Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Reform UK-led Kent County Council has put forward a motion which questions whether climate change is anthropogenic and relies on discredited sources as its evidence, with the aim of rescinding the council's 2019 declaration of a climate emergency.

The motion, proposed by two of Reform's Kent councillors Chris Hespe and Paul Chamberlain, argues that anthropogenic climate change is "unproven" and claims that the science on climate change is not settled. The motion also calls on the council to be "openminded but sceptical of anthropogenic climate change" and claims that "bodies pushing the narrative of anthropogenic climate change" such as NASA, have used "inaccurate data".

Numerous studies have found that there is a consensus between 97-99+% of climate scientists that climate change is anthropogenic, i.e. caused by human activity.

Sources for the motion's claims include the World Climate Declaration, a climate-change denial document that states that "there is no climate emergency" signed by 1,200 supposed experts. A 2022 fact check of the document by Euro News Green found that several of the signatories have backgrounds in the fossil fuel industry, work as lobbyists, fishermen, pilots or in scientific roles unrelated to climate change.

EXCLUSIVE

Reform UK Accused of Breaking Climate Law as Opponents Challenge Local Net Zero Ban

Opposition councillors in one of the party's flagship new councils are challenging the legality of its decision to ban all climate and Net Zero pledges

Josiah Mortimer

Another source listed in the motion's notes was Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth, a 2024 documentary directed by Martin Durkin, described by critics as a "propaganda film". An analysis of the documentary by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment found that several of the film's claims relied on misrepresentations of data.

Referring to the motion's claims, Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment told Byline Times that: "all of its rubbish. They are talking points that have been made up over the years and discredited numerous times, the thing that really undermines their case, most of all, is the fact that they cannot explain why the earth is warming now. They do not have an explanation. And saying it's natural is like saying it's magic. They just cannot explain it".

Ward added "there's not a single reputable scientific organisation that doesn't accept anthropogenic climate change and the risks associated with it, though you can find cranks who will claim that's not the case".

Ward has recently written to Nigel Farage and Richard Tice urging Reform UK to take the science on climate change seriously.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

The KCC motion attacks the integrity of the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stating that: "the scientific compendium [published by the IPCC] is rarely radical, even stating that there has been no discernible increase in the number or severity of extreme weather events including droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and heat and cold extremes. However, the politically produced shorter document meant for wider dissemination tends to doctor and catastrophise the messages for the general public".

The most recent IPCC Synthesis Report, AR6, states that "there is strong evidence that characteristics of many individual extr...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The UK Government is refusing to release information on what the taskforce set up to protect Britain's democracy is actually doing - leading to accusations it "ironically" evades democratic scrutiny.

The Defending Democracy Taskforce has been mentioned repeatedly by Government ministers as being at the core of the Government's efforts to tackle foreign threats to democracy, such as illicit donations, disinformation campaigns and social media manipulation by hostile states like Russia. It may also increasingly be concerned with the risk of the US far-right seeking to influence British politics, such as through extremist billionaire Elon Musk's control of X/Twitter, and his apparent threat to donate millions to UK political projects.

A Freedom of Information request by Byline Times to the Home Office has now been met by the department refusing to disclose the vast majority of info requested about the Defending Democracy Taskforce, the body set up under Rishi Sunak in 2022 to "protect the democratic integrity of the UK from threats of foreign interference."

There is very little information about the Government body available online - with no website, social media accounts, meeting minutes, agendas, reports or lists of attendees.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

The Home Office told this outlet: "The Home Office cannot disclose the agenda, minutes, readouts, or briefings for ministers from the Defending Democracy Taskforce," citing national security exemptions.

The department also refused to publish a full list of attendees, instead only releasing to Byline Times a list of ministers who attended. Then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper chaired the last meeting in July, while previous ones were chaired by Minister of State Dan Jarvis MP.

Other attendees under this Government include the Cabinet Office minister Abena Oppong-Asare MP, the Communities Secretary Angela Rayner MP, and Baroness Jacqui Smith from the Department for Education. Typically around five Government departments are represented by ministers at the meetings.

The most recent 15th July meeting was also attended by then Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell MP - potentially to give an update on the upcoming Elections Bill which seeks to close some loopholes in Britain's political funding system.

The Home Office has however admitted that the taskforce has no dedicated budget. And the partial disclosure revealed that staffing appears to be declining, from the equivalent of 12 full-time members of staff for two years after its launch in 2022. It has dropped to 8.5 full-time equivalent staffers for this year, 2025-2026.

Tom Brake, director of campaign group Unlock Democracy, told Byline Times: "With no independent budget for the DDT, the number of dedicated DDT staff falling and the seniority and numbers of elected officials attending meetings on the decline, it's hard not to conclude that defending democracy is slipping down the Government's agenda.

"This, at the very moment when threats, external and internal, are growing. To make matters worse, the Home Office will not release suitably redacted minutes of the DDT meetings. This means, ironically, there is no democratic oversight of the Defending Democracy Taskforce's activities which would enable interested organisations to contribute positively to its work."

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

Rose Whiffen, Senior Research Officer, Transparency International UK ...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Campaigners are calling on the Government to introduce strict penalties for firms like X (formerly Twitter) accused of promoting disinformation and hate speech - alongside an overhaul of Britain's media - to help restore accountability and trust in public debate.

In a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer to mark the International Day of Democracy (September 15), leading democracy and civil society advocates also caution the PM against the temptation to "hoard power in Whitehall" as he seeks to get his Government back on track.

In a new report, Democracy SOS, the signatories - including Unlock Democracy and Labour-facing group Compass - call on the Prime Minister to crack down on disinformation, including sanctions for social media companies doing too little to combat deceptive material about matters of public interest.

Backers of the campaign urge PM Starmer to use the recently-announced 'Phase 2' of his premiership to "lead a democratic revolution - rewiring the relationship between Whitehall and the rest of the country, and unleashing the full potential of people across the UK."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

They also want to see a cap on political donations alongside restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission, to "ensure politics serves citizens, not vested interests." The Government has previously rejected calls for a cap on donations but pressure is growing for strong action ahead of Labour's upcoming Elections Bill.

And they urge the PM to tackle the "expansion of plutocratic control over the media" through stricter limits on media ownership, to "guard against the erosion of fair and objective reporting." In a new proposal, local communities would also be given financial and regulatory support to take community ownership of local media outlets.

Dr Simon Duffy, Director of Citizen Network, which comprises 315 organisations from over 50 countries, said that in many parts of the UK, "people feel dispossessed, while in London a handful of people make all the key decisions."

"We have lost hope that the existing political system will address the extreme inequalities and many of us are turning to more extreme alternatives. We really need a different kind of democracy, one that is rooted in our neighbourhoods and town halls. One where ordinary people are allowed to be involved in debating and deciding things for ourselves."

A new Democracy SOS action plan sets out how the Government can make the shift. But the report also warns of the consequences of inaction: without serious reform, trust will continue to erode, disengagement will deepen, and those who exploit fear and division will gain ground.

Dr Henry Tam, writer, former Head of Civil Renewal for the UK Government, and author of Democracy SOS, added: "A weakened democracy is so much easier for charlatans to exploit and bring in arbitrary rule. If politicians don't save democracy while they still can, they'll be the ones to blame when the abuse of power becomes the norm under an unscrupulous regime.

"We've seen it happening elsewhere, and we don't want the UK to end up the same way. Democracy SOS sums up what leading advocates say urgently needs to be done. The Government should act on it."

The report argues that Britain cannot hope to tackle poverty, climate disruption, housing shortages or health crises without a functioning democracy.

Tom Brake, Director of Unlock Democracy, said the Prime Minister "now has a chance to show real leadership by giving citizens the tools, rights and opportunities to bring about the change they want to see."

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - ...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

We've done defence. We now need to go on the offensive.

With the far right marching in our streets, paid for by foreign billionaires and bolstered by Putin's cyber-warfare machine, we cannot afford to sit back. This is not just a passing nuisance but a deliberate attempt to destabilise our democracy.

I was one of the first Labour MPs to leave Twitter back last summer, when its owners' obvious conflict of interest in being donor, administrator, and platform-turned-propaganda outlet owner became apparent. That was a basic defensive move to protect against a website which has become a highly-partial cesspit of misinformation and algorithmically-charged hate.

From Epstein to Starmer: Mapping Peter Thiel's Web of Influence in the UK

The tech billionaire Trump-backer is rapidly gaining influence over politics and public services in the UK, reports Peter Jukes

Peter Jukes

But we in the centre and on the left also need to get our own house in order. I hear and understand that the left need to be properly heard, and the frustration that their views have not been given enough weight by a government that has lost more voters to smaller left parties than even to Reform since last year, at least in my constituency. But now, more than ever, we must ourselves unite and stop indulging in conspiracy theories about Labour being captured by sinister forces when the truth is simpler: That the Party has been guided by people who wanted, above all, to make us electable again, with an analysis that, in 2024, was proven to be correct. Equally, the left must stop sounding like apologists for a broken migration system, as though it were acceptable to risk one's life crossing the Channel on a dinghy. It is not.

This is a problem that must be fixed, for humanitarian reasons as well as social cohesion. But equally, we must be clear: this is not some orchestrated "invasion" as some would like us to believe. We must put ourselves in the shoes of those who, understandably, want to make the journey, fleeing home nations where their lives are, at worst, in danger or, at best, severely lacking in hope and opportunity. We must also remember that there is surely a reason they are choosing the UK as opposed to other European nations - perhaps due to family links, or for linguistic or historic reasons. And, finally, we must also be honest with ourselves that, at 0.1% of GDP, it is not the cost of migrant hotels that has broken our public services, but 14 years of Conservative austerity.

But we must also, as the far-right so often call for, call out scapegoating and blatant racism for what it is, and ensure that social media platforms provide the same protections. Vile, threatening racism didn't suddenly become lawful because it's spouted online, and what many people allow to pass them by on social media would be shocking to read in print, or hear from a family member or friend around the dinner table.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

UK Government departments would do well to recognise the same: that Twitter is not an impartial platform, nor, given its increasingly narrow user base, a place where our Government needs to be. But we must go further and root out these malign influences on our politics, tightening our rules on online transparency, the foreign funding of campaigns, and the regulation of disinformation.

And, now that Musk is out of the White House and openly backing an even more extreme version o...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Thirty-two-year-old Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, father of two young children, was murdered while speaking about gun violence at Utah Valley University on 10 September 2025. His alleged killer, identified as Tyler Robinson (22), was apprehended a day later after a family intervention and remains in custody facing charges of attempted aggravated murder.

According to the Daily Mail, his grandmother, Debbie Robinson, described the family as "staunch Trump supporters." She stated that her son - Tyler's father, Matt Robinson - is a Republican "for Trump," and that she didn't know "any single one [in the family] who's a Democrat."

The family's reaction, as reported, was one of shock and intervention. The Daily Mail reported that it was Tyler's father who turned him in after he allegedly confessed. The Daily Beast added that Matt Robinson recognised his son in law enforcement images and urged him to surrender. The Wall Street Journal confirmed that, while both his parents are registered Republicans, Tyler himself was registered as a nonpartisan voter.

Robinson was admitted to Utah State University on a prestigious academic scholarship, a moment of pride captured in a video of him reading his acceptance letter posted to a family member's social media account. However, his tenure there was fleeting. A university spokesperson confirmed he attended for only a single semester in 2021.

After leaving Utah State, Robinson's path turned away from the academic and toward the vocational. He enrolled at Dixie Technical College, a small school in southern Utah near his family's home in Washington City. Described as a "shy, quiet kid" Robinson was a third-year student in the college's electrical apprenticeship program at the time of his arrest, training to become an electrician, lighting technician, or repair specialist.

A family member also told authorities that Tyler "had become more political in recent years" and had expressed negative views of Kirk before the event. The Guardian's report that a high school friend recalled Robinson was a "leftist" has since been removed.

A Halloween Costume and the 'Groyper' Meme

Though there are few direct political statements online from this "shy, quiet kid", there are more indications that Tyler Robinson might have been radicalised by far-right online movements rather than the far left.

An image posted by his mother, Amberson Robinson, on Facebook around Halloween 2018, describes her son as "some guy from a meme" and shows Robinson squatting on some grass. The uniform is precise - Adidas-style track pants - and the pose is significant, a meme that became known as a low 'Slav squat'.

By 2018, this 'Gopnik' aesthetic - the squat, the tracksuit - had fully converged with the 'Pepe the Frog' meme in the alt-right online sphere. The 'Gopnik Pepe' was common currency on 4chan and adjacent platforms, a symbol of a certain nihilistic, post-Soviet edge. It then evolved into many variants.

To understand the potential significance of Robinson's 2018 costume, one must trace the complex genealogy of its symbols.

The journey begins with Pepe the Frog, an apolitical comic character co-opted by the alt-right around 2015-2016. By September 2016, the Anti-Defamation League had designated certain variants of Pepe a hate symbol. Its march into the mainstream was confirmed in 2017 when a Pepe emoji trended heavily during the Super Bowl.

This period of 2016-2018 saw the 'Gopnik squat' meme merge with Pepe, creating the 'Gopnik Pepe' - a symbol of defiant, low-life resistance that resonated deeply within the nihilistic communities of 4chan. This is the exact cultural moment Robinson's Halloween costume inhabits.

By 2018-2019, this meme culture crystallised into a formal political project with the rise of Nick Fuentes. A new, chubbier frog variant called the '...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

I am writing on board a boat you've probably heard of. It's called Family Boat, and it was attacked by a drone in the early hours of Tuesday in an apparent attempt to sabotage its journey to Gaza. This is the mothership of the Global Sumud Flotilla. But I boarded in a different capacity to most of its passengers: neither as an activist, like Greta Thunberg, nor a humanitarian worker, like Miguel Duarte, but as one of a very small handful of journalists.

I can almost count on one hand the outlet-affiliated journalists present. Given the scale of this operation, set to be the biggest civilian flotilla in history attempting to open a humanitarian corridor to Gaza, I wonder why. Why don't outlets want inside access to this monumental story? But I imagine many news outlets would disparage my presence too. They'd say that it blurs the line between journalism and activism. They'd say reporters must be objective, not partial to the activists' mission.

There are several issues with the premises of these statements: that objectivity exists, that our media exercises it at all (in particular on the issue of Palestine), that journalism isn't inherently activist, and that bias isn't its worst when undisclosed. But let's take the objections at face value.

My first response is: why shouldn't I be here? Civilians on the flotilla are exercising their legal rights to move through international waters and deliver humanitarian aid. The fact that it's remotely controversial reflects the absurd bias of the norm. That we have already mentally criminalised or defined as extreme the people of this movement, who are mothers and fathers and teachers and teenagers and doctors and veterans and citizens of the world. I know this, because I've made the effort to meet them.

UK Surveillance Flights Over Gaza: Are We Israel's Useful Idiots?

The UK may inadvertently be helping Israeli forces bomb civilian areas in Gaza, explains Iain Overton

Iain Overton

As to the point of becoming partial to one 'side', there is fallacy around what those two sides are. The dividing line for me is not Israel versus Palestine, it's international law and basic humanity. This civilian fleet is lawful, and Israel's siege on Gaza is not. Don't all journalists, in their exposés and investigations, pick a side between legal and illegal? As Melanie Schweizer, a German lawyer and flotilla spokesperson, stated: "Our governments expect us to follow the law, and we expect them to follow the law". Besides that, there are no two clear sides present. The multitudes joining the fleet are bemusingly diverse in their political, cultural and religious identities.

Editorially speaking, the Global Sumud Flotilla is by any accounts a huge story. It amasses tens of thousands of donors, thousands of land coordinators, and hundreds of seafarers from every populated continent of the globe. But news outlets' failure to dispatch any correspondent is unsurprising, given their systemic downplaying of public anger at Israeli crimes, by now a majority opinion across European countries.

Western media is even more obtuse when it comes to the Global South, willfully unaware that the issue of Palestine represents the greatest symbol of Western liberal hypocrisy to vast populations outside the West. I spent ten days training in Tunis for this flotilla with mostly African, Asian and Australasian volunteers. Many have tried to reach Gaza before and are used to our media's disinterest. The same week that Thunberg sailed for Gaza on the Madleen in June, over 1,000 people joined a North African convoy moving through Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in an attempt to get aid in by land. Many were arrested and beaten in Egypt or held in captivity in Libya. This was almost unreported by Western media.

So I did not expect many news outlets to be on board. But I was shocked...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Whenever revelations about Jeffrey Epstein's contact books and emails surface, the names that crop up are rarely without significance. Among them is Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who made his fortune as a co-founder of PayPal, an early backer of Facebook, and founder of the data-mining giant Palantir.

Thiel's name now sits at the centre of a transatlantic web stretching from Epstein to Boris Johnson's Downing Street, through the NHS's largest ever data contract, and into Labour leader Keir Starmer's recent trip to Washington.

Epstein's Investment in Thiel's Fund

Despite previously being convicted for sexual offences in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein continued to maintain a high level of connections among movers and shakers in US politics. Around Trump's first election in 2016, he sought to make connections with Trump's backers, among whom was Peter Thiel.

As the Wall Street Journal revealed in 2023, Epstein repeatedly sought meetings with Thiel, even inviting him to lunch with Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin. When Churkin died suddenly in 2017, Epstein wrote directly to Thiel to tell him the news that "My Russian ambassador friend died…"

Whatever the full nature of their friendship, we know that Epstein invested in Thiel's projects. As the New York Times revealed earlier this year, Epstein placed around $40 million into Valar Ventures, a venture capital fund co-founded by Thiel. That investment has since grown into the single largest asset of Epstein's estate, now worth around $170 million.

This financial tie, alongside evidence of scheduled meetings, places Thiel firmly within Epstein's orbit - even if, unlike other names, there is no public record of social visits to Epstein's homes or flights on his private jet.

Keir Starmer's Reluctant Sacking of Peter Mandelson Over Epstein Connections Gives the Lie to His 'Crackdown on Cronyism'

The Prime Minister and his advisers spent years dismissing questions about Mandelson's relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

Adam Bienkov

The Rise of Palantir Under Boris Johnson

Meanwhile, as well as funding various political projects in the UK and US (including being the source of the fund owned by Vice President JD Vance) Peter Thiel also has extensive interests in British Government contracts.

The relationship seems to have begun at the outset of Boris Johnson's premiership. Within weeks of entering Number 10, and on the same day he tried to unlawfully prorogue Parliament on 28 August, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings met Thiel at Number 10.

The meeting was not entered into the official transparency logs, but surfaced years later when internal documents were leaked to The Guardian and shared with transparency activists at Distributed Denial of Secrets.

The encounter took place just months before the pandemic, at a time when Cummings was championing the role of data-driven firms in Government. It was also the same period when his former preferred Vote Leave data company, Faculty AI, was beginning to win contracts in Whitehall.

By 2020, Palantir would become a central player in the UK Government's response to COVID-19.

The pandemic proved a turning point. Palantir was awarded an initial NHS contract for just £1 - a mechanism that allowed the company to integrate into health data systems at virtually no cost, before the deal expanded.

Between 2020 and 2022, as Byline Times first reported, Palantir secured around £60 million in pandemic-related contracts. Then, in November 2023, it landed the Federated Data Platform, a vast NHS data infrastructure project worth between £330 million and £480 million, depending on extensions. Campaigners at Foxglove described it as "the largest NHS data deal ever signed."

These contracts have been the subject of controversy beca...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

It's with a horrible sense of déjà vu that I read the news about Peter Mandelson's sacking from his position as British Ambassador to Washington. It was only six years ago that another British Ambassador, Sir Kim (now Lord) Darroch, was also obliged to leave this post following the leaking of controversial emails he had written. As in Darroch's case, which occurred when I was still a British diplomat, working for him at the embassy, I imagine embassy staff are again left reeling by the sudden departure of their head of mission. The timing is also unfortunate, coming on the eve of Donald Trump's second state visit to the UK, next week.

However, the circumstances between the two cases could not be more different. Sir Kim was ousted after highly unflattering emails he had written about the chaotic nature of Trump's first administration were illegally leaked to the British press. The reports were classified. Sir Kim was entirely legitimately and correctly doing his job, in giving his honest assessment to the British government, about what was going on in US politics. He had every right to expect that his confidential messages would be treated securely. If Ambassadors fear that their communications will be leaked, they will never put anything useful down in writing, but merely communicate utterly pointless bland nothings back to London.

Although the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told Darroch he still had their strong backing, he personally concluded he could not stay on in the role after the likely future Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, six times refused to back the Ambassador during a TV debate with Jeremy Hunt, with whom he was competing to succeed Theresa May. Without the support of either the current American leader, or likely British leader, he concluded he had no option but to resign. This news was received with dismay by staff across the Foreign Office, who agreed with Foreign Office Minister Alan Duncan's subsequent assessment, that Johnson had "thrown Darroch under the bus."

Keir Starmer's Reluctant Sacking of Peter Mandelson Over Epstein Connections Gives the Lie to His 'Crackdown on Cronyism'

The Prime Minister and his advisers spent years dismissing questions about Mandelson's relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

Adam Bienkov

Darroch came out of the episode with his honour and integrity intact, and ultimately was rewarded by May for his self-sacrifice by being made a peer in the House of Lords.

Mandelson's tenure at the embassy in Washington ends on a much more disgraceful note. What brought him down was not any foul play against him, but the revelation of his own foul dealings with the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.

It is also clear from the language he used in his farewell message to embassy staff that, unlike Darroch, he did not decide to go of his own volition. Far from choosing to resign, and maintaining some last vestige of honour, he makes it clear that it was not his own choice to leave. As he wrote in his letter "I have no alternative to accepting the Prime Minister's decision."

The tawdry episode does not reflect well on either Mandelson himself, or the man responsible for his appointment, Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This is the case even if we take at face value No 10's assurances that they were not aware of the extent of Mandelson's friendship and support for Epstein over the years, including after the latter's conviction.

Mandelson himself should have been more honest upfront about his association with Epstein. His personal ambition kept him quiet. Like Icarus, he flew too close to the sun, and ultimately crashed to the ground. He is now facing calls to resign his peerage as well. He has made many political comebacks in his time, but it is hard to see how he can ever recov...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

In the run-up to last year's general election, Keir Starmer promised to "restore standards in public life" and implement "a total crackdown on cronyism".

The promise would be short-lived. Within months of becoming Prime Minister, Starmer instead hired the disgraced former Labour minister Peter Mandelson to the role of US Ambassador, despite longstanding questions about his associations with the convicted paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

These associations were well known, with multiple reports indicating that Mandelson continued to stand by Epstein long after his conviction.

Yet when asked in January 2024 whether Mandelson had "questions to answer" Starmer pleaded ignorance, saying that "I don't know any more than you do and therefore, there's not really much I can add".

'Lawless Britain' A Racist Myth that has Engulfed the Media and Political Right

The politicians, news outlets, and commentators linking migration to 'rising' crime rates is fuelling something much more dangerous than 'legitimate concerns', writes Adam Bienkov

Adam Bienkov

The reasons for this pretended ignorance were obvious. Mandelson had long been a close ally of Starmer's chief adviser Morgan McSweeney, who was himself given his first job in politics by the Labour peer. McSweeney went on to push for Mandelson to be brought into the fold by Starmer.

Later when historical records showed that the Mandelson had personally lobbied for Epstein to meet with former Prime Minister Tony Blair were due for publication, Downing Street officials intervened to prevent their release.

The official reason for this censorship was the potential impact on "international relations" with fellow Epstein friend Donald Trump, yet it's hard to avoid the suspicion that the chief motivation was protecting Mandelson himself.

Even this week, after an excrutiating birthday message from Mandelson to his "best pal" Epstein was published, Starmer and his team continued to stick by their man, saying that they had "full confidence" in the Labour peer.

It is hard to see where this confidence came from. Mandelson had already been repeatedly sacked under a cloud of scandal during Tony Blair's time in office and continued to gather controversy in his own post-government business dealings, including reports about his ties to Russian oligarchs.

However, when I asked two years ago about Mandelson's role advising Starmer as Labour leader, his spokesman told me that he had "no reason to believe" that Mandelson wasn't a fit and proper person.

Yet those reasons were there for anyone who wanted to see them. That the Prime Minister either couldn't, or didn't want to, does not reflect well upon him.

The story on Mandelson's decades-long survival in public life raises broader questions about how politics and power really works in the UK. As Byline Times' columnist Peter Oborne wrote in our upcoming print edition, Mandelson was allowed to survive scandals that "would have destroyed any normal politician in a healthy political system."

"But, in Britain's dysfunctional one, where corruption, self-seeking, and mediocrity have become normal, he has managed to persuade one weak, dependent Labour leader after another that he is brilliant and indispensable."

In the end he turned out to be neither.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Nigel Farage's party has been accused of "betraying residents" in the interests of oil and gas interests after another Reform UK council ditched its 2030 Net Zero targets, pushing back the date by which the council must be carbon neutral by twenty years.

The North Northamptonshire Council executive team voted on Tuesday at the Corby Cube to delay the borough's Net Zero target from 2030 to 2050, the latest it can happen under UK law.

It follows similar moves by Reform-controlled Durham County Council and West Northamptonshire Council. Mirroring the US Trump administration, Reform councils have also been ditching language about climate change altogether.

Reform councillors' decision in North Northants aligns with their party's national stance. Leader Nigel Farage MP has promised to abolish all spending on Net Zero - which would likely include abolishing public investment in renewable energy, home insulation schemes, electric vehicle charging, programmes to reduce toxic pollution, and even walking and cycling infrastructure.

It comes after Reform UK received millions of pounds in funding from oil and gas interests and climate change 'sceptics' since 2019, according to separate analysis by DeSmog and the New York Times.

Cllr Emily Fedorowycz, Green Party Leader for North Northamptonshire, described the decision to scrap net zero targets as "a betrayal of local people and a huge missed opportunity."

She added: "This decision is not about saving money for local residents. It is about following Reform HQ. Is it a coincidence Reform have made this decision when it directly benefits their fossil fuel donors? This is about ideology, not practicality. Meanwhile it is local people who will pay the price - through higher energy bills, through missed investment, and through increased risks from floods and heatwaves."

A report from the North Northants administration said the move was being made to "reset" the Council's carbon neutral target, "in line with the policy position of the new administration, given the additional financial commitment required to either fully decarbonise Council operations."

But the council's own climate impact assessment on the move notes: "Not having a defined delivery deadline, specifically in relation to climate change legislation as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, may lead to fragmentation of effort, with climate actions becoming more reactive, less coordinated, and potentially deprioritised in future planning cycles."

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

It added that the change "may undermine the council's ability to meet long-term environmental and social objectives and may also affect public and stakeholder confidence in the council's commitment to climate leadership and partner willingness to continue working with the council on climate related projects."

Residents, business leaders and climate experts attended the executive meeting on Tuesday, with many urging the council to 'hold its course'. However, the Reform-led executive pushed through the change.

Fedorowycz said the decision was a missed opportunity for the area.

"Two-thirds of English councils have set ambitious 2030 Net Zero targets…These councils are already reaping the benefits. Richmond recently secured £7 million to decarbonise its buildings. Durham [before Reform's election there in May] has brought in millions through its award-winning climate programme," she said.

"By choosing d...