truth

In these times when it is once again fashionable to accuse Commander Chávez of mistakes, whether real or imagined. As we mark 13 years since his untimely death on March 5, 2013, I would like to highlight the value of truth in his political actions. Truth was manifest in the responsibility he assumed for his actions; the consistency between his words and deeds; the acknowledgment of his own mistakes, when it is easier for most people to point out the mistakes of others; and his sincere efforts to correct them. To the above, I would add that when he had to make tactical and strategic shifts in the course initially set, Chávez always had the political honesty to explain in detail why he was doing so, and he courageously took responsibility for them before the people.

There are countless examples which can be found in many of his speeches. I will mention just a few. Beginning with the day of his introduction to the Venezuelan people, February 4, 1992: “Unfortunately, for now, the objectives we set for ourselves were not achieved in the capital city, that is, we here in Caracas did not manage to control power… And I, before the country and before you, take responsibility…” Then in the streets and in the 1998 election campaign: “Let’s go to the Constituent Assembly,” and on February 2, 1999, in what would be his first act of government, he signed the decree calling for the constituent process, and we went to the Constituent Assembly.

In April 2002, he surrendered to the coup leaders, without thinking about saving his own “skin”: “I am an imprisoned president; you decide what to do with me.” After his release, with a cross in his hand, he stated that “it was necessary for all sectors of the country to make a greater effort, with all the goodwill we can muster, to be able to live together in peace, accepting the rules of the game.”

In 2005, he called for the Bolivarian Revolution to take on a socialist character. In the 2006 election campaign, he said, “Let’s go for socialism!” and explained in detail why this strategic shift was necessary. He outlined the characteristics of our socialism, 21st-century Bolivarian socialism, which, as he insisted until his last public words, had to be “essentially democratic” or it would not be socialism at all.

In the elections of December 6, 2006, Commander Chávez obtained the highest number of votes and was re-elected. In December 2007, while awaiting the results of the referendum on constitutional reform and hearing reports of a close count, he called a meeting of the party leadership in Miraflores. I said to him at that meeting: “President, let’s wait for the final count, and if we lost, we lost, but if we won, we won.” He replied with a sharp look: “I don’t want a victory like that, let’s go out and acknowledge defeat now.” And that’s what he did.

In September 2010, we won a majority in the National Assembly. Without a doubt, it was a resounding political victory. But Chávez identified a warning sign: in quantitative terms, the difference in votes between Chavismo and the opposition was minimal. Once again, he assumed political responsibility. In January 2011, he published the “Strategic Lines of Political Action,” a deeply self-critical document.

Late May 2011, he told me: “Elías, I feel like something is wrong with me.” June 2011, after undergoing the necessary tests, on national television: “Cancer cells have been detected in my body.” Easter Week 2012, during a mass in Barinas, broadcast live: “We must be aware that I have an illness that limits my life… Christ, give me your cross.”

On the night of December 8, 2012, in a public address, he raised the possibility of not continuing among us and explained in detail the constitutional procedures that would have to be followed if he were to be permanently incapacitated. That day, once again, he decided to tell us the truth, no matter how hard it was:

Some colleagues told me it wasn’t necessary, or have said in recent hours that it wasn’t necessary to say this. In truth, I could have said almost everything I said tonight from Havana… But I believe that the most important thing, what my soul, my heart, and my conscience tell me, the most important thing… has been this, Nicolás. The most important thing.

“The most important thing”: telling the truth, explaining the reality to the people, the decision he had made, and the steps that needed to be taken.

But that political honesty was not just an individual value. It was the political conviction that the people formed a collective wisdom, a conscious body that knew how to understand and draw its own conclusions about situations. That is why he was so careful to keep them informed at all times.

I once heard him say: “There are those who say that you shouldn’t speak plainly to the people, because then the adversary will seize on that truth and manipulate it against you.” That, Chávez said, is to think that the people are mentally eunuchs. The people understand, more often than not, more than some leaders. For Chávez, speaking the truth was always a decisive show of trust and respect for the people.

And “most importantly,” it was also to make clear for posterity his conviction about the democratic path of the revolution he had led:

In all circumstances, we must guarantee the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution, the victorious progress of this revolution, building the new democracy that is here mandated by the people in the Constituent Assembly; building the Venezuelan path to socialism, with broad participation and ample freedom, which are being demonstrated once again in this gubernatorial election campaign, with candidates here and candidates there. Freedom, complete freedom.

With the power of truth, the truth of his project and his life, Chávez managed to accumulate immense political strength based on the moral autoritas he gained by never peddling falsehoods or shirking his responsibilities, much less in defeat or when he made mistakes. That same moral authority comes not only from consistency between words and deeds, but also from trying to act despite difficult circumstances as well as from recognizing and explaining when and why it is not possible to achieve a certain goal. I stand by that way of doing politics. With Chávez forever!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: CEDES

WE’VE all seen the headline of £14 flights plastered across airline websites, social media and publications – but what does a £14 flight actually look like and can you really get it for that price?

When it comes to booking a holiday, we all love a bargain.

And in the UK we aren’t short of budget airlines to choose from, such as Ryanair, easyJet and Wizz Air.

But the reality is that airlines actually often lose money on £14 flights if you book them without extras.

This is because the flight tends to be listed at cost or below cost to entice people in to go on the website.

According to The Flight Club, Ryanair has previously claimed that each passenger costs them about €34 (£29.55) to fly each way, excluding fuel.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

TAKING OFF

I’ve visited 50 countries & this much-loathed budget airline is the world’s best

Broken down, this is about €8 (£6.95) for staff, €8 (£6.95) for airport and handling costs, €6 (£5.21) for travelling in the air space, €8 (£6.95) for aircraft ownership and maintenance and €4 (£3.48) for other expenses.

On the other hand, Wizz Air’s costs are around €52 (£45.19) per passenger per flight and easyJet’s are around €79 (£68.66) (again, both excluding fuel).

When looking at flights, once on an airline’s website you can get hooked in and before you know it you’re adding a return flight and luggage adding up to a figure far from that original £14 fare.

At the moment, the cheapest flight available is with Wizz Air to Gdansk in Poland, costing just £13.99 one-way.

But this is just one of a myriad of ‘cheap’ flights.

Other Wizz Air options include Seville in Spain for £19.99 one-way, or Barcelona and Valencia – also both in Spain – return flights for £40 each.

EasyJet has the second cheapest flight on offer, which is to Nice in France, costing £14.49 one-way.

Other cheap easyJet options include Fuerteventura in Spain for £16.99, Innsbruck in Austria for £16.99, Palma de Mallorca in Spain for £16.99 and Pisa in Italy for £16.99 – all one-way flights.

Ryanair then comes in a touch more expensive, with flights to to Alicante and Barcelona in Spain starting from £14.99 one-way.

The main issue with these flights from the offset? All of them except a handful fly out from London airports.

For those who don’t live in or near the capital, this is where your first additional cost will come in.

Either you spend money travelling to the London airports or you opt to fly from your local airport, but at the sacrifice of your ticket being more expensive.

The second cost on top of the flight price are add-ons.

These include things like cabin bags and hold luggage.

For example, to add cabin luggage to each a Wizz Air, easyJet and Ryanair flight it would cost around an additional £32.97, £17.20 and £43.98 per person, per flight respectively.

These additional costs do also include standard seat selection and ‘speedy’ boarding for each airline.

Though if you want extra legroom, then again that will come at a price.

So if you intended to take anything more than a handbag, your flight will already be costing you a lot more.

Another issue is getting a flight back.

While one-way flights can be a bargain, prices tend to rise when you book a return.

For Gdansk, for example, the return leg costs around £28.99.

So the basic flight costs you more like £42 and with cabin luggage it would sit more around the £75 return mark.

One way to get around this is by having flexible holiday dates, as then you can choose the day with the cheapest return flight.

Other hidden costs include checking in at the airport, which Wizz Air charges €40 (£34.78) to do – more than double the price of the actual flight!

If you are travelling light and able to fit your stuff into a small bag (45cm x 36cm x 20cm for easyJet or 40cm x 30cm x 20cm for Wizz Air and Ryanair), then the cheap flights are worth it.

One centimetre bigger than this though, and it could cost you an additional £70 at the gate.

But if you do choose to fly with just a handbag that fits under the seat in front of you, then perhaps opt for easyJet to make the most of those extra few centimetres allowance.

On the other hand, if you are travelling as a family with extra luggage, who want to sit together and have fixed holiday dates, then maybe this isn’t the best offer.

If we take the £75 per person price for return flights to Gdansk as an example, a family of four, with two children aged over two (under twos don’t need their own plane seat), you could be looking at £300 for return flights.

And that’s before your hotel booking.

The better option for families is to book a package holiday that includes flights.

For example, you could stay in a sea view studio at Albatros Family Hotel in Salou, Costa Dorada in Spain for four nights, flying from London Gatwick on April 20 with four 10kg cabin bags and four 22kg hold suitcases and airport transfers for £573 total or just £143 each.

And for that price, you get hold luggage, which if you booked on a flight separately, it would cost you even more.

Of course, with a holiday package you also get peace of mind in case of things going wrong, as you’ll have ATOL Protection, which helps in cases of your travel operator going bust.

The bottom line?

If you are travelling with a backpack, and live near an airport, go for it.

For those who like to pack more or are travelling as a family, perhaps book a package to avoid the headache.

For more flight tips, here are the new 2026 travel hacks you need to know about.

Plus, our travel team’s best tips for flying with budget airlines from ‘free’ legroom seats to a cheap food hack.

The United States, President Trump said Tuesday night, is “bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever.”

“We are the hottest country anywhere in the world,” Trump said in his State of the Union address. “The economy is roaring like never before. America is respected again like never before. We’re winning so much we can’t take it.”

Not so, countered U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

“We just heard Donald Trump do what he does best: lie,” Padilla said.

In a Spanish-language rebuttal delivered on behalf of the Democratic Party, Padilla rebuked the president’s claim that he has brought about the “golden age of America,” accusing Trump of spurring economic uncertainty and plunging U.S. cities into violence.

President Trump gives his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the Capitol in Washington.

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

“The truth is that the State of our Union does not feel strong for everyone,” Padilla said. “Not when the costs of rent, food and electricity keep rising. Not when Republicans raise our medical costs to fund tax cuts for billionaires. And definitely not when federal agents — armed and masked — terrorize our communities by targeting people because of the color of their skin or for speaking Spanish — including immigrants with legal status and citizens.”

Padilla and Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who delivered the Democratic rebuttal in English, countered Trump’s upbeat pronouncements by painting a starkly different picture of a country that is deeply divided months before critical midterm congressional elections.

Trump, whose approval ratings have slumped amid concerns about the economy and the harsh tactics deployed in his mass-deportation campaign, touted what he described as victories on foreign policy, including the U.S. ouster of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, and a slowing of inflation.

Padilla sought to counter those claims and rally support for Democrats, who have struggled to formulate an effective response to Trump as he has dominated national discourse in recent years.

Spanberger, speaking from Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, questioned whether Trump is working on behalf of Americans — or in his own self-interest.

Trump, she said, repeatedly has sought to deflect attention away from accusations that he is using the Oval Office to enrich himself and his family and the scandal involving Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender.

“We did not hear the truth from our president,” Spanberger said. “He lied, he scapegoated and he distracted.”

Spanberger, who beat her Republican opponent in the purple state of Virginia last fall by 15 points, said voters are struggling under Trump’s policies and beginning to turn on him. Political winds, she said, are shifting in favor of the Democrats.

Padilla focused heavily on the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in cities such as Los Angeles and Minneapolis, where agents this year killed two U.S. citizens who were protesting deportations.

“We see ICE agents using excessive force: entering homes without judicial warrants and shooting at cars with families still inside,” Padilla said. “We are living a nightmare that divides and destroys our communities.”

He was, he said, partly speaking from experience.

Last year, federal agents tackled Padilla to the floor and handcuffed him after he sought to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a news conference in Los Angeles.

Padilla referenced the incident in his speech and encouraged others to defy Trump.

“I am still here standing. Still fighting,” he said. “And I know you are still standing and still fighting too.”

“Trump does not want us to recognize our power,” he said.

Padilla also slipped in a reference to Puerto Rican pop star Bad Bunny, who was criticized by Trump for performing in Spanish during the halftime of the Super Bowl.

“As Bad Bunny reminded us a few weeks ago: ‘Together, we are America.’” Padilla said. “Together, we rise, because our faith is stronger than any disappointment or any obstacle — including Trump. And together, we will build the future our children deserve.”

Millions travel to Kenya and Tanzania each year to witness the Great Migration, but growing tourism infrastructure is raising concerns. Conservationists and community leaders warn that development is disrupting wildlife corridors and impacting Maasai land rights. We explore the science behind migration shifts, the economic role of tourism, and ask whether conservation and community livelihoods can coexist.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:

Joseph Moses Oleshangay – Lawyer and human rights activist

Chloe Buiting – Veterinarian and wildlife conservationist

Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka – Veterinarian

Grant Hopcraft – Researcher and professor, University of Glasgow