YANA PETTICREW explains what’s behind the strike and how the entire sector rests on super-exploiting an unorganised workforce
Mandelson’s Russia-Ukraine conflict of interest
You’ll never guess why a quick peace in Ukraine might be in the ambassador to Washington’s interests, writes SOLOMON HUGHES. Actually, of course you will – he stands to make a lot of money from his business links to Russia
DODGY DUO: Pleased as Punch Peter Mandelson and Keir Starmer
BILL KIDD MSP says increasing Britain’s nuclear arsenal at this time is dangerous and expensive folly
ROGER McKENZIE asks whether the US’s shift to targeting everyone at once will instil greater co-operation among rising powers
ANSELM ELDERGILL examines the government’s proposals to further limit the right of citizens to trial by jury
As we mark the anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, JOHN WIGHT reflects on the enormity of the US decision to drop the atom bombs
DIANE ABBOTT explodes the anti-migrant myths perpetrated by cynical politicians and an irresponsible mass media
PETER MANDELSON, Britain’s ambassador to Washington, embarrassed Keir Starmer’s government by demanding Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky should give “unequivocal backing” to Donald Trump’s “peace” plan directly after Trump humiliated Zelensky in public.
But Mandelson’s outburst was completely consistent with his general approach of agreeing with the most powerful men in the room — especially US presidents — and seeing Putin’s Russia as a business opportunity, not a dangerous authoritarian government.
After Trump mauled Zelensky in the Oval Office, Starmer and other European leaders made a show of supporting the Ukrainian president. But Mandelson told ABC News that Zelensky should be “giving his unequivocal backing to the initiative that President Trump is taking to end the war.”
More from this author
SOLOMON HUGHES asks whether Labour ‘engaging with decision-makers’ with scandalous records of fleecing the public is really in our interests
Labour’s new Treasury unit will ‘challenge unnecessary regulation’ by forcing nominally independent bodies like Ofwat to bend to business demands — exactly what Iain Anderson’s corporate clients wanted, writes SOLOMON HUGHES
There have been penalties for those who looked the other way when Epstein was convicted of child sex offences and decided to maintain relationships with the financier — but not for the British ambassador to Washington, reveals SOLOMON HUGHES
