS Summit in Kazan.
‘Journalist asks question at a press conference!’ doesn’t resonate with me as a headline as much as, say, ‘tens of thousands of innocent civilians and children killed needlessly in Gaza.’ And yet, the Daily Mail in the UK hailed Rosenberg as ‘the man who took on Putin,’ the Daily Wrap talked about a ‘grilling’ of the Russian President.
This provided a colourful insight into the different UK and the Russian perspectives on diplomacy and communications.
From the UK perspective, the British government has had a clear strategic communications aim since 2014 of talking about Russia rather than talking to Russia. Government strategic communications about have been and continue to be aimed at convincing UK, wider European and global audiences that the west is right, and that Russia is wrong. Since the Ukraine crisis started a decade ago, the British press has risen with great enthusiasm to the challenge of reporting in a very one-sided way about Russia. How unjust Russia’s actions are in Ukraine (the essence of Rosenberg’s question), how dreadful Russia is as a country and how it’s all President Putin’s fault. We talk about Russia, a lot!
A British journalist posing a question at a Russian press conference is firstly interesting because of its novelty. Western media consumers hardly ever see a British person talk to President Putin and practically never see a British politician talk him. When it happens, it fascinates, excites and terrifies in equal measure, like watching a Hannibal Lecter movie. Good job Rosenberg wasn’t invited for dinner.
The UK loves to talk about Russia precisely because we stopped talking to Russia ten years ago. Ever since 2014, the UK government has systematically cancelled opportunities for direct dialogue with Russia on issues of global importance, including on Ukraine. In recent history, this departure from diplomacy as a tool to resolve differences was accelerated by British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond after he took office in July 2014. Apart from a vanishing attempt by Boris Johnson in late 2017 to re-engage in diplomacy with Russia, the approach of not-talking to Russia (but talking about Russia) has remained rock solid for ten years.
It is driven by an unshakeable belief that, when it comes to Russia, might will prove to be right, and that the combined economic, military and demographic size of the west will prevail, without the need to take account of Russian concerns.
Russia is an adversary to be defeated.
The problem, of course, is that Russia hasn’t been defeated in Ukraine. Slowly, and inexorably, Ukraine is losing ground in the Donbas while the west vacillates about further supplies of military and other financial aid.
The BRICS Summit in Kazan, if anything, was a demonstration that Russia’s role as an important regional power within the developing world, is as strong as ever.
And that message is anathema to western politicians and bureaucrats who can see their policy on Ukraine slowly disintegrating.
So, in that regard, the coverage of Rosenberg’s question was in part aimed at deflecting attention from the real story of the BRICS Summit; a successful global meeting held in Russia amid a huge growth in interest among countries in joining a new and more inclusive format of diplomatic dialogue.
If that was the aim, I don’t think it worked. Rosenberg stands, visibly nervous and asks a tame question about the justice of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and about allegations of Russian meddling in British domestic politics. He also uses the abbreviation of the Special Military Operation (SVO) a term reviled in western media and largely cancelled out of press reporting (it doesn’t get mentioned in the BBC report).
And herein lies the Russian perspective. Rosenburg’s question was carefully choreographed. Watch the video and you’ll see Rosenberg is given the final question of the press conference, by a visibly amused Press Spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, who smiles at Putin. This question will bring the curtain down on the conference, so it has to be entertaining. President Putin laughs towards the end of Rosenberg’s question then offers a four-minute reply. He repeats key allegations he has been making for many years about the west looking to isolate and diminish Russia, and about Russian demands about no NATO expansion being ignored. Rosenberg stands awkwardly taking it all in.
This is the Putin I saw many times at big international conferences while I worked at the British Embassy in Moscow. He seems to like tough questions; I watched him go toe to toe with seasoned American journalists several times at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, for example. He appears to relish the opportunity get his and Russia’s messages across to a wider global audience.
Just as importantly, he is signalling to Russian viewers that he is open to dialogue. And that foreign journalists, however good they are, can never summon up the weight of arguments to overcome the legitimacy of Russia’s actions in the world. Hence the Tucker Carlson interview on 6 February 2024 served exactly the same purpose. Over two hours, President Putin made himself available for a wide-ranging discussion. Some western commentators turned on Carlson visiting Russia and conducting the interview, which rewinds us back to the concept of talking about Russia, not talking to Russia.
But, unlike western leaders, even though the timing, questions and journalists are chosen carefully, President Putin has shown a consistent willingness to make himself available to for in-depth discussions. You never see western leaders do the same thing. Imagine Keir Starmer holding a two hour in-depth discussion with a journalist from Rossiya Segodnya ? It simply wouldn’t happen. Not only would that break the cardinal rule about not talking to Russians, it would expose him to some harsh questions about the failure of western policy in Ukraine.
As for Steve Rosenberg, he often receives fantastic access to senior political and policy figures in Moscow. Since 2022, he has interviewed Sergei Lavrov, Sergey Naryshkin and Maria Zakharova. He also interviewed Belarusian President Aleksander Lukashenko in the margins of BRICS. Every time, the interviewee mounts a robust defence of their actions and a critique of the west. And the videos are posted extensively on Russian media.
I wonder whether, in fact, the headline from Kazan should have been, ‘BBC journalist asks President Putin to put across the failure of western policy to a global audience.’
Splurge On Defense Spending, Ukraine Aid: Digesting UK Labour Government’s New Budget
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 31.10.2024
UK new government is raising taxes by more than $50 billion amid a widening budget deficit, While PM Starmer last week allocated 120 million pounds to Ukraine for military spending.
UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered the new Labor government’s first budget.
What’s in it?
There will be an increase of around £2.9 billion ($3.76 billion) next year in the Ministry of Defense’s budget.
The UK will give Ukraine a new £2.26 billion ($2.9 billion) military loan, Reeves announced earlier in October. The loan is to be repaid using profits on illegally frozen Russian sovereign assets.
“Ensuring the UK comfortably exceeds our NATO commitments and providing guaranteed military support to Ukraine of £3 billion [$3.8 billion] per year, for as long as it takes,” Reeves told MPs.
Boosted military spending was slammed as “an insult to all those struggling during a cost-of-living crisis and diverts funds from underfunded public services” by Peace Pledge Union campaigner Geoff Tibbs.
“This government is addicted to war and yet again money is earmarked for weapons to continue wars in Ukraine and the Middle East,” said founding member of the Stop the War Coalition Lindsey German.
What Else Is in the Budget?
- The budget will hit taxpayers with £40 billion (~$51.8 billion) in tax rises. The amount businesses will pay on their employees’ national insurance contributions will increase from 13.8% to 15% from April 2025. The rise in taxes is the largest since former PM John Major’s government in 1993.
- Households won’t be entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment from winter 2024/2025 (unless receiving Pension Credit/other means-tested benefits).
- Taxes on capital gains and inheritance are to be raised. The freeze on income tax thresholds will end in 2028/29 (to be later uprated in line with inflation).
- Fiscal rules will be tweaked to allow more space for borrowing. A broader measure of government finances, known as “public sector net financial liabilities” (PSNFL), will reportedly include student loans and other financial assets.
What Has the Office for Budget Responsibility Said?
“This budget delivers one of the largest increases in spending, tax and borrowing of any single fiscal event in history,” OBR chair Richard Hughes said.
- The UK budget deficit was £49 billion ($63.5 billion) in 2023/24, equivalent to 1.8% of GDP. Britain’s budget deficit is projected to be £26.2 billion ($33.9 billion) in the 2025/26 financial year.
- The budget will push up inflation and interest rates, while the pace of economic growth will peak next year at 2% before falling back to around 1.5%.
- Average interest rates on the stock of mortgages are expected to rise from around 3.7% in 2024 to a peak of 4.5% in 2027.
- Inflation will remain above the Bank of England’s 2% target until 2029.
- Budget policies will increase UK borrowing by £19.6 billion ($25.4 billion) this year and by an average of £32.3 billion ($41.9 billion) over the next five years.
Both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have blamed the preceding Conservative government for all of the country’s economic woes. During the election campaign, Reeves claimed that if victorious, Labour would get the “worst economic inheritance since World War Two.” Last year, Reeves told the Financial Times : “Taxes are at a 70-year high — I don’t have plans to be a big tax-raising chancellor.”
The Case Against Net Zero – Unachievable Disastrous Pointless
By Robin Guenier | Climate Scepticism | October 14, 2024
In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK Government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990; ‘carbon account’ refers to CO2 and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’. Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.i
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless. And that’s true whether or not humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable.
A modern, advanced economy depends on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii Examples fall into two categories: (i) vehicles and machines such as those used in agriculture, mining, mineral processing, building, heavy transportation, commercial shipping, commercial aviation, the military and emergency services and (ii) products such as nitrogen fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. All the above require either the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives: easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives have yet to be developed.iii
Although wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K. – because of its latitude, solar power contributes only a small percentage of the UK’s electricity – it has significant problems: (i) the substantial and increasing costs of building, operating and maintaining the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable, comprehensive non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 as planned by the Government; (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a multitude of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space iv and large quantities of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below).v This means that the UK may be unable to generate sufficient electricity by 2030 for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs (electric vehicles) and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry and of the huge new data centres being developed to support the rapid growth of AI (artificial intelligence).
In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.vi
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
The Government aims for 100% renewable electricity by 2030 but has yet to publish a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s complicated by the imminent retirement of elderly nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants vii but it has yet to publish any detail. That of course would not be a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems: a ‘solution’ that’s very expensive, controversial and commercially unproven at scale.viii This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including serious health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.ix
Net Zero’s major problem however is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to overall cost; but with several trillion pounds seeming likely to be a correct estimate it would almost certainly be unaffordable.x The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale could destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden on millions of households and businesses. It could quite possibly mean that the UK would face economic collapse.
But Net Zero is already causing one serious economic problem: because of renewable subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing costs and capacity market costs, the UK has the highest industrial and domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xi The additional costs referred to elsewhere in this essay – for example the costs of establishing a comprehensive non-fossil grid and of providing gas-fired power plants fitted with CCS as back-up – can only make this worse. Unless urgent remedial action is taken, the government is most unlikely to be able to achieve its principal mission of increased economic growth.
Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:
(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall national security at most serious risk.xii It would also mean that, while impoverishing Britain, Net Zero would be enriching China.xiii
(ii) The vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.xiv
3. In any case it’s pointless.
For two reasons:
(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries (especially China), commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why we no longer produce many key chemicals and, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, will soon be unable to produce commercially viable primary steel (see endnote iii).xv
(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 70% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.xvi As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As the UK is the source of just 0.72% of global emissions any further emission reduction it may achieve would essentially have no impact on the global position.xvii
In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier October 2024
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a degree in law from Oxford, is qualified as a barrister and for twenty years was chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. A Freeman of the City of London, he was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.
End notes:
i http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050
ii See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
iii Regarding steel for example see the penultimate paragraph of this article: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-blast-furnace-800-years-of-technology.
iv See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz
v For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also relevant: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
vi A detailed Government report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65855506fc07f3000d8d46bd/Employer_skills_survey_2022_research_report.pdf See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 6 below).
vii See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/uoqclnri/electricity-decarbonisation-report.pdf (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.
viii This International Institute for Sustainable Development report on CCS is informative: https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/unpacking-carbon-capture-storage-technology And see the second and third paragraphs here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/12/fossil-fuel-companies-environment-greenwashing (the rest of the article is also interesting).
ix This article shows how more renewables could result in blackouts: http://tiny.cc/lnhezz
x The National Grid (now the National Energy System Operator (NESO)) has said net zero will cost £3 trillion: https://www.current-news.co.uk/reaching-net-zero-to-cost-3bn-says-national-grid-eso/. And in this presentation Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge, shows how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU
xi The facts, an explanation of why Net Zero is responsible and a proposed solution are cogently set out here: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/uk-electricity-prices-highest-in-world.
xii https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687
xiii Discussed here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/24/net-zero-is-impoverishing-the-west-and-enriching-china/
xiv See this for example: http://tiny.cc/3lhezz. Arguably however the most compelling and harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred
xv A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo
xvi This essay shows how developing countries have taken control of climate negotiations: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/the-west-vs-the-rest-2.1.1.pdf (Nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes the conclusion: for example see the ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 in 2023 of which item 38 unambiguously confirms developing countries’ exemption from any emission reduction obligation.)
xvii This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU Commission database, provides – re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2023: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
First reading was on 16th October – the time to act is now
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | October 24, 2024
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) October 16th
Kim Leadbeater, supported by Kit Malthouse, Christine Jardine, Jake Richards, Siân Berry, Rachel Hopkins, Mr Peter Bedford, Tonia Antoniazzi, Sarah Green, Dr Jeevun Sandher, Ruth Cadbury and Paula Barker, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes.
It will be read a Second time on Friday 29 November.
Last time this question came before the House of Commons, it was readily defeated, but the personnel has changed considerably and of course the law in several other countries including Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and closer to home in the Isle of Man. We are all aware of the suffering of people nearing the end of their life but there are so many problems with changing the existing law (thou shalt not kill), quite apart from the ethical red line, that it’s hard to know where to begin. The proponents of this bill say they will introduce all sorts of safeguards but those countries who have gone ahead show us what a slippery slope we will be on. The most obvious one is how to absolutely prevent any coercion, which of course may be self-inflicted by those with declining health who feel they are a burden to their family. Second, any doctor will tell you how hard it is to predict how long someone will actually live with a terminal illness (remember Al-Megrahi released from prison in Scotland on compassionate grounds after doctors said he had less than 3 months to live and who survived a further 33 months back in Libya). Thirdly, once this crack in the door is opened, who will stop the rules moving from less than six months, to less than a year, to non-life threatening pain or anguish. All as a much cheaper and quicker solution than actually treating people’s underlying health issues and one with absolutely no reversability.
The slippery slope has been well illustrated in Canada and the Netherlands with examples highlighted in a Conservative Woman article here, including a 17-year-old girl with depression and others with non-terminal disability. In Canada ‘assisted dying’ is even being extended potentially down to infancy, where adults have determined there is no quality of life, and certainly it can’t be called ‘assisted’ if the child has no part in it.
Looking at the coverage from the recent Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry, it is also clear that during the covid period, elderly people in care homes were being given ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ directives, without their family’s knowledge and then being denied admission to hospital if they became ill. Coupled with liberal use of ‘end of life’ drugs, namely morphine and midazolam, they were apparently eased on their way with little regard as to whether they could have responded to standard treatments for pneumonia.
An organisation called Our Duty of Care has written the following open letter from doctors and other health professionals to the Prime Minister, which is reproduced in full here. It particularly draws attention to the poor state of the NHS at present, with poor access to palliative care and the current mental health crisis. The letter is open for health professionals to sign urgently, so please do so if you are a medical practitioner and/or share it with any medical friends and family if you are as worried by these proposals as we are. There is also a separate declaration to sign. They are part of the ‘Care Not Killing Alliance’. Heartening is that the Welsh Assembly have just voted against a change to the law.
Dear Prime Minister,
We write with great concern regarding the introduction of a Bill to legalise doctor-assisted suicide. The NHS is broken, with health and social care in disarray. Palliative care is woefully underfunded and many lack access to specialist provision.[1] The thought of assisted suicide being introduced and managed safely at such a time is remarkably out of touch with the gravity of the current mental health crisis and pressures on staff.
It is impossible for any Government to draft assisted suicide laws which include protection from coercion and from future expansion. Canada has clearly demonstrated that safeguards can be eroded in a matter of just five years; it has been roundly criticised for introducing euthanasia for those who are disabled[2] and plans for the mentally ill have been paused because of international concern.[3]
The shift from preserving life to taking life is enormous and should not be minimised. The prohibition of killing is present in all societies due to the immeasurable worth and inherent dignity of every human life.[4] The prohibition of killing is the safeguard. The current law is the protection for the vulnerable.
Any change would threaten society’s ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse; it would undermine the trust the public places in physicians; and it would send a clear message to our frail, elderly and disabled patients about the value that society places on them as people.
Far from one person’s decision affecting no one else, it affects us all. Some patients may never consider assisted suicide unless it was suggested to them. Nearly half those who choose assisted suicide in Oregon cite ‘feeling a burden’.[5]
As healthcare professionals, we have a legal duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of our patients. We, the undersigned, will never take our patients’ lives – even at their request. But for the sake of us all, and for future generations, we ask do not rush in to hasty legislation but instead fund excellent palliative care.
Yours sincerely,
[1] Marie Curie’s Better End of Life Report 2024
[2] Worries grow about medically assisted dying in Canada – The Lancet
US, UK alone in expressing support for Israel’s strike on Iran
The Cradle | October 26, 2024
In the wake of Israel’s long-anticipated attack on Iran early on 26 October, Arab and Islamic countries responded by issuing harsh condemnations of Israel for its aggression, while the US and UK expressed their support for Israel’s assault, claiming it was in self defense.
Israel’s military claimed it carried out “precise strikes” targeting strategic military sites, including ballistic missile manufacturing sites and air defense batteries, on Saturday.
Iran said it “successfully confronted” the Israeli attack by activating its missile defenses.
Below are statements from the foreign ministries and government officials of various countries in response to the Israeli attack.
France urged both parties to refrain from escalation but did not condemn or express support for Israel’s attack.
“France urges the parties to refrain from any escalation and action likely to aggravate the context of extreme tension prevailing in the region,” the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
The US expressed support for Israel’s attack, calling it “self-defense” while stressing its forces did not participate.
“We urge Iran to cease its attacks on Israel so that this cycle of fighting can end without further escalation,” US National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett told reporters.
“Their response was an exercise in self-defense and specifically avoided populated areas and focused solely on military targets, contrary to Iran’s attack against Israel that targeted Israel’s most populous city,” Savett added.
The UK also expressed support for Israel and claimed the attack was in self-defense.
“I am clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iranian aggression,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said.
“I’m equally clear that we need to avoid further regional escalation and urge all sides to show restraint. Iran should not respond.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not express support for Israel’s actions, but warned Iran not to retaliate. “My message to Iran is clear: We cannot continue with massive reactions of escalation. This must end now. This will provide an opportunity for peaceful development in the Middle East,” Scholz wrote on the social media site X.
In contrast, Jordan’s Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli attack, calling it a violation of international law, an infringement on sovereignty, and a serious escalation that threatens regional stability and global security.
The Ministry’s spokesperson called on the international community to take responsibility and adopt immediate measures to stop Israel’s aggression on Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon as a first step toward de-escalation.
Saudi Arabia also condemned the Israeli assault but did not mention Israel in its statement.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its condemnation and denunciation of the military targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is a violation of its sovereignty and a violation of international laws and norms,” the official Saudi state news agency said.
“The Kingdom urges all parties to exercise the utmost restraint and reduce escalation,” the statement added.
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry said it was “gravely concerned” over the escalation in West Asia, including the Israeli air attack on Iran, and condemned all measures that threaten regional security and stability.
The UAE, which Israel views as an ally, issued a statement on its Foreign Ministry’s website saying it “strongly condemns the military targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expresses deep concern over the continued escalation and its impact on regional security and stability.”
The Ministry emphasized the “importance of exercising the highest levels of restraint and wisdom to avoid risks and the expansion of conflict.”
The Iraqi Prime Minister’s office stated that Israel “continues its aggressive policies and expansion of conflict in the region, employing blatant acts of aggression without deterrence. This time, its hand of aggression has targeted the Islamic Republic of Iran through an airstrike on Iranian targets early this morning.”
The statement said Iraq “reiterates its firm stance calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and for comprehensive regional and international efforts to support stability in the region.”
Qatar, which has been involved in ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, “expressed its strong condemnation and denunciation of Israel’s targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran, deeming the act a blatant violation of Iran’s sovereignty and a clear breach of international law.”
Turkiye expressed its “strongest condemnation” of Israel’s military actions, saying Israel was fueling instability in the region.
“Israel, which is committing genocide in Gaza, preparing to annex the West Bank, and killing civilians in Lebanon, has pushed our region to the brink of a bigger war,” the Turkish Foreign Ministry said.
Hamas issued a statement through Telegram condemning the Israeli assault and highlighting the role of the US in supporting Israeli crimes.
“The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) strongly condemns the Zionist aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting military sites in multiple provinces. We consider this a flagrant violation of Iranian sovereignty and an escalation that threatens the security of the region and the safety of its people, placing full responsibility on the occupation for the consequences of this aggression, supported by the United States of America,” the statement said.
Featured Video
Facing up to Jewish nationalism and racist violence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Long Before Epstein: Sex Traffickers & Spy Agencies
By Elizabeth Vos | Consortium News | August 23, 2019
The alleged use of sexual blackmail by spy agencies is hardly unique to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. Although the agencies involved as well as their alleged motivations and methods differ with each case, the crime of child trafficking with ties to intelligence agencies or those protected by them has been around for decades.
Some cases include the 1950s -1970s Kincora scandal and the 1981 Peter Hayman affair, both in the U.K.; and the Finders’ cult and the Franklin scandal in the U.S. in the late 1980s. Just as these cases did not end in convictions, the pedophile and accused child-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein remained at arms’ length for years. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israel attacks three nations for alleged backing of Iran
- Ex-intel officer questions Israeli strategy in Lebanon as losses mount
- Netanyahu’s ‘total victory’ to total flop
- REPORT: United States Now Global Outlier Ignoring Vaccine Injured as UK Inquiry Acknowledges Harms
- The Gratitude of the Captured
- Hezbollah denies involvement in deadly attack on UNIFIL in south Lebanon
- The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war
- Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
- Israeli soldiers kill UNICEF truck drivers delivering water to Gaza families
- Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage
- If Americans Knew
- Israel employs ‘Gaza tactics’ in Lebanon, destroying 1,000 homes per day – Daily Update
- Israel relegates another population to life in tents – Daily Update
- Senate again fails to block weapons to Israel
- Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.
- Number of Palestinian Prisoners Rises By 83% Since October 2023
- With multiple “ceasefires” in place, Israel keeps on killing in Gaza and Lebanon – Daily Update
- Mearsheimer: Israel Owns Trump
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- No Tricks Zone
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
Aletho News 