Byline Times Audio Articles

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

Like many Labour MPs and much of the country, I want a government capable of transforming Britain into a fairer, greener, more resilient country. That ambition is not naïve. It is necessary. We face a polycrisis: accelerating climate breakdown, deepening inequality, and rising political instability. These forces are not abstract - they are shaping our present and threatening our future, fuelling authoritarianism and undermining democracy. It's in this context that the Government operates and to this backdrop that Rachel Reeves delivered her long-awaited Spending Review.

In her speech, Reeves used the word "security" no fewer than 17 times. Security for families, businesses, energy, and the public finances. The message was clear: Labour wants to be seen as the party of stability in an unstable era. But there's a sharp disconnect between the promise and the policy. Because if this was truly a budget about economic 'security' in the way most of my constituents understand it - then sadly, it fell short. Because this budget was more about security for investors and the bond markets, than it was the millions navigating everyday precarity.

Let me explain why.

UPDATE

The 'Millionaire Exodus' the UK Media Told You About Never Actually Happened

The equivalent of 30 stories a day were published about an exodus of wealthy people that a new study finds was "non existent"

Josiah Mortimer

The Chancellor insists the review marks a break from austerity, citing major capital investment and departmental budgets set to rise by 2.3% annually. That's welcome. But it conceals a deeper tension. Day-to-day spending - the core funding that sustains our public services - remains heavily constrained. Capital spending may deliver much needed new buildings and tech upgrades, but without sufficient operational funding, those investments struggle to deliver real-world improvements. This is particularly acute in the services that support care, education, and local resilience.

Look closely, and the cracks appear. The Resolution Foundation points out that many departments still face flat or falling budgets in real terms. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for instance, faces annual cuts of 2.3%.

This is the very department tasked with leading the UK's response to the climate emergency. From safeguarding biodiversity to managing flood defences and food security, Defra's responsibilities are central to building environmental resilience. Yet its resources are being pared back at the precise moment they should be strengthened.

And while local government funding has recently increased, it remains 50% below its 2010 level. That shortfall has hollowed out community services, from children's centres to libraries, youth support to adult social care.

Social care is a case in point. Reeves' review largely sidelines a sector that is already in crisis. Yet the link between robust social care and a functioning NHS could not be clearer. When care is unavailable, hospitals fill up. The King's Fund has warned repeatedly that discharging patients safely depends on a well-resourced care system. Without it, pressures cascade through the system - hurting patients, families, and frontline staff.

Economists call this the crisis of "social reproduction": a chronic underinvestment in the everyday systems that sustain life - care, health, education. When these are neglected, it doesn't just increase hardship. It undermines the very economic stability the government claims to be pursuing. Labour has said it wants to tackle the UK's long-standing productivity problems. But underfunding the social infrastructure people rely on - especially women, carers, and key w...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

It's gone little-noticed by the media, but this week's Spending Review from the Chancellor made a series of changes, which amount to a fundamental rejection of the Thatcherite economic model Britain has operated under since the 1980s.

Buried in the report is the news that Starmer's Government is planning to increase the funding (or 'capacity' in the jargon) of a swathe of public-sector financial institutions - including some new ones launched by this Government.

"The Government is fostering an entrepreneurial state, which will support business investment and catalyse growth. FTs [financial transactions] allow [the] Government to invest alongside the private sector, through equity investments, loans and guarantees" the document states.

This may sound dry, but it opens the door to the UK becoming a much more activist state, something we'll see much more of through ministers' (long-awaited) national industrial strategy likely to come out in the next couple of weeks.

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 language of the Spending Review gives a taste of what's to come: "The Government's fiscal rules recognise financial assets held by Government, encouraging investments that support growth while generating a return for the Exchequer, [will be] delivered largely through expert public financial institutions including the National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank."

Rachael Reeves' changes to fiscal rules - now much looser than first indicated when the party entered office - also allow much more scope for an activist, investing state than before, because her new measure of national debt places much greater value on assets held by the state - such as public-sector stakes in private firms.

The previous rules, the Institute for Government notes, "meant that the Government could appear to improve public indebtedness by selling off these kinds of long-term assets, even if it did so at below their true market value. This created an incentive for Governments to game the rules by, for example, selling the student loan book - as happened in 2017."

A major incentive for privatisation has gone, because the rule-book now properly values investments held by the state, not as liabilities, but as assets.

The changes have led to the new Government increasing the financial firepower of publicly-owned financial institutions by around £40 billion - or 40% - this Parliament, to £137 billion.

UPDATE

The 'Millionaire Exodus' the UK Media Told You About Never Actually Happened

The equivalent of 30 stories a day were published about an exodus of wealthy people that a new study finds was "non existent"

Josiah Mortimer

Rachael Reeves will want to be remembered for this - her desire to "foster an entrepreneurial state" (my italics). In other words, to Scandi-fy the UK economy. More Norway, less USA.

The Government will now proudly expand "equity investments, loans and guarantees" - for example.

There are a few public-sector firms which will be pivotal to this mission. And the big-hitters are perhaps unexpected.

One new publicly-owned institution has received a lot of attention. Great British Energy - energy sec Ed Miliband's beloved creation - is launching with £4 billion capacity to invest in (and build) renewable energy projects across the country. Public fundin...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

Polling released by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research - a respected non-partisan organisation based at the University of Chicago - suggests that 60% of Americans believe that President Donald Trump's proposed military parade, due to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army on 14 June, is not a good use of public funds.

Notably, the date of the parade coincides with Trump's birthday, raising questions about whether the event is a national celebration or a personal vanity project. The proposed show of military strength would include aircraft flyovers and troop displays through the streets of Washington DC - echoing Trump's controversial 2019 "Salute to America" celebration held on Independence Day.

According to reporting by ABC News, the US Army expects the parade to cost between $25 million and $40 million - a figure critics argue could be better spent on veterans' services, public infrastructure or military readiness.

Across political lines, opposition to the parade is substantial. Among Democratic voters, 80% believe it is a poor use of public money. Among Independents - a key voting bloc in US elections - 72% agree. Even within the Republican Party, which remains Trump's political base, only 65% support the idea.

The AP/NORC polling also highlights broader dissatisfaction with Trump's leadership. Sixty per cent of respondents disapprove of his overall job performance - a figure that rises to 71% among Independent voters.

'Donald Trump's Los Angeles Military Deployment Is an Assault on American Democracy'

It's time to shake off our 'Trump denial syndrome' and wake up to the clear and present danger posed by the President, argues Alexandra Hall Hall

Alexandra Hall Hall

Immigration - long seen as one of Trump's core political issues - has also become a source of division. According to the poll, 53% of Americans disapprove of his handling of immigration. Among Democratic voters, this figure rises sharply to 84%, with 62% of Independents also expressing disapproval. Only among Republican voters - 83% of whom approve of his immigration policies - does Trump retain significant support.

The economy - another pillar of Trump's political identity - is no longer a stronghold either. The polling suggests that 60% disapprove of his economic leadership, with one in four Republicans (25%) rating his performance poorly.

This erosion of support comes despite Trump's claims that his presidency ushered in historic economic growth, low unemployment and strong stock market returns prior to the Coronavirus pandemic.

Adding a touch of irony, The Washington Post has reported that the planned parade might be disrupted by thunderstorms.

While such weather-related uncertainty is outside Trump's control, it adds to a string of unfavourable developments for the President.

Beyond the question of whether the parade goes ahead, the broader message of the polling is clear: a majority of Americans disapprove not only of a high-profile military spectacle, but of Trump's leadership more broadly - on policy, performance and principles.

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

Politics can be a rough old trade, as Sir John Major once ruefully observed. Even for those lucky enough to make it to high office, a lot of time can be spent taking the blame for things that were not their fault, confronting crises not of their making, or having their best-laid plans overturned by "events, dear boy, events". The compensation, of course, is that now and again, you get the chance to make the political weather, to nudge the arc of history in a direction of your choosing. Setting out her spending review, Rachel Reeves had one of those moments today.

The Chancellor knows more than most about the vicissitudes of politics. Her poll numbers are plumbing depths last reached by Kwasi Kwarteng, architect of Liz Truss's mini-budget. She has spent the past year grappling with the disastrous Tory legacy, a challenge made harder by Labour's cynical, if understandable, decision to rule out raising most taxes. She has paid a high price for a politically inept cut to winter fuel payments and a hike in national insurance payments that was resented by business. The global economy and bond markets are being roiled by the Trump shock. Everywhere one goes, one hears the lament that she has no plan.

No one can say that she does not have a plan now. It's true that the big numbers had been set out in her budget in October, when she announced her updated fiscal rules and the overall "envelope" for departmental spending for the remainder of the parliament. The main contours of the settlement are that current spending will rise by 2.3% a year in real terms, with much of that increase already underway, implying tight limits to come. The big shift was the decision to spend an extra £113 billion on public investment, to be funded by a £140 billion increase in public borrowing. This review was about how that money would be allocated.

Revealed: The £264 billion Price Tag of the UK's Carbon Capture Strategy

Critics argue the technology is a "dangerous distraction" to the real measures required to tackle catastrophic man-made climate change

Stuart Spray

Reeves' choices are a valiant attempt to fix some of the most egregious deficiencies in a UK public realm grievously neglected during the reckless Conservative pursuit of tax cuts, while sticking within the constraints imposed by the bond markets. Health and defence were the big "winners", with NHS spending rising by three percent per year in real terms, and defence spending, now redefined to include intelligence, hitting 2.6% of GDP in 2027. The big losers were the Home Office, the Foreign Office (via the slashed aid budget to pay for defence) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

There was a welcome prioritisation of growth-enhancing capital budgets over day-to-day spending. There was £39 billion for a new social house building programme, big investments in nuclear power and clean energy, promises of more money for transport programmes, including Northern Powerhouse Rail and the Oxford to Cambridge east-west rail, and £2.6 billion for a new schools rebuilding programme. The stated hope was that tackling some of the most urgent social challenges, including housing, hospital waiting lists and the asylum backlog, should ultimately reduce claims on the state. A £2.6 billion Transformation Fund has been established to help pay for the much-needed modernisation of the state.

Nonetheless, three things about Reeves' plans immediately stood out. The first is that many will question whether these spending levels will prove adequate. In particular, Nato is likely to push for much higher levels of defence spending when the alliance meets at the end of the month, perhaps including a targ...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

In October 2024, after extensive lobbying from energy companies including Equinor, BP, and ExxonMobil, the UK Government officially committed £21.7 billion of public money to new fossil fuel-based Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects in Teesside and Merseyside over the next 25 years.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is widely expected to unveil a similar funding pledge for new CCS facilities in Humberside and northeast Scotland as part of Wednesday's Government's Spending Review.

However, detailed analysis of the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) most recent Carbon Budget Report conducted by Dr Andrew Boswell, environmental researcher and campaigner, and Simon Oldridge, science adviser for the Zero Hour campaign, has revealed that the true projected cost of CCS between now and 2050 is £264 billion.

In response, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) dismissed the figure, stating: "We do not recognise this speculative figure".

EXCLUSIVE

BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output

The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC "story selection" in order to secure the "trust" of supporters of Nigel Farage's party

Adam Bienkov

But far from being speculative, the calculations seen by Byline Times appear to confirm the UK Government's projected £264 billion budget requirements including up to £136bn on building and operating new fossil gas power stations with CCS, and a further £128bn on BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects including continued funding for controversial sites like the Drax wood-burning power station in North Yorkshire.

"If these figures are unknown to DESNZ, then it's a bit like starting HS2 without adding up the full cost first," claimed Boswell.

Boswell condemned the Government's CCS plans to "pump hundreds of billions into gas and biomass power stations" and branded it "a colossal waste of money that actively worsens the climate crisis even with carbon capture".

"The Government and its advisors at the Climate Change Committee are turning a blind eye and pretending that environmental risks like methane leaks, destruction of forests, dangerous pollution to communities, don't count," he said.

Boswell described CCS, whether applied to fossil fuels or biomass, as a "dangerous distraction" that locks the UK into expensive, high-carbon infrastructure while renewables sit ready to replace it. "This isn't 'net zero'. It gives reckless subsidies to hard-nosed lobbyists, and the public pays the price," he said.

Oldridge echoed these concerns: "The UK's carbon capture plans aren't about cutting emissions, they're about locking in a new wave of fossil gas infrastructure that could end up as polluting as coal, even if the CCS works," he told Byline Times.

With many of the UK's existing North Sea gas fields expected to be mostly depleted by 2030, Oldridge warns that the new power stations will depend on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of it produced through fracking in the United States. This imported gas carries a significant carbon footprint that is largely overlooked in the UK's climate accounting.

According to research from Cornell University up to 75% of the emissions associated with burning US gas occur along the supply chain and would remain unaccounted for in the UK even if CCS were able to trap 100% of the CO2 released during combustion.

Oldridge accused Labour of "backing a fantasy cooked up by the last government" that was based on industry spin and selective accounting. "The bulk of emissions from LNG happen overseas, but our outdated climate laws let ministers pretend they don't exist," ...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

In the recent collection, Pandering to Populism? Journalism in a Post-truth Age (to which I am a contributor), Richard Tait, a former editor-in-chief at ITN and one of the book's editors, states that: "How to report populism fairly and accurately under unprecedented political and economic pressure will be journalism's challenge for the next ten years and beyond. Some may indeed decide that pandering to populism is the best way to survive the turbulent years ahead, but if they do so, they are betraying journalism's duty to speak truth to power."

Warnings about normalising the far-right in general, and Reform in particular, have also been sounded by veteran media commentator Raymond Snoddy, another of the book's editors, who in his columns in The Media Leader has described Reform as "anything but normal" and accused the BBC of helping to create the public persona of Nigel Farage long before he even became an MP.

He also argues that "if Reform is claiming, as it is, to be a party capable of governing this country, then the media must subject it to the same kind of scrutiny applied to Labour or the Conservatives. Such scrutiny must be applied to the past record of those associated with Reform, its current policies and its performance where it is in power, such as the ten local authorities where it is now in control."

EXCLUSIVE

BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output

The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC "story selection" in order to secure the "trust" of supporters of Nigel Farage's party

Adam Bienkov

As a resident of Kent, whose County Council is now being scrutinised by a Doge-like team of "young tech entrepreneurs" (one of whom resigned as I wrote this article) and which, with a third of upcoming Council meetings already cancelled, appears to be grinding to a juddering (and doubtless costly) halt, it's impossible to disagree.

However, the only problem is that significant sections of the media - that is The Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun, Spectator and GB News - habitually apply remarkably little scrutiny to the Conservative party, and are particularly sympathetic to and uncritical of its most right-wing elements. Scrutiny, if you can call bitter and relentless hostility by that name, is reserved overwhelmingly for Labour.

Disavowal and Denial

And it is in these media that we find not only the barest scrutiny of Reform but pronounced hostility to anyone having the temerity to describe the party as far-right. Of course, "far-right", like "populist", can all too easily be used as a catch-all term, but as Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar demonstrate in their Little Black Book of the Populist Right, it is perfectly possible to employ such terms while at the same time distinguishing between different types of far-right populist party currently operating in Europe.

However, this and the detailed work of people like Cas Mudde and organisations such as HOPE not hate is no barrier to the likes of Fraser Nelson in the Spectator, 10 June 2024, accusing critics of these kinds of parties of talking "nonsense" by positing the existence of "one 'far right' or radical-right lump". And what's his solution? To propose instead the equally lump-like but usefully euphemistic "new right".

'Why We Must Call the National-Populist Far Right by Its Name'

The centre left should stop being afraid of accurately describing and countering the global far right threat we now face, argue Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar

Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar

In the specific case of Reform, its pronounced xenophobia, its hostility to the very concept of human rights, its opposition to many of the t...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

A supposed millionaire 'exodus' that was given blanket coverage in the British press - and which was credited to the Labour Government's decision to weaken reforms to 'non-dom' tax avoiders - did not actually happen, according to a new study.

The media reporting, consisting of over 10,900 news pieces across print, broadcast and online news in 2024, was primarily based on a report published by Henley & Partners, a firm that helps arrange so-called 'golden passports', allowing the super-rich to secure residence rights or citizenship through investment or simply paying for it. The European Court of Justice recently ruled one such golden passport scheme, covering Malta, was unlawful.

The Tax Justice Network's review - co-published with Patriotic Millionaires UK and Tax Justice UK - of the Henley report finds that the number of millionaires claimed by Henley & Partners to be leaving countries in "exodus" in 2024 represented almost zero percent of those countries' millionaire populations.

For example, the 9,500 millionaires widely reported to be leaving the UK in 2024 represented 0.3% of the UK's 3.06 million millionaires. It would take over 300 years for the 'exodus' to result in 100% of current millionaires to leave at this rate, even if no new ones emerged or moved here.

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.

Media reporting widely blamed the alleged millionaire exodus on tax policies in the same year that calls for a wealth tax on the super-rich gained unprecedented momentum globally.

The media reporting was equivalent to 30 news pieces a day on the "non-existent" millionaire exodus across 2024.

Reviewing the full period from 2013 to 2024 for which the Henley report presents estimates on millionaire migration, the Tax Justice Network found that millionaire migration rates consistently stood at near-0% for every year.

Academic studies consistently show that it is very rare for wealthy people to relocate countries - uprooting their families - simply due to tax policy.

Henley's estimates reveal a picture that is "at complete odds with the report's narrative and media coverage: millionaires are highly immobile, and nearly 100% of millionaires have not relocated to a new country since 2013, if Henley's estimates are to be taken at face value," the TJN report's authors say.

The UK Labour Government's decision in January 2025 to weaken non-dom tax reform was widely reported to be a result of concerns about the Henley report's findings (though a Treasury official gently denied this to Politico in January: "It's not necessarily a response to reports we're worried about the exodus of millionaires.")

The Tax Justice Network's review of the Henley 'Exodus' report flags several alleged methodological problems, as well as contradictions in Henley & Partner's reporting.

Spring Statement: 'Rachel Reeves Must Remember What Labour Is Actually For'

Unless the Labour party reconnects with its founding economic mission, they will merely lay the ground for a Nigel Farage Government, argues Neal Lawson

Neal Lawson

Funny Figures

Strikingly, the Henley paper's methodology states that its estimates were primarily a measure of where millionaires say they work on social media - largely LinkedIn profiles - and not of where they actually live or reside, meaning the rep...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

A toxic cocktail of chemicals is being spread on British farmland due to a near-total lack of rules on what farmers can put on their crops, campaigners warn today.

Environmentalists including Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, the former Chair of the Environment Agency Emma Howard Boyd and the campaign group, Fighting Dirty have joined forces to demand that the Government regulates the use of 'sewage sludge' to prevent toxic run-off further polluting Britain's dying waterways.

Currently, the great majority of so-called sewage sludge is either sold or given to farmers by water companies to use as "fertiliser".

Fighting Dirty says that while it contains useful nutrients, as a result of "shocking regulatory failure", it also contains a cocktail of highly toxic chemicals, including dioxins, furans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

A report commissioned by the Environment Agency (EA) in 2017 found that, as a result, English crops were contaminated with such chemicals at "levels that may present a risk to human health". It stated that further contaminants in sewage sludge, including microplastics, could result in "soils becoming unsuitable for agriculture".

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.

Despite promising urgent resolution since 2017, a court case by Fighting Dirty exposed that the EA was hampered by delays and a lack of "Ministerial appetite" preventing them from removing the 'exempted' status of sewage sludge, bringing it into a permitting regime that would see it treated like other industrial waste.

Now campaigners, and a former Environment Agency chief, is pressuring the Government to act.

Ministers could direct the Environment Agency to update the decades-old rules for testing and regulating sewage sludge and other wastes spread on land, avoiding toxins from poisoning our environment and our bodies.

The demand is backed by top environmental organisations including Friends of the Earth, Soil Association and CPRE. It also has the backing of notable environmentalists active in this field, including Guy Singh-Watson, farmer and Founder of Riverford, and Caroline Lucas, the former Leader of the Green Party.

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, one of the signatories to an open letter to the Government, said: "This issue should and could have been sorted out years ago. The experts at the Environment Agency knew something needed to be done, the crew at Fighting Dirty knew something needed to be done when they took the EA to court and today we're showing a wide range of serious environmental organisations across the UK also know that something needs to be done.

"All we're missing now is that political steer. A swipe of the pen from [environment secretary] Steve Reed [would] allow the Environment Agency to do their job. So come on Labour - time to do the right thing to start clearing this mess up."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Notably, Emma Howard Boyd CBE, former Chair of the Environment Agency, is also a signatory. She described the current rules as "decades-old" and "not fit for purpose."

"The Environment Agency has recommended a course of action - to modernise regulations in line with the latest science and environmental health concerns. But it needs the UK Government to act for this to happen. This would then free up the EA to fo...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

At ten am, smoke was still rising from several districts of Kyiv after Russia launched one of its largest air strikes on Ukraine's cities in three years of war. Explosions were recorded in seven districts of the city, a result of more than 300 Shahed type drones, missiles and decoy drones which targeted the Ukrainian capital.

The munitions fired at Kyiv account for the majority of the 499 weapons unleashed across the country, including nineteen cruise, ballistic and anti-radar missiles. As it stands, official figures suggest that only four people were injured in Kyiv while no deaths were recorded in the capital. However the death toll in Odesa, where a maternity hospital among other civilian infrastructure sites were hit, has risen to two with nine people injured.

Last night's attack, which lasted for more than five hours and led to many Ukrainians taking shelter in hallways, basements and metro stations across the country, is just one of a number of escalating attacks in recent weeks and follows the largest overnight attack of the war on Sunday night.

UPDATE

How Ukraine Used Cheap Drones and a Lot of Ingenuity to Strike a Major Blow Against Russia

"I spent most of the early hours of Saturday in my hallway feeling the walls shake as the ballistic missiles exploded", Chris York reports from Kyiv

Chris York

While far from the deadliest assaults Ukrainian cities have seen, the recent attacks represent a significant increase in the scale and frequency of Russian attacks against metropolitan centres, particularly in the number of cities being targeted in the same night. The last month alone has seen three of the largest scale combined assaults since 2022 with six of the ten largest having been carried out this year.

According to Moscow, and to US President Donald Trump, these attacks are a retaliation to Operation Spider's Web in which Ukrainian intelligence sneaked First Person View (FPV) drones into Russia concealed inside the roofs of prefabricated cabins and destroyed or damaged 40 strategic Russian aircraft, including 34% of Russian cruise missile carriers.

According to Trump, speaking from Air Force One on Friday "Ukraine "gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night." However these larger attacks against Ukrainian cities are being carried out in concert with increased Russian efforts to attack Ukraine across the board.

Having retaken the vast majority of the Kursk region, captured in a surprise incursion by Ukraine last summer, Russia is now amassing troops at the border. In the last six weeks it has pushed around six kilometres into the neighbouring Ukrainian Sumy region. Attacks on the city of Sumy itself, just 28 kilometres from the border, are intensifying with the city centre having recently been hit by a Russian MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) in an attack on the 3rd of June that killed six people, including a 17 year old boy.

BREAKING

UN Confirms Russian Drone Attacks on Kherson are Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes

Zarina Zabrisky, who first exposed the "human safari" in Kherson for Byline Times in July 2024, reports on the UN's historic confirmation that Russia deliberately targeted civilians in a campaign of terror.

Zarina Zabrisky

In the east, while Ukrainian president Zelensky claims the Donbas front has "stabilised", evidence suggest the Russians are laying the groundwork for a new, larger summer offensive around the key towns of Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka, the latter of which has come under significant fire from aerial bombs in recent weeks.

The Kremlin has also implied that it will make another push for Kharkiv region over the summer, as it appears to be testing Ukrainian defen...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

The most valuable commodity in a democracy is not the quality of its constitution, the brilliance of its leaders, the strength of its institutions, the details of its laws, the independence of its media, or the vibrancy of its civic society, but trust.

Trust between the people and their government. Trust that politicians will honour the results of free and fair elections. Trust that leaders will try to represent the interests of every citizen, not just the ones that voted for them. Trust that Government officials will carry out their duties impartially and with integrity. Trust that government spokespeople, while undoubtedly putting a positive spin on events, will broadly tell the truth. Trust that laws will be applied fairly, and not twisted in order to go after political enemies, rivals or disfavoured groups. Trust that leaders will not abuse the powers of their position to enrich or benefit themselves, or their associates. Trust that the Government will seek to protect the poorest, the most vulnerable, or disadvantaged members of society, because who knows when some unhappy twist of fate might land any of us in a similar situation.

Trust is the invisible glue which holds democracies together. It cannot be written into the constitution. It cannot be legislated into being. It cannot be enforced upon leaders. Trust is an act of faith by voters in their leaders. Honouring that trust is a choice made by those leaders.

EXCLUSIVE

BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output

The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed altering BBC "story selection" in order to secure the "trust" of supporters of Nigel Farage's party

Adam Bienkov

Trust takes time to establish and, once broken, is not easily restored.

There are numerous ways in which Donald Trump's administration is currently damaging America, both domestically and internationally - launching self-defeating trade wars, trashing alliances, weakening its security agencies through making appointments based on loyalty rather than competence, roiling the federal bureaucracy, misdirecting its legal powers for political ends, targeting the weak and the vulnerable whilst pardoning the guilty and the corrupt, slashing programmes which protect Americans at home, and advance American values and interests overseas, rolling back decades of progress in science, health and environmental protections, attacking independent institutions such as universities, the media, and the arts sector, and grotesquely abusing the powers of office for personal enrichment.

But, of all its acts of wlilful destruction, the commodity which Donald Trump's administration is damaging the most is trust.

Trump has breached the nation's trust in all the ways described above. But, perhaps, nowhere is this more visible than in the administration's decision over the weekend to send National Guards to patrol the streets of Los Angeles, allegedly to protect federal agents and property, in response to protests against federal immigration raids in the city. Trump's decision to send in the Guards took place over the objections of the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, who said that Trump's order was intended "to manufacture a crisis. He's hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control." The Mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass, described the decision to deploy troops as a "chaotic escalation."

This feels more visceral, and more immediate, than any of the administration's other actions, the consequences of which are either not yet felt directly by most Americans, are targeted at less sympathetic groups such as immigrants, or so-called "elites" based in ...