Trump’s Alaska flop: a “deal maker” who can’t make a deal
Share this post:
US President Donald Trump jetted into Alaska for a “make-or-break” summit about the war in Ukraine with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and left with nothing to show for it.
There will be no ceasefire.
There is no agreement.
There isn’t even a plan.
For a man who likes to brand himself as a master negotiator, it was humiliating.
Trump boasted beforehand that there was only a “25 per cent chance of failure.” In fact, it was a 100 per cent bust.
Putin, on the other hand, got exactly what he wanted: the prestige of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the US president on American soil without conceding a single thing.
To add insult to injury, the Russian leader dominated the stage during their so-called “press conference,” while Trump looked like a guest at his own event.
Both men walked out without taking questions, leaving reporters shouting into the void.
This wasn’t diplomacy – it was theatre, and bad theatre at that.
Ukrainians may breathe a sigh of relief that Trump didn’t stitch them up on the spot, but they won’t be reassured.
Trump has already tried to bully Kyiv into signing over huge mineral rights to US corporations in exchange for “support.” That hardly makes him a neutral broker.
And his refusal to follow through on his threats of “severe consequences” for Russia — now punted vaguely down the road “two or three weeks” — looks more like cowardice than strategy.
Putin has not budged an inch.
He still insists the “root causes” of the war must be addressed — Kremlin code for dismantling Ukraine’s independence.
Three years of Western deadlines and empty threats have done nothing to shift him, and Trump just added another empty threat to the pile.
What did Alaska achieve?
Nothing for peace.
Nothing for Ukraine.
Nothing for the ordinary Russians and Americans caught in the fallout.
It gave Putin his propaganda moment, and it showed the world — yet again — that Donald Trump is a showman, not a statesman.
The “deal maker” can’t make a deal.
As long as that remains the case, the bloodshed in Ukraine will continue.
Share this post:
Ministry of Defence rot exposed again – time for John Healey to resign?
Share this post:
The Ministry of Defence has suffered a second catastrophic data breach — this time involving 3,700 Afghans, British personnel, and even former ministers — after a subcontractor’s emails were compromised.
This comes just weeks after the revelation that, back in 2022, the details of almost 19,000 Afghans and more than 100 UK officials were leaked by a civil servant. That scandal cost the MoD’s Permanent Secretary, David Williams, his job.
But here’s the fact: replacing Williams was never going to fix the problem, because the MoD’s failures are systemic.
The department has long relied on poor data-handling practices, a casual approach to outsourcing, and a culture that prioritises damage limitation over genuine reform.
And that’s where Defence Secretary John Healey should have come in.
Healey has been in post for more than a year – since day one of the Labour government.
It was his job to clean up after the Afghan spreadsheet scandal, root out the rot, and make sure there would never be a repeat.
Instead, another failure has already happened — this one through a private contractor, suggesting the government never even checked whether its suppliers were up to the job of keeping vulnerable people safe.
The consequences are not abstract. Afghans who served alongside British troops — who saved British lives — are now at even greater risk of Taliban retribution. Some have already been deported back into danger. British personnel have been exposed too.
We don’t even know the full scale of what has been compromised, or what other risks are being quietly buried.
That is not just an embarrassment.
It is a dereliction of duty.
John Healey can’t hide behind David Williams’s departure anymore.
Civil servants may carry the can inside Whitehall, but ministers carry the responsibility to the public.
Healey promised reform. He promised accountability.
Yet just weeks after Williams left, we have proof that the rot in the MoD has continued, unchecked.
The Defence Secretary owns this failure.
There can be little doubt that, unless the government is forced into genuine, systemic reform of its data security culture, Britain will keep endangering the very people who trusted it most.
Share this post:
Prosecute now – justify later? Should Palestine Action trials halt until legality is proved?
Share this post:
Major UK human rights and environmental organisations have told Attorney General Richard Hermer KC to stop prosecutions of Palestine Action supporters, saying the government is risking a full-scale miscarriage of justice.
Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, and the Quakers have all signed a letter demanding prosecutions be frozen until the High Court decides whether the government’s proscription of the group was even legal.
That judicial review is due in November – but more than 700 people have already been arrested and some have already been charged – for doing nothing more than expressing support.
Palestine Action was banned last month under the Terrorism Act – a move critics say stretches the definition of “terrorism” to the point of absurdity, targeting non-violent protest in defence of Palestinian rights.
Last weekend alone, police detained 522 protesters in Parliament Square – half of them over 60 – under Section 13 of the Act.
Their “terrorist” activity was sitting quietly with placards reading: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
At least 10 people have already been charged. If the group’s proscription is overturned in November, every one of those prosecutions will collapse, wasting court time and public money, and potentially wrecking lives in the process.
Mr Justice Chamberlain, who granted permission for the judicial review, warned that allowing prosecutions now could produce “a recipe for chaos” as criminal courts reach different conclusions on the ban’s legality.
Even the Liberal Democrats – hardly a radical protest movement – have called the arrests “a troubling precedent,” and want the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to investigate.
And then there’s the secrecy.
The hearings that led to the ban were held in private.
Yvette Cooper is accused by some of lying about what they revealed.
She may not have – but the point is: we don’t know.
The public is simply told to take the government’s word for it.
That’s not democracy. That’s political proscription by decree.
If the government wants the public to accept that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation, it needs to put its evidence on the table – not hide it behind closed doors.
Until then, these prosecutions are political show trials, punishing peaceful people for expressing an opinion the government doesn’t like.
If Palestine Action wins its judicial review, ministers will have to explain why they dragged so many through the criminal courts on a charge that should never have existed in the first place.
That’s not just a waste of time – it’s an abuse of power.
Share this post:
Freedom of speech isn’t the issue — it’s what we do with it
Share this post:
Why is the Trump administration in the United States attacking the UK for clamping down on free speech?
It’s a bold claim from a government that tries to muzzle critics, intimidate journalists, and silence dissent in its own country.
Apparently limitations on political speech deemed “hateful” or “offensive” are abhorrent to the US government now.
It has raised concerns about restrictions in laws like the Online Safety Act and tools like public space protection orders and “safe access zones” around abortion clinics that, according to critics, limit what people can legally say.
At first glance, this might seem like a classic free speech debate: the (UK) government v the citizen.
US criticism often assumes “free speech” is in line with the American First Amendment model.
In the UK, the tradition has always been different: the right to free speech has always been tempered by requirements of responsibility; we already have laws against harassment, or causing alarm or distress, and against stirring up hatred on grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, religion or sexual orientation. It is also prohibited to send “grossly offensive” or “menacing” messages electronically.
The deeper issue isn’t whether people are legally allowed to speak — it’s how society reacts to what is said.
Laws, guidance, and administrative rules aren’t just about speech itself; they exist to manage the potentially destructive consequences of speech.
Consider recent guidance from the UK government encouraging police to disclose a crime suspect’s ethnicity, nationality, or immigration status in high-profile cases.
The goal is transparency and the prevention of misinformation, but real-world events show the limits of this approach: in Southport in July 2024, the release of information about Axel Rudakubana’s background did not stop misinformation spreading, fuelling riots. In Liverpool in May this year (2025), police disclosed that a man arrested during the Premier League parade was white and British to prevent false rumours of terrorism – but even this full disclosure did not prevent riots.
When authorities act with the best intentions, public reaction — shaped by bias, rumour, and online amplification — often overrides official narratives.
Both the free speech debate and the policing guidance share the same underlying challenge: people are free to react destructively to information, whether it is speech, news, or official disclosure.
Attempts to regulate speech or control the flow of information are, in part, attempts to mitigate those reactions.
The laws that the US criticises are less about silencing ideas than about preventing harm that can arise from words being misinterpreted, weaponized, or amplified.
This pattern raises a broader moral and civic question: what kind of society do we want to be?
Do we valourise freedom to speak and act without restraint, even when it allows prejudice, rumour, or violence to flourish?
Or do we aim for a society where expression and information exist alongside norms, literacy, and safeguards that prevent destructive reactions?
Policies alone are not enough. True freedom — the kind worth defending — is inseparable from responsibility.
The UK examples show that transparency, regulation, and legal frameworks can only go so far; social dynamics ultimately determine whether free expression strengthens democracy or fuels chaos.
The debate isn’t just about laws, guidance, or even speech itself.
It’s about the freedom to act responsibly in a world where misinformation, bias, and outrage travel faster than facts.
Society has a responsibility to address that, and US government representatives are ill-advised to interfere in a system intended to protect both liberty and safety.
Share this post:
BUSTED: the Tories are lying about channel migrants’ freebies
Share this post:
The Conservatives have published a misleading and inflammatory list claiming that channel migrants receive a long series of luxurious perks when they arrive in the UK.
Examination reveals that most of these claims are false or exaggerated, and the few that are true involve essential support like housing, food, and basic healthcare.
The attack post mixes fact with fiction in a way designed to make the lies seem plausible.
An image of the post should appear somewhere alongside this article. Let’s break it down:
False claims (not provided nationally)
-
Hotel accommodation, including three-star hotels with bars, gardens, terraces, free Wi-Fi – Only basic temporary hotels are used in some cases – never luxury stays, often former hotels that had been disused.
-
Free cooking lessons – Some local programmes may offer them, but they are not nationally provided.
-
University bursaries, scholarships, and fee waivers – Limited to a few institutions; not guaranteed nationwide.
-
Discounted Spanish or French lessons – Local programmes may exist; this is not a national benefit.
-
Free bus travel from councils – Only offered in certain local initiatives.
-
Free driving lessons – There is no national scheme for driving lessons.
-
Free sports and leisure tickets/trips – this may happen with occasional local events, but it is not a universal entitlement.
-
Free PlayStation consoles and yoga sessions – Entirely false; there is no national provision.
-
Free swimming, group exercise classes, and gym sessions – Only available in some local schemes.
-
Discounts on theatre shows – False; there is no national programme.
-
Free mobile phone on arrival – False; phones may be provided by charities in rare cases, not by the government.
True claims (nationally provided)
-
Housing and food provided directly by the state – Standard policy for those unable to support themselves.
-
Weekly allowance of £49.18 per person – Cash allowance for personal items, not including food or accommodation.
-
Access to food banks – Asylum seekers can access the same services as anyone in need.
-
HC2 certificates giving free healthcare services – Covers dental care, prescriptions, eye tests, glasses, wigs, and travel to medical treatment.
-
Home Office clothing packs on arrival – Basic essentials are provided on entry.
-
Taxpayer-funded legal aid for asylum cases – Ensures fair access to legal representation.
Why the Tory post is misleading
Many of the false claims appear plausible because they resemble real, local programmes or minor integration initiatives, but none are guaranteed nationally.
This is a classic tactic in political attacks: mix a few truths with massive lies to make the overall story more believable.
-
Temporary hotel stays happen but are basic, not luxury.
-
Some councils offer recreational programs or transport support, but these are minor, localised schemes rather than universal benefits.
-
The only national support is essential: accommodation, food, healthcare, and a modest weekly allowance.
The effect is that readers may think migrants are receiving extravagant perks, when in reality, the government provides minimal, necessary support for survival and basic integration – help to cope with life in the UK while their claims are processed.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
