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

"Never let a good crisis go to waste", is a political cliche because it captures an obvious truth. Moments of great upheaval create opportunities to do things that might have been politically impossible before. Rachel Reeves appeared to acknowledge that we are at such a moment now with her repeated observation in her Spring Statement that "the world has changed".

Yet this most unimaginative and orthodox of chancellors shows little sign of being prepared to seize the opportunities that the chaos unleashed by Donald Trump's return to the White House presents. Instead we have a government that seems content to react to events rather than shape them.

To be fair to the Government, circumstances have already forced them to take some tough but necessary decisions that it might otherwise have avoided. It has had to bring forward the date by which defence spending will rise to 2.5% of GDP to 2027. To pay for that, they are making some modest reforms to the welfare system that should save £4.8 billion a year and has announced plans to cut civil service numbers. The soaring welfare bill was clearly unsustainable and the huge rise in civil service numbers was hard to justify. Some effort to trim both is the least one should expect in a crisis.

The False Economies of Rachel Reeves' Spring Statement

There is nothing "responsible" about forcing hundreds of thousands of people into poverty, while putting even more strain on those public servants who will have to pick up the pieces, argues Adam Bienkov

Adam Bienkov

Certainly these measures were enough to deliver on Reeves's immediate objective which was to restore the Government's headroom under Reeves's own self-imposed fiscal rules that has since been wiped out by slower growth and higher borrowing costs. That will earn the Government some credit with the financial markets, which should buy them some insurance against further global market volatility. Indeed, Deutsche Bank's fixed income analysts earlier this month reported a growing appetite for UK assets in part in response to the willingness of the Starmer Government's willingness to make cuts.

Nonetheless, it is unlikely to be enough to spare Reeves further difficult choices come the Autumn when she delivers her next budget. The Government is already having to issue more than £300 billion of gilts in the next financial year and the swelling interest bill is swallowing an ever rising share of government income. Meanwhile, as the OBR noted, it would only take a small rise in interest rates, or continued weak productivity growth, to wipe out her headroom again. The central OBR forecast also doesn't account for the impact of a Trump a trade war, which would crush growth. At the same time, defence spending will surely need to hit 3% before the end of this parliament. No wonder most City economists expect taxes to have to rise.

Given the magnitude of events, what was most striking about Reeves's statement was its timidity. She, and indeed much of the UK political and media class, continue to be trapped by pre-crisis thinking, not least the way in which the fiscal rules continue to set the political terms of trade. The result is that the Government should find itself in the days before the chancellor's statement locked in an absurd debate with the OBR over whether an extra £500 billion of welfare savings were needed to meet a fiscal rule based on a forecast of what might happen in three years time. This is dancing on a pinhead stuff.

What was missing from the chancellor's statement was any sign of the Government rising to the level of events, recognising the shifting of the Overton ...

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

"There is nothing Labour about working people being made to pay the price for economic irresponsibility," Rachel Reeves told MPs on Wednesday as she set out her economic Spring Statement.

Yet despite her claims to the contrary, the reality is that many working people are already being made to pay the price by this Government.

Those forced to take the biggest hit so far are the poor and disabled.

According to the Government's own figures, the Chancellor's planned cuts to disability benefits will hit one-in-five families with a disabled member, leaving them thousands of pounds a year worse off.

This will lead to real hardship for hundreds of thousands of people.

According to the Department of Work and Pensions' own impact assessment, published earlier today, an estimated 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will now be pushed into poverty as a direct result of the Chancellor's planned cuts to disability and carers allowances.

As the charity Save the Children warned today, unless ministers change course, "this will be the first Labour Government ever to preside over a significant rise in child poverty."

Reeves claims she has no choice but to impose these cuts, due to the dire economic inheritance left by the Conservatives.

'Keir Starmer's Government Should Stop the Austerity Denial About These Cuts'

The uncomfortable truth about Starmer and Reeves's economic project is it is grim for living standards, public services and recipients of welfare, and should be opposed by all, argues his former senior adviser Simon Fletcher

Simon Fletcher

However, while the poor and disabled, in both the UK and around the world, are being asked to pick up the tab for this inheritance, others are notably being spared.

Despite rising demands among Labour MPs for new wealth taxes, Reeves today ruled out any new increases on either the wealthy or corporations.

And when pushed by the Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey at Prime Minister's Questions, to rule out his reported plans to actually slash taxes on tech corporations, in order to appease Elon Musk and the White House, Keir Starmer pointedly failed to do so.

Reeves today justified her cuts by insisting that the Government had to be "responsible" with its budgets, unlike the preveious Conservative government.

Yet while there is a need to reduce the ballooning level of welfare payments post-Covid, the Government's plans to simply slash payments now are likely to simply shunt the burden of these increased costs elsewhere.

As charities and local government experts have already warned, the steep cuts to support for disabled people will place massive extra pressure on already overstretched local authority budgets.

The increase in child and adult poverty rates will also inevitably increase the burden on the NHS and other public services in both the short and long term. The Government's huge cuts to international aid will also simply store up bigger problems for the future, as efforts to tackle rising global instability and refugee flows are affected.

Reeves' spokespeople today insisted that it simply isn't possible for the UK to "tax and spend" our way to growth. They also boasted that the Government's planning reforms are expected to add significantly to the size of the economy over the coming years, without additional taxpayer expenditure.

With the single exception of the military, which is in line for significant increases to its budgets, Reeves' budget was a rejection of exactly the sort of Attlee-style Keynesian economics both she and Starmer had promised in the years running up to entering government.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO ...

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

Government plans to tackle the housing crisis and boost the economy have been slammed as a "pay-to-kill" system for developers that will lead to "the injury and killing of protected species".

This week, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill cleared its second reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 256 votes.

The Bill, the Government has argued, will remove unnecessary environmental obstacles to development, with Angela Rayner saying in December that, "we can't have a situation where a newt is more protected than people who desperately need housing".

Environmental groups and conservationists have expressed concerns about its impact on animal welfare and biodiversity loss, branding it a "sledgehammer approach to crack the largely mythical nut that nature blocks development".

Speaking before this week's vote, Rayner, deputy prime minister and housing secretary, stressed the importance of the Bill to combat the housing crisis and help the Government deliver 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

How a Police Crackdown on Climate Protests Made Me Join the Frontline for the First Time

"For me, the act of civil disobedience was a stand against the increasing erosion of a fundamental pillar of democracy - our right to protest"

Stuart Spray

To speed up the planning process, the Bill proposes to legally allow developers to bulldoze habitats without finding out what wildlife lives there, so long as they pay into a newly established Nature Restoration Fund administered by Natural England - the Government's environmental watchdog.

The fund will allow developers to contribute financially to off-site nature conservation efforts to offset biodiversity loss resulting from their development projects. Environmentalists have dubbed it a "licence to kill".

UK law requires developers to conduct surveys, apply for licenses to disturb protected species and provide detailed plans explaining how they will ensure wildlife, such as dormice, hedgehogs and badgers, are not harmed during a project's construction phase.

By removing this requirement, critics argue the Government is giving the green light for adders and great crested newts to be squashed by diggers, for trees to be felled with bats and their dependent young still roosting in them, for nests with chicks to end up in the wood chipper and for valuable habitats, like ancient woodlands, heathland and meadows, to be flattened along with all the wildlife they support.

Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have justified their watering down of wildlife protections by blaming species like bats and newts for unnecessarily blocking and slowing down development projects, as former PM Boris Johnson did in 2020. Earlier this month Reeves expressed her frustration over environmental regulations, reportedly saying, "We can't have newt counting holding up housing developments."

'All the Ways Kemi Badenoch Is Completely Wrong About Net-Zero'

'Pointing out the distortions, inaccuracies and outright lies is so easy that it's almost a bore,' argues Russell Warfield

Russell Warfield

The Government's scapegoating of protected species has infuriated ecologists and environmental charities including Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC) Trust, Friends of the Earth, The Wildlife Trusts, Greenpeace UK, Bat Conservation Trust and Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

Wildlife campaigner and writer Dominic Dyer accused the Government of being "hell-bent" on demonising both wildlife and those who stand up to protect nature and biodiversity from developments.

"By further weakening environmental protections to build million...

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 has quietly introduced a raft of changes to its flagship workers' rights legislation that will strengthen unions' rights to organise staff and to clamp down on rogue employers.

The latest changes, which are now before the House of Lords, have seen Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds expand trade unions' new access rights to go into workplaces, and slash Conservative Government's red tape on strike ballots.

Dozens of Government amendments were tabled and passed ahead of the bill's report stage earlier this month. But there has been little analysis of what they mean.

The new changes to the Employment Rights Bill include an overhaul to rules on how trade unions can become officially 'recognised' by employers to bargain over pay and conditions, making it easier for unions to win official status in the workplace.

The Government has also removed the requirement for unions to hold a ballot every ten years to maintain their 'political funds'. Currently, unions which want to spend money on party political activities - like campaigning for the Labour Party - must set up a separate political fund which members have to vote to maintain every ten years.

Westminster Attacks on Workers' Rights Sees UK's Global Rating Tumble

Thousands of workers face being sacked for not crossing their own picket lines if new Westminster legislation passes

Josiah Mortimer

That vote will now be scrapped, and replaced with a reminder every ten years that members can opt out of that fund if they wish. It seems to be an attempt to balance individual choice over union campaigning while reducing administrative burdens that are understood to cost unions millions.

Asked if No 10 was proud of the legislation, the PM's spokesman said: "Yes, it's the biggest upgrade in workers rights in a generation. It will deliver higher productivity, higher growth, and is an important part of the Government's agenda to deliver higher living standards across the country."

Ministers also plan to removed minimum turnout thresholds for industrial action ballots, though this now appears to be coming in future legislation. A TUC source said they were pushing for the Government to push ahead with repealing minimum turnouts as soon as possible after this bill receives Royal Assent.

The Conservatives' 2016 Trade Union Act meant that workers in 'important public services' - including health and education - were only able to strike if 40% of those who were entitled to vote in the ballot answered "Yes" to industrial action, effectively meaning all non-voters were treated as 'No' voters. The same principle, of course, does not apply to the MPs who introduced it.

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 Government will repeal the Minimum Service Levels Act passed by the last Government, which (if used) would have required workers - even those who had voted to strike - to turn up to work in the event of strikes in 'essential' public services, which included health, education and transport.

Another amendment removed the obligation for unions to provide employers with detailed breakdowns of which categories of employees will participate in strikes.

At the same time, the notice period for industrial action will rise from seven to...

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

Who would want to be in Rachel Reeves' shoes, attempting to run a complex, fragile, fast-moving economy in a world of trigger-happy financial markets, climate change, Donald Trump and geopolitical unknowns lurking around every corner? But she took the job and on Wednesday will set out what she plans to do with it in her Spring Statement.

While Reeves should be commended for her fortitude, sadly, there is much that we can be critical of, such as the wild swings from downbeat pessimism over the summer to the pumped up optimism of the winter and 'growth, growth growth'. But there is one fundamental aspect of Labour's relationship to the economy that stretches back decades, that successive Labour Chancellors have got wrong, and that is the fundamental nature of the way capitalism now operates.

We've heard much over the last few weeks in the welfare debate about Labour being called Labour - that's who and what the party is apparently for. But surely the definition of a party as being for 'labour' implies at least some critical relationship with 'capital'. The Labour Party's connection to capital has always been ambiguous, for a vehicle that contains social democrats, socialists, social liberals and pragmatists and careerists of many stripes it could be no other. Some in Labour's ranks are anti-capitalist, and some very pro. But it is the absence of at least a critique of capitalism that now holds the party and the country back.

'No-One Voted for These Cruel Cuts - We Need a Wealth Tax Instead'

Keir Starmer must change course from this performative cruelty towards the sick and disabled, argues Neal Lawson

Neal Lawson

Of course, legislation like the New Deal for Workers bill re-balances the capital/labour scorecard somewhat, just as the minimum wage has. But as Stuart Hall acutely observed in 2003, Labour practises what he termed a 'double shuffle' when it comes to its relationship with capitalism, whereby it simultaneously reinforces neo-liberalism while appeasing some of its social democratic base. So, it cuts corporation tax, commercialises much of the public sector, goes heavy on so called 'skivers and shirkers', while introducing initiatives such as Sure Start. It can then be defended as 'not all bad'.

What is in effect a supportive and subservient relationship to capital goes back to Tony Crosland's important revisionist text The Future of Socialism written in 1957. In it Crosland makes the argument that the new job of social democratic governments was to more fairly and effectively share the proceeds of economic growth. But back then, it was assumed, capitalism had been tamed, not least because labour in the form of unions were still powerful and much of the economy was in the public realm and could be directed for social benefit. In the intervening decades, in the context of a globalised and financialized economy, neo-liberalism has privatised these public assets and smashed the power of the unions. It is society that has now been tamed.

From the 1970s onwards, Labour chancellors have felt they have no option but to ride the capitalist tiger by appeasing the markets. It inevitably ends up with the politics of deregulation, austerity and economic crisis, as capitalism freed from democratic oversight maximises the potential for profit until it crashes. Labour gets the blame and finds itself in political exile only until brief periods in which enough swing voters tire of the Tories and will vote Labour for a change - but only when nothing of significance happens to the economy.

Now, we may dream of some socialist nirvana in which the means of production are fully soc...

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 UK and EU leaders try to find their bearings in the face of Donald Trump, there is one main point on which many agree: Ukraine cannot be sacrificed to Vladimir Putin and his murderous campaign to destroy the integrity of a European state. But the other thing which, implicitly, almost all leaders agree on is - that Gaza can be sacrificed to Israel's Trump-endorsed genocidal war.

This contradiction is the Achilles heel of the current attempts to found a new European foreign and defence policy, and no one embodies it more clearly than

Sir Keir Starmer. The British prime minister, considerably discredited at home after barely eight months in office, has found in Ukraine a cause to restore his moral integrity, his European credentials and, he hopes, his electoral credibility. Yet for the former human rights lawyer, Gaza is the stain that never ceases to blight.

A decade ago, in another career, Starmer appeared before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to argue Croatia's genocide case against Serbia, describing the 1991 destruction of the city of Vukovar, in which over 1,000 civilians died, in terms that clearly fit the much greater destruction of Gaza today: "not an armed conflict directed at military objectives, but a radically disproportionate attack, deliberately intended to devastate the town and its civilian population".

Even as Labour leader, Starmer tweeted in 2021: "Genocide can never be met with indifference, impunity or inaction". And this January, in a speech on Holocaust Memorial Day, he proclaimed: "It is on all of us to make 'never again' mean what it says: Never again".

Yet it was clear that this did not include Palestine: he completely failed to mention Gaza and the same day his foreign secretary, David Lammy, author of many similar pieties, held a reception together with the Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely, a brazen propagandist for the attack on the strip's civilians.

Last week, as Israel's assault, emboldened by Trump, returned to levels of killing last seen in late 2023, Lammy finally ventured a clear statement that it was in breach of international humanitarian law. But even this was too much for Starmer, and the minister, under the pretence of a clarification, had to make unclear what he had previously clarified: following his leader's line, Israel was only "at risk" of a breach.

This transparent cover-up of Israel's crimes occurred a full fourteen months after the ICJ ruled that there was a real and imminent risk of "irreparable prejudice to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention", months that have been filled with killing, destruction and starvation as Israel has ignored the Court's instructions.

The Court has not made a full judgement on the case that Israel has committed genocide, but the legal duty of the UK and other European states to act to "prevent" it was triggered by that first judgment in January 2024, if not earlier. Starmer and his colleagues have now been in breach for a long, long time, not only for failing to halt Israel's campaign but also for the UK's active complicity in it.

The International Court of Justice on Gaza: 'Good, but Not Good Enough'

The compromise ruling from the ICJ in the Hague could slow the violence against Gaza's citizens, but catastrophe still looms

Martin Shaw

Gaza, Ukraine and Trump: A Single Challenge

It should not be necessary to explain to a lawyer why compliance with the law is desirable. But Starmer is now a politician, so it is to the political case that we must turn. He has assembled, together with France's president Emmanuel Macron, incoming German chancellor Friedrich Me...

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

Reform UK's failure to declare who is in control of the companies behind the party raises questions about whether it is following the law, accounting experts have told Byline Times.

Despite claims that Nigel Farage has relinquished control of the party, the structure of Reform UK still concentrates power in a way that may allow its leader to retain significant influence. However, its company filings paint a different picture.

Reform UK Party Ltd, one of the companies behind the political party, lists another firm, Reform 2025 Ltd, as its 'Person of Significant Control' (PSC) - legally required information which all companies must provide to the registrar, Companies House, as to who truly owns the firm.

EXCLUSIVE

Nigel Farage's Reform UK Funded by Tax Haven Linked Firms as Party Seeks Tax Exile Donors

The party is seeking overseas funding from those who are "unhappy with the amount of regulation and tax in the UK"

Olly Haynes

In turn, Reform 2025 Ltd claims in its filings that it does not have a person of significant control.

Reform UK is unique among political parties in that it is established both as a limited company and as a registered party

According to Companies House, PSCs are those who hold more than 25% of shares in the company, more than 25% of voting rights in the company, or the right to appoint or remove the majority of the board of directors.

Reform 2025 Ltd, the main vehicle for the party, is a company limited by guarantee. Typically, that means control is held by the guarantors, who effectively own the majority of the party. Those two are the leader, Farage, and treasurer Zia Yusuf. They are also the sole directors of Reform 2025 Ltd.

Nigel Farage's Reform UK is Now Britain's Biggest Far-Right Threat, Finds Report

The 'State of Hate' report comes in the wake of last summer's racist riots and growing waves of extremist sentiment stirred up by public figures like Elon Musk

Max Colbert

According to the BBC, under the party's new constitution (where he was supposedly handing over control of the party), Farage still maintains the ability to appoint the majority of Reform's executive committee.

Companies House will not comment on individual cases so refused to comment, but the regulator's rules are clear.

So is Reform hiding who truly controls it?

It has also emerged that Reform UK's predecessor party, the Brexit Party - led by Richard Tice MP - was subject to a "compulsory strike-off" by Companies House in 2022. This means the company was removed from the register due to non-compliance, failing to file accounts or to respond to communications from Companies House.

The consequences of so-called "strike-off" include the potential for the directors (Tice included) to be disqualified for up to 15 years, and to be held liable for any debts, which may affect future business dealings, including access to credit.

'I Asked Nigel Farage's Supporters What They Really Want and the Answers Were Alarming'

My time spent mingling with Reform supporters online revealed a lot about where the UK could be heading next, argues David Goff

David Goff

Tice is not a director of Reform UK's companies. It is not clear whether he has faced any sanction, but could the black mark against his name have played a role?

Accounting expert Dan Neidle told Byline Times that Reform UK is effectively made up of a chain of UK companies.

"On the face of the company's incorporation documents, Farage and Yusuf are the PSCs. It's not clear to me why they're not listed as such."

On Tice being a director when the Brexit Party was subject to compulsory strike off, Neidle added: "It's very common for 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

When a court sentences a pregnant woman to prison, they sentence her to a high-risk pregnancy - and her baby to a high-risk birth.

It has taken four years from this acknowledgement by the prison ombudsman to result in any change. But following an open letter demanding reform - signed by the Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and British Association of Perinatal Medicine - new sentencing guidelines from March now mean judges will have a duty to take reproductive realities into account.

Had this been put in place immediately, babies Aisha and Brooke may have survived their births. Their mothers' cries for help were ignored and they were left to endure labour alone in a prison cell. Brooke was breech during birth, causing her mother hours of agony. Aisha's mother had to bite through her umbilical cord.

Yet for the campaign group behind the new sentencing guidelines, the changes do not go far enough.

Pregnancy in prison may strike readers as a niche topic, but there are hundreds of pregnant women in UK cells, a third of them yet to be convicted of a crime. 50 babies are born in prison in a year, and babies born to women in prison are seven times more likely to die in childbirth than the norm.

Among those mothers is 'Anna', who shared her harrowing story on Media Storm this week under a pseudonym. Her trial, which came months after her imprisonment on remand, included no mention of her six-month baby bump; she was given the same food as everyone else while in prison ("crisps and sausage rolls"), and even her labour couldn't grab the justice system's attention.

I told them I think I might be starting labour. That was ignored. They said somebody would be with me soon. They weren't. Between the hours of 5:30 and 7:30am, the cell bell was pressed four times

Anna, who gave birth in prison

Anna was eventually forced to give birth while handcuffed to a prison officer who told her "to be grateful she was putting me in long-cuffs and not short-cuffs". Last month, Channel 4 reported on women at HMP Bronzefield being unlawfully handcuffed to male officers for up to 48 hours while giving birth.

Anna went on to co-found gender justice group Level Up's 'No Births Behind Bars' campaign, fighting for this month's sentencing changes, because "when you are sentencing these women, you're just adding to a cycle of trauma and putting these children in unnecessary, unsafe environments."

While the media may be aware of these statistics and stories, all many journalists want to know when they speak to Anna is her crime.

'The Media is Misreporting Why People Aren't Having Children'

These are the real reasons birthrates are falling, argue Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia

Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia

Anna generally does not tell them, because, she thinks, "it's not the point". Would Aisha and Brooke have deserved to die any more or less depending on the severity of their mother's crime?

"It's a difficult line to take," admitted Janey Starling, media strategist, and co-director of Level Up. "But ultimately, if we say that prison is high risk for some women and not others, we undermine our own argument."

Level Up therefore fights categorically for no births behind bars. This shifts their campaign from being quite an attractive cause for the media to get behind (replete with cute pics of baby birthday party protests outside parliament), to one many will not touch with a bargepole.

When Anna argues against disclosing her crime to a reporter, she has seen them turn against her. She felt "blindsided" after a radio interview in which she told the journ...

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

While all the talk coming from Washington and Moscow is of ceasefires and peace, here in Kyiv it sounds like anything but.

The White House and the Kremlin made a big deal this week about an agreement over a supposed partial truce of strikes against energy infrastructure, framed as a positive step towards ending the war in Ukraine.

In reality, nothing has changed. Russia continues to launch hundreds of kamikaze drones against Ukrainian cities every night, and in Kyiv, the sounds of the air raid sirens followed by the explosions of air defences blasting them out of the sky is now just part of the evening routine.

In the 72 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to the partial truce, at least thirteen civilians were killed across the country, and 83 others were injured.

Overnight Kyiv was hit by a massive Russian drone attack. What started off as the distant sounds of air defences just after midnight soon turned into the buzzing of kamikaze drones flying overhead and multiple explosions.

So far it's known that at least three people were killed in the capital - including a five-year-old girl and her father.

'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

The Politics

Despite this, this last week has felt weirdly calmer than previous weeks as the explosions in the sky haven't been accompanied by diplomatic explosions in the White House.

After the now infamous Oval Office showdown between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky, the two leaders appear to be on much better terms after a phone call this week.

In a post on Truth Social notably lacking in BLOCK CAPITALS, Trump said the call was "very good." "Much of the discussion was based on the call made yesterday with President Putin in order to align both Russia and Ukraine in terms of their requests and needs", he added.

But this comment contains what is almost certainly to be the biggest upcoming challenge for Trump - aligning Ukraine and Russia.

In order to advance peace talks, Russia is demanding a complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence to Ukraine, as well as the cessation of mobilization and rearmament of its military. No one in Ukraine believes this is anything other than an attempt to cripple Ukraine's armed forces while the Kremlin gathers strength for another concerted mass attack.

"All our experience of dealing with Putin testifies that Putin will never keep his word - he is a pathological liar and provocateur," one Ukrainian MP told me. The crucial question is - will Trump fall for it?

We may get our answer this week as both Ukrainian and Russian delegations are scheduled to meet US officials for the next round of talks in Saudi Arabia.

Clouds Darken Over Ukraine: But Is There a Sliver of a Silver Lining?

In his regular dispatch from Kyiv, Chris York explains how US actions feel like a complete betrayal in the interests of Putin

Chris York

The Battlefield

Two weeks ago Ukrainian forces were fending off a concerted counterattack by Russian and North Korean troops.

Unfortunately, the situation has only worsened dramatically and Ukraine has had to retreat from the town of Sudzha. As previously mentioned, the decision by Trump to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine - since reinstated - appears to have been a major factor in the deteriorating situation.

This doesn't bode well for Ukraine's position in any negotiations with Russia over a peace deal - the Russian territory held by Kyiv would be a massi...

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

This week, Kemi Badenoch torched her own party's prior stance on climate action, with an attention-grabbing speech claiming that hitting net zero by 2050 is "impossible" without bankrupting the country and driving down living standards.

Here are just a few of the ways in which she is completely wrong.

Firstly, it's not impossible to hit net zero by 2050 - we're well on our way. Just last week, the Government's independent climate advisers published its latest report on the upcoming seventh Carbon Budget which offers a detailed, feasible and deliverable pathway to net zero. We have a plan, it's an orderly transition to a clean economy, and we should stick to it.

Kemi Badenoch Ditches Net Zero Target After Taking Donations From Funders of Tufton Street Climate Denial Group

The Conservative leader and her Shadow Net Zero Secretary took funding from key backers of lobby groups campaigning to curb action against climate change

Adam Bienkov

When it comes to bankrupting the country, the OBR has made it clear that delays to this deadline could double the costs, not least because you'll be dealing with all the wider impacts of a hotter world with all the extreme weather events that brings.

On the contrary to bankrupting us, it's the green economy that's driving a disproportionate amount of economic growth at the moment.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) recently found that the net zero economy in Britain is growing three times as fast as the economy as a whole, and it grew by 10% in 2024 alone. That dwarfs the paltry growth we've been seeing in the whole economy for years on end.

What about the real economics of actual households? Well, if we stay stuck on fossil fuels, we'll keep pushing more and more families into fuel poverty because it's not homegrown renewables which are sending energy bills sky high - it's the cost of gas. We saw that during the energy crisis which followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The generation costs of renewables are a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels, so they'll be bringing down bills for households across the UK.

Going through her words line by line and pointing out the distortions, inaccuracies and outright lies is so easy that it's almost a bore.

How a Police Crackdown on Climate Protests Made Me Join the Frontline for the First Time

"For me, the act of civil disobedience was a stand against the increasing erosion of a fundamental pillar of democracy - our right to protest"

Stuart Spray

The more puzzling question is why she's bothering to do this at all, given that Badenoch is completely out of step with public opinion on this. Of all the things she has gotten wrong, her political instincts have missed the mark by the biggest margin.

All the available evidence and polling shows that the British public is really supportive of climate action and supports Governments in going further and faster. So if she's trying to piece back together a voting coalition which charts a path back to power, she's picked a really odd issue to pick a fight on, because there's really no chance of turning the British public against climate and nature.

It's not just that we care about it, it's hard-headed economics and pragmatism in an increasingly unstable world. Rolling out homegrown renewables, insulating homes, investing in the new economy, all of this will cut the cost of living, create jobs, strengthen our energy security, and build a better Britain. That's why people support it, and Badenoch is wandering off into the wilderness if she carries on banging the drum for such fringe and unpopular positions.

Plenty of Conservatives have their head...