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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

As the far right has grown in strength and impact, so has the number of commentators denying that's what it is.

Writing in the Telegraph, former Spectator editor Fraser Nelson insists that its "nonsense" to call Giorgia Meloni's Brothers of Italy post-fascist (she's "centre-right, not radical") and that European national-populists as a whole should be called "New Right" rather than "Hard". "Far" or "Radical".

Also favouring "New" over "Far", the Financial Times' John Lloyd writes that these parties are "anti-totalitarian" and assures Unherd readers that Marine Le Pen is just a "democratic nationalist."

By insisting that the national-populist far-right consists of normal, mainstream parties that should be treated as such, these commentators imply a challenge to the cordon sanitaire, the firewall which denied the far-right participation in coalition governments between the exposure of the Holocaust and the end of the last century. In that, they echo JD Vance's Munich speech critique of the cordon sanitaire as the censorship of free speech. They also evoke Blue Labour guru Maurice Glasman's 2011 suggestion that Labour should engage with members of the Tommy Robinson-founded English Defence League.

It's true that the far-right is a multi-headed hydra, with different histories and current strategies.

As we point out in our Little Black Book of the Populist Right, there are at least five different types of far right party currently operating: first, unashamed neo-fascist parties like Germany's National Democratic Party, Greece's Golden Dawn and various neo-Nazi grouplets in Britain and the US; second, fascist legacy parties who can trace a direct descent from pre-war fascist parties, like Le Pen's National Rally, Meloni's Brothers of Italy and the Austria Freedom Party; third, new parties , some of which started out as free market advocates but have become increasingly focused on and obsessed with immigration, like Norwegian Progress, Alternative for Germany, UKIP and its successor parties Brexit and Reform UK; and fourth, new populist parties set up expressly to oppose immigration, including the Danish People's Party, the True Finns and Geert Wilders's Dutch Freedom Party.

Finally there are existing parties that were body-snatched by national-populists, like Viktor Orban's erstwhile centre-left Fidesz in Hungary, the British Conservative Party under Boris Johnson and the Republicans under Donald Trump.

The Populist Right: What is it, Why it's on the March and How to Stop it

An exclusive extract from The Little Black Book Of The Populist Right which is available for purchase now

Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar

National-populism's USP is that it combines reactionary policies on race, family and other cultural issues with interventionist economic policies, which separates them from traditional conservatives and attracts/reassures working class voters who are opposed both to immigration and the rich.

Depending where they are on the journey to power, some parties play down the interventionist economics. Thus, aware of her party's need to gain over 50% of the vote in a presidential run-off, Le Pen and her lieutenants have been hitting the 'steak frites' trail, lunching prominent businessmen and abandoning economic promises like raising the minimum wage, building more social housing, leaving the Euro and blanket retirement at 60.

Similarly, while Meloni has hammered at LGBT rights and feminist gains (no IVF for gay couples, for example), she has eased up on immigration controls to combat Italy's labour shortage.

British national-populist ideologue Matt Goodwin has dropped attac...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

One hundred and twenty five years ago, reclined on his Bloomsbury chaise longue in a smoking jacket, JM Keynes wrote about the last days of La Belle Epoque, a war-free period of unprecedented globalisation that occurred in Europe from 1870 to 1914.

"The inhabitant of London," he scribbled, "Could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth. And he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain and permanent."

Today Keynes would be forgiven for asking how much longer this easy state of affairs might be the case. Where, in the light of recent events, might he turn to order his Shein undies, his Uber Eats meal of ripe Peruvian mangoes and his aged Italian pecorino. Not to mention his cup of morning tea.

EXCLUSIVE

Green Party Deputy Leader Zack Polanski Says UK Must Leave NATO Because of Trump

The frontrunner to become the next leader of the Green Party of England and Wales tells Byline Times the UK must now form new alliances for "peace" instead

Adam Bienkov

Not long ago, the globalisation of our present age seemed a similarly inexorable force. We saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, a triumph of liberal democracy and shipping containers criss-crossing the world in their tens of millions. But like a pistol shot in 1914 Sarajevo, we've now had three volleys in the last half decade: Brexit, Covid and then Trump.

Populism feeds on discontent among those who perceive they are the have nots. They have been treated "unfairly." Globalisation has worked for the poor in China, it has worked for the global super rich but this advance has come at the cost of people in the working population in advanced economies. And this failure to improve their standards of living is partly why populism and nativism arose.

Globalisation has not been a bad thing in terms of addressing inequality globally. We should care about the poor in the developing world but who is listening to them currently? Certainly not Trump who refers to most places he's only vaguely aware of in the Global South as "shit holes" before imposing trade tariffs well above 50% on blameless countries like Laos and Cambodia.

So, what Trump wants by reining in the forces of globalisation, putting up barriers, drawing up the migration ladder, is for each nation to go it alone both economically and from the point of view of defence. The problem with individual countries trying to focus on their own security and self-sufficiency is to forget the difficulty of going it alone as an individual country. That's why we have NATO.

Semiconductors is one obvious example where trade barriers cannot work but feature films are another. Mission Impossible - a service not a manufactured good - is "made" at multiple locations all over the world. And while you might be able to force some movie production back to the US, you aren't about to re-start manufacturing cheap hammers, plastic brooms or swimming pool chlorine in the US rust belt. Nobody in their right mind will assign capital to that. The economics of scale just won't work. Those who toil in Shenzhen sweat shops don't have immensely expensive American healthcare insurance or take a mere day off from the production line each fortnight.

We're all now very intertwined and disengaging these supply chains is going to create a huge mess. Businesses cannot reliably plan or invest in a world where the occupant of the White House wakes up every morning with a new beautiful idea frequently contradicting his last beautiful idea.

So, what does business do here in the UK? So far it has sat and watched, fearful of the consequences of overt, vocal protest...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

"I thought I would die holding my grandchildren that night," says 58-year-old Parveen Akhtar, pointing to the charred patch of land next to her home in Uri. "We were all asleep when the house started shaking like an earthquake. The blast was so loud I felt it tear through my chest. My grandchildren screamed, the windows exploded, and a piece of the roof fell. We crawled under a table and held each other. I prayed harder than I've ever prayed. We live hard lives here, but this kind of fear it's not something the heart forgets."

That terrifying night in the border village of Uri shattered more than glass. It shattered the fragile calm families had clung to. The mortar shell echoed the brutal violence that followed the deadly militant attack in Pahalgam. On April 22, 2025, a group of militants ambushed a tourist group near the popular tourist destination of Pahalgam, killing 26 people and injuring many others. The attack, which specifically targeted tourists, was seen by many as an attempt to stir up communal tensions. The militants reportedly singled out people based on their religion, further igniting fears across the region.

In retaliation, India launched 'Operation Sindoor', a series of aerial strikes targeting militant camps across the border. The Indian airstrikes were meant to dismantle the militants' network and send a strong message of deterrence. Pakistan responded with shelling along the Line of Control (LoC), particularly hitting civilian areas in Uri, Rajouri, and Poonch, pushing the region back into an old, painful cycle of violence. The consequences were devastating, innocent lives lost, homes destroyed, and an entire population living in constant fear.

Western Democracies Stay Silent as India Falls Further Into the Abyss

With Congress Party opposition leader Rahul Gandhi facing prison, CJ Werleman explores how the UK is ignoring serious warning signs in the world's largest democracy

CJ Werleman

"My son flinches at every sound now a door bang, a car horn. He thinks it's another shell," says Abdul Rashid, a schoolteacher in Salamabad. "That night, he saw blood on our cow, glass stuck in a neighbor's leg. He hasn't gone out after sunset since. He asks me if the soldiers are coming to save us, and I don't know what to say. I teach him about history in school, but now we are the history - the kind filled with fear, loss, and things no child should witness."

The impact of the violence is devastating for families like Abdul's. The sound of war now punctuates daily life. The innocuous noises of everyday life like a door closing, or a car horn have become triggers for terror. Children who once played in the open are now confined to their homes, hiding from the violence that has upended their worlds. The psychological scars are just as deep as the physical ones.

"I can still hear her scream," whispers Zahida Begum in Rajouri's Nowshera, remembering the moment her daughter's school was hit. "I ran barefoot, tripping over stones, crying. The building was cracked. Smoke everywhere. I found her shaking in a corner. Since then, she won't go back. She clings to me like a baby, even in her sleep. And I lie to her I tell her we're safe, that it won't happen again. But inside, I'm just as broken. I'm a mother who can't promise her child safety."

Zahida's story is another heart-wrenching example of the toll war takes on families. Her daughter's school was struck by a shell, leaving the building cracked and the classrooms filled with dust. The emotional aftermath has been just as devastating as the physical destruction. Zahida's daughter, once a carefree child, now tremble...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

In something bordering on the miraculous, though not for religious reasons of any kind, I recently rose from ongoing challenges of poor health to perform a spoken word set in a new Hastings venue.

To my delight, this venue has level access, a spacious entrance, and reasonable lighting. I'd been offered the headline slot by the organiser who had gone to some effort to make the event inclusive, for which I thank him.

The event was packed, the crowd eager. I won't lie, it was hard, and my slot began at around 9:15pm - a challenge, considering that these days I need to be in bed and ready for sleep by 10pm in order to maintain my health.

The organiser did well, but like many - many, many, in fact - we're all up against it when we have no money and no easy funding pots to create access, when it comes to the essential need of all human beings to use the toilet.

Call it what you want, and we have a lot of terminology to draw from. As a child, I rather favoured bog, though I remember my grandmother insisting I learn the word lavatory. There was also the garderobe of the medieval era.

Sadly, on my performance night, I was kept off the bog, the lav, or whatever you call it - along with several audience members - because there simply wasn't one that we could use at the venue.

I knew this in advance and researched some back-ups, which were not that easy to get to. Here's the crux: non-disabled people seek out a convenience on auto-pilot. Occasionally, I amuse myself with other disabled activists by imagining the outcry and fury that would explode if the use of lavatory facilities was banned or blocked for everyone.

'Who's Virginia Woolf Afraid Of?'

Stephen Unwin explores how the famed author's views about disability were typical of a growing intellectual endorsement of the dangerous ideology of eugenics in the early 20th century

Stephen Unwin

So why is it okay for disabled people to have to live this way?

This is, yet again, a demonstration of the social model of disability - whereby barriers (overwhelmingly removable) create disability.

This brings me to the huge misconception that it's all about steps and basic available space. Wheelchair users like myself do confront this discrimination head-on. I may find some grit to perform a new poetry set, sacrificing some precious energy for the privilege, but relieving myself is a blunt reality.

Others within the disabled community face barriers that may not be so obvious, yet solutions are likewise often simple. Visually-impaired people appreciate decent light and accessible signage. Those with mobility impairments can have barriers removed by decent grab rails and toilets that are not level with the floor. Those with specific medical conditions may need more room to carry out procedures that require cleanliness and maintain dignity. The irony is this relates to a large number of people across all sections of society.

There's a bottomless pit of untapped knowledge and lived experience relating to this most human of acts among the disabled community that is rarely called upon. This is before we consider legal compliance and policies relating to the provision of accessible toilets.

I choose to use the term 'accessible' pointedly, as the only disabled bogs I know are indeed clearly facing their own barriers. We all have stories of the accessible toilets turned into storage cupboards, the space where the mop and bucket go; not forgetting the time I encountered a mountain of toilet rolls that obliterated all and any space in this supposedly modern accessible privy.

Unsurprisingly, when governments neglect their responsibilities concernin...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

As the UK-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is signed, campaigners have warned a soon-to-be-announced parallel treaty could contain provisions which would allow corporations investing in both countries the power to sue the British and Indian Governments.

The UK-India bilateral investment treaty (BIT) will accompany the new Free Trade Agreement which was announced on May 6.

The parallel investment treaty contains the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism according to inside sources who spoke to Reuters. The ISDS has been dubbed a system of "corporate courts" by campaigners.

Previously, India terminated a large number of its BITs after facing several ISDS claims. Of a total of 30 cases India has faced, eight were raised by UK corporations under the previous 1994 India-UK BIT, which was terminated by India in 2017.

'Why Tony Blair's Intervention on Net Zero Is the Most Irrational Contribution to Climate Discourse in Some Time'

There can be no "third way" to tackling the existential threat of man made climate change, argues Russell Warfield

Russell Warfield

UK investors are the third most frequent users of ISDS, raising concerns over India's sovereignty in the policymaking space.

In their 2023 book Silent Coup which focuses heavily on the ISDS system, investigative journalists Claire Provost and Matt Kennard wrote that ISDS claims have become an "asset class" with specialised financiers funding spurious claims in order to take a cut of the winnings.

Several of the third-party firms funding ISDS claims have offices in London.

Meanwhile longstanding concerns exist over the use of ISDS litigation by fossil fuel companies to challenge climate policy in the UK.

In 2023, the previous Conservative government exited the Energy Charter Treaty - which contains ISDS - citing the treaty's risk to the UK's ability to reach net zero. Fossil fuel companies are the strongest users of ISDS: making $327 billion out of ISDS claims since 1996.

In 2023 the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights related to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David Boyd, released a report on the ISDS system which found that "Foreign investors have weaponized" the "secretive" ISDS system which "violated" the "the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment" and "undermined" the rule of law.

Cleodie Rickard, trade campaign manager at Global Justice Now said: "Signing an investment deal with India which gives corporations the power to sue our countries shows a government at odds with the times. Last year, the Conservative government withdrew from an ISDS deal, the Energy Charter Treaty, citing its risks to the UK's net zero goals. Now Starmer's government is pulling us a step back into this outdated system, and subjecting India to the same - it's hypocrisy. Countries from Indonesia to South Africa have terminated ISDS deals, while Australia and New Zealand have pledged not to include it in future trade agreements. It is highly concerning that this is a priority for the UK, when it is widely accepted ISDS ties governments' hands [leaving them with little room] to enact the policies we need to face today's crises. This treaty cannot go ahead, and MPs should reject it."

No10 Refuses to Release Keir Starmer WhatsApp Information Despite Labour Transparency Pledge

Starmer had pledged to end the "outrageous way government departments refuse freedom of information requests".

Iain Overton

Other concerns include a risk to the UK steel industry into which the Indian firm Tata steel retains significant investments.

According to campaign groups opposed to ISDS, such as Trad...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

Since I last wrote here, a period of relative quiet in Kyiv was brutally interrupted by one of the worst Russian missile and drone attacks on the city during the entire full-scale invasion.

I'd gone to bed on 24 April with an air raid alert still in place - pretty much a nightly occurrence as air defences tackle the hundreds of kamikaze drones Russia sends over each day - and was woken around 1am as the familiar distant boom sounded.

But then, about 30 minutes later, a series of incredibly loud explosions made very clear that this wasn't just drones but missiles as well.

'Russia Will Be Hungry for More if Europe Doesn't Unite to Protect Ukraine'

Defending Ukraine without the US will be complex, costly and politically challenging - but there is simply no alternative, argues Jacob Öberg

Jacob Öberg

Twelve people were killed in Kyiv, and 87 others injured, including six children.

"Russian peace in all its glory" was how Kyiv City Military Administration chief Tymur Tkachenko described it.

And so the war drags on even as we pass the first 100 days of US President Donald Trump's second term, a duration he had insisted would be enough to bring peace to Ukraine.

While that still seems a long way off from here, there have been some relatively positive developments.

Minerals Deal

Well, it finally happened - the US and Ukraine signed the long-awaited minerals deal.

The top line is positive - regardless of the details of the deal - the signing marks a massive step in the resetting of relations between Kyiv and Washington after a rollercoaster few months.

It wasn't that long ago that Trump was accusing President Volodymyr Zelensky of being a "dictator", accusing him of starting the war, and temporarily cutting off military aid after that infamous Oval Office showdown.

So there was a bit of a sigh of relief in Kyiv when the deal was signed. But what about the details? It's mixed news.

Russia's Murderous Ceasefires and Musk Admiration for Putin

In his latest dispatch from Kyiv, Chris York has tales of occupied territories, tariffs, stalled talks - and storks!

Chris York

On the plus side, the deal does not contain some of the things in previous iterations that were viewed as incredibly exploitative of Ukraine, and gives Kyiv full control over its land, infrastructure, and resources, as well as not applying to existing projects.

Another major win is that it won't force Ukraine to pay back the US for the billions in aid it has sent since the start of the full-scale invasion, something Trump made a regular talking point of.

It also contains language that will allow it to be altered if it interferes with Ukraine's accession to the European Union.

Earlier versions gave privileged access to Ukraine's resources to the US over its European allies which raised alarm bells on the continent.

And what about the negatives? It still doesn't contain concrete US security guarantees to deter Russian aggression in the future which is Ukraine's main concern.

Putin's Response to Trump's Appeasement Plan: Hell in Kyiv

Paul Conroy surveys the scale of the destruction to the Svaytoshinsky neighbourhood, fifteen minutes from downtown Kyiv

Paul Conroy

Trump still appears to believe that increased US business investment in Ukraine, with American companies on the ground after a ceasefire is achieved, is enough, and negates the need for any sort of NATO Article 5-like agreement.

But whether or not the deal will actually lead to America's private sector investing in Ukraine remains to be seen - two further documents containing more details on this have not yet been made public so there are still many unanswe...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

The Government is losing the battle to criminal gangs and hostile states to protect people's data and critical infrastructure, a report by MPs says today.

MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee call for a completely new approach to thwart growing numbers of cyber attacks and ransomware demands after a Cabinet Office commissioned independent verification report found that far more IT systems used by departments are too weak to resist attacks.

The Government estimates that risky 'legacy' IT systems make up 28% of the public sector's IT estate, and substantial gaps also remain in its understanding of the estate's resilience to attack.

No10 Refuses to Release Keir Starmer WhatsApp Information Despite Labour Transparency Pledge

Starmer had pledged to end the "outrageous way government departments refuse freedom of information requests".

Iain Overton

By January 2025, 319 legacy systems had been identified as in use across government, 'red'-rating around 25% as having a high likelihood and impact of risks occurring; but government does not know how many legacy systems there are altogether.

Some Government IT systems are still running on Windows 3.1 - a programme developed by Microsoft in 1992 which it stopped supporting in 2001 - 24 years ago.

Under the last Conservative Government it was hoped that the system would be secure by the end of this year but it is now estimated that Government and the wider public sector will have to wait until 2030 for full protection.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Tory Chair of the Committee, said: "Government Departments are beginning to wake up to the serious cyber threat they face. It is positive to see independent verification now in place to gain a better picture on critical systems resilience.

"Unfortunately, this has only served to confirm that our battlements are crumbling. A serious cyberattack is not some abstract event taking place in the digital sphere. The British Library cyberattack is a prime example of the long-lasting cost and disruption that these events can cause. Hostile states and criminals have the ability to do serious and lasting harm to our nation and people's lives.

Eight Years After Grenfell, the Government Still Doesn't Know How May Homes Are Unsafe and Has No Clear Plan to Fix Them

Repeated promises to clean up the scandal of homes covered in highly dangerous flammable cladding are still not being met, warn MPs

David Hencke

"If the Government is to meet its own ambition to harden resilience in the wider public sector, a fundamental step change will be required. This will involve infusing every top team with the required digital expertise, with cyber and digital specialists at the top level of every department, both management and boards to bring about a change in thinking throughout the civil service for greater threat awareness and digital transformation."

The report says;" Government has been unwilling to pay the salaries necessary to hire the experienced and skilled people it desperately needs to manage its cyber security effectively. Commendably, government has increased its digital workforce to 23,000 people. However, one in three cyber security roles remain either vacant or filled by expensive contractors."

As a result IT staff are lured away by the private sector - one example given to MPs was a City of London police sergeant who specialised in IT who took a £250,000 job with a large bank.

'The A&E Crisis Shows How the NHS Is Getting Worse and the Government Has No Real Plans to Fix It'

Politicians are refusing to take meaningful action to resolve the perma-crisis in our health service, writes NHS D...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

The frontrunner to become the next leader of the Green Party of England and Wales has called on his party to abandon its commitment to the UK remaining in its military alliance with America and other European nations, telling Byline Times that Donald Trump's presidency means that "the age of NATO is now over".

Current Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer announced her intention on Thursday not to stand in the upcoming contest, after her current deputy Zack Polanski announced his own intention to stand earlier this week.

Speaking to this paper, Polanski said that the party's next leader needs to be "bolder" in its approach to policy, beginning with a plan for the UK to withdraw from its longstanding military alliance inside NATO.

Local Elections: 'Keir Starmer's Rightward Shift Is Laying the Ground for Nigel Farage'

Labour's embrace of economic and political orthodoxy is forcing voters to look elsewhere for change, argues Keir Starmer's former adviser Simon Fletcher

Simon Fletcher

"I think our NATO policy is out of date," Polanski said, citing his party's commitment at the last general election to remain within the alliance.

"Clearly NATO has got a lot more complex since Donald Trump has become President, and I don't think anyone should consider him a reliable ally…

"I think the age of NATO is now fully over."

Polanski said that Trump's aggressive stance towards other NATO members, including its attempts to annexe Greenland, means that the UK's continued membership of the alliance is now untenable.

"We voted at the last conference to maintain a relationship with NATO and reform it from within but I think we have reached a point where Donald Trump has made being in an alliance with America very, very difficult while he's talking about annexing Greenland…" he told Byline Times.

"We clearly need to be making sure that our policy is meeting the moment, and I think the world is changing quickly, and the idea that we can reform NATO by working with Donald Trump at the moment in a so-called special relationship is an idea that's on its last legs."

Polanski urged his party to instead focus on forming new international alliances based on "peace".

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 need to be working alongside people who are working for peace and for democracy and diplomacy in the world, and indeed talking to people we disagree with, and doing different difficult diplomatic relationships," he said.

The Green Party has previously backed leaving NATO but switched positions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with party members backing a conference vote in 2023 calling for reform of the existing alliance.

At last year's general election the party stood on a manifesto stating that "The Green Party recognises that NATO has an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security," while also calling for reform of the alliance in order to produce a "greater focus on outreach and dialogue".

Polanski has urged his party to adopt what he describes as "eco-populist" positions, in a bid to counter the rise of Reform and the far right and gather a broader base of public support than the around one-in-ten voters who currently back the party....

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

OK let's take a deep breath and run a final autopsy on last week's elections. The long and the short of it is this, Labour by its own actions is squandering the opportunity it secured last July. Yet despite this, it it is still the single party most likely to win the next election.

As Labour follows a strategy of 'we need to be like Reform, but don't vote for Reform' a national populist like agenda is being legitimised and embedded, such that any Labour 'victory' is only secured on soil contaminated by national populism. Reform might still be defeated at the polls, but they will have won hearts and minds and set the national agenda.

Superficially Labour is in a bind. It is losing some votes to Reform but a bigger percentage to the Greens and Lib Dems, which could electorally be more damaging. You might argue here that the best course of action is therefore to go with what you believe in, namely a more progressive approach to climate, liberty and social justice, rather than a more authoritarian and populist stance.

Local Elections: 'Keir Starmer's Rightward Shift Is Laying the Ground for Nigel Farage'

Labour's embrace of economic and political orthodoxy is forcing voters to look elsewhere for change, argues Keir Starmer's former adviser Simon Fletcher

Simon Fletcher

But Labour's leadership feel they don't have to choose, and avoid opening up the biggest threat they believe they face - the revival of the left in UK politics and their grip on Labour.

On this they have an ace up their sleeve. The electoral system. All the time we have first past the post (FPTP), then the electorate are presented with a distasteful but compelling choice; do you want Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage to be the next Prime Minister of our country? No matter how bad Labour is, how little it delivers and how unsavoury some of its policies around poverty and immigration are, voters are presented with an unavoidable dilemma - to vote with their head or their heart - for Labour or Reform?

This is what is going to happen. Governing and policy failures will open the space to challenge Labour internally and externally on issues like net zero, child poverty, wealth taxes and more. The seeming fragmentation of the political system will exacerbate this challenge. Some victories will be secured, but ultimately the searing logic of our binary FPTP system will come irresistibly into play. Forget all your progressive whining, we will be told - when push comes to shove who are you going to vote for - Starmer or Farage?

Some will hold out and vote for alternatives despite the fact it dices with Reform like death. Many others will exclude themselves from the democratic process - a plague on everyone's house in which the choice is either Reform or Reform lite - the later almost feeling worse because it's prosecuted by people who claim to know better. But the majority of progressives who vote will do so for the least bad option. I know this and you know this.

More importantly Labour's cold, cynical and ruthless strategists know this. It's why they will never entertain a shift to proportional representation because to do so breaks their monopoly stranglehold on the progressive side of the British electorate. For them it would be an act of existential self-harm. And the bigger the threat of Farage, the more extreme he becomes, the more powerful the pressure to go with the lesser of two evils. With 'nowhere else to go', you start to see why Labour's leadership are heading in a deep blue direction.

Nigel Farage Is Killing the Conservative Party and Starmer Must Change Course to Avoid the Same Fate

Telling voters that ...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves

The UK Government has continued to send a wide range of military exports from the UK to Israel since the war on Gaza began in October 2023, including thousands of items categorised as "munitions of war", despite ministers suggesting that remaining UK exports were mainly of a "defensive" nature.

In September 2024, the UK Government suspended 30 arms export licenses to Israel, with the Foreign Secretary David Lammy stating in the House of Commons that "much of what we send [to Israel] is defensive in nature" such as "helmet[s] or goggles", and "not what we describe routinely as arms".

However, a joint report by the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), the Progressive International (PI) and Workers for a Free Palestine (WFFP) accuses Lammy of misleading Parliament, due to data revealing that the UK has continued to send large numbers of lethal munitions to Israel, including one maritime delivery to Haifa carrying over 160,000 items.

Shipments sent after Lammy's announcement include 8,630 separate munitions exports placed in the category 'Bombs, Grenades, Torpedoes, Mines, Missiles And Similar Munitions Of War And Parts Thereof - Other'.

BP Hit by Protests and Investor Rebellion Over Israel Fuel Sales and Broken Climate Pledges

The multinational oil and gas company is accused of complicity in Israel's war on the Palestinian people

Olly Haynes

Zarah Sultana, the suspended Labour MP for Coventry South said: "This explosive report shows the Government has been lying to us about the arms it is supplying to Israel while it wages genocide in Gaza. Far from "helmets and goggles", the Government has been sending thousands of arms and ammunition goods and even still supplying components of the world's most lethal fighter jets. By the Government's own admission, continued direct supply of F-35 parts to Israel would put Britain at 'clear risk' of contributing to Israel's violations of international law and therefore breaching our own legal obligations".

Sultana called on David Lammy to resign, saying "This report alleges that David Lammy has misled Parliament and the public, which would be a clear breach of the Ministerial Code. Keir Starmer must immediately launch a full investigation into these alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code and if David Lammy or any other minister has breached the code, they must resign. Moreover, an independent inquiry is required into this damning new evidence that the Government has breached the UK's obligations under international law, making the British Government, and potentially individual Ministers, complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza".

Labour MP John McDonnell also suggested that it could be a resigning matter for Lammy, stating: "The Government has a lot of explaining to do and fast in response to this groundbreaking report, particularly following the allegation that David Lammy and other Ministers have misled Parliament and the public. If Parliament has been misled by the Foreign Secretary or any minister it is a resigning matter and more importantly it attracts potentially a charge of complicity in war crimes. The Government has shrouded its arms supplies to Israel in secrecy. They must finally come clean in response to this extremely concerning evidence and halt all British arms exports to Israel to ensure no British made weapons are used in Netanyahu's new and terrifying plans to annex the Gaza Strip and ethnically cleanse the land."

PI, PYM and WFFP produced the report by examining import data from the Israeli Tax Authority from October 2023 to March 2025, tracking customs codes which designate different types of arms and munitions, be...