Monday, 8 June 2026

Category » Articles

Support For Digital IDs Has Collapsed In The UK
.
JUST OVER a week ago, Sir Keir Starmer announced that he was introducing a UK-wide digital ID scheme.  This – and presumably unintentionally – immediately achieved two things:
 
First, the highly unpopular Prime Minister made himself even more unpopular, which is some feat in itself.
 
Secondly, he achieved the virtually impossible goal of uniting all political parties in Ulster to agree on something – and that’s to oppose the scheme.
 
We’ve always argued that Starmer is a Blairite & has absolutely no interest in the lives of ordinary working families.  So much so, that he’s effectively Tony Blair in disguise.  Many people remember Blair for political ‘spin’ & talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.  Starmer has done the same when it comes to introducing digital ID.
 
For against the backdrop of widespread concern over various aspects of mass immigration, he’s hypocritically & shamelessly claimed that the new digital ID scheme will help combat illegal working – as digital ID will be mandatory for Right to Work checks.  (Prior to this announcement, Starmer had effectively called anyone & everyone who had the slightest concern about immigration as ‘extreme right-wing’ and ‘racists’.)
 
However, many people believe that using the subject of immigration – to introduce digital ID – is just a smokescreen.  They, like ourselves, feel that it’s more to do with control.
 
One such person is Ricky Hale, who writes for Council Estate Media.   Ricky Hale offers an anti-establishment, working-class perspective on life & Council Estate Media is a website and newsletter focusing on working class politics and creeping authoritarianism.
 
This article appeared on 2nd October.  You can read the original here: https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/support-for-digital-ids-has-collapsed?r=3ep3vy&utm_medium=ios&fbclid=IwY2xjawNN22ZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHrTcPcAy9dHvEu1HJ6GXhMlkgBwocOjUiRpE7DhXgQ4LRfgiryPzhrHHK-Hu_aem_2yaXkKSXtI8DryYIOXFJxw&triedRedirect=true
.
It goes without saying that there are no links between the National Liberal Party, Ricky Hale and Council Estate Media.  We reproduce this article in line with our longstanding policy of featuring articles that represent a diverse range of opinion that may be of interest to our readers.

.

Support For Digital IDs Has Collapsed In The UK

.

NOT LONG AFTER the woeful Keir Starmer unveiled his latest flagship policy that no one voted for, public support for it has collapsed. Starmer’s reverse Midas touch – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/01/keir-starmer-labour-collapse-public-support-digital-id-cards – has seen support for digital ID fall from a high of +35% to -14%. If he continues to pursue this policy, it will fall lower.
.
In the summer, 53% of the public supported digital ID and only 19% opposed. Today, only 31% support and 43% oppose. Interestingly, 32% say they “strongly oppose”, meaning the strongly oppose camp is greater than the support camp. While Starmer has not yet u-turned, it would be suicidal for him to continue.
.
Starmer’s approval rating of -66% is the lowest of any prime minister since 1977. It seems everything Starmer does, makes him less popular, and it’s absolutely deserved. He has spent his time in office u-turning on every manifesto pledge, only to push a policy that was not in the manifesto.
.
Starmer is desperate for a flagship policy that his donors will allow – and they will only allow policies that grow their wealth and power. He saw digital ID as an easy win, something he could sell to the public as making their lives easier while tackling illegal immigration. Something that would make his mark as prime minister.
.
Starmer overlooked that there had not been a national conversation on digital ID. The moment we started having one, people’s minds changed. Anyone who supports digital ID after hearing the arguments is either authoritarian or gullible.
.
Once digital IDs are required to access the internet and log into social media sites, they will make censorship dramatically easier. And there is no doubt censorship is one of the aims here.
.
Just look at the Labour conference where Starmer revoked the press passes – https://x.com/owenjonesjourno/status/1972984375651586337 – of journalists such as Owen Jones and Rivkah Brown and banned the good folks from Declassified UK. Labour claimed it was a safeguarding issue. MPs were arguing that they were being harassed because they were questioned about Gaza. Emily Thornberry even accused Jones of misogyny. Clearly, our rulers think they should not be held accountable by journalists, or by anyone.
.
Just look at what Labour MP Luke “the nuke” Akehurst had to say:
.
.
Both Reform and the Tories are the same as Labour when it comes to hostility towards journalists (ironically, Starmer had previously mocked Reform for this).
.
In the US, Trump has an extremely hostile relationship with the press and is cracking down on free speech. The politicians who treat journalists as the enemy would absolutely silence us if they could.
.
Imagine a time when politicians saw a tweet or blog post and all they had to do was check the digital ID associated with your account and issue a ban. That’s the world we could be heading into – the forced sale of TikTok being a perfect example of our rulers’ intentions.
.
As you are probably aware, Starmer’s push for digital ID has been driven by the Tony Blair Insitute. Its website spells out the grand vision of digital ID becoming an everything app that would micro-manage our lives – https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/digital-id-card-uk-starmer-labour-immigrants-b2834389.html It talks of adding your children to the app, using it to access healthcare, book appointments, and manage your benefits claims. These infographics show how it would know everything about you and your household.
.
. 
The infographics were made with the help of Labour Together, the group behind Starmer’s leadership bid. Just look at this handy infographic explaining how digital ID would turn into a snitching tool.
.
.
Snitching is central to authoritarian societies. It enables the ruling class to exert control by putting eyes everywhere. We have lived in denial that we could ever become such a society, yet the authoritarian vision is being spelled out for us.
.
Every street has its busy bodies. I remember sitting at a friend’s house years ago and their neighbour called the police, accusing us of banging on her window and making loud noise. We had been doing nothing of the sort. This person was notorious for falsely accusing people. You can imagine a snitching app in the hands of a person like this.
.
You could argue that we can already snitch to the police or council, but at present, it is not encouraged. Most people snitch as a last resort, but an app like this would actively encourage snitching. The saddos who use Next Door would have a field day.
.
Under Blair’s vision, you wouldn’t have to do something wrong in order to have to defend yourself against accusations. Such a system would create a climate of fear in which neighbours are turned against each other and everyone is scared to exist.
.
A key argument from the gullible is that digital IDs have been introduced elsewhere and haven’t been as scary as us conspiracy theorists are making out, only this is not true.
.
We have plenty of horror stories, such as the Vietnamese government deleting the bank accounts – https://thaitimes.com/vietnam-closes-86-million-untouched-bank-accounts-over-biometric-id-rules – of anyone who did not register their digital IDs. Eighty-six million bank accounts were deleted – about 40% of the total bank accounts in the country. Many of those deletions were because the owners refused to register their faces and fingerprints – the excuse being Know Your Customer rules.
.
Vietnam aims to have a cashless society by 2030. The Tony Blair Institute is keen to link digital IDs to banking and purchasing. Can you see the danger yet?
.
It’s worth noting that western countries have not yet introduced digital IDs in the way Starmer is proposing. Either their digital IDs have been optional, or they have introduced an ID card, rather than a digital ID.
.
Later down the line, those cards could become digital IDs, and all the scary stuff could then start. The system would not become fully authoritarian until most or all countries in the global north had adopted it.
.
If you think the scary stuff could not happen in a civilised place like Europe, just know that Sweden has already been trialling microchipping people – https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/true-microchips-are-getting-under-the-skin-of-thousands-in-sweden/  The microchips are intended to replace traditional keys, cards, IDs, and even train tickets. Read that back.
.
When we discuss the scary potential of digital IDs, the point is they will start off innocuously, but gradually increase the power of bad people. We will soon find ourselves at the mercy of such people, and remember, today’s science fiction is tomorrow’s science fact.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfqD5aW0X5U
.
We are talking about people who hold presentations fantasising about mind-reading technologies in work places. Klaus Schwab gets positively aroused when he talks about putting microchips in people’s brains. Are you ready for brain transparency?
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqPc-Wn5WPY
.
.
If you highlight what these people talk about, you will get looked at as though you are crazy, but as you can see, they are the crazy ones.
.
Digital IDs are not just a bad idea. They are pretty much the most dangerous idea anyone could come up with, because once they are in place, they can become near impossible to get rid of. If you want to stop them, now might be the only opportunity you get.
.
One positive of Starmer’s announcement is that the left, right and centre are coming together, instead of squabbling among ourselves. Those of us who have been paying attention are fully aware of the dangers of digital IDs and we have done a good job of kicking up a fuss, so well done everyone who joined in. Your contribution is appreciated.
.
On those rare occasions when we stop seeing each other as the enemy and direct our ire towards the ruling class, we can really make a difference. Ironically, this level of awareness is one thing digital ID was hoping to stop.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Nations without States Conference Asks ‘What About Us?’
.

Nations without States supports the UN recognition of the sovereignty of an independent Palestinian state. This was most welcome but long overdue. However, delegates wondered why the UN ignores other nations & peoples who desire some form of Self-Determination.

.
A WEEK AGO, Nations without States – https://www.facebook.com/groups/184919468292372 – held a very successful conference in Northwest London.
 
Held in conjunction with its Annual Jagdeesh Singh (RIP) Memorial Lecture, NwS delegates discussed the announcement by the UK –  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-formally-recognises-palestinian-state – alongside France & Canada, that they’d recognise a Palestinian state ‘to protect the viability of a two-state solution and create a path towards lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people.’
.
INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN STATE
.
At the UN General Assembly in New York, the UK, France, Australia, Canada and others joined most UN members by recognising the sovereignty of an independent Palestinian state.  This was most welcome but long overdue.
.
However, since there is not a functioning Palestinian area such a declaration was largely symbolic.  Therefore, it’s unlikely to require or trigger any meaningful actions to change the situation in respect of Israel & Palestine.
.
With the above in mind, Nations without States – NwS – believes that the statement is simply political posturing. 
.
It’s just a way of appeasing pro-Palestinian sentiment amongst the public (but also keeping the principle of a ‘Two State’ solution alive).
.
However, the symbolism of recognition is an acceptance that self-determination is a worthy principle.
.
OTHER SUPPRESSED NATIONS
.
But the question on everyone’s lips was ‘What About Us?’  If the UK & others can support self-determination for one nation or people – in this case, Palestine and the Palestinians – why not all nations and peoples?
.
NwS delegates asked why the same Western states didn’t recognise other suppressed nations.  These include Tamil Eelam (in Sri Lanka), Khalistan (Sikhs in India), Southern Cameroons (English speakers in Francophone Cameroun), Kashmir (in India), Catalonia (in Spain) and so on.  Indeed, it’s thought that around 100 similar cases exist worldwide.
.
Speakers touched upon the reasons.  They include:
  • The UN not wishing to increase the number of states for practical purposes, supporting the status quo,
  • Individual ties,
  • Personal or state business interests,
  • Not wishing to upset those relationships with existing states – usually a myriad of ex-colonial territories, and
  • Fear that one successful cause of Self-Determination may set of a domino effect that may reach their own state.
Speakers ranged from Tamil, Ahwazi, Matabele, Sikh, (with others).  All examined the prospects for Self-Determination in their own countries & questioned why the world’s politicians ignore their plight?
.
The valuable, intense and well attended meeting also looked at the option of fighting UK elections on a Self-Determination For All! ticket.  NwS has supported this tactic in the past and may well use it in the future.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

They’re Lying About Venezuela While Moving War Machinery Into Place
.
IS THE US military–industrial complex at it again? 
 
We believe that it’s already heavily involved in stirring up trouble in Europe (via the Russia/Ukraine conflict) and the Middle East (via the Israel/Palestine conflict).  However, it now seems to have set its sights on South American – again.
 
For National Liberals, it doesn’t really matter if the Democrats or Republicans run the US.  They’re pretty much the same.  Capitalism rules the roost.  And to function, capitalism requires three elements – cheap labour, an ever-expanding market & raw materials. 
 
That’s where the US military–industrial complex comes into play.  It supplies the ‘muscle’ – in the form of imperialism – to satisfy capitalism.
 
(To be fair, we feel that Trump is probably one of the more honest presidents that the US has had.  Whilst others would ‘dress up’ US imperialism using fancy words, he is notoriously blunt.  Trump is a National Capitalist & everything is about making money.  War is a money-making scam.  The US military–industrial complex makes a small fortune supplying weapons to blow ‘troublesome’ sovereign nations to smithereens.  They make an even bigger fortune rebuilding what they’ve just destroyed.)
 
The UK – under both Tory & Labour rule – has an unenviable record of backing the US in its imperialist adventures.  Therefore, we wouldn’t be at all surprised if the UK gets involved in this latest South American adventure.
 
However, we’d warn against supporting such an adventure.  We’re opposed to imperialism, jingoism & petty nationalism.  And we certainly have no interest in resurrecting the ‘good old days’ of the British Empire.
 
The UK has more than enough social & economic problems without helping to destabilase other nations – in this case Venezuela – and then wondering why many of its displaced population ends up on our shores.
 
With the above in mind, we’d encourage everyone to read Caitlin Johnstone’s article (below) which first appeared on 31st August.  You can read the original here: https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/08/31/theyre-lying-about-venezuela-while-moving-war-machinery-into-place/
 
It goes without saying that there are no links between the National Liberal Party & the independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone.  However, and as we’ve previously noted, we do regard her as a ‘point of reference’ in that she has said things that we find of interest.  We particularly admire her independent spirit, non-conformist outlook & quirky style of writing.   
.
.
.
AS IF WE didn’t have enough ugliness in the world right now, Trump has deployed warships (1) near Venezuela’s coast, prompting Caracas to ready drone and naval patrols for conflict.
.
In an article titled Inside Trump’s gunboat diplomacy with Venezuela (2), Axios’ Marc Caputo writes that ‘The U.S. has never been closer to armed conflict with Venezuela, with a fully loaded U.S. flotilla sitting off its coast and dictator Nicolás Maduro living under a $50 million bounty.’
.
‘President Trump ordered seven warships carrying 4,500 personnel — including three guided-missile destroyers and at least one attack submarine — to the waters off Venezuela,’ Caputo writes. ‘Officially, they’re there to combat drug trafficking. But Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt leaned into the ambiguity of the mission on Thursday, noting that the U.S. considers Maduro the ‘fugitive head of [a] drug cartel’ and not Venezuela’s legitimate president.’
..
The US personnel reportedly include some 2,200 Marines.
.
“This could be Noriega part 2,” an unnamed official in the Trump administration told Axios, saying that “Maduro should be shitting bricks.”
.
.
.
So they’re not even disguising the fact that Trump is at least contemplating some kind of direct military strike on Caracas. Drugs are the official-official reason for the deployment, but the unofficial-official reason that’s being freely leaked to the press is to remove the leader of a sovereign state.
.
It’s probably worth noting that Trump-aligned pundits like Alex Jones have been busy manufacturing consent for regime change intervention in Venezuela.
.
“I don’t like any of these wars,” Jones said recently (3) on whatever his show is called now. “But if you look at US doctrine and wars that we fought that were right, it’s in Latin America, this is our sandbox. And Venezuela is a communist dictatorship with the biggest oil reserves per square foot in the world, their people are absolute slaves, and I don’t like regime change, but they’re manipulating our elections, they’re flooding us with Fentanyl, and if there were surgical strikes to take out the communists there would be an uprising and they could have elections, and it would be a good thing.”
.
Jones could have stopped at “communist” and “oil reserves”. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves (4) of any country on the planet, and is not aligned with the capitalist western empire that is loosely centralized around Washington DC. Any reasons given for US regime change intervention beyond this should be read as excuses.
.
.
.
Whenever the US war machine moves its crosshairs to a different target I always get people telling me “No no Caitlin, THIS time the Evil Bad Guy really DOES need to be regime changed! THIS time our government and media are telling us the TRUTH!” 
.
And it’s always so stupid, because it’s just the same rehashed lies over and over again. The empire takes whatever actions will help it to dominate our planet and its resources to a greater extent than it already does, and then it makes up justifications for those actions.
.
They’ll say they’re doing it for humanitarian reasons while ignoring the humanitarian abuses (4) of empire-aligned nations. They’ll say they’re doing it to stop drug abuse while ignoring (5) all the evidence (6) regarding the actual causes of drug abuse (7), even as Maduro sends 15.000 troops (8) to the Colombian border to help fight drug trafficking. They’ll say they’re doing it to stop interference in US affairs while letting US-aligned nations like Israel interfere in US politics (9) at will.
.
They’re just lying. The US empire lies (10) about all its acts of war (11). Trump tried to orchestrate a regime change (12) in Venezuela the last time he was in office, and he’s doing it again for the exact same reasons. It’s an oil-rich nation that refuses to bow to the dictates of Washington, and all the worst warmongers in the imperial swamp are eagerly pushing to absorb it into the folds of the empire.
.
That’s all we are looking at here, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Thomas Sankara: A Point Of Reference For National Liberals

.

“While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas.”

  • Thomas Sankara
. 

Thomas Sankara (1949 – 1987) has variously been described as a revolutionary, a progressive nationalist, a Marxist, and a pan-Africanist. He was the former President of Burkina Faso (from 1983 until his assassination in 1987) and in that short period of time he promoted land redistribution, a move towards food self-sufficiency, health initiatives, women’s rights & environmental initiatives. We feel that he represents a worthy ‘Point of Reference’ for National Liberals.
Picture Credit: https://ordaf.org/somurgecilige-direnen-devrimci-burkina-fasonun-lideri-thomas-sankara/

IT’S PROBABLY fair to say that many of those who National Liberals regard as a ‘Point of Reference’ hail from many years ago.

.
Here, we think of people like Hilaire Belloc (1870 – 1953), G. K. Chesterton (1874 – 14 June 1936), G. D. H. Cole (1889 – 1959), John Hargrave (1894 – 1982), Leslie Hoare-Belisha (1893–1957), Guiseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), Robert Owen (1771 – 1858) and William Morris (1834 – 1896).
.
However, it would be a mistake to think that we’re only interested in those from centuries ago.  A more recent ‘Point of Reference’ is Thomas Sankara, once dubbed the ‘African Che Guevara.’
.
Before we examine his life, it’s worthwhile restating how we define a ‘Point of Reference’.  By this we mean that they’ve said or done something that we find of great interest.
.
It should also be noted that one doesn’t even have to agree with a ‘Point of Reference’ to find that what they say or do is of great interest.
.
It’s important to look right across the political spectrum – including those who promote ideas we may totally disagree with – with a dispassionate eye & not react to how they label themselves.
.
It’s also essential not to put anyone who is a ‘Point of Reference’ on a pedestal, so to speak.
. 
So who was Thomas Sankara – and why do we regard him as a Point of Reference?
. 
Thomas Sankara is remembered as one of Africa’s most visionary, principled, and charismatic leaders. As we noted earlier, the former President of Burkina Faso (from 1983 until his assassination in 1987) has been dubbed the ‘African Che Guevara.’  We’ve seen Sankara described variously as a revolutionary, a progressive nationalist, a Marxist, and a pan-Africanist.
. 
(We also believe that, in some respects, it’s fair to describe him as a National Liberal. His commitment to various forms of self-determination was very strong. Hopefully we’ll return to this theme sometime in the near future).
. 
To some extent, these political descriptions don’t really matter. What does is that – during his brief time in office – Sankara transformed the course of his country and inspired generations across the continent and beyond.
. 
EARLY LIFE, MILITARY CAREER & THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION
. 
Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara was born on December 21, 1949, in Yako, a town in colonial Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso). He was raised in a modest family—his father was a gendarme, and his mother managed the household.
. 
Sankara was the third of ten children, and his parents stressed the importance of education, discipline, and social justice. He excelled academically and attended a seminary, where he considered joining the priesthood before deciding on a military career.
. 
In 1966, he joined the military academy of Kadiogo, where he was introduced to politics and the works of anti-colonial revolutionaries. His training took him to Madagascar, where he witnessed major student uprisings and the fall of a government, events that profoundly shaped his worldview. Exposed to socialist philosophy, Sankara returned to Upper Volta with a deep sense of political purpose.
. 
By the late 1970s, Upper Volta was a country mired in poverty, corruption, and political instability. The nation gained independence from France in 1960, but it remained economically dependent and politically fragmented. The military frequently intervened in politics, and Sankara quickly rose through the ranks, earning a reputation for discipline, integrity, and intelligence.
. 
In 1981, he was appointed Secretary of State for Information in a new government. However, he soon resigned in protest over government repression of striking workers. He became Prime Minister in 1983 under President Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo but was dismissed and placed under house arrest for his outspoken views and criticism of the government’s policies.
. 
It was during this period that Sankara’s popularity soared, especially among young people, students, workers, and the poor. On 4th August, 1983, with the support of fellow officers and the backing of leftist groups, Captain Thomas Sankara led a coup d’état that overthrew the government, establishing the National Council of the Revolution (CNR).
. 
DIGNITY, SELF-RELIANCE & JUSTICE
. 
Once in power, Sankara embarked on a radical transformation of the country. He renamed Upper Volta as ‘Burkina Faso,’ (meaning ‘Land of Upright People’ in the local Mossi and Dioula languages). This symbolic act marked the beginning of a new era, focused on dignity, self-reliance, and justice.
From the start, his government launched an ambitious program of economic, social, and cultural renewal. He aimed to break the chains of colonial dependence and eliminate corruption at all levels. Some of his most significant reforms included:
.  
  • Land Redistribution and Food Self-Sufficiency: Sankara confiscated land from feudal landlords and redistributed it to peasants, greatly increasing agricultural productivity. His Grow What You Eat and Eat What You Grow campaign led to a dramatic rise in food production. Indeed, Burkina Faso became nearly self-sufficient in staple foods by 1986.
    . 
  • Vaccination and Health Initiatives: In one of the most successful public health campaigns in Africa, Sankara’s government vaccinated between two – three million children against meningitis, yellow fever, and measles in just a few weeks.
  • Women’s Rights: Sankara was a tireless advocate for gender equality. He outlawed forced marriages and female genital mutilation (FGM), promoted female education, appointed women to prominent government positions, and encouraged women to work outside the home and join the military. He famously declared, “The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph.
  • Environmental Initiatives: Recognising the looming threat of desertification, Sankara launched a massive tree-planting programme, creating “green belts” to combat the desert and conserve the environment. (It’s thought that around ten million trees were planted during this initiative.)
  • Infrastructure and Public Works: The government built railways, schools, health clinics, and water reservoirs, largely through mass mobilisation and voluntary labour. It’s said that Sankara wanted to build a railroad to develop a rare-earth metal mine in Burkina Faso. However, the World Bank refused to loan the money. Therefore, he got a pick and shovel and started building the railroad by hand himself!
  • Anti-Corruption Measures: Sankara led by example, reducing his own salary, banning government limousines, and selling off the fleet of Mercedes cars for more modest Renault 5s. Civil servants were required to swear an oath of honesty, and government waste was drastically reduced. In particular, he curtailed the traditional powers of tribal chiefs, who were seen by many as corrupt. 
. 
All of the above measures would’ve attracted the unwelcome attention of the usual imperialist powers. To make things worse (for those imperialist powers, and ultimately Sankara himself) was Sankara’s staunch opposition to neo-colonialism and foreign domination.
. 
For instance, he rejected foreign aid that came with conditions, arguing that it fostered dependency. He called on African nations to refuse to pay their foreign debts, which he saw as a tool of exploitation.
. 
His bold stance earned him admiration from radical movements worldwide, though it also isolated Burkina Faso from Western powers and the conservative regimes of neighbouring countries.
. 
His simple lifestyle, fiery speeches, and unwavering commitment to justice made him an icon among the youth and marginalized of Africa. He played the guitar, cycled to work, and encouraged self-reliance at every level of society. His government was among the first to promote women’s rights, environmentalism, and anti-corruption as core state policies in Africa.
. 
ASSINATION & AFTERMATH
. 
On October 15, 1987, Thomas Sankara was assassinated during a coup led by his former friend and colleague, Blaise Compaoré. Many believe the coup was backed by foreign interests – we have no doubt that France, the US & UK would’ve been close to the action – threatened by Sankara’s uncompromising stance on debt and foreign meddling. After his death, many of his reforms were rolled back, and Compaoré ruled for nearly three decades.
. 
Despite his short time in power, Thomas Sankara’s legacy endures. He is revered by many across Africa and the world as a symbol of honesty, self-sacrifice, and revolutionary change. His speeches and policies continue to inspire activists fighting for social justice, pan-Africanism, and anti-imperialism.
. 
Festivals, documentaries, books, and even hip-hop music have kept his memory alive. Statues and murals honour his legacy in Burkina Faso and abroad. In recent years, the Burkinabé people (as the people of Burkina Faso are called) have sought justice for his assassination. In 2022, Blaise Compaoré and several others were convicted in absentia for their roles in Sankara’s murder.
. 
We believe that Thomas Sankara’s story is a testament to the transformative power of visionary leadership, selflessness, and courage. Though his time was brief, his ideals live on. With all this in mind, we feel that Thomas Sankara is indeed a worthy ‘Point of Reference’ for National Liberals.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Stop Discriminating Against Cash Users At Self-Checkouts – Sign The Petition!

 

OUR ATTENTION has been drawn to an online petition which may be of interest to our readers.
.

We believe that consumers must be able to choose what payment method they want to use.

The petition – Stop Discriminating Against Cash Users At Self-Checkouts– calls on UK supermarkets to stop limiting cash payments at self-checkouts, ensuring that all customers, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, have equal access to payment options.

.
As National Liberals we believe that consumers must be able to choose what payment method they want to use.
.
Therefore, we have absolutely no problem if someone wants to live their life paying by card.  However, we feel that consumers must always be allowed the option to pay by cash.
.
We realise that many people believe that paying by card is quick & easy.  However, we remain wary of the intentions of large corporations who may use card payment schemes as an excuse to get rid of workers.
.
We feel that these corporations have a moral & social responsibility to their customers, the local community & their workforce.
.
The petition reads:
.
We, the undersigned, are calling on UK supermarkets to stop limiting access to cash payments at self-checkouts.
.
More and more stores are installing banks of card-only self-checkouts, with just one or two accepting cash – or none at all.
.
This creates a two-tier system that unfairly penalises:

•  Older people who rely on cash 

•  People with disabilities or mental health conditions who need to budget manually

•  Those on Universal Credit or without full access to banking

•  Anyone who prefers cash for budgeting, privacy, or safety

 
Cash remains legal tender. Yet supermarkets are quietly making it harder – and slower – to use.
We are not against digital payments – we’re against having no choice. No one should be forced into a cashless system.
.
We demand:
.
•  That all self-checkout areas include a fair number of cash-accepting tills – not just one token machine
.
•  Clear signage showing where people can pay with cash
.
•  A commitment from supermarkets to protect freedom of payment for all customers
.
•  Money is money. Inclusion matters. Choice matters.
.
•  Sign this petition to stand up for equal access and payment rights – and to say no to cash discrimination.

•  You can sign the online petition here:  https://www.change.org/p/stop-discriminating-against-cash-users-at-self-checkouts

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Distributism: An Alternative Approach to Economic Justice
.

Hilaire Belloc (left) and G.K. Chesterton (right) were the main advocates of the alternative economic idea known as distributism. They were opposed to capitalism – where property & assets are in the hands of a few – and socialism and communism – where property & assets are in the hands of the state (and party bosses). Distributism stands in favour of property and productive assets being in the hands of the many.
(Picture Credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilaire_Belloc#/media/File:Hilaire_Belloc_(side_view,_1910).jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#/media/File:Gilbert_Chesterton.jpg Fair Use)

DISTRIBUTISM is an economic philosophy and doctrine. It advocates for a more widespread distribution of property and productive assets among individuals. It stands in opposition to capitalism – where property & assets are in the hands of a few – and socialism and communism – where property & assets are in the hands of the state (and party bosses).

.
Distributism has its roots in Catholic social teaching.  It was developed primarily in the early twentieth century by thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. Distributism offers a ‘third way’ between laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism. Its central aim is to create a society in which individuals and families are empowered to own and manage property, thereby fostering economic justice, personal freedom, and social stability.
.
HISTORICAL ORIGINS
.
Distributism arose as a response to the social and economic upheavals of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of both aggressive capitalism and collectivist socialism.
.
These two dominant economies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had (in the eyes of Chesterton & Belloc) failed to address the needs of the vast majority of people. They believed that capitalism led to the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite or corporations. Socialism, on the other hand, risked stifling individuality and personal responsibility through excessive state control.
.
The philosophical foundation of distributism is found in Catholic encyclicals, particularly Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (1931). These documents emphasized the dignity of work, the rights and responsibilities of property ownership, and the perils of both unbridled capitalism and state-controlled economies.
.
KEY THINKERS
.
 As we noted earlier, distributism is normally associated with G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.  So, who were they?
 
 
  • G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936) was an English writer and philosopher. He provided a passionate defence of distributism, arguing for the preservation of small property and the importance of family, community, and tradition.
 
  • Hilaire Belloc (1870 – 1953) was a prolific historian and essayist, Belloc critiqued both capitalist and socialist systems for their dehumanising effects, advocating instead for a society of owners rather than wage slaves.
.
PRINCIPLES OF DISTRIBUTISM
.
Distributism is characterised by several fundamental principles that distinguish it from other economic models:
 
  • Widespread Property Ownership. The core of distributist thought is that productive property (land, tools, businesses) should be owned by as many people as possible, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few or the state.
 
  • Support for Small Businesses and Cooperatives. Distributists oppose monopolies and oligopolies (a market structure where a few firms control prices and output). Instead, they support a vibrant economy made up of small businesses, family farms, and worker-owned cooperatives.
 
  • Family and Localism. The family is seen as the natural and fundamental unit of society. Policies and practices should support family stability and enable families to own property and earn a living.
 
  • Subsidiarity. Decisions should be made at the most local level possible. Here, communities are empowered – rather than distant authorities or centralised corporations.
 
  • Harmony with Nature. Distributism encourages stewardship of the environment and responsible land use, often aligning with agrarian or ecological principles.
 
  • Ethics in Economics. Economic actions are viewed through a moral lens. Here, the focus is on justice, human dignity, and the common good (as opposed to outright greed).
.
DISTRIBUTISM IN PRACTICE
 
While distributism is primarily a philosophy, it has inspired practical movements and policies. Its influence can be seen in various cooperative and credit union movements, land reform initiatives, and localist economic strategies. Some concrete examples include:
 
  • Worker Cooperatives. Enterprises owned and managed by their employees, sharing profits and decision-making.
 
  • Credit Unions. Financial institutions owned by members, providing community-oriented financial services.
 
  • Community Land Trusts. Organizations that acquire and steward land for the benefit of local residents, ensuring affordable housing and local enterprise.
 
  • Smallholder Agriculture. Support for family farms and local food systems as opposed to industrial agribusiness.
.
CONTRASTS WITH OTHER ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
 
Distributism is distinct from both capitalism and socialism:
 
  • Versus Capitalism. While capitalism values private property, in practice it tends to concentrate ownership and create wage dependency. Distributism seeks to decentralise ownership and encourage economic self-sufficiency.
 
  • Versus Socialism. Socialism often involves state ownership or control of productive assets. Distributism, by contrast, insists that property and productive assets should remain in private hands but be widely distributed.
.
CRITICISMS
 
Distributism, like any other economic system, has its critics. Some argue that its vision of an economy dominated by smallholders and cooperatives is unrealistic in a modern, globalised world characterised by economies of scale and technological complexity.
.
Others point out potential difficulties in preventing the re-concentration of wealth over time, as well as challenges in transitioning from existing economic structures to a distributist model.
.
Nevertheless, supporters argue that distributism provides an alternative & persuasive way of addressing rising inequality, environmental degradation, and the erosion of community and family life.
.
Distributistism reconsiders economic priorities and values in a novel way. It strongly emphases that economies exist to serve people – and not the other way around.
.
LEGACY
 
While not widely adopted as an official economic policy, distributist ideas have experienced periodic revivals. Thos is particularly ao in times of social or economic crisis. The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent debates about inequality and corporate power brought renewed interest in distributist principles, especially among those seeking alternatives to both neoliberal capitalism and statist solutions.
.
Contemporary advocates often emphasise the compatibility of distributism with movements for economic democracy, sustainability, and community resilience. In the United Kingdom, parts of Europe, and North America, distributist thought influences discussions around localism, cooperative economics, and ethical business practices.
.
CONCLUSION
 
Distributism stands as a unique and morally grounded alternative to dominant capitalism & communism/socialism. It values broad property ownership, family and community life, subsidiarity, and ethics in economics. In doing so, it seeks to build a more just and resilient society. While it faces significant practical challenges, distributism’s vision remains relevant for those who seek to build an alternative economy.
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close