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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

A new Reform UK administration's decision to scrap its net zero targets, while continuing to take cash for green projects, is being challenged today by opposition councillors.

Last month, Byline Times reported that the now Reform UK-run council in West Northamptonshire is systematically removing all references to climate change and net zero from its strategies, website and documents - while simultaneously continuing to take Government cash for climate projects.

The decision to scrap its net zero policies has sparked local protests, and considerable opposition anger after the news was announced in an article in The Telegraph - before the actual decision had been voted on by councillors.

Council leader Mark Arnull claimed net zero plans were "something we cannot afford", saying: "There was no budget, there's been no scope or plans".

"It's not a case of denying climate change, it's a case of being realistic with the public," he added, as reported by the BBC at the time.

It came just hours after Reform-controlled Durham County Council became the first local authority in England to scrap its net zero targets.

Since national legislation requires the council to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, opposition councillors have warned that the move to abandon its plans for how to get there risks "creating a set of incoherent polices, and creating a scenario where West Northamptonshire suffers a lack of inward investment due to this political stance" and plan to challenge it at a scrutiny committee on Tuesday.

The call-in report adds: "These are targets. They have never been absolutes, so is it that the administration believes that these targets are wrong in themselves and therefore need revising, or fundamentally object to the concept of net zero itself?"

"The council sets targets all the time…[It] sets a sense of direction and focus whether or not they are achieved. The same applies on this pathway to net zero 2050."

The last Labour Government's landmark Climate Act 2008 creates a legal requirement for the council to include climate impact in all its decision making.

As the scrutiny panel points out: "It does not say 'environmental' - it specifically says climate. Removing this from council reports could be seen as weakening of this requirement and potentially putting the council in breach of the act."

The chances of the decision being overturned appear slim, though an opposition source believes they may have to reconsider banning the word 'climate' in council docs, not least due to the fact that the 2050 legal requirement to hit net zero remains in place, as do legal requirements to mitigate and adapt to climate change under the 2008 Act.

"We will be arguing that we need to measure progress as it's the council's duty," say the opposition councillors.

holding farage to account #reformUNCOVERED

While most the rest of the media seems to happy to give the handful of Reform MPs undue prominence, Byline Times is committed to tracking the activities of Nigel Farage's party when actually in power

UPDATE

The Reform and Conservative Politicians Mingling With Neo-Nazis and Fascists at Asylum Hotel Protests

21 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

'Dancing with the Devil': Unite Condemned For Invite to Reform's Anti-Trade Union Mayor Andrea Jenkyns

20 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

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

19 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate

14 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Bankrupt Firm of Reform UK's Waste-Busting Local Government Chief Owes Taxpayer £36,000

12 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Nigel Farage Claimed There's 'No Money in Politics' Just Before Running for £91,000+ MP Job

11 August 2025

Contribute to our #ReformUncovered crowdfunder

Reform also have the majority ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

"With the Conservatives, there are no blacks, no whites, just people." That was 1983. But it's hard to imagine Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, who recently complained Dagenham wasn't white enough, repeating those words. His radicalisation reflects a wider swing among some right-wing politicians, commentators and think-tankers away from objecting to immigration on (often flimsy or spurious, but not self-evidently irrational) economic grounds to straightforward "blood and soil" nationalism.

Rather than analysing the economic or social impacts of immigration, the new focus is on demographics, and in particular on the shrinking share of the White British population (with the emphasis on white), often described as the "indigenous" population or the "traditional majority". While this is hardly new - I tracked it from Enoch Powell to Roger Scruton to Douglas Murray some years back - it has recently become much more prominent, most virulently in the overtly racist rhetoric of Matt Goodwin and Douglas Carswell.

So extreme is this, however, it has embarrassed some of the more restrained and thoughtful anti-immigration thinkers, who disavow the racism, but share the broader perspective that the most important thing about immigration is not its economic effects but its impact on British culture and society - and that these are both very large and very negative. Like Goodwin, they argue that demographic change, as measured by the growth in the non-white population, is the key metric.

EXCLUSIVE

Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate

EXCLUSIVE: One leading 'Safeguard Force' figure previously expressed hope Reform would "set the world on fire" if elected. Another shared anti-migrant memes featuring weapons

Olly Haynes

The challenge for them is of course how they reconcile the apparent contradiction - if the problem is too many people who aren't white, in what sense does this differ from old-fashioned Powellite racism? Two good recent examples of their attempt to square this circle come from David Goodhart and Ed West, both often regarded as relatively sensible voices on that side of the debate.

Goodhart predicts that within a decade only one in five Londoners will be "natives" (a category he reserves for white British) and states "demographic change on this scale has not happened before…and the precautionary principle suggests it should be handled with care." West endorses this perspective: "the key issue is David's point that it is not the 1990s: there has been drastic and dramatic demographic change since then, way beyond what any group of people would find tolerable."

This framing is meant to sound reasonable and pragmatic: not racism or xenophobia, just realistic, recognising that it is human nature to be uncomfortable with rapid ethnic change. Nor is it particularly new or unusual - indeed it has often been made by politicians of all parties seeking to justify restrictions on immigration without sounding racist. But once you begin to unpack the logic, it becomes clear that the argument is neither neutral nor rational - it prioritises ethnic identity over all the other profound transformations that British society has undergone.

Take Islington, where I live. Since I moved here more than half a century ago, it has indeed undergone profound changes. The population dropped by a quarter - before recovering and growing by a third. It suffered a deep economic downturn, losing almost the entire manufacturing sector before riding the services boom of the 1990s and 2000s. It's now far richer, but also more unequal, trends reflected above all in the housing market. The population is older, less religious, and much better educated.

Some of these shifts parallel national trends, others reflect local factors. Some...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

On August 15, 2025, in the city of Anchorage, Alaska, on the territory of a U.S. Army military base, a Russia-U.S. summit took place, which many journalists have already dubbed the "Alaska Summit." The key topic of the meeting was the resolution of the military conflict in Ukraine. However, a significant number of analysts initially did not expect any political breakthrough regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war.

And this is quite understandable: although the war was officially at the center of attention, for most observers it was clear that the event was rather symbolic in nature, typical of modern political technology. What mattered more was the very fact of the meeting, its setting, the chance to outmaneuver one another in subtle diplomatic details, to provide the press with polished photographs, to utter the "right" words, to pull Putin closer during a handshake, and many other gestures - while at the same time offering no real mechanisms for a ceasefire or for achieving a just peace settlement.

This performative symbolism was visible from the very beginning. The summit was not thoroughly prepared; it was organised hastily, without serious preliminary consultations, which in itself looked like yet another political trick by the Trump administration.

Earlier, Trump had threatened Moscow with harsh sanctions if, within ten days, there were not at least some formal prospects for a peace agreement in the war in Ukraine. In essence, this was an ultimatum issued by Washington to somehow demonstrate determination and showcase the activity of American diplomacy. But in reality, it only cornered the White House, because behind such loud statements, there were no real levers of influence.

For Putin, this meeting was not a platform for negotiations, but above all an instrument of political legitimisation. On the one hand, it was an opportunity to show the world that he is still being received, that he is capable of holding dialogue on equal terms with the President of the United States, despite the warrant of the International Criminal Court and his de facto political isolation.

On the other hand, it was a signal to his close circle and his domestic audience: "I am still capable of something, I am still being taken seriously, and I remain a figure of international stature." For Putin, this is no less important than the war itself, because in the Russian system of power, personal demonstrations of strength and "handshake-worthiness" are often valued more highly than any real diplomatic results.

Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles

There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within the country, reports Denis Mikhailov

Denis Mikhailov

The Aspirations of the United States

From the very start of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump tirelessly repeated that he could end the war in Ukraine "in just one day" once he became president. He insisted that he possessed special mechanisms of influence over the parties to the conflict, that he knew the "secret levers," and that he would act in ways no previous American leader had been able to.

These bold claims sounded impressive during the election race, but from the moment of his election and inauguration, reality proved entirely different. Neither in the first 100 days nor afterwards did the situation shift even an inch. On the contrary, at times, tensions between Kyiv and Washington reached unprecedented levels.

At one point, Trump's inner circle even discussed the possibility of reducing - and eventually completely cutting - military aid to Ukraine. For Kyiv, this looked like a stab in the back, while for Moscow, it was a long-awaited signal of Western weakness and fatigue. And then, shortly before the summit itself, Trump once a...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15, 2025, ended without progress on a ceasefire or a long-term peace in Ukraine. Trump failed to impose new economic sanctions after the summit. But while there was no breakthrough at the meeting, the possibility of a deal that could reshape global energy and extend the war lurked in the background largely unnoticed.

The Kremlin often diverts attention through its use of a tactic called 'distraction or deflection'. In this case the red carpet, military flyovers, and conspiracy theories about Putin's doubles drew the spotlight away, while leaving the real story overlooked.

Sanctions Envoys in Alaska

Clues to the real purpose of the summit could be found in the fact that both sides brought with them finance-heavy delegations. Trump was joined by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who brought a copy of the mineral deal to President Zelenskyy in February 2025, pushing for it to be signed without security guarantees, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Putin included Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who oversees Russia's response to sanctions, and Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF).

The RDIF was designed to attract Western capital into Russian projects and has often served as a back channel for high-level financial diplomacy. Dmitriev has long served as a financial envoy for the Kremlin. In January 2017, Dmitriev met with Erik Prince, Blackwater PMC founder and Trump donor to work on liaison between Trump's transition team and the Kremlin and spoke with Anthony Scaramucci, senior aide to then President-elect Donald Trump, at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

By bringing Dmitriev to Anchorage despite sanctions, Moscow signalled that it expects sanctions relief to be part of the deal. The RDIF has been under US sanctions since 2022. If the RDIF regains access to global markets, Russia could finance infrastructure, technology, and energy expansion with Western capital again.

EXCLUSIVE

The Turning Point Takeover: The Growing Network Bringing Trump's Politics to the UK

The Women's Safety Initiative is getting more attention, but its ideological underpinnings deserve serious scrutiny, reports Katherine Denkinson

Katherine Denkinson

ExxonMobil Back in Play

Putin issued a decree on August 15, the same day as the summit, allowing the US oil giant ExxonMobil to reenter a major Russian state-owned oil project on Russia's Pacific coast.

Sakhalin-1 is run by a Russian state-owned Rosneft entities affiliates, the state-owned giant headed by Igor Sechin, a close Putin ally. ExxonMobil held a 30% stake but pulled out in 2022 when sanctions tightened after the Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine. ExxonMobil, and other foreign investors can return on one condition: help lift sanctions on Russian oil.

The decree requires foreign shareholders to work towards lifting Western sanctions in order to reclaim their stakes, according to Reuters. They must also arrange contracts for foreign-made equipment and transfer funds into Sakhalin-1 project accounts.

Rosneft, Trump, and the Steele Dossier

The Sakhalin-1 has a background story connecting Rosneft and US politics. In 2011, ExxonMobil's then-CEO Rex Tillerson signed a $500 billion partnership with Rosneft, covering projects from Sakhalin to the Arctic. Putin presided over the deal personally. The same year, Rosneft and Exxon proposed building a $15 billion plant in Russia's Far East by 2018 and signed the first deal as part of a "Strategic Cooperation Agreement" on the exploration and exploitation of energy sources in the Arctic and Black Sea, US, and Canada, including major discoveries like a billion-barrel find in the Kara Sea. Exxon quit the ventures in 2018 following Western sanctions over Crimea, leaving Rosneft with massi...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Gaza Strip faces a severe food emergency that affects hundreds of thousands of people. According to the IPC, the international method for measuring the seriousness of food crises, two out of the three conditions that identify a famine have already been passed in some parts of Gaza.

More than 20% of families cannot get enough to eat and acute malnutrition now affects more than 30% of the population. The only measure still awaiting full confirmation, and expected soon, is the death rate.

Recent United Nations reports state that over half a million people - almost one in four - are surviving in famine conditions and often spend entire days without food. Day after day, the continued fighting, the blockade keeping aid out and the collapse of basic services, make survival even harder.

Children are especially exposed to these consequences: more than 320,000 under five years old are at risk of acute malnutrition and may suffer lasting harm. Most health centres still open are at breaking point and struggle to provide both care and nourishment.

EXCLUSIVE

UK Gaza Families Urge Starmer to Hold Israel Accountable for Press Killings

A group representing 350 Palestinian families living in Britain have called on the PM to condemn Israel's 'systematic assault on the press' and back an inquiry

Matt Gallagher

Given the seriousness of the situation, hearing directly from someone living and working on the front lines is invaluable for truly understanding what this humanitarian crisis means.

Ghada Al-Haddad, head of media and communications for Oxfam in Gaza, spoke to Byline Times about the harsh reality of hunger and famine and what it means for the people of Gaza, offering a human, and well-documented, perspective on what so often stays hidden behind numbers and official reports.

Andrea Umbrello (AU): Can you help us understand what hunger and malnutrition look like today in the Gaza Strip?

Ghada Al-Haddad (GAH) "Today, everyone in Gaza is hungry. Leading experts on food and nutrition to warn that we are now facing the worst that can happen - famine itself.

"In recent days, the number of people dying because of hunger has risen at a worrying pace. We know that unless people receive constant supplies of food, safe water, medical care, and other essential goods, these numbers will grow even faster in the days ahead.

We see our families, friends, and neighbours struggle to find their next meal, often coming up empty-handed. There are people collapsing in the streets, children so weak and hungry they cannot even cry

Ghada Al-Haddad, head of media and communications for Oxfam in Gaza

"We are almost powerless to stop any of this while the siege and the Israeli bombardment go on, making any food in the markets incredibly expensive and stopping humanitarian aid at the borders. We are truly on the edge of a point from which there may be no way back.

"Children, the elderly, people with chronic illnesses, pregnant women, and nursing mothers are among those most at risk from malnutrition, but by now the whole population is in danger. Without a rapid and lasting flow of aid, which only an immediate and permanent ceasefire can make possible, we will see the number of victims grow even more, bringing devastating long-term consequences."

Al-Haddad is highly critical of the current state of humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza, where the system has been drastically reduced to a few military-controlled sites overseen by the Israeli army.

EXCLUSIVE

'No Place is Safe': Mother Describes Life Under Siege in Gaza Strip

Nurse Alaa Jaber lost her father to Israeli bombing, and is currently living in a tent with her malnourished and injured family

Josiah Mortimer

These locations, run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, have caused serious problems, with hundreds of civilians killed or injured while trying ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The planned meeting between Donald Trump, United States President, and the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, in Anchorage, Alaska, marks a significant geopolitical development. While the outcome remains unclear, two overarching points define the context of the talks.

First, in light of Trump's remarks on the swapping of territories, the war in Ukraine is not a territorial dispute, as pointed out by Olga Tokariuk, a Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), during a CEPA press briefing.

Russia's objective is not limited to capturing land but to subjugating a sovereign, democratic, pro-Western state. Public statements by Trump suggesting that territorial concessions could end the war are likely to be interpreted in Moscow as impunity, encouraging further aggression.

Second, Russia has a long record of disregarding treaties and commitments. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the US, UK, France, and Russia, has been rendered meaningless by Russia's actions since 2014.

The metaphor of "playing chess with a bear" captures the dynamic: rules are irrelevant when parties are about to devour the chessboard.

Geopolitical and Diplomatic Implications

From Ukraine's perspective, the principle of "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" is non-negotiable, said Tokariuk. Both the government and the public share the position.

The exclusion of Ukraine's president from the talks has drawn historical comparisons to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, when major powers divided Eastern Europe without the participation of the affected states. In addition, any bilateral agreement between Washington and Moscow that excludes Kyiv would have no validity for Ukraine and is widely viewed as a sign of weakening US support.

The Trump Putin Alaska Summit and Europe's Munich Moment

"The uncomfortable truth is this: if Ukraine falls, Europe won't be debating whether to confront Russia, but when"

Andrew Chakhoyan

For Russia, the summit offers multiple advantages. It grants Putin international visibility, undermines the authority of the International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued against him for the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and disrupts the diplomatic isolation imposed by Western states since the full-scale invasion began in 2022.

On a global level, the summit's optics could reshape alliances, potentially moving the US closer to Russia. The meeting sidelines Europe at a moment when transatlantic unity is critical.

The location carries symbolic weight. Alaska was part of the Russian Empire until its sale to the United States in 1867. Russian media have long framed Alaska as historically theirs, a territory to be returned.

Military Dimensions

Ukraine's military position is clear: it rejects territorial concessions and will not agree to end the war "at any cost", according to Tokariuk. Russia has insisted on full Ukrainian withdrawal from four partially occupied regions. For Kyiv, this is a red line.

While Ukraine supports a ceasefire along the current line of contact, it raises the issue of security guarantees. Any pause in fighting without enforceable mechanisms risks allowing Russia to regroup and launch renewed offensives.

The question of who would act as a guarantor - and how such a guarantee would be implemented - remains unanswered.

Economic Factors

One of Putin's possible motivations for the Anchorage summit is economic. US secondary sanctions, particularly those targeting oil and gas revenues, have increased pressure on Russia's war-driven economy. Avoiding such sanctions is a priority for the Kremlin.

However, Russia's economy is now heavily militarised. Should the war end, it would face structural challenges in converting back to civilian production. This realit...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Rector of an elite Scottish university is bringing a discrimination claim against the 600 year old institution, amid claims she was unfairly removed for condemning genocide in Gaza in an email to students.

Shortly after her election as Rector of St Andrews, and amid Israel's bombing of Gaza, Maris sent a message to all St Andrews students, calling for a ceasefire in November 2023.

After a disclaimer noting she spoke only as an elected representative, not for the university as a whole, she went on to denounce both the Israeli government's 'genocidal attacks' on Gaza and Hamas' targeting of civilians and taking of hostages. She spoke of 'apartheid' in Palestine and of war crimes.

Following a paragraph condemning Hamas' terrorist attacks on October 7th she added: "It's essential to acknowledge the reasons behind these actions, understanding that they are rooted in decades of oppression and systematic mistreatment. This historical context is crucial."

The message triggered a raft of supportive and opposing petitions and activism on campus, with the Amnesty International society backing her and the Jewish students' society condemning her.

The university's senior leadership team said some students were "deeply offended and concerned" by her email, and that some Jewish students felt unsafe.

In a statement, the management figures added: "The language it used, and some of the sources it cited [e.g. Electronic Intifada] have caused alarm, division and harm in our community, and more widely…As individuals and as a group of senior leaders, asked her to reflect seriously on the evidence of the upset and fear she has caused."

Maris stood by her message and hit back at all suggestions of anti-Semitism.

Fired and Rehired

The KC, Morag Ross, found in her July report that Maris had shown "poor judgement" and reputational damage to the university, but that dismissal would be a "disproportionate response".

"The Statement was a single issue. It contained a disclaimer. Division in the University was not entirely due to the Statement. Dismissal would interfere with Ms Maris' rights to freedom of expression in an unjustified way," Ross KC said.

But on 1 August 2024, the University Court announced it would dismiss Maris and remove her as a trustee of the university. The governing body alleged that she had refused to accept the findings of the independent investigation (something Maris denies), engage constructively with management in response to the backlash, or take part in mediation.

The university's principal, Sally Mapstone, also claimed that her message had jeopardised a £2m donation from the Wolfson Foundation. However, the Foundation later denied that the donation was ever at risk.

Maris appealed her dismissal, and was successful in April 2025. The following month, she was reinstated as St Andrews University Rector.

The university denies that she was sacked for speaking out on Gaza, and instead argues her removal related to her conduct after her statement to 10,000 members of the institution.

But the St Andrews Rector is seeking a formal apology and damages from the university, alleging that she faced a breach of her right to free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

She is also alleging she faced direct discrimination on the basis of a protected belief, contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and indirect discrimination on the basis of disability under the same act.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

'Stifling Free Speech'

Maris, who is 26, told Byline Times: "When I became Rector, I made it pretty clear that I wanted to release a statement about Gaza. There was significant pushback, and I did try to engage senior leadership to get their feedback on what I was going to say.

"I consulted with the Jewish Society a...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Where does hope come from? The relentless diet of terrible news sits heavily on our shoulders and drags us all down at least a few notches.

Charlatans like Nigel Farage and President Donald Trump seem to get away with murder. And the disappointment of Labour in Government - and its maddening decisions to do things like cut the regulations that stop the city exploding the economy again, boil our blood. The constant dread of climate chaos, the awful relentlessness of unnecessary poverty, and of course the daily horrors of Gaza mean that shadows darken our path.

None more so than the decision to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Because it is so revealing. Progressive Governments, if they are to deliver meaningful change, need not just visions and ideas but countervailing forces to take on those of the right.

For a Labour Government - I repeat in Kinnock-esque Welsh tones, 'a Labour Government' - to actively and purposefully undermine the ability of citizens to protest against the inhumanity of what is happening in Gaza shows a Government that's become deeply enmeshed in the British establishment.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Because this isn't just about Palestine Action, this is about asserting the coercive power of the state over any and all challenge to what is in the interests of that establishment. And worse than that the principle has been established, that on the most spurious grounds the interests of the state can crush the deeply held beliefs of the citizen and in the future Robert Jenrick, Farage or worse can apply that principle to anyone on the left who gets in their sights.

This then becomes a double whammy. By refusing to offer the country the change they promised at the last election, Labour paves the way for Reform, not because people believe Farage will be any better, but in the absence of hope you might as well roll the dice.

But they make matters worse by preparing the ground for an authoritarian state response to anyone who challenges the economic and global orthodoxies of the establishment they have submitted to. This of course is a vicious spiral, the more a Government resists the economic democratic changes needed, the more people will protest beyond the ballot box.

And it's not just citizens that Labour looks to discipline, but its own backbenchers. Suspensions handed out to MPs merely trying to defend their constituents stands in stark contrast to rebellions under the last Labour Government who knew that keeping left wing rebels like Jeremy Corbyn inside the tent was crucial in electoral terms.

UPDATE

The Battle for the Soul Of 'Your Party' Is Already Underway

Some activists demand greater say in new left-wing group amid claims of top-down approach ahead of inaugural conference, reports Adrian Goldberg

Adrian Goldberg

But by suspending people like Corbyn, the brittleness of this approach has been exposed through the inevitable creation of a left-wing alternative with mass appeal in the shape of Your Party.

So yes, the world can feel bleak.

But then we remind ourselves that we can be and are so much better than this. That nothing lasts forever. And that what seems impossible today can become reality tomorrow.

Important evidence for this can be found in research being pulled together by Common Cause which shows the trend, though uneven, that UK citizens increasingly prioritise universalism and benevolence values.

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 ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

For the seventh time in its history, the baton of artistic director of the National Theatre changes hands in September, as Indhu Rubasingham opens her first season.

She is not only the first woman to be put in charge of the country's pre-eminent theatre, but also the first person of colour.

It is a measure of how limited the gene pool had become that she is also the first since its founder Laurence Olivier not to have graduated from Cambridge (Rubasingham went instead to Hull, and Olivier the Central School of Speech Training and Dramatic Art).

The National's board was not, however, in the business of making a politically correct statement with Rubasingham's appointment.

All it sought was the best possible candidate and that, I have no hesitation in saying, is what it has got. I speak as a critic who as long ago as 2013 was making the case for Rubasingham in the Sunday Telegraph as "the best and brightest young theatre boss we have in this country" and have long looked upon her taking over the National as a happy inevitability.

When I began reviewing just after the turn of the millennium, it was very obvious that there were two directors who were head and shoulders above the rest: Rubasingham, putting what was then the Tricycle Theatre - later to become the Kiln - in north London on the map; and the somehwat older and more established Michael Grandage, who was at the time presiding over what would come to be seen as a ground-breaking decade in charge of the Donmar in London's Covent Garden.

Lacking in Laughs and Access: The Disneyfication of the West End

The whole entertainment industry now seems too top-down and corporate to allow for many great breakthroughs, writes Tim Walker

Tim Walker

The pair have much in common and are, needless to say, friends.

Neither are especially fond of presiding over buildings with all of the admin, bureaucracy, and politics that entails. Their first love is directing and, with typical courage, Rubasingham has chosen to direct Bacchae, the curtain-raiser to her first season.

Of course, it raises, too, the stakes as she will know very well that, if it is not a success, then it will be on her as the new boss. But she also clearly wants to make it clear that she is determined - very much in the tradition of Olivier - to get to play as much as she possibly can in her own toyshop.

She very much deserves to, as nothing has ever been handed to Rubasingham on a plate.

She was born in Sheffield to Tamil parents from Sri Lanka and, after a spell at Nottingham Girls' High School, she attended Hull University to study drama. There was then an Arts Council bursary to work as an assistant director at the Theatre Royal Stratford East, where Mike Leigh was her boss. She subsequently freelanced as a director and I had caught some of her productions - notably Disconnect at the Royal Court, which I loved.

It was only after I got see a play that she put on called Handbagged - about Margaret Thatcher's fractuous relationshp with Queen Elizabeth - that I got to appreciate the consistent flair (I would say genius) in her work.

Rubasingham is in person modest and self-deprecating and, even at her farewell party when she left the Kiln in 2023, I noticed how she was always building other people up, rather than wallowing in the limelight and adulation herself. She seemed embarrassed when anyone alluded to the staggeringly successful run she had had at what had previously always been seen as no more than a small community theatre. On one occasion, under her leadership, that small community theatre simultaneously had a Broadway transfer - with Red Velvet - and a West End one with Handbagged.

FREE PREVIEW

The Upside Down: The Surprisingly Racy History of Lettuce

In his monthly column, John Mitchinson reflects on why the old lettuce leaf is not so dull (Liz Truss asi...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

A new 'vigilante' volunteer patrol group in Bournemouth was established by an organiser of anti-asylum hotel protests and is being fronted by a recent Reform UK council candidate.

Safeguard Force, a vigilante-style volunteer group patrolling the streets of Bournemouth, with a view to preventing crime, launched its first patrol on Monday 11 August.

The group claims to have no political affiliation or objective. A post on the group's Facebook page from 30 July stated: "We are the community - doing this for the community. This is not about politics or headlines. It's about real people standing up for real safety."

However, Byline Times can reveal that one of Safeguard Force's founders, Gary Bartlett, a Dorset-based small businessman, helped organise protests against asylum seeker hotels and moderates a Facebook group containing Islamophobic and anti-migrant posts in which he asked for support for Safeguard Force. And a key spokesperson for the group stood for Reform this February.

Bartlett is the admin, alongside a handful of others, of 'Taking Back Our Country', a Facebook group which organises nationalist and anti-migrant protests in Dorset.

holding farage to account #reformUNCOVERED

While most the rest of the media seems to happy to give the handful of Reform MPs undue prominence, Byline Times is committed to tracking the activities of Nigel Farage's party when actually in power

EXCLUSIVE

Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate

14 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Bankrupt Firm of Reform UK's Waste-Busting Local Government Chief Owes Taxpayer £36,000

12 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Nigel Farage Claimed There's 'No Money in Politics' Just Before Running for £91,000+ MP Job

11 August 2025

UPDATE

'Clickbait and Chaos' - 100 days of Reform UK Running Kent County Council

7 August 2025

EXCLUSIVE

Reform Council Accused of 'Trump-Like' Behaviour Over Pride Flag Ban

1 August 2025

Reform's Elon Musk-Style 'DOLGE' Team Accused of Making 'False and Misleading' Claims About Flagship Council

29 July 2025

Contribute to our #ReformUncovered crowdfunder

Anti-Migrant Tirades

In the group, Bartlett promoted a protest on 9th August against the Roundhouse and Britannia hotels in Bournemouth, used to house asylum seekers, stating, "join us for a peaceful protest outside the Roundhouse and Britannia hotel as we stand together against illegal migrants being housed in our town."

Another post from Bartlett on 20th July read: "You can't call yourself a protester if you never attend a protest. Typing from the sofa does nothing […] the fight needs bodies, not just keyboard warriors."

Bartlett also promoted a protest against "illegal immigration" in August 2024 and shared a clip from UKIP leader and far-right agitator Nick Tenconi, in which UKIP activists demonstrating in Bournemouth in April demanded mass deportations. Tenconi was recently accused of performing a Nazi salute at a protest.

Other posts in the Taking Back Our Country Group included two from Bartlett of AI generated images of machine guns attached to a pedalo and a coin-operated tourist telescope on the white cliffs of Dover, as well a meme with the caption "last time Muslims invaded Europe Vlad stuck poles up their asses and made a fucking forest. Be like Vlad."

Another post on the page (not by Bartlett) included a photo of Arab children holding guns with the caption "just remember when the time comes… while you were teaching your children to be tolerant of others [sic] beliefs. These people were training theirs in how to kill yours."

Bartlett asked for support for Safeguard Force in Taking Back Our Country ahead of its launch.

Byline Times can also reveal that a key spokesperson for the group stood in a recent council election for Reform UK.

Glowing Coverage

On 8th August, Martin Daubne...