Photo: ShabbirLakha

Before the 2011 Fixed Term Parliament Act was repealed in 2022, elections routinely took place in May. Under the FTPA, general elections were automatically scheduled for the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election, or the fourth year if the date of the previous election was before the first Thursday in May. To align with the new fixed May election schedule, the government shifted the schedule so that parliamentary sessions voluntarily began and ended in May (Spring to Spring). And the monarch is the anachronism who is there to open the parliamentary session.

The speech by King Charles III reading the words of the Labour government presented an absurd and obscene spectacle, emphasising that the people have no role, and serving also to underline that Starmer's present mantra, that he was going to carry on with his programme of change, is meaningless, a complete fraud. It is equally absurd that this second session of parliament since the 2024 general election should be packed with a legislative programme when the whole cartel party system is in such crisis, and that everything Starmer is doing only serves to intensify the crisis. There is some irony in that the end of the first parliamentary session after the general election on what was touted as a "landslide" victory for Starmer should coincide with the crisis of his leadership, as well as the factionalism which no longer finds any resolution in Westminster.

It is deeply symbolic that King Charles, as the person of state, representing all that is rotten about the constitutional arrangements of the "United Kingdom", was reading words which promise "change" and a now "stronger, fairer Britain", when he himself is now acting as a block to progress and to the people gaining power! Here he was, all dressed up in ermine and expensive finery, sitting on his golden throne, talking about the "values" that everyone is meant to share. But there are no values that the people share with him, or his fictitious persona. He represents the epitome of class privilege, and as such stands for all that is holding back the movement for people's empowerment. The working class and people oppose everything he represents. Working people and people from all walks of life are bringing forward their own demands which require new arrangements suitable to the conditions today.

The British constitutional system is said to hinge upon the capacity of the Prime Minister to command the confidence of the House of Commons, the principle of "responsible government". The recent events have underlined that this conception of "responsible government" is outdated, representing a system of "representative democracy" which not only no longer is serving to sort out the factions of the bourgeoisie but in its crisis is exposing how far this exercise in government "responsibility" is keeping the people disempowered.

The working class and people have a mission of conceptualising a constitution and democratic process of their own making, throwing over the limitations imposed by the conception of rights and freedoms given rise to by a civil society based on the Victorian ideals of duty, order and civilisation.

That is the call of the present, a definition of contemporary organising. In the vernacular, it is embodied in the call that "Enough Is Enough!", not just a defensive call but one that has political meaning. No amount of deceptive down-sizing by the monarchy, or its utilisation as soft power by the narrow vested interests which control the state, can disguise that the monarchy has had its day and must go. The rights of the people must prevail and be granted a guarantee; new democratic forms must be brought into being guaranteeing the right of the people to rule in their own name.

The King's Speech of May 13 was presented as a programme to build a "stronger and fairer" Britain [1]. As usual, the language is revealing precisely because of what it conceals. "Strength" is presented as the strengthening of society, when in fact the programme strengthens the machinery of the state. "Fairness" is presented as concern for working people, when in fact it is tied to market stability, investment conditions and the demand that the people submit to the requirements of "security", "resilience" and "growth".

The legislative programme, containing 37 bills and draft measures, centres on energy independence, national security, infrastructure, public administration and regulatory reform. Taken as a whole, it is not a programme for democratic renewal or for the recognition and guarantee of the rights of all. It is a programme for the consolidation of state capacity in the service of market stabilisation, strategic industry protection, and expanded security powers.

Major social questions are posed as a question of security. Energy is "energy security", industry is "economic security", immigration is "border security", digital systems are "cyber security". What is missing is the conception that security lies in defending the rights of all, changing the direction of the economy, increasing investments in social programmes, and stopping the militarisation of economic and political life.

The Energy Independence Bill is presented as legislation to scale up home-grown renewable energy and protect living standards. The accompanying measures include Exchequer funding for 75% of the domestic costs of the Renewables Obligation scheme for three years, a Warm Homes Agency, and rules requiring landlords to invest in home upgrades. These measures are presented as relief for households, but the decisive issue is the direction of the economy. The state is intervening to underwrite energy transition in a manner that stabilises the operating environment for industry and finance. The question of who owns, controls and benefits from energy production is not addressed from the standpoint of the people.

The Electricity Generator Levy Bill is similarly presented as a means to break the link between electricity prices and gas prices, encouraging eligible generators to accept voluntary long-term fixed-price contracts while raising the levy rate from 45% to 55% from July 1. The talk is of fairness and price stability, but the mechanism is one of managing the terms under which energy generators operate, not vesting control over energy in the people. The Nuclear Regulation Bill follows the same logic, streamlining regulation to support new nuclear generation.

A marked feature of the Speech is the expansion of the security, cyber-regulatory and state-threat apparatus. The Tackling State Threats Bill gives the government new powers to specify organisations, including foreign state entities and proxies, said to be involved in espionage, sabotage, interference or other threats to Britain. The National Security Bill, linked to the Southport attack, criminalises the creation and sharing of the most harmful violent material where it glorifies, trivialises or normalises serious violence, and also contains measures on mass-casualty attack planning, cyber law and state-threat sentencing.

This is the familiar method, where a shocking incident is used to broaden the reach of the state. Material that "glorifies", "trivialises" or "normalises" serious violence becomes subject to new criminal prohibitions. Such terms are not merely technical. Though the government claims the violent-material offence will protect freedom of expression and legitimate public-interest activity, the measures impact the right to conscience, speech, journalism, political opinion and the ability of people to discuss the causes of violence, war, oppression and resistance without fear of arbitrary state action. This is especially relevant in the present conditions where support of the Palestinian people against genocide is increasingly suppressed by mis-identifying it as "anti-semitism".

The Courts and Tribunals Bill removes defendants' ability to elect Crown Court trial in specified either-way cases, extends magistrates' sentencing powers, introduces a permission stage for appeals, and creates judge-alone modes of trial for complex fraud and financial cases. These measures are framed as ways to address backlogs and increase efficiency. But efficiency is the watchword of the present trend toward open rule by police powers.

The Immigration and Asylum Bill continues this direction. It is presented as legislation to increase confidence in the security of the immigration and asylum systems. It defines when protection can be revoked, takes further measures on small-boat crossings, and requires asylum seekers receiving taxpayer-funded accommodation and support to contribute to the cost once able to do so. The right to asylum is not affirmed. The dignity and humanity of immigrants are not the starting point. The starting point is enforcement.

Where market failure threatens strategic capacity, especially in steel, energy and rail, the state reserves the right to intervene. But this is not a break with the capital-centred direction of the economy. The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill creates a route for the government to nationalise steel companies or operations, including British Steel, where a public-interest test is met. The aim of this potential nationalisation is to preserve an operating environment for monopolies, supply chains and military-industrial needs. It is not about recognising the claims of workers, communities and the whole society on production, and furthermore goes against the interests of the Chinese conglomerate Jingye Group who acquired British Steel in 2020.

The High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill, Highways (Financing) Bill, and Railways and Passenger Benefits Bill show the same model, where the state co-ordinates long-term infrastructure, establishes Great British Railways, supports Northern Powerhouse Rail and creates new regulatory structures, while it constructs financing models to draw private capital into public infrastructure. The chronic and obvious failure of the water monopolies to guarantee a properly functioning water supply infrastructure to all as of right is reflected in the Clean Water Bill, which creates a Water Ombudsman and a new integrated water regulator. But the issue of water as a right, and of the people's control over such a basic necessity, is left outside the framework.

Over and above these measures sits the programme of capital-centred "growth" and "investment". The Regulating for Growth Bill strengthens the Growth Duty and creates sandbox powers for firms to test technologies and scale them faster. Competition and financial services reforms aim to make investigations, lending and regulation more predictable and investment-friendly. Where markets fail in strategic sectors, the state intervenes. Where private capital is expected to deliver investment and growth, regulation is made more enabling.

The people are told that this is fairness. But fairness here means that markets are stabilised, investors reassured, public assets protected for private participation, and the population disciplined through security, administrative reform and the language of responsibility.

The Representation of the People Bill lowers the voting age to 16, broadens accepted voter ID, pilots automated registration, tightens donation rules and gives the Electoral Commission stronger enforcement powers. But the problem of democracy is not solved by administrative changes to elections. The crisis is that the people are excluded from power.

Likewise, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill introduces the Hillsborough Law and a duty of candour, while housing, education and digital-access measures respond to real problems. But they remain framed as a problem of delivery, or "deliverology". Housing is not posed as a right which society must guarantee. Education is not posed as empowering teachers, parents, children and communities to determine its direction. Digital access is not posed from the standpoint of people's control over data and public services.

The King's Speech reveals a state active where it secures infrastructure, markets, borders, public administration and strategic industries. It is not a small-state programme. Nor is it a programme of public authority in the service of the people. It is a programme of state intervention as demanded by powerful private interests at this time.

The working class needs its own independent programme. It must judge the whole programme from its own standpoint: does it defend the rights of all, or does it strengthen police powers and the oligarchs? Does it empower the people, or does it perfect the machinery through which they are governed? The answer given by this King's Speech is clear. It is a programme of police powers, state intervention and an assault on rights.

The working class and people must advance their own alternative: stop paying the rich; increase investments in social programmes; defend the rights of all; oppose the anti-immigrant, pro-war and security-state direction; and fight for an anti-war government. The necessity is to renew democracy so that sovereignty is vested in the people themselves.

Notes
1. The King's Speech 2026, published May 13, 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2026
2. The Hillsborough Law is named after the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, where 97 Liverpool supporters died, and after the long campaign by families against official cover-up, delay and institutional defensiveness. Amongst its measures, it would create a statutory duty of "candour, transparency and frankness" when dealing with inquiries, and create offences for misleading the public or serious misconduct. A point of contention has been how far the duty should apply to intelligence and security agencies, which relates in turn to the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry and its shocking revelations.
See: "UK pauses Hillsborough transparency law after row over exemptions for spies", Alistair Smout, Reuters, January 19, 2026
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-pauses-hillsborough-transparency-law-after-row-over-exemptions-spies-2026-01-19

Rally at the José Martí Anti-Imperialist Tribune, May 22, 2026 - Photo: CubaDebate

RCPB(ML) expresses its condemnation of the recent provocation and threat against Cuba by the Trump administration. The unfounded accusations and indictment against Cuban revolutionary leader Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, and other defenders of the revolution the United States has been unable to turn into anti-Cuba agents, coincided with the arrival in the Caribbean of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier which the Trump administration is using to threaten Cuba and get the polity to cower under threat of invasion.

RCPB(ML) calls on the working class and people to step up their actions to stand with Cuba and denounce the escalating threats of military aggression against Cuba to topple its government. The Cuban people have the inalienable right to choose their own government and the US has no right to blockade Cuba. All US imperialist interference must be ended, the Guantanamo naval base and detention centre closed, and Guantanamo returned to Cuba.

RCPB(ML) calls on the British government to join with the world's peoples in opposing the US threats and attempts to strangle Cuba by depriving it of oil and basic necessities, and in supporting Cuba's sovereignty. The British government must completely dissociate itself from US sanctions.

RCPB(ML) calls on the working class and people to take a stand against the US threatened military intervention. The attempt to pin a "terrorist" and criminal label on a Cuban leader must not be used as a pretext for military action to bring down a government whose only "crime" is to defy all US threats, defend its sovereignty and uphold the dignity of the Cuban people.

Stand with Revolutionary Cuba and its Leaders!
Hands Off Cuba!

Statement by the Revolutionary Government

Havana, May 20, 2026

"Year of the Centenary of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz"

Thousands of Cubans filling the José Martí Anti-Imperialist Tribune to show their support for Raúl Castro and the Cuban Revolution, May 22, 2026 - Photo: CubaDebate

The Revolutionary Government condemns in the strongest terms the despicable accusation by the United States Department of Justice announced on May 20 and proclaimed for several weeks against Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution.

The United States government lacks the legitimacy and jurisdiction to carry out this action. It is a despicable and infamous act of political provocation, based on the dishonest manipulation of the incident that led to the downing, in February 1996, of two aircraft operated by the Miami-based terrorist organisation Brothers to the Rescue over Cuban airspace, which repeated violations of Cuban airspace for hostile purposes were of common knowledge.

Furthermore, the US government distorts other historical truths about the event it uses as a pretext. It omits, among other details, the numerous formal complaints filed by Cuba during that period with the State Department, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) regarding more than 25 serious and deliberate violations of Cuban airspace committed by the cited organisation between 1994 and 1996, in blatant transgression of international law and US legislation itself.

It also ignores public and official warnings issued by Cuban authorities about the inadmissibility of such violations of its airspace and alert messages conveyed directly to the President of the United States about the seriousness and possible consequences of such transgressions.

Cuba's response to the violation of its airspace constituted an act of legitimate self-defence, protected by the Charter of the United Nations, the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, and the principles of air sovereignty and proportionality.

The United States, which has been a victim of the use of civil aviation for terrorist purposes, does not and would not permit the hostile and provocative violation of foreign aircraft over its territory and would act, as it has demonstrated, with the use of force.

The inaction of the US government in the face of the warnings issued by Cuba at the time, revealed its complicity in the planning and execution from its territory of violent, illegal and terrorist actions against the Cuban government and people, a recurring and systematic practice since the triumph of the Revolution to present day.

It is highly cynical that this accusation is made by the same government that has murdered nearly 200 people and destroyed 57 vessels in international waters of the Caribbean and the Pacific, far from the territory of the United States, with the disproportionate use of military force, for alleged links to drug trafficking operations that were never proven, which qualify as extrajudicial executions, in accordance with International Law, and murders, according to US laws themselves.

This spurious accusation against the Leader of the Cuban Revolution adds to the desperate attempts by anti-Cuban elements to construct a fraudulent narrative in an effort to justify the collective and ruthless punishment against the noble Cuban people, through the strengthening of unilateral coercive measures, including the unjust and genocidal energy blockade and threats of armed aggression.

Cuba reaffirms its commitment to peace and its firm determination to exercise the inalienable right to self-defence, recognised by the Charter of the United Nations.

The Cuban people reaffirm their unwavering decision to defend the Homeland and its Socialist Revolution and, with the greatest strength and firmness, their unrestricted and unchanging support for Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, Leader of the Cuban Revolution.

Homeland or Death, We Will Prevail!

Youth greet Raul - Photo: YCLCuba

We call upon all the people to join us in a day of celebration for Raúl's 95th birthday. Let us unite in love and respect, from the neighbourhood to the school, from the university to the front lines, to amplify every message, every poem, every song, every story, as a sincere recognition of his human compassion

"On June 3, we will celebrate the 95th birthday of Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, and we will do so with a collective embrace of a man whose heart is bound to this land and whose life's guiding principle is loyalty."

This is how the National Bureau of the Young Communists League (UJC) posted on its Facebook profile, calling for a popular day of action called "Raúl's 95th Birthday", urging people to contribute "love and respect from the neighbourhood to the school, from the university to the trenches, to multiply every message, every poem, every song, every story, as a sincere recognition of his human sensitivity, of the one who knew how to mourn Vilma's passing without shame, of the one who led the process of updating the economic model without ever renouncing social justice, of the one who has always promoted peace. What greater lesson could there be for us, those who inherited a country that does not surrender, than this blend of firmness and humanity?"

The statement also expresses that "on the centenary of Fidel, his brother in spirit and struggle, we understand that greatness is not inherited, but sown through example. And Raúl has sown every day that unwavering loyalty, unyielding to fatigue or hardship. That is why we love him as the steadfast patriot who teaches us to defend the Revolution, with tenderness and with a rifle, with study and intelligence, with our heads held high and our hands outstretched."

The movement also calls upon the creativity of children, teenagers, and young adults to express, through every possible initiative, their admiration and love for an exceptional man like Raúl.

"May June 3 find us guided by Fidel's memory and encouraged by Raúl's presence; because the new generations are not here to repeat slogans, we are here to demonstrate that loyalty is action. And action is defending what has been built, transforming what is malfunctioning, and multiplying the love we feel for this man who, with one foot in the stirrup, continues to tell us: 'Yes, we could, yes, we can, and yes, we will,'" the call to action adds.

"Come on, Cuba! May this 95th be a huge embrace for a dear friend and a leader beyond reproach. Raúl is Raúl!"

(Granma, May 20, 2026)

Cargo ship Asian Katra carrying humanitarian aid from Mexico and Uruguay docking in Cuba. Photo: Voice of Mexico

During her speech at the 79th World Health Assembly, the highest decision-making body of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Cuba's first vice minister of health, Tania Cruz, denounced the effects suffered by the island's health system due to the total fuel blockade imposed by the United States, which added to the already intensified economic embargo.

"This is an action with a serious impact on our health system, causing extraordinary harm to all Cuban families, to our children, the elderly, and the sick," said Cruz, adding that "causing scarcity and extreme hardship to millions of people is nothing less than genocide and deserves the condemnation of all WHO members".

Cruz explained that, although the country guarantees universal and free access to electricity for 100% of the population, the lack of energy stability has doubled infant mortality, which reached 9.9 per 1,000 live births, and reported that the survival rate for children with cancer has decreased from 85% to 65%.

The official said that waiting lists for surgeries in the country currently exceed 100,300 patients, of whom 12,000 are children. She also noted that 16,000 people require radiotherapy and 3,000 depend on hemodialysis, essential services that demand energy stability, which cannot currently be guaranteed in the Caribbean country.

Cruz stated that, despite the challenges, Cuba's National Health System has not collapsed and will continue to reorganise itself with resilience and optimisation of resources.

Furthermore, the authority warned of another extremely serious situation, denouncing that Cuba is under threat of direct military aggression from the United States. She described this potential event as a brutal and uncivilised act that nothing could justify and called upon all peace-loving nations to mobilise to prevent the aggression, reaffirming that the Cuban people will defend their sovereignty and independence.

In conclusion, Cruz expressed her gratitude for international solidarity and reaffirmed the island's humanist principles, recalling the deployment of three medical brigades to combat Ebola in West Africa in 2014 and assuring that they will continue to support other countries in the Global South in defending the human right to health.

The assembly, which ran until May 23, meets once a year in Geneva, Switzerland, to make decisions on WHO policies, approve the budget, and appoint the organisation's director-general, among other actions.

During this meeting, Cruz spoke with the director-general of the World Health Organisation, Tedros Ghebreyesus, who expressed his admiration for the Caribbean nation.

(First published by Brasil de Fato in Portuguese, May 20, 2026)

President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermudez and other Cuban leaders at the José Martí Anti-Imperialist Tribune, May 22, 2026 - Photo: CubaDebate

Britain's trade union movement and parliamentarians have issued a stark warning over escalating US aggression against Cuba, with two major open letters condemning Donald Trump's latest actions against the island and calling on the British government to oppose any move towards intervention.

The interventions come amid growing international concern over the Trump administration's intensifying economic warfare and increasing public threats of military action against Cuba.

The trade union statement, co-ordinated by the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and signed by 17 of Britain's most senior trade union leaders, warns of a "dangerous escalation" in US hostility and expresses solidarity with the Cuban people and Cuban trade unions at a moment of mounting crisis.

Signatories include general secretaries Paul Nowak (TUC), Andrea Egan (UNISON), Sharon Graham (Unite), Gary Smith (GMB) Daniel Kebede (NEU), Fran Heathcote (PCS), Dave Ward (CWU), Eddie Dempsey (RMT), Jo Grady (UCU) and Gawain Little (GFTU) alongside leaders from unions representing rail, firefighters, bakers and prison officers.

The trade union leaders condemn the latest US measures against Cuba, including the indictment of former Cuban president Raúl Castro, describing them as part of a broader campaign of "economic warfare, political aggression and destabilisation directed against the Cuban people".

Their statement warns that current US actions risk "further inflaming tensions and creating a pretext for intervention against a sovereign nation."

It comes as Cuba faces severe shortages of food, fuel and medicines following the Trump administration's latest escalation of sanctions, including measures which have cut off oil supplies to the island.

The other letter, signed by 36 MPs and peers from seven political parties through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cuba, urges Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper to publicly condemn what it describes as "falsified, inhumane and unprovoked attacks" on Cuba by the United States government.

The parliamentarians warn that Washington is attempting to move the United States "closer towards a state of belligerence with the Republic of Cuba, on a clearly fabricated pretext".

They argue that the indictment against Raúl Castro must be viewed in the context of a wider campaign of aggression, pointing to recent executive orders intensifying the blockade against Cuba, alongside increasingly provocative claims from US officials.

The letter references recent assertions by the Trump administration that Cuba has obtained military drones and may pose a threat to a US military base - claims parliamentarians suggest are intended to manufacture support for further confrontation.

The APPG on Cuba also questions why allegations relating to the 1996 Brothers to the Rescue incident are only now being pursued, noting that no previous US administration - including Trump's own first presidency - sought such action.

"Were there any validity" to the claims, the letter asks, "what new evidence has come to light" after three decades and five previous administrations?

Parliamentarians further argue that the indictment has no lawful basis under international law and represents an extraordinary example of US overreach.

The interventions reflect growing concern within the British labour movement over the humanitarian impact of the US blockade, which has now been imposed on Cuba for more than six decades and has been dramatically intensified in recent years.

Trade union leaders warn that the combination of sanctions, fuel shortages and economic coercion is inflicting immense hardship on ordinary Cubans and threatening essential services across the island.

Their statement calls on the British government to oppose all attempts at foreign intervention and to demand an end to the US blockade and sanctions.

CSC director Rob Miller said the letters demonstrated "growing alarm at the increasingly dangerous direction of US policy towards Cuba".

"At a time when the Cuban people are already enduring immense hardship caused by the US blockade and sanctions, the Trump administration is escalating tensions through threats, false accusations and economic warfare," he said. "The British government must not remain silent. Britain should stand firmly for peace, sovereignty and international law, and oppose any attempt to justify intervention against Cuba."

For full text of letters see:

https://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk//resources/open%20letter%20from%20british%20trade%20unionists%20oppose%20trumptopublish.pdf
https://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk//resources/mpslettertoyvettecooper.pdf

(Cuba Solidarity Campaign)

Songdowon International Children's Camp

A spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea gave the following answer to a question raised by KCNA on May 15 as regards the fact that Britain committed an extremely provocative act of putting the Songdowon International Children's Camp into the recently-issued list of sanctions against Russia. The DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesperson said:

Songdowon Football pitch

On May 11, the British Foreign Office included our Songdowon International Children's Camp in the list of sanctions, while announcing "sanctions measures" against Russia's "organisational activities" to "forcibly transfer" and "militarise" Ukrainian children.

Such a reckless act by Britain is a heinous unethical politically-motivated provocation to tarnish the external image of our state and disparage the DPRK-Russia relations of friendship and co-operation by unreasonably linking our children's camping facility with the groundless issue of "forcible migration" of Ukrainian children.

We strongly denounce and reject the malicious act of the British government which even targets the camp, a sacred base for education and growth of children, to achieve its purpose of political machinations.

So far, Britain has zealously followed the US acts of hostility toward the DPRK, taken issue in every way with the exercise of the sovereign rights of our state, and participated in the war drills against the DPRK at any time, thus systematically aggravating bilateral relations.

The British government's recent designation of the Songdowon International Children's Camp as a target of "sanctions" as part of its conspiratorial moves to demonise Russia is an intolerable insult to our dignified state and proves that its hostility toward the DPRK is exceeding all limits.

Now that Britain has committed such reckless acts as even toying with the rights and interests of the children that our state values the most, we have the adequate right to counter London's malicious behaviour.

The British government will be wholly responsible for all the consequences to be entailed from its grave hostile act toward our state.

(KCNA, Pyongyang, May 15)