Although the Nazi scourge had been defeated, a cloud loomed over Eastern Europe as the region entered a dark era of forty years of barbarism under Soviet terror reign, Russia has traditionally used this date for propaganda purposes. However, a this year’s Victory Day Parade, everything has been less triumphant, and the cracks are showing.

Since the 1960s, the Kremlin has organized military parades on Victory Day and May 9th has long been one of the most important dates on the political agenda. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia began to invite Western guests to Moscow in order to participate in the Victory Day events.

This (sort of) lasted until the 2010s, with the Russian Invasion of Crimea (2014) becoming a decisive U-turn in Western relations. Most Western European leaders have since boycotted the invitations in protest of the bloody invasion in Ukraine. The list of invited foreigners has gradually shrunk in the last years, especially with the full-scale invasion in 2022.

In the last year, Vladimir Putin has mostly surrounded himself with yes-men, often leaders of the third world and the few pro-Russian leaders that remain in Europe. On this year’s occasion, Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić and Robert Fico were the only Europeans who accepted the invitation.

Their journey was complicated as the EU requested both would not go in light of Russia’s hideous crimes in Ukraine, which they both ignored. In retaliation, the Baltic States warned the pair could not fly through their airspace, forcing them to take longer and more hazardous routes.

If anything, this already makes the case for a humiliation, as Fico and Vučić continue to isolate themselves on the international scene. Russia’s international standing has soured to the extent that even pro-Russian Hungarian dictator Viktor Orbán did not consider attending this year’s Victory Day Parade.

The BRICS+ nations in particular are key outliers. The group of emerging markets: Brazil, Russia, India and China, with other states like South Africa, Egypt and Indonesia joining the group more recently, have often tried to portray themselves as a united pact, but the (non)attendance of several BRICS+ countries has demonstrated they are far from united on the international front.

In fact, it is estimated that around one third of the invited countries will not attend, for various reasons. Even newcomers to the BRICS group, who one would assume would do everything to send their relegation to Moscow, have not done so. The UAE, which only joined the BRIC group last year, did not shown any interest in attending. South Africa, one of the key members of the union, only sent a defence minister to represent the country at the parade while India and Pakistan refused to participate due to the tension between the two countries in recent days.

The no-shows was already a major setback for Vladimir Putin, but the true humiliation came as a result of the Ukrainian reaction. For the Victory Parade, Russia requested a three-day truce, in order to portray a peaceful and powerful Russia. The truce was originally rejected by Ukraine, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying that he “could not guarantee the safety of Russia’s airspace on May 9th”. This may seem like a detail, but it reveals two things: Ukraine’s bravery, and Russia’s fear.

May 9th is supposed to be a day of victory, joy and a show of Russia’s might. None of it has been achieved in this year’s edition. The no-shows were one thing, but Ukraine’s latest strikes have demonstrated who’s in charge of the current tide of war.

Although more soldiers were featured in this year’s parade in comparison to 2024, it is still less than before the invasion. This is proof for a lack of available soldiers —  as Russia struggles to mobilize more men for Putin’s blood thirst.

The display of might and the usual expectations have never been lower. Europe has barely seen mentions of the Victory Parade, a sign that it has lost any sort of importance in the Old Continent. It says a lot, as Victory Parades in earlier years were known as a spectacle observed across the globe. It should be mentioned several heavy tanks have been missing in this year’s edition, presumably because they were being used on the front instead.

The goal of victory day parades had nothing to do with reality — in the 2000s, they aimed to show Russia’s power, intimidating NATO. While Russia has been declining for a while as a superpower, it has never reached a level as low as it has this year.

There was nothing glorious about this years’ parade, and it portrays a great picture of the current Russia: Decaying and stuck in the past. Putin is also a good symbol for that, a relic of a time that is now passing.

In fact, he was rumoured to possibly not appear in the Victory Day Parade due to fears of Ukraine’s drones striking Moscow. He eventually did appear, and yet he remains isolated. There was no Victory Day parade; this was a parade of shame, fear and isolation. Putin has few friends left. The parade received no attention in Europe, nobody was intimidated. Instead of showing its power, Russia demonstrated that its days as a superpower are numbered.

Featured image via Eremin Aleksey/Shutterstock.

We are now preparing to relive this moment, as we are just hours away from the next conclave following the passing of Pope Francis. The cardinals have arrived in Rome, prepared to cast their first votes on who will be the next pope. But how is this all going to play out? What events or discussions are expected to take place inside the Sistine Chapel? Here are the key factors for understanding how the conclave works and who decides who will be the next pope.

The Conclave: Choosing who will be the next pope

Conclave actually comes from the Latin cum clave which means ‘with a key’, making reference to the cardinals being locked in the Sistine Chapel for the holy election. The process of electing a pope dates back nearly two millennia, beginning with the establishment of the College of Cardinals in 1059.

However, it wasn’t until 1274 when Gregory X introduced reforms that gave shape to the conclave we know today. This reform was implemented in response to political interference by European monarchs, which was prevalent at the time.

Who is taking part?

The conclave will consist of the 133 cardinals who are eligible to vote out of the 252 current cardinals worldwide. The reason only 1/3 can vote is that they must be under 80 to be eligible. Pope Paul VI actually introduced this in 1970. Some say it is out of mercy, so they don’t have to be burdened with such a weighty decision in their old age; however, there are rumours that some senior cardinals can’t be trusted to not leak information to the press.

There are 52 cardinals from Europe, 23 from Asia, 20 from North America, 17 from both Africa and South America, and four from Oceania. The country with the most cardinals is Italy, with 17, followed by the United States with 10 and Brazil with seven. The UK has three cardinals eligible to vote.

Their role is to decide on who will be the next pope.

From swearing secrets to strict diets

Each cardinal has sworn to complete secrecy as they vow to never divulge what takes place inside the conclave, and if any of them do so, they can face excommunication. Tomorrow morning, the cardinals will be arriving at the Vatican, where they will have to hand in their phones, tablets, and smart watches and be completely sealed off from the outside world. They can’t even open the windows. In fact, even the cardinals food will be monitored to prevent secret messaging.

So, who is the Ralph Fiennes of this conclave? His name is Cardinal Kevin Farrell, and he was the one who announced the passing of Pope Francis. He is in charge of running the meetings and organising this conclave to ensure a fair process when deciding who will be the next pope.

Cardinals must remain inside until a pope is elected and will spend nights in the Vatican guesthouse, Santa Marta. The first voting session starts imminently after all cardinals are settled and ready.

Voting after voting

When the cardinals arrive at the Sistine Chapel, Extra Omnes will be declared, meaning everyone else out. The cardinals can’t speak inside the Sistine Chapel; they can only write down their vote. One candidate that reaches a two-thirds majority will be anointed Pope.

Each cardinal is allocated to a seat where they will find a pen and a pile of ballots with the words Eligo in summum pontificem, meaning I elect as supreme pontiff. On these ballots, each cardinal will write down the name of the man they chose to be pope.

After, they stand up, folding the paper in two, walking towards the altar of the Sistine Chapel where a bronze urn stands. Before casting the ballot to the urn, they will take another oath in Latin: Estor Christum Dominum, qui me iudicaturus est, me eum eligere, quem secundum Deum iudico eligi debere. Which means ‘I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who is to judge me, and I choose him whom according to God I judge ought to be elected’.

Each day, there should be two votes in the morning and two in the afternoon. Once the ballots are counted and recounted, they will be thread into a bundle using a needle, puncturing the word “eligo” along the way. The papers are incinerated in a burner. If the process yields no decision, chemicals are added to turn the smoke black. However, once the cardinals have made their decision, the smoke turns white and the bells are rung, signalling that a decision has been made on who will be the next pope.

The voting can last from days to years. In fact, the longest conclave occurred in the 13th century and lasted two years and nine months, during which three cardinals passed away. However, there is no need to worry, as the most recent conclaves have only lasted two to three days. Experts, however, are divided as this conclave has been labeled the most unpredictable in modern Catholic history. The answer to who will be the next pope remains illusive.

Featured image via Fabrizio Maffei/Shutterstock.

The far-right nationalist candidate, George Simion came first with 41 per cent of the vote and will head into the second round of the election on 18 May against the current mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan, who placed second, winning 21 per cent of the vote. Dan beat the candidate of the governing coalition, Crin Antonescu, by only a single percentage point. George Simion is also expected to win the second round.

The current election is a rerun of last year’s annulled vote. In November 2024, the first round of presidential elections ended with far-right Călin Georgescu taking the lead. This was followed by a controversial scandal after the press revealed his alleged ties to fascist and ultranationalist groups in Romanian. The led to the election results being annulled in December and the second round being cancelled due to alleged Russian interference on behalf of Georgescu. 

George Simion is the nationalist leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), a party he started in 2019 that gained an immense following during the COVID-19 pandemic through its strong anti-vaccine stance. George Simion started his political career and party as a proponent of the union between Romania and Moldova and the return to traditional conservative values.

However, since his ascent to parliament, he has retracted his support of Moldova and now advocates for the return to Romania’s pre-World War 2 borders, which would include Moldova and parts of Ukraine, contradicting international law.

He is now banned from entering both countries, with Kyiv accusing him of “systematic anti-Ukrainian activities”, and Moldova claiming he endangers national security.

Romania represents an important transit route for ammunition and aid to Ukraine, making cooperation between the bordering countries crucial for European security.

George Simion has used this to his political advantage with the BBC reporting: “Public resentment at Romanian financial support for Ukrainian refugees has been a central plank in Simion’s campaign, though he denies he is pro-Russian.”

Politico writes that he has also taken aim at the European Union, threatening to break laws he doesn’t agree with, but stressing his opinion that Romania should remain a member and that he is not pro-Russian. He has also been at the centre of numerous scandals, including allegations of tax evasion, and an incident in which he threatened to sexually assault a fellow member of parliament.

George Simion has vehemently opposed the rerun of the presidential election, protesting last year’s cancellation by not attending public debates and promising his voters that he will appoint Călin Georgescu as prime minister or step down himself to allow Georgescu to become president. Neither of his promises are constitutional or feasible, considering the parliament consists of an oppositional coalition that would likely not ratify his decision.

This election marks the first time in Romania’s post-communist political history when the main coalition parties with ties to the former communist regime haven’t had a representative in the final round of the presidential election.

Featured image via LCV/ Shutterstock.

Far from being betrayals of principle, these grand coalitions are acts of democratic maturity. Despite their inevitable electoral cost, they provide a path toward stable governance and national unity in an era marked by polarization and volatility.

Germany, Austria, and Denmark serve as leading examples of how grand coalitions can function effectively. In these countries, traditional parties from across the ideological spectrum have forged governing alliances that reflect a commitment to dialogue, compromise, and the national interest.

Though these arrangements are often temporary and politically costly for at least one of the participating parties, they represent a strategic sacrifice for the sake of democratic continuity. In parliamentary systems, where government formation depends on majority support, these coalitions allow for stable leadership in moments when no single party commands enough votes to govern alone.

The electoral penalty that coalition partners often pay is real. Voters may perceive compromises as betrayals, especially when long-standing ideological differences are softened for the sake of governance. Parties that once stood in opposition now must defend joint policies and shared responsibilities.

As seen in Germany, the Social Democrats (SPD) lost support after multiple coalition agreements with the Christian Democrats (CDU), only to regain strength years later. In Austria and Denmark, junior coalition partners have suffered similar declines, yet their participation prevented political paralysis.

What makes grand coalitions successful in these countries is not just a willingness to cooperate, but a political culture that values pragmatism. The evolution of party systems in Germany, Austria, and Denmark has fostered a context in which consensus is not seen as weakness but as a democratic virtue. By contrast, nations like France, Spain, or Greece have faced greater challenges replicating this model. In these countries, deep political divisions and fragmented legislatures often result in minority governments or repeated elections, as seen in Spain in both 2016 and 2019.

Grand coalitions have also emerged in extraordinary circumstances, when national unity is essential. During World War II, Winston Churchill led a coalition government in the United Kingdom in defense of democracy. More recently, Mario Draghi’s broad coalition in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic brought together parties from across the political spectrum to manage the crisis. These examples highlight how even in highly polarized environments, political actors can and must rise above partisanship when the nation’s stability is at stake.

Today, grand coalitions are not only relevant, they are necessary. Across Europe and beyond, political discourse has become increasingly toxic, fueled by populism and extremism. In this context, coalitions serve as democratic guardrails, containing the rise of radical parties by offering moderate and functional alternatives. They remind us that politics is not about absolute victories, but about negotiation, compromise, and shared responsibility.

There is also a broader institutional lesson to consider. Parliamentary systems, by their very nature, require negotiation. They encourage the formation of coalitions as a mechanism for achieving workable governance. This stands in contrast to presidential systems, where executive power is concentrated in a single figure often disconnected from legislative consensus. The presidential model, while still dominant in Latin America and other parts of the world, increasingly shows signs of institutional fatigue. Perhaps it is time to reconsider its limits and look to parliamentary models for inspiration.

Critics of grand coalitions argue that they blur ideological lines and alienate voters. This is not untrue. But the alternative would be a political deadlock or the rise of authoritarian figures which is far worse. Coalition governments, while imperfect, uphold democratic procedures, avoid institutional stagnation, and promote political maturity. Even if a party loses votes in the short term, the long-term gain is national stability and that is a trade-off worth making.

Ultimately, grand coalitions are not about abandoning ideals, but about prioritizing the collective good. In moments of crisis, choosing unity over division is an act of leadership. As the global political landscape becomes more fragmented, the ability to build bridges between political forces is not a weakness, it is a necessity. Germany, Austria, and Denmark have shown that compromise can be a source of strength. Others would do well to follow their lead.

Featured image via Deemerwha studio/Shutterstock.

What happened and what are the legal consequences for the AfD?

Previously, the Intelligence Service had designated three AfD branches in eastern Germany as extremist, with the wider party being placed “under review”. That review, the government body says, has now concluded, with the whole party now being classified as “extremist”.

The ruling means that Germany’s Intelligence Service can legally monitor AfD meetings, wire-tap phones and listen in on other means of communication between party leadership. The government agency can also recruit informants to report on the party. The investigation methods that can be used on the party are otherwise reserved for national security threats. 

The new classification also puts pressure on AfD members who are government employees. Allegiance to what is now an extremist organization can be grounds for termination from the civil service, if the respective government body decides to open an investigation. This means party members working as teachers, judges or police officers could face termination because of their party membership. 

Additionally, the party may face fiscal repercussions. In Germany, political parties are entitled to significant financial support from the federal government, and the AfD is no exception, with federal support constituting the bulk of its funding. That support can be cut for extremist parties, though, as happened last year with the far-right NPD party, which had all government funding cut for six years.

The party could face the same now, but there are some hurdles as a motion must be passed with a majority vote in parliament, and then the Supreme Court must approve for the funding to be cut. While it’s uncertain what will happen, the legal basis for punishment has been established.

Could the AfD be banned?

This announcement is likely to reignite the debate on banning the party entirely. The Intelligence Service cannot ban parties, but parliament can pass a motion to do so, which then has to be ratified by the Supreme Court.

In January, MPs from several parties submitted a motion to ban the party in parliament, but the proposal was delayed by the snap election. At the time, many MPs said they would only consider voting for a ban if the party was deemed extremist on a national level. With that now being the case, further motions towards this in parliament are likely. But, banning AfD could prove difficult even with majority support for it in parliament.

That is because the threshold of Supreme Court ratification is high: Although it did cut their federal funding, the court has twice rejected motions to ban the fringe NPD party.

NPD has been classified as extremist for decades, with allegations that it exhibits openly fascist tendencies. The party has been closely monitored by the Intelligence Service, but the Supreme Court said the Service had not proven that NPD was enough of an active threat to democracy to ban it. Experts say that if the court cannot even approve banning a party like NPD, it is hard to imagine that it would ratify an AfD ban.

What is the rationale behind the classification?

In its statement, the government body said it had found proof that the party was “advancing interests contrary to the free and democratic system of the German state”.

The Intelligence Service says it also believes the party is dominated by an “ethno-ancestral” understanding of who is German and who is not, and that the party is aiming to “limit the democratic participation” of certain groups, violating the principles of the German constitution, with the statement claiming that the “AfD, for instance, believes German citizens with a background from Islamic countries are not an equal part of German society.”

The report detailing the evidence the Intelligence Service cites for this classification will not be published, but according to information obtained by Public Broadcaster ZDF, the Intelligence Service came to its conclusion after analyzing AfD politicians’ quotes from recent federal and local elections, and identifying an alleged pattern of radicalization.

Founded in 2013 with a centre-right,  EU-critical platform, the AfD soon made strict anti-immigration stances the core of its message during the 2015 refugee crisis, and has moved steadily to the right ever since. Many more moderate party members, including founder Bernd Lucke and long-time chairwoman Frauke Petry, have left the party and condemned its current leadership. Most recently, in 2022, chairman Jörg Meuthen stepped down and left the party, saying it had developed “totalitarian tendencies.”

Under the leadership of Meuthen’s successors Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, the party has had its fair share of scandals. Last year, journalists uncovered a meeting near Berlin, where party politicians had met with members of the far-right “Identity Movement”, and discussed mass deportation plans, including the deportation of people with German passports. 

At the recent federal election, the party fielded various controversial candidates. Its new group of MPs includes Matthias Helferich, who has described himself as the “friendly face of fascism”, while Maximilian Krah, a former candidate for the European Parliament, has been accused of trivializing the Holocaust, employing a Chinese spy in his office, and accepting money from Russia.

According to ZDF, several legal cases against AfD members also played a role in the Intelligence Service’s decision. The head of AfD in Thuringia, Björn Höcke, was convicted for using a nazi slogan in his election campaign last year. A former AfD MP from the state of Hesse is currently in jail and accused of conspiring to launch a coup attempt against the German government. In Saxony, the police arrested a local AfD councillor in November, accusing him of being the leader of what police describe as a right-wing terrorist group. 

What are the political consequences for Germany and the AfD?

The announcement comes amidst a debate over the established parties’ relation to AfD. Although having been a major force in German politics for years, all parties have refused to enter into any cooperation with AfD, erecting an infamous “firewall” against the right-wing party both on a federal and a state level.

Two weeks ago, designated Conservative whip Jens Spahn had then advocated for a “normalization” of interactions with AfD in parliament, pointing out their massive support at the last election. The classification as extremist now seems to have shut down that debate and reinforced the firewall, with the Conservative president of parliament calling any cooperation of her party with AfD “unthinkable”.

AfD themselves have fought the Intelligence Service in the courts over the “review”, but it was defeated in 2024 after a district court in Cologne upheld the classification. The AfD is now expected to legally challenge the classification of extremist. Chairman Tino Chrupalla called it a “politically motivated attack on AfD,” and an “interference with democratic processes.” 

Feautured image via Deutscher Bundestag/ Achim Melde.

The blackout affected millions across Spain, Portugal and France, with 25 flights from Portugal to the United Kingdom and 11 flights from the UK to Spain being cancelled.

Spain was the worst affected, with the entire mainland—excluding the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, which only experienced satellite outages—plunged into darkness.

In less than five seconds, the Spanish power outage caused the country to lose 60% of its electricity supply. Reports quickly emerged of people trapped in lifts, trains grinding to a halt, and traffic brought to a standstill as traffic lights stopped working. Emergency communication lines were left severely compromised.

Spanish power outage: Chaos, confusion and community

The Spanish power outage is already having effects on the economy. The  Association of Self-Employed Workers (ATA) estimated that the self-employed have suffered losses of around €1.3 billion, with the hospitality and retail sectors hit particularly hard.

As confusion spread, conspiracy theories quickly gained traction, with fears of a cyberattack circulating widely on social media. With no official information available for hours, many relied on battery-powered radios for updates.

Long queues formed at cashpoints and supermarkets, as residents rushed to stock up on essentials. Over 30,000 police officers were mobilized to control the chaos.

Kai Edvard Iliev, Politics UK Correspondent in Madrid, said: “It was 12.05 when all lights suddenly shut down in my room, while I was working on a piece. When I asked the janitor, he said the whole street was affected.”

He explained that it did not take long to realize more than a street was affected. This did not stop Spaniards, famous for their Mediterranean style, from enjoying life. Most sat down in the bar, having a beer. The expectation was that everything would be fine within a few hours. 

He said everything changed an hour later, as most shops were closed and people were seen queuing as they looked for any type of food they could find with restaurants unable to remain open, expecting deliveries that didn’t arrive.

To add insult to injury, the outage made it impossible to pay by card. Few inhabitants had above 20€ on them, especially when it comes to Gen Z. 

Carmen Jurado, a resident of Granada, southern Spain said: “I got stuck in the elevator and couldn’t contact emergency services as there was no phone signal

“Neighbours eventually helped me out, and I had to walk home from work as public transport had stopped.”

Despite the Spanish power outage, Madrid’s streets were full of life, from street concerts to open-air parties and flash mobs. When life seemed finally to find a new normal with many going for a nap in Retiro, Madrid’s most popular park, the police forced all to leave the park at 5:20 PM citing the power outage as a reason to close the park down. 

A return to normality after the Spanish power outage

The first signs of normality could be seen around 20.00, as some of the traffic lights could be seen functioning again. Despite that, the metro remained closed until the next morning. Depending on the providers, the signal returned around 20:30, after six hours without internet. 

The director of Spain’s national grid operator, Red Eléctrica, has denied cyberattacks, human error, or unusual atmospheric phenomena, instead pointing to two major instances of “generation disconnection”—likely involving solar power—as the cause of the Spanish power outage.

In response to the scale of the disruption, Spanish regional governments called on Madrid to activate Alert Level 3—a civil protection protocol that places national authorities in direct control of emergency response operations. Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska declared a state of emergency over the Spanish power outage at their request.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez later addressed the nation, stating that the nation was “overcoming the worst” of the Spanish power outage. He denied any link to a lack of nuclear power, instead citing climate-related factors and “extreme wind” as possible contributors.

The government has called for an independent investigation from Brussels and promised to hold private energy operators accountable. Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the opposition leader, has accused the government of a lack of information and coordination in the initial hours of the Spanish power outage.

Yesterday, Spanish King Felipe VI took full charge of Spain’s National Security Council for the first time to receive a detailed briefing on the nationwide blackout that plunged much of the country into chaos. This highlights the severity of the crisis and the growing concern over the resilience of Spain’s critical infrastructure.

In France, southern regions also experienced outages, with the French grid operator RTE coordinating recovery efforts. Morocco provided emergency support to restore electricity. Meanwhile, Portugal’s operator REN attributed the incident to atmospheric conditions, noting “anomalous oscillations” in high-voltage lines caused by extreme temperature shifts.

While power has now been largely restored across both countries, rail services are still facing delays and confusion, particularly at major train stations. Some regions in Spain have requested the deactivation of an Alert Level 3.

Spain’s national grid operator has confirmed that operations on the mainland electricity system have returned to normal. The announcement comes as the country works to restore full normality.

As we mark the first anniversary of this event, we reflect on the significant global impacts it has had—not only in terms of the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, but also on the rise of antisemitism globally.

In Chamber UK’s recent conversation with Dave Rich, Director of Policy at the Community Security Trust (CST), and Joani Reid, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Antisemitism, we explored the consequences of this tragic event and the broader surge of antisemitism that has followed.

A Year of Rising Antisemitism

The brutal nature of the attacks on 7th October caused international outrage. But within hours of the attack hitting headlines, there was an alarming spike in antisemitic incidents around the world, including here in the UK. In our interview, Dave Rich noted the clear pattern that follows conflict in the Middle East – whenever tensions flare between Israel and its neighbours, antisemitism surges globally. He explained that “while there are always hate crimes targeting Jewish people,” conflict with Israel tends to spark sudden spikes, a trend seen after the attacks, with antisemitism reaching record levels in Britain.

Joani Reid echoed these concerns, highlighting how the immediate rise in hate incidents post-7th October was deeply distressing. As she put it, antisemitism may have many societal drivers, but at its core, it comes from individuals holding and acting on anti-Jewish beliefs. The rise in these incidents, exacerbated by political and global events, places the responsibility on all of us – government, institutions, and civil society – to act.

Government Response: Not Just a Legal Problem

Both Rich and Reid agreed that the UK government and its institutions have made significant strides in trying to protect Jewish communities. Funding for security measures at Jewish schools, synagogues, and other buildings is an essential step, but it’s clear that more needs to be done. Beyond legal measures, civil society has a critical role to play. Rich pointed out that while the police and government often bear the brunt of responsibility, other parts of society: trade unions, human rights organisations, and religious bodies, need to step up. Antisemitism isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a societal one.

Reid, drawing from her political background, expressed a similar frustration, emphasising the cultural shift that is required to truly tackle the root causes of antisemitism. While legal frameworks like the Online Safety Act offer hope for curbing hate speech online, the broader fight against antisemitism requires everyone to take responsibility for their actions and challenge antisemitic rhetoric when they encounter it.

The Role of Social Media

Perhaps the most concerning driver of antisemitism in today’s world is the role of social media. In our conversation, both Dave Rich and Joani Reid highlighted how platforms designed to engage users often end up channelling them into more extreme and harmful narratives. Rich noted that “younger people are more likely to believe conspiracy tropes about Jewish people than older generations,” a direct result of the content they consume on platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. This is a worrying generational shift, with antisemitic ideas being spread widely and rapidly among younger populations.

Reid, too, expressed her deep concern about the impact of social media on young people. “We are living in a new antisemitic age,” she stated, largely due to the unchecked spread of misinformation and hate online. Both agreed that regulation of social media is essential, but more importantly, platforms must enforce the policies they have in place to curb hate speech.

Education: The Key to Long-Term Change

The rise of antisemitism in the wake of the 7th October attacks has left many wondering what can be done to combat it. Education, as always, is seen as a critical tool in the fight against hate. Rich and Reid both called for an expanded approach to education – one that goes beyond Holocaust education and addresses the complexities of Jewish life, history, and the role of social media in spreading hate.

As Reid pointed out, “If we don’t tackle the problem with social media and young people accessing it, this problem’s only going to get worse.” Teaching digital citizenship, critical thinking, and media literacy in schools can be a powerful way to help the next generation navigate the dangerous misinformation online. However, education isn’t just about what happens in the classroom. As Rich noted, the best messengers to younger generations may not always be their teachers but rather influential figures they follow online. Engaging these voices in the fight against antisemitism is crucial.

Final Thought

The 7th of October attacks were a horrific reminder of the violence and hatred that can spring from long-standing political conflicts. But the aftermath has shown that this hatred doesn’t remain confined to the borders of the conflict; it spreads into communities across the world.

As we commemorate one year since the attacks, it is important to remember the lives lost, and to also recognise the work that still needs to be done to counter the rise in antisemitism both in the UK and abroad.

Watch Chamber UK’s full interview with Dave Rich and Joani Reid here to learn more about how we can tackle this growing problem, and the role of government, institutions, and all of us in creating a more inclusive and safe society.

Here are the main takeaways:

Israel-Gaza War

As with his conference speech, Starmer started by acknowledging the scale of the October 7 attack and calling for Hamas to return hostages, before shifting to a stance more critical of Israel.

The Prime Minister said that aid delivery was a “bare minimum” that the international community is still “falling short” of. The Prime Minister then singled out Israel specifically, stating that there were “no more excuses” for blocking aid, and renewed calls for humanitarian channels to reopen.

These comments come following the gradual deterioration of British-Israeli relations over the last several months.

Whilst most UN states have mirrored this line, it remains at odds with America. Despite the American government’s own AID agency (USAID) finding that Israel was intentionally blocking aid, the US state department officially rejects this characterisation.

However, Starmer did mirror American rhetoric by expressing support for the UN-backed ceasefire deal in Gaza.

Russia and Ukraine

Starmer once again condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Starmer recommitted himself to the plan laid out in July’s Peace Summit in Switzerland, stating that “Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be the basis of any just and lasting peace”. The Prime Minister rejected “any process that does not recognise this”.

Although Russian officials still publicly advocate the total elimination of Ukraine to the Russian people, Putin has expressed openness to a settlement that would allow Ukraine to exist as a neutral rump state.

Starmer’s speech went on to criticise Russia’s role in the UN, stating:

“The greatest violation of the [UN] Charter in a generation has been committed by one of this councils’ permanent members”

Starmer questioned the legitimacy of Russia’s continued membership on the UN security council, questioning “how Russia can show its face in this building”.

Starmer’s rhetoric is nothing new. In the first year of Russia’s invasion, criticism of Russia’s continued membership of the Security Council was widespread.

During the 2022 emergency UN session, Ukraine argued that Russia had lost the right to be considered the legitimate successor to the Soviet Union due to its violation of the UN charter. As such, Ukraine called for Russia to lose its inherited spot on the Security Council.

Several world leaders have backed this view, and the EU Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for Russia’s ejection.

Since 2022, these demands have largely subsided, likely due to fears that Russia would veto attempts to strip them of permanent security council membership.

Dr Thomas D. Grant, a professor of International Law at Cambridge has argued that this plan is technically feasible. Grant has pointed out that Ukraine could assume Russia’s seat as the legal successor to the USSR in a way that bypasses Russia’s veto. The UNSC could initiate a procedural vote, a vote that would only require an absolute majority of the Security Council.

Although theoretically possible, the practicality of this move may be difficult. Although only five of the fifteen Security Council members have consistently supported Russia in the United Nations, even many pro-Ukrainian states would likely have strong reservations as to the legitimacy of such a move. 

Resolution ES-11/3, which ejected Russia from the UNHRC resulted in many abstentions, even among states like Brazil, Egypt and Thailand who had voted in favour of the Resolution calling for Russia to withdraw from occupied territories.

A successful suspension would likely cause some to question the authority of the United Nations itself, as happened during the west’s stonewalling of Chinese Security Council membership until the 1970s.

Starmer’s comments on Russia are likely designed to signal general disapproval of Russian actions rather than an actual diplomatic push to remove Russia from the security council.

Tension Between Israel and Hezbollah

The Prime Minister called for an “immediate ceasefire” between Hezbollah and Israel. An attempt to push a resolution through to this effect backed by both the UK and France in the UNSC meeting was blocked by the United States.

Starmer’s speech highlights diverging European and American attitudes to the rapid escalation of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Whilst Starmer has followed other European allies in calling for an immediate ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, the Biden administration has been more hesitant.

Official American statements have consistently rejected an immediate ceasefire. Anthony Blinken has acknowledged that Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon is a “legitimate problem” for Israel. According to official IDF numbers, 26 civilians and 22 IDF personnel have been killed since Hezbollah strikes began on October 8 of 2023.

America has warned against escalation, but argues that Israel’s security concerns should be addressed, something an immediate ceasefire would not do.

Biden appeared to reiterate this position to the UN on Monday, stating that “full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest” but fell short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Final Thought

Yesterday’s speech showed the degrees to which Starmer had shifted away from his predecessor. Starmer has certainly adopted a more critical line on Israel than his predecessor, however, the PM has once again expressed his commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty.

Can the government be successful in de-escalating the conflict?

How Have Labour Addressed the Conflict?

Although facing significant criticism by their own supporters for their perceived weakness on Gaza following February, Labour’s policy departed significantly from the Conservatives. Labour endorsed the eventual recognition of a Palestinian state and a push for the immediate implementation of Biden’s ‘three-stage’ ceasefire deal.

However, as the Conservatives time in office came to a close, the gap between Conservative and Labour policy began to shrink. In June, likely under American pressure, the Conservative Government voted in favour of Biden’s ceasefire plan in the UN.

Additionally, Labour has privately wheeled back on immediate recognition of Palestine, stating that it would do so as part of a broader peace plan, a position identical to that of the Conservatives.

However, since coming into office, Labour have pursued a slightly more proactive policy on Gaza.

What has Labour Done in Government?

Earlier this month, the Government withdrew export licenses for arms feared to be connected to alleged Israeli war crimes. On Wednesday, the UK abstained on a UN general Assembly resolution calling for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border within twelve months and for other member states to end arms sales with Israel.

However, more than an abstention, the Government implied that it leaned more in favour than against. In their official statement, the Government said that the abstention meant to “indicate our clear view that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible”.

The Government has argued that these methods are designed to bring about an equitable ceasefire in Gaza and a sustainable peace solution.

Israel is less convinced.

Prime Minister Netenyahu has called the decision to partially suspend arms exports “shameful” and stating that history will remember those who oppose Israeli actions in Gaza in the same light as those who opposed Britain’s “heroic” stand against Nazi Germany.

Despite this, British public opinion is overwhelmingly behind the Government’s policy.

This shift in attitude has not been taken well by either the Israeli government or the Israeli people at large. The Jerusalem post stated that Wednesday’s resolution was designed to “strip Israel of right to self-defense” in Gaza and the West Bank.

In this context, British diplomatic pressure will likely be less effective.

Can the UK Stop All-Out War?

In comparison to our European neighbours, the UK’s response has been less harsh in condemning the operation. Josep Borell, the head of EU Foreign and Security Policy, described the explosions as “indiscriminate” and “designed to spread terror”.

The “concern” regarding civilian casualties expressed by Development Minister Anneliese Dodds did, however, indicate a more critical stance than that of Anthony Blinken. All Israeli allies called for a de-escalation of the conflict.

David Lammy called for an “immediate ceasefire from both sides”.Unfortunately, this does not look likely.

A few days ago, Israel announced its intention to demilitarise the south of Lebanon. Hezbollah and the IDF are currently reported to be engaging in hostilities. Israeli public opinion appears to back this move.

Final Thought

In pushing for a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, the UK’s leverage looks limited. Israeli government opinion has soured significantly since Labour came into office. Meanwhile, popular support for an offensive in South Lebanon among Israelis makes the prospect of Netenyahu’s hard-right government backing down seem unlikely.

Nevertheless, whilst Nasrallah has been often headlined as calling the explosions “a declaration of war”, Hezbollah has repeatedly bluffed about escalation into full-scale war with Israel, not just over the last year, but since the 2006 war. Although Hezbollah has vowed retaliation, it may be seeking to de-escalate the conflict whilst not losing face.

It may, however, have little choice. Both the Israeli public and their government are strongly in favour of a full-scale offensive in southern Lebanon.

In the aftermath of the outgoing Prime Minister being outlived by a lettuce, it isn’t too surprising that shock of the Conservative’s unpopularity was so muted, however, this moment was groundbreaking. At no point in Ipsos polling history, or that of any major pollster, had Labour scored better on migration than the Conservatives.

Whilst this was in large part due to Conservative failure rather than Labour success, certain shifts in Labour’s policy allowed this to happen.

In opposition Starmer contrasted with his predecessor by arguing that net immigration was too high and that Labour would “control our borders”.

Labour argued that Conservative policy cared more about ‘scapegoating’ migrants than it did reducing their numbers. They argued that by training domestic workers and breaking up criminal gangs, the economic drive for migration would end.

However, perhaps Labour’s success is better characterised as the Conservative’s failure. During the home secretary’s first speech to the Commons, several MPs remarked on the “almighty mess” that they had inherited.

In the months since, blame has rapidly been apportioned to Labour.

The aftermath of the riots in August has seen anti-immigration increase significantly.

Earlier this month, YouGov found that 69% of respondents, a record level, believe that immigration is too high. Polling later that week by YouGov found that Immigration was considered the most important political issue, the first time since December 2016.

Why Did The Prime Minister Meet with Meloni?

From the outset, Starmer’s visit to Meloni was focused on immigration. Starmer praised the effectiveness of Meloni’s border policies, and has framed the trip as a way for the UK government to learn from her.

Starmer’s visit comes in the backdrop of Foreign Minister David Lammy stating that the government “are interested” in processing asylum claimants in Albania. Following the visit, the Home Secretary has stated that the UK is not considering a deal with Albania “at the moment”. The Prime Minister, however, has expressed renewed interest towards such a policy.

Outwardly, Starmer’s association with Meloni undermines his government’s position against the rise of the European far right. The Prime Minister once praised Mussolini as Italy’s greatest politician since the 1940s. However, since coming to power, Meloni has attempted to distance herself and her party from Fascist connections.

Many aren’t convinced, however. Many in her ‘Brothers of Italy’ party outwardly continue to praise fascism and Nazism. Headlines were made last week when Mussolini’s granddaughter left the party, believing it had increasingly become “too right wing”.

Why is Labour Signaling a Harder line on Migration?

Starmer’s decision to meet with Meloni signals a massive shift in Labour’s attitude to immigration and its strategy for dealing with the far right.

As was previously covered by Chamber UK, last month the UK Prime Minister met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. In the aftermath of riots in the UK and with AFD success in several German state elections looking more likely, immigration and the far-right was emphasised during his visit.

Starmer expressed a non-ideological approach to winning back voters from the “snake oil” of right wing populism. Starmer argued that delivering on bread and butter issues, rather than kowtowing on immigration was the most effective way of undermining their support.

Scholz had a different perspective.

In the aftermath of a stabbing by an asylum seeker a few days before, Scholz has signaled a harder line on immigration. It was widely thought that this was done in part to undermine support for anti-immigrant parties such as the AFD and WSB during upcoming state elections.

Scholz’s approach mirrors that of the Danish Social Democratic party, which destroyed the viability of the populist right by taking a hard line on immigration, cutting off their one winning issue.

The Prime Minister’s meeting with Meloni indicates that the Prime Minister has shifted towards Scholz’s line of thinking, and of several other progressive parties in Europe.

Final Thought

Starmer appears to be following in the footsteps of Germany and Denmark’s Social Democrats. The Labour party is likely to seek greater control over the border to steal Reform’s support out from under them.

This strategy has been electorally effective in Denmark, however, less so in other European countries.

Most notably, the strategy has so far been ineffective in preventing the rise of the Le Pen’s ‘National Rally’ party in France. So far neither has Scholz’s shift to the right undercut the AFD or BSW.

Additionally, there are moral concerns that may affect Labour’s decision making. Many of the policies instituted by both far-right governments such as Meloni and Denmark’s center-left have been criticised as undermining international human rights.

If Labour does seek to mirror European progressives in taking cues from the far-right, many will no doubt feel betrayed.

For more of Chamber UK’s analysis on migration policy, please click here.