Byline Times Audio Articles

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...

Read our Monthly Magazine

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

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 because of Palantir's origins in US...

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...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

What we are witnessing in real time this week and will go on witnessing in the months to come, is the British Labour Party playing out it's particular historic and cultural part in the global decline of social democracy.

Social democracy is a creed born of the industrial revolution and the growth of the organised working class. Its purpose is to represents the interests of the trade unions in Parliament, In particular through legislation that ensures a better deal for the proletariat, aided and abetted by the liberal middle class. Understandably given the decline in class consciousness it has been in crisis for decades. A politics that combines the social with the democratic is more important than ever, but as we are now finding out, it cannot be built on foundations that have lost their cultural domination.

Kier Starmer is merely the latest and perhaps the least prepared captain of a slowly but steadily sinking ship, that can bob back up for a bit if a charismatic figure like Tony Blair comes along, or when the utterly abject failure of a Conservative government becomes so apparent it hands temporary victory to whoever happens to be in second place. But then political gravity inevitably and in execrably takes its toll, and the descent to oblivion continues.

Speaking to Labour MPs and members of the lobby this this week, there is a mood that suggests this is the start of the end game for Starmer. There is no sight of discernible growth and there could well be financial crash this Autumn. Even if they relent and raise taxes in the Budget, there has been no preparation of the electoral and political ground for such a necessary but hazardous move. The polls look bleak and there is no dry land on the horizon. The reshuffle did nothing to change the direction of the Government other than embed the drift to the right. There are now no shots left in Starmer's locker.

'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

All attention now turns to the faux competition for a new Deputy Leader of the party. And understandably at one level the cry goes up 'it must be and northern woman'. Of course, diversity, gender and geography matter enormously. Along with race. And all other things being reasonably equal we should take positive action to ensure diversity.

But and this is a very big but, the first requirement is not gender, not geography but whether candidates understand the global crisis of social democracy and whether they have a political and class analysis.

If not, then the contest is merely displacement therapy. If not, then this really is about, and I'm sorry for the cliche but it is so apt, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as the good ship Labour sales into the iceberg of Reform. A voyage to the tip of one Nigel Farage concealing a far more ferocious and frightening mass of authoritarian populism in the dark waters below the surface.

This is in party why a unique alliance has been forged within Labour this week called Mainstream. For full disclosure, the organisation I'm the Director of Compass and another organisation Open Labour made this happen. It's launch statement combines demand for a much more equal and democratic society, and collected an unprecedented alliance of Labour MPs, Peers, former advisers and activists to address this crisis. It's an attempt at the eleventh hour to save Labour, from this historic decline and from itself.

Some reading this will say why bother, it's too late. Instead put your energies into a revived Green Party under Zack Polanski, or the fledgling Your Party of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. Of course, peop...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Trade unions are grappling with how to deal with the rise in support of Reform UK among their own members and workers as a whole.

The rise of the far-right - including Nigel Farage's party - came up in almost every fringe event and discussion on motions at the Trades Union Congress in Brighton this week.

In an interview with Byline Times at the annual gathering, the General Secretary of the Usdaw union of shopworkers, Joanne Thomas, said: "We have to take the threat of Reform and the rise of the far right incredibly seriously, because we've seen some of the ramifications with regards to hate speech, stirring up communities by driving that agenda of division."

At a Hope Not Hate panel event on Monday on tackling the challenge, Bakers Union (BFAWU) leader Sarah Woolley said: "There are several things we can do to get into communities and challenge what Reform is putting out there…What we're doing - certainly in West Yorkshire - is doing picnics, as well as counter-[demonstrations] - bringing everyone together, making it almost a party rather than just an anti-racist demo.

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.

"We're showing that we're the normal people. They're the angry people screaming and shouting and threatening - they're the weirdos." And she said the union was promoting "music against racism" among other initiatives.

"[We're] getting back into communities, making being anti-racist fun, not just dealing with misogynistic, horrible, generally white, older men shouting at us."

But she joined others in agreeing that "calling Reform racist doesn't work - people already think we use it too much. [But] we are calling them far-right as a movement."

Liz Snape, an assistant general secretary at Unison - the UK's biggest union - added that the 'easiest option' is to "stand in a row, shout "far-right fascists," then we all go home, and we haven't convinced one single person to think about it or change."

"In my union, we want to change people's views. We want to move people, bring people back to where we think they should be. Language is so important, and if you want to engage with somebody, you don't start with an insult. You start with a gentler message, listen, take people along, talk, then engage."

She referred to a recent internal Unison survey showing that thirty percent of members are either "Reform supporters or Reform-curious."

"If we brand them racist and far-right, we'd never talk to them again. I'd like to think as a union that we can engage with every single one of that thirty percent. We'll never change all of them, but even if we bring that down to twenty percent, we'll be doing something," they added.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

The senior Unison official added: "If we even suggested to this group they were racist, they'd be distraught.

"We need to find out why people are voting this way, why people are thinking of voting this way, and talk to them initially in a very respectful way. That's how you win people over, and that's how we tackle Reform. It's so important we're careful about our language."

Usdaw's Joanne Thomas told this outlet that unions would be increasingly pointing to Reform's "anti-jobs agenda."

"They're against the Employment Rights Bill, which will give one of the most significant uplifts to workers that we've seen in our lifetime. So to say that they are friends of working people and working class people is incorrect," Thomas said.

...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Liberal Democrats have launched a new campaign that aims to 'Balance the BBC', as they accuse the public service broadcaster of providing months of 'wall-to-wall' coverage of Nigel Farage's Reform UK.

The Lib Dems accuse the BBC of "following Farage around like a lost puppy" and that its extensive Reform coverage - for a party of four MPs - is "fanning the flames of a dangerous populism parroted by Farage and borrowed from Donald Trump."

The petition cites the broadcaster's 'substantive efforts' to carry Reform voices on their most prominent news programmes. Ofcom was contacted for comment.

A party spokesperson said: "The BBC carried footage of Farage reacting to the Government's migrant deal with France from GB News on their flagship 6 O'Clock programme [10th July] - clipping from a rival broadcaster in order to carry Reform's commentary.

"Farage's recent press conference [26th August], where he announced his immigration policy, ran all day on the BBC's home and politics pages - a favour rarely afforded to other political leaders."

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 comes as new analysis from 'Be Broadcast's Mission Control' (BBMC) and political comms experts Cast From Clay shows how broadcast airtime is skewed across the parties.

While Labour dominates coverage beyond its current polling strength, Reform punches "far above its parliamentary weight" the analysts found.

The findings revealed how "momentum and personalities matter more than MPs or votes when it comes to broadcast visibility."

BBMC and Cast from Clay examined more than 1.5 million broadcast mentions between 1 January and 3 September 2025. By comparing airtime with MPs returned, 2024 vote share and current polling, the analysis shows which parties are getting heard, which are under-represented, and how broadcasters are "increasingly following polling momentum over the make-up of Parliament."

They found: "Reform have just 5 [now 4] MPs but clocked up 353,660 mentions, which means 70,732 mentions per MP, the highest of any party. Against their 14.3% vote share in 2024, they stand at 24,731 per point - again inflated. Measured against today's 28% polling, they record 12,631 per point, which looks closer to proportional."

"Reform win on broadcast impact per MP and per historic vote share but look more balanced when compared to current voter support."

However, the Lib Dems returned 72 MPs with 12.2% of the vote in 2024. "With 46,468 mentions, their coverage works out at only 645 per MP and 3,808 per point of 2024 vote share. On current polling of around 15-16%, they manage just 2,998 per point," less than a quarter of Reform's media exposure.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

"The Lib Dems lose out across every measure, with broadcast presence that does not reflect their electoral support," the researchers found. Meanwhile, the Greens win on their coverage per-MP, but lose when compared to the size of their voter base today (around 10%).

A separate new study from Cardiff University's School of Journalism, analysing the major politics shows including BBC Question Time and Sunday with Laura Kuennsberg, found that broadcasters "[give] more weight to selecting politicians from parties based on the number of seats won at the last general election than to other factors, such as vote share, the latest electoral performance at a local and regional level, or recent trends in public opinion data."

The Car...

Read our Monthly Magazine

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Although the Reform UK conference was an undeniably British affair, replete with union flag suits, Farage football shirts and at times a strange Christmas panto vibe, there was an unmistakable undercurrent of American, or more accurately MAGA, influence at the Birmingham conference. Turquoise Make Britain Great Again hats were available from the merch stand, multiple attendees sported GOP elephant lapel pins, and another a baseball cap with an eagle and the slogan Guns, God and Trump on the front. But beyond the whacky aesthetics it was clear from the policy discussions on the fringes, as well as the invitees on the main stage, that Trump's MAGA movement has become a growing source of influence over and inspiration for Reform UK.

While some of the obvious influences from MAGA were confined to events on the conference fringe, Aseem Malhotra, a prominent anti-vaxxer and advisor to Robert F. Kennedy Junior, Trump's Secretary of State for Health and Human Services spoke on the main stage in a speech titled "Make Britain Healthy Again", a reference to RFK Jr's campaign slogan.

Malhotra, a British cardiologist turned conspiracy theorist, used the speech to claim that it was "highly likely that the Covid vaccines have been a significant factor in the cancers in the royal family." In the same speech Malhotra claimed that MRNA vaccines can alter genes and that "the Covid MRNA jabs have likely killed or seriously harmed millions of people across the world".

His views have been condemned by several experts including Brian Ferguson, professor of viral immunology at the University of Cambridge who accused Malholtra of indulging an "outlandish conspiracy theory [which] only serves to undermine the credibility of those spreading it". He was also condemned by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.

In several nods to American political culture during the speech, Malhotra shared screenshots of other anti-vaxxers speaking on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast and the Joe Rogan Experience. While anti-vaccine views have historically been relatively marginal in British politics, they are on the rise among the British public with 30% of respondents to a YouGov poll stating that it was "definitely true" that harmful vaccine side effects were being kept from the public, up from 19% in 2019.

Anti-vaccine politics is more common in America. A recent Gallup News poll found that just 40% of Americans saying it is extremely important for parents to have their children vaccinated, down from 58% in 2019. As health secretary RFK JR, who Malhotra advises, has repeatedly sowed distrust in vaccines, including in a recent incident in which he and his department claimed that the MMR vaccine contains "aborted foetus debris".

Malhotra claimed that Farage was in support of his agenda, the crowd gave him several applause breaks and seemed broadly receptive, however the party distanced themselves from him following backlash to the speech. A party spokesperson told BBC News: "Dr Aseem Malhotra is a guest speaker with his own opinions who has an advisory role in the US Government. Reform UK does not endorse what he said but does believe in free speech."

As well as health policy, the influence of the MAGA right was also apparent in the discussions around Net Zero at the conference. At a fringe event hosted by the American climate change denial thinktank the Heartland Institute, the UK and European head of the institute, Lois Perry claimed she is an advisor to the party stating: "I've been very fortunate to be able to consult and influence the Reform Party at the highest level and my organisation the Heartland Institute has been credited, by our dear leader, with actually being the people that have moulded the policy on net zero".

EXCLUSIVE

JD Vance's 'British Sherpa' Chairs Organisation Funded by Billionaires Urging a Second US Civil War

The man descri...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The phrase "useful idiots" is often attributed to Lenin, though the provenance is uncertain. In the Cold War, it described Westerners who, knowingly or not, advanced Soviet interests while imagining themselves independent actors. The insult implied being duped: thinking one was clever while in reality serving another's design.

A century on, the phrase may apply less to credulous intellectuals than to British politicians and air marshals. For in Gaza's skies, the United Kingdom is flying missions that, whatever their stated purpose, risk serving Israel's campaign. In so doing, Britain has placed itself in danger of becoming Israel's "useful idiot".

This idiocy has been hard to prove. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has refused to give details of its actions. Yet open source flight data shows that, since December 2023, the Royal Air Force has conducted more than 600 surveillance missions. These sorties, flown largely from Britain's base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, use the RAF's Shadow R1 reconnaissance aircraft and, more recently, planes contracted from an American firm, Straight Flight Nevada.

In the little it does say, the MoD insists the missions are unarmed and designed solely to assist in the rescue of hostages. This claim has been repeated by ministers under both Conservative and Labour Governments. Each has assured the public that Britain does not help Israel prosecute its war.

Yet such assurances seem to ring hollow. After all, the flights often coincide with Israeli operations that kill civilians, such as the 8 June 2024 raid on Nuseirat refugee camp, which killed more than 270 Palestinians. In the fortnight before the raid, the RAF flew 24 missions.

Some suggest this means British officers are marking targets.

That is almost certainly not the case.

The reality seems to be subtler. Intelligence gathered and shared may be used by the IDF not only to locate hostages but also to rule out their presence in certain areas. Such "negative intelligence" would be of immense value to Israeli commanders.

UK Charity Sanctioned Over 'Distressing' Fundraising Video for Israeli Military

The action by the Charity Commission followed a Byline Times investigation into the video, which appeared to show a Palestinian being hit by Israeli munitions

Iain Overton

If a site can be certified as free of Israelis, it becomes a safer bet for bombardment.

In other words, Britain may not be handing over coordinates, but it may be providing Israel with reassurance that civilian areas can be destroyed without risk to its own prisoner citizens. This is the essence of being a useful idiot: believing you are acting for one cause while enabling another.

Ministers lean heavily on the line that flights are "solely for hostage rescue". The phrasing suggests a humanitarian purpose. Yet intelligence, once shared, is beyond Britain's control.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has refused to say whether oversight exists. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has long warned that data can be repurposed. In Gaza, such repurposing may be measured in funerals.

On 12 December 2024, Israel bombed Nuseirat again, killing more than 30 civilians. The day before, a contractor-flown Beechcraft surveillance plane, hired by the RAF, had circled the camp.

BBC Admits 'Regret' After Again Failing to Disclose British Colonel's Links to Israeli Defence Force

The broadcaster failed to inform listeners of Colonel Richard Kemp's connections to the IDF, despite an earlier rebuke from the Charity Commission, following an investigation by Byline Times

Iain Overton

The MoD insists the mission was for hostage recovery. But when bombs fall on the very places British-linked aircraft have watched, coincidence is hard to sustain.

Article 16 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility makes c...