4 min read12 min

These are the steepest aid cuts of any G7 country – deeper even than those passed under Donald Trump – and they are being implemented by a Labour government elected on a commitment to increase aid spending and tackle the global debt crisis. The consequences will be profound: for millions of people living in poverty, for the stability and security of our world, and for Britain’s own reputation.

The idea that the UK can turn inward, neglecting global challenges in order to fix problems at home, is a dangerous illusion. Whether we like it or not, we live in an interconnected world. Conflict shocks, climate‑driven disasters and global market instability do not stop at national borders. They push up prices in British supermarkets, raise borrowing costs for the UK government, and make life harder for households already struggling to get by. None of us benefit from living in a less safe, less stable world.

Yet today’s allocation announcements reveal cuts to the very tools designed to build global stability. Redirecting resources from development towards defence is not only morally indefensible – it is strategically self‑defeating. Military leaders themselves have long warned that the less we invest in preventing crises, the more they will ultimately cost – both financially and in terms of lives lost.

The human cost of these decisions is staggering. Independent analysis shows that as a result of the cuts, 2.9 million fewer children will go to school, twelve million more people will lose access to clean water and sanitation, and over 600,000 additional people will die from preventable diseases. These are not abstract figures. They represent children pulled out of classrooms, parents unable to provide safe water for their families, and communities plunged deeper into crisis.

Britain’s reputation – already strained by months of uncertainty about the UK’s direction – is now further damaged by our role in the global debt crisis. While cutting aid to some of the world’s poorest countries, the UK continues to host the legal infrastructure that allows predatory private lenders to sue those same debt‑distressed nations in our courts. The government could change this tomorrow at zero cost to the Treasury. It is choosing not to.

This contradiction is especially glaring as the UK prepares to take on the G20 Presidency later this year. Leadership on the world stage requires credibility. Yet at the very moment global poverty, debt distress and climate-linked disasters are escalating, Britain arrives at the table with an aid budget in tatters and no coherent offer to countries seeking urgent relief from unsustainable debt payments.

The picture on climate is equally troubling. Despite claiming climate is a priority, the government appears to have reduced funding for the next round of International Climate Finance to just £6 billion. Cutting climate support now – when extreme weather is accelerating hunger, driving mass displacement, and threatening hundreds of millions of lives – is short‑sighted in the extreme. It will cost vastly more in the long term and leave the UK more exposed to the global shocks that follow.

The government is right to prioritise fragile and conflict‑affected states, including Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and Lebanon. But even these areas will face real‑terms reductions, while thousands of other programmes will be terminated altogether. Bilateral aid – the support that goes directly to individual countries – is likely to be the biggest casualty. This is not the Britain that Labour members, activists or the international community expect. Labour has a proud legacy of global leadership, from founding the Department for International Development to driving international action on debt relief and poverty reduction.

If ever there were a moment to fix the broken systems that hold so many countries back – from exploitative debt markets to escalating climate damage – that moment is now. This government can still choose a different path: one rooted in internationalism, justice, and the understanding that the future of the UK is inseparable from the world around us.

Maria Finnerty is a member of the Executive Committee, Labour Campaign for International Development

British Newspaper, the New World, has published a consequential exposé into GB News, which raises important questions about the hijacking of British media by the political right.

GB News has not only welcomed a multitude of right-wing MPs but has actively endorsed their position. This comes despite widespread complaints of unfair public influence. In other words, GB News has become the media arm of Reform UK—its political mouthpiece.

Political bias has long been a football kicked about from pillar to post between the left and right, due to its inevitable potential to manipulate public perception. And Ofcom’s continued silence surrounding the channel’s indiscretions suggest that far-right political bias is a newly accepted norm for the regulator. This raises urgent questions about the nefarious influence Reform UK exercises in British society. In the political sphere more specifically, this is deeply concerning—especially at a time when alternative and indie media are increasingly silenced.

The investigation also underscores the sway billionaires have and their ability to ‘stack the deck’ by funnelling millions into broadcast media to lead the public astray.

A massively consequential investigation by Alan Rusbridger into GB News: how “one political party in Britain has effectively ended up with its own television station”. Raises deep questions about hi-jacking of British media/political culture: https://t.co/OmiMsKzFLE

— Peter Oborne (@OborneTweets) March 18, 2026

Ofcom lets the far-right get away with it

The Farage-backed outlet has been the subject of numerous scandals during its comparatively short tenure. The MP-fronted, billionaire-funded channel first aired in June 2021. This made it the first start-up in television news since Sky News in 1989. From the onset, it displayed a clear bias with many critics and viewers complaining that its coverage violates the laws of due impartiality in UK broadcasting. 

As usual, the super-rich are focused on their own interests and lack any consideration for regulatory guardrails, driving, in as the investigation reports:

a coach and horses through the laws that were put in place to define broadcasting in the UK.

The investigation, headed by Alan Rusbridger, commissioned 20 journalists to sit through hours of GB News coverage to assess its impact on our news ecosystem.

Given their huge influence in shaping public understanding, TV news channels are required to provide accurate, impartial coverage that includes all relevant viewpoints in order to receive a licence.

Of course, that cannot be squared with GB News and its hateful, venom-spitting presenters who double up as Reform MPs.

Magnificent article & investigation by Alan Rusbridger on how the utterly useless Ofcom allowed one of its regulated TV channels, GBNews, to be taken over by a political party. https://t.co/qtVUZXgFRX

— Michael Crick (@MichaelLCrick) March 18, 2026

The investigation found that:

GB News routinely – you might almost say systematically – disregards these requirements. Asked to score the programmes on a scale of 0-5 (0 being not at all compliant with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code and 5 being wholly compliant), the overall score from our reviewers was just 1.5. Each reviewer came up with detailed reasoning.

Ofcom’s log of complaints, by contrast, shows a tiny trickle of concern. Of the 15 programmes we reviewed, nine had triggered no complaints, two sparked two complaints, while a kid-glove interview with Donald Trump led to 32. Two more programmes are “under assessment”.

Reform UK: Out of touch with the public at large

Surprisingly, the investigating team found that the channel rarely receives complaints. This suggests that its outreach is limited to an overwhelmingly right-wing audience. They cite a poll conducted by the Reform UK candidate for the Gorton and Denton, and a GB News presenter, Matt Goodwin, in which he asked the public whether they agreed with Trump’s ‘unrecognisable Europe’ speech. An astounding 97% gave a positive response. This highlights the growing gulf between GB News, including their viewership, and the rest of British society.

I have an aging colleague who suddenly out of nowhere started making random racist, ignorant, pro-russia, and unscientific comments.
It baffled us all until we realised that she was just repeating GB News on a 24 hour delay. https://t.co/XrPHEojHhI

— tern (@1goodtern) March 18, 2026

According to a YouGov poll conducted in January, only 16% of Britons think favourably of Trump. In contrast, a whopping 81% have unfavourable opinions of the orange, ego-driven buffoon. Clearly GB News‘ business model is to appeal to that 16%. This reinforces the justifications for strict regulatory control over undue media influence.

Nevertheless, it appears Ofcom couldn’t give a damn about GB News’ rule breaking. Rule-breaking which is pretty obvious, according to the findings of the investigation:

The New World assembled a team of 20 journalists to assess 15 hours of prime-time GB News shows from January, as well as the Trump interview, which led to 65,000 people signing a petition for Ofcom to censure.

Each programme was assessed by two different reviewers. They found numerous glaring breaches of impartiality; a widespread disregard for accuracy; a predominant framing of news in ways that overlap with Reform’s political agenda; a systemic use of Reform politicians, candidates and supporters; and an overwhelmingly right wing bias in choice of guests and issues.

GB News should be made to have a warning on the screen that their programmes contain outdated cultural descriptions that non-racist viewers are likely to find offensive. https://t.co/gEE0qHSRl5

— Mark Cockerton (@CockertonMark) March 18, 2026

Before allegations of ‘witch hunts’ fly in, the transparency and balance of the investigation offers a sound defence against potential acts from the usual suspects. It’s important to note that the journalists involved represent a broad spectrum of newspapers and broadcasters. From the right-wing Spectator to the liberal Guardian, Daily Mail, and BBC News, each agreed with the findings of the investigation.

Integrity in the mainstream media does exist—could’ve fooled us!

“Farage propaganda dressed up as a panel show”

In regard to the views of journalists involved, the investigation stated:

One wrote of Nigel Farage’s evening show: “This programme is Farage propaganda dressed up as a panel show.” Another wrote of a programme presented by Reform politician Matt Goodwin: “Absolutely did not comply. It was one man’s rant against immigration, supported by compliant and affirmative opinions and a pretence of an opposing view that was shut down rapidly. It was a disgrace.”

Farage, it hardly needs emphasising, is the leader of a political party that is currently leading in the opinion polls, with some political experts speculating that Reform could even form, or be part of, the next government. It is unprecedented for a political leader to be given their own news and current affairs programme on British television.

GB News lives by its own rules and Ofcom is perfectly willing to throw the rule book out of the window for this billionaire-interested political party. It would even seem that the supposed regulator believes the hateful views espoused by the channel to be ‘accurate.’

This calls the regulator’s impartiality into question, since biased rule-makers cannot provide un-biased remedies. A functioning democracy does not silence political views. It should make space for diverse perspectives to shape better decisions.

Therefore, this investigation brings to the forefront an urgent question; is Ofcom a smokescreen to create the image of neutrality?

If so, this imbalance actively hurts our democracy and fails to inform the public fairly and transparently. We need a new one, clearly.

Read the full investigation here.

Featured image via the New World

Thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from Benefits and Work, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has released its latest Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessor training guide for neurodiverse claimants. Or at least, they’ve released around a quarter of it, anyway.

Ostensibly, the guide is intended to give ‘health professionals’ knowledge and understanding of Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia and Tourette’s Syndrome.

However, we don’t exactly know what the guide is really doing, because the DWP have chosen to redact huge swathes of it.

DWP indulge in huge redactions

The entire first section, a 17-page clinical overview, is blacked out. This would be a description of the particulars of each condition, and how they relate to workplace performance. The DWP claimed that the section is intended for future publication – as such, it’s exempt from FOI requests.

As Benefits and Work reported:

In their covering letter, the DWP say that they have now taken over producing training and guidance materials for health assessors and that “all training and guidance materials are currently undergoing a comprehensive review and update” using independent clinical experts to ensure they are accurate.

The department says it will publish the materials in the public domain once they have all been reviewed. They claim that “Releasing the current versions now would risk confusion and undermine the department’s efforts to provide clear, accurate and authoritative guidance.”

Of course, the department offered no explanation of why publishing the current guidance would actually cause confusion. Likewise, it also failed to offer any clue as to when it would actually publish the information (if it intends to do so at all).

Its claims of ‘future publication’ are also undone by the date on the redacted document, which states that it’s been in use since November 2025.

Hiding again

Of the second 15-page section, entitled ‘PIP’, only the first two pages are visible. Here, the DWP has changed tactics, claiming that its redactions are valid under a law-enforcement exemption. The would normally relate to withholding information which would interfere with the prevention or detection of a crime.

The DWP stated that:

providing detailed information for certain health conditions would allow a member of the public to use this information to make a claim to benefit to which they would not otherwise be entitled to.

And, as with Section 1’s redactions, we can tell that this is a complete and utter fabrication, too. As Benefits and Work rightly pointed out:

We know that according to the DWP’s own statistics, fraud in PIP is currently assessed to stand at 0.4%. For universal credit, the figure is 8%, twenty times higher.

Fraud in relation to ASD and ADHD is likely to be even lower, as these are conditions which cannot be diagnosed by a GP. If you planned to commit PIP fraud, these are not the first conditions you would be likely to choose.

Advertisement

And, of course, there’s the fact that the DWP has also redacted other guides on similarly spurious ground. Take, for example, their censoring of the in-house document on kidney failure – surely a condition that’s otherwise wide-open to benefit fraudsters.

Intentionally left blank

Finally, the department saved time with the third section – apparently on the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) – which announces only that:

This section has been intentionally left blank.

So that saves us some time, at least.

In reality, the DWP isn’t keeping this information back to prevent fraud or public confusion. Rather, it’s allowing itself room to deny claims on whatever flimsy reasoning it chooses, without transparency or accountability.

They know what releasing a blanked-out document makes them look like – they just reckon they can get away with it under the aegis of Labour’s minister for disabled people, Stephen Timms, and work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden.

These aren’t sensitive state secrets.

There are no active agents in the field to protect in the warzone of PIP assessments.

The DWP sure isn’t protecting the names and identities of its victims.

It’s a guide to neurodiversity in the workplace.

The fucking Epstein files were less heavily redacted.

This is simply what accountability looks like for disabled people under Starmer’s Labour.

As a final note, Benefits and Work included the following request:

The refusal to release training documents for these conditions is also likely to extend to every other condition the DWP produce guidance for – though if readers choose to make FoI requests for their own conditions to [email protected], we’d be very interested to hear the results.

Feel free to drop them a line.

Featured image via the Canary

MSPs have recently voted on the controversial assisted dying bill, subsequently rejecting the bill. After an intense and emotional debate, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults bill was defeated in Scotland by 69 votes to 57.

Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur tabled the proposal which would have allowed medical help for terminally-ill, mentally competent adults to end their lives.

To attempt to win the vote, several amendments were made by McArthur. Even so, his efforts failed at the bills third reading.

Scottish Parliament votes against legalising assisted dying in Scotland by 69 votes to 57 https://t.co/L7dxQ28qFy

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Assisted dying coercion: too big a risk for Scotland MSPs

The debate was unsurprisingly emotionally intense, with many passionately speaking to their reasoning behind their support, or lack thereof, for the proposed bill. Supporters emphasised the relief it could provide to terminally ill Scots and their families, while critics raised significant concerns about the risk of misuse or coercion.

Amidst heated debate, some maintained that the focus should be on improving palliative care, ensuring that choosing to live is easier than choosing to die. Others argued that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and that we can both strengthen palliative care whilst supporting those who wish to have control over their deaths.

On X, MSP Dr Pam Gosal gave her reasoning behind her voting against assisted dying:

After much thought and consideration, I have decided to vote ‘No’ on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

Firstly, there is a real fear that vulnerable people, including women who have suffered domestic abuse, could be coerced into taking their own… pic.twitter.com/IYvSbyt9Nt

Advertisement

— Dr Pam Gosal MBE MSP (@DrPamGosal) March 13, 2026

MSPs stood firm insisting that the risk for coercion is too great as it would potentially lead to the deaths of vulnerable people, particularly disabled Scots or women living under domestic abuse.

Disabled MSP Jeremy Balfour voted against and pleaded with his fellow colleagues to do likewise:

Jeremy Balfour tells MSPs that disabled people are “frightened” by the assisted dying Bill. “Colleagues, friends, I am begging you to consider what the consequences of passing this bill will be for the most vulnerable in our communities,” he says. pic.twitter.com/r3Ozc3xurH

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Poorly run state could incentivise people to end their lives

Likewise, SNP’s Ruth Maguire voted against the bill, speaking about how this might have shown up in her life. Maguire was diagnosed with stage 3 cervical cancer in 2021:

It’s not a free choice if you do not have access to good palliative care.

Adding:

My blood runs cold thinking about sitting in a room in hospital and having a doctor raise [assisted dying] with me as we weigh up treatment options.

Recent polling indicates that a majority in Scotland share MSPs’ concerns about the effects of underfunded state services. Inadequate palliative care, NHS provision, or social care could indirectly pressure disabled and vulnerable people toward seeking assistance to end their lives.

Slater: “We should all have the right to choose”

On the other hand, strong arguments were also given in support of the bill. This highlights how there is a need for a serious conversation about how we help those who are suffering with terminal illnesses whilst not risking the safety of those who might face undue influence.

Former Green co-leader Lorna Slater spoke of her father’s assisted death in Canada, fighting back tears she recounted her heartbreaking farewell to her father as “beautiful”. She stated:

We should all have the right to choose.

“It was beautiful. I wish that death for myself. I wish it for anyone who wants it for themselves.” Lorna Slater tells MSPs about her father’s assisted death in Canada. pic.twitter.com/Vz9UJ3rPUB

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) March 17, 2026

The SNP’s George Adam referred to his wife watching in the public gallery, who has Multiple Sclerosis (MS), saying:

If the worst should ever come to her, if she was ever facing that unbearable suffering at the end of life, she would want a choice.

Conservative MSP and NHS GP Sandesh Gulhane quoted a patient who insisted:

You wouldn’t let a dog die like this.

Unperturbed, McArthur is continuing with trying to pass the bill:

“This is coming back.” Speaking to journalists in Holyrood after the defeat of his assisted dying bill, Liam McArthur says the public overwhelmingly want a change in the law. pic.twitter.com/aZnj4JL351

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) March 17, 2026

Autonomy for all

This issue has generated deeply emotional debate on both sides, each advancing legitimate arguments over the substance of the bill. In essence, the issue of autonomy is at the core of this crucial and necessary conversation.

One side feels they have no control over how they live their final months. The other fears losing that control – and even their lives – against their wishes.

Both deserve autonomy, yet the debate sets them against one another.

The establishment has taken so much away from vulnerable people across the country, they rightly fear how that establishment might coerce them into their own demise. All the while, society has long ignored the suffering of terminally ill people. And, a hostility to disabled people is baked into our culture. It is little wonder, then, that the assisted dying debate is so emotional.

A solution must be found that prioritises autonomy for both groups. Not leave a suffering group with no autonomy, for fear another group might lose theirs. Compassion and dignity need not be a zero-sum equation.

Featured image via the Canary

The Farage Effect has finally hit a brick wall and it’s fucking beautiful. Yes, that same Nigel Farage who once branded himself as the voice of the “silent majority” in the UK. Well, new data suggests that the majority isn’t silent, it’s fucking disgusted.

Recent polling confirms that Reform UK is the most disliked political party in Scotland. Farage, despite being an establishment stooge has decided to pick a fight with the very people who count the votes.

Farage attacks the messenger

The Reform UK leader is launching desperate new attacks on the pollster YouGov. The Reform leader has accused the company of trying to “suppress the true figures” in regards to the party’s popularity.

Reform are strong in all of the polls except @YouGov.

They are using bizarre adjustments to suppress the true figures.

Advertisement

No wonder their share price has fallen by over 80 percent in recent years! pic.twitter.com/ooEqsiIRBH

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) March 11, 2026

In a direct challenge to YouGov’s methodology, Farage alleged that “bizarre adjustments” were being used to downplay his success. Writing to the polling company he claims that its results regarding Reform UK were five points below that of other firms.

This is a classic move from his old playbook. Farage has a long history of screaming fraud whenever numbers do not seem to fit his narrative. By attacking the methodology, he tries to drum up paranoia within his fan base, convincing them they are being silenced by the very establishment he serves.

The fascist market is stalling

The maths doesn’t lie though. The UK isn’t just ignoring him, it is actively pulling away from his toxic politics. Polling expert John Curtice notes that Farage’s support seems to be stalling.

Curtice warned that the party remains a niche market and is failing to win over soft voters needed for sustainable growth. He observed that:

“=The Farage effect appears to have run its course.

And let’s be honest, there’s only so long a party can continue to blame immigrants for everything whilst simultaneously covering the arses of big businesses without people beginning to get bored with them. You can’t break away from your core demographic if all you’re going to do is offer hatred instead of solid solutions to real problems.

This is a dangerous comment.

Polls should be independent and reflect reality, not what you think reality should be.

Advertisement

To pressure a company to report you as higher than they think you are is thuggish and authoritarian.

Politics should be better than underhand games. https://t.co/Rejpi6ZlS3

— James MacCleary MP (@JamesMacCleary) March 11, 2026

The “most disliked” label is an electoral death sentence, one that was echoed with the result in Gorton & Denton. Reform UK is now the most disliked party in the UK, with a staggering 61% of the public now viewing them unfavourably in Scotland.

“Silent majority” my arse.

A wall of dislike

The numbers aren’t looking good for Farage. More people dislike the Reform party than any other major party in the North. Its unfavorability rating is a significant barrier to any future expansion. And it’s fucking beautiful.

High dislike levels tend to trigger massive tactical voting. And in this case it could indicate people are going to unite specifically to keep Reform UK out of power. This tactical squeeze is exactly what Curtice warned would happen. The facts are simple. Over 60% of people in Scotland cannot fucking stand the party. On top of this, roughly 58% of voters would support a candidate they don’t even like, just to stop Reform UK from gaining power.

Those aren’t good numbers. But they’re hilarious.

Is this the end of the road?

Farage thrives on being a hyperbolic arsehole, he loves being insurgent. However, no one can lead a fascist revolution when the majority of an entire chunk of voters want to keep them out of the room. Whilst Farage screams about bias, the reality is that his brand has become a toxic repellent to anyone with a lick of common sense.

By leaning into extremist rhetoric, he has ensured that Reform UK remains a political pariah. Voters aren’t just choosing other parties, they are actively choosing anyone else to stop Reform UK.

Farage’s own shitty rhetoric has created a ceiling that he cannot smash. Whilst his core fandom remains loud, he has now become absolutely repellent to the rest of the electorate. The numbers suggest that his silent army is rapidly running out of recruits and it is delicious.

The more he screams about “bizarre adjustments”, the more he sounds like a desperate man who knows the game is up. If he can’t break through this wall of dislike, Reform UK will remain a loud, angry fringe.

Thank fuck.

Featured image via the Canary

Lisa Nandy announced the move to a permanent charter on Tuesday (Alamy)

3 min read40 min

On Tuesday night, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, announced that the BBC charter would be put on a permanent footing for the first time.

The cabinet minister said that “while the terms, the structures and the funding for the BBC will continue to be negotiated”, the move would end the “bizarre situation where if the charter isn’t agreed in time, the BBC ceases to exist”.

Under the current setup, the BBC charter is renewed every 10 years. Senior BBC figures, including the outgoing director general, Tim Davie, had been pushing for a permanent arrangement, arguing that it would protect the corporation’s long-term stability.

“We will act to future-proof this vital institution in these stormy times when public debate feels more toxic and polarised than ever, and too often the BBC becomes a lightning rod for the ongoing, exhausting culture wars,” Nandy told a Society of Editors conference in London.

A Survation poll, conducted before the announcement for campaign organisation 38 Degrees and shared with PoliticsHome, found that 44 per cent of respondents supported a permanent charter. In contrast, 13 per cent said they wanted the BBC’s future to be debated every decade. 

A majority of people who voted Labour (54 per cent), Conservative (50 per cent), and Green (50 per cent) at the 2024 general election backed a permanent charter for the BBC, while nearly half of Lib Dem voters (49 per cent) did so. 

The least supportive voter 2024 group was those who backed Reform UK at the last election, with 36 per cent supporting the move and 21 per cent opposing it.

There was also support across the age groups, with a majority of 25-34-year-olds (52 per cent) and 65-plus (50 per cent) telling Survation they supported a permanent BBC charter. 

The BBC’s role and funding have become a growing talking point in recent years, with Nigel Farage’s Reform vowing to end the licence fee if elected.

Controversies such as the corporation’s coverage of Bob Vylan’s 2025 Glastonbury set, when the act chanted “death, death to the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]”, have also led to enhanced political pressure from critics. 

However, the government has sought to defend the BBC, with Nandy this week describing it as “one of the two most important institutions in our country”, the other being the NHS.

Nandy insisted, however, that the move to a permanent charter would not lead to a reduction in accountability for the BBC, saying that the Labour government intended “to strengthen the accountability of the leadership of the BBC – not to politicians – but to the people it serves in every nation and region”.

Matthew McGregor, CEO at 38 Degrees, said the 10-year charter renewal system had been “a cloud of uncertainty hanging over one of our most valued national institutions”.

“Voters have no appetite to see our national broadcaster’s very existence under threat every 10 years. In announcing a permanent royal charter for the BBC, the government has made a popular, common-sense decision that is in line with public opinion,” he told PoliticsHome.

Damian Lyons Lowe, founder and chief executive at Survation, said: “The polling points to a clear, broad-based tilt towards greater long-term certainty for the BBC.

“Although many take a neutral view, the balance of opinion suggests the public is more comfortable with a settled arrangement than with periodically reopening the question of the BBC’s future.”

The poll surveyed 2,077 UK adults online between 13 and 16 March. 

Dr Martin Parsons is the author of a book on Conservativism and is a former overseas aid worker in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There’s a definite irony in the fact the government have finally announced its official definition of Islamophobia, or as they now term it, ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ when UK armed forces are engaged in defence against hostile actions from Iran.

I say that, because if you want to understand why there has been such a longstanding campaign for an official definition of Islamophobia, you need to go back to the Islamic revolution in Iran. The creation of the world’s first modern Islamist state in 1979 inspired Islamists around the world to emulate it in their own countries.

However, the first country to actually do so, was Pakistan, then a military dictatorship led by General Zia ul-Haq. Zia wasn’t actually an Islamist, but he saw the political advantage of shoring up his position by appealing to those inspired by events in Iran.

In 1982 he amended Pakistan’s Penal Code by introducing a law against desecrating the Qur’an. Then in 1986, a far more wide-ranging clause was added criminalising even implied or indirect criticism of Muhammad, effectively meaning that any criticism of Islam itself was potentially punishable by death. In fact, if you wanted a definition of Anti-Islamic ‘hostility’ s.295C of Pakistan’s Penal Code is pretty all embracing

“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death.”

Pakistan already had incitement to religious hatred laws since British rule, but for the first time it now introduced laws which applied solely to Islam.

The demand for an Islamic blasphemy law quickly spread to the UK where a significant part of the Muslim community had family ties with Pakistan. However, it only really gained traction three years later with the Rushdie affair in 1989.

Most British Muslim organisations had wisely decided to quietly ignore Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses so as not to give it the oxygen of publicity. However, the Islamic Foundation, which was heavily influenced by the work of Mawdudi, the founding father of modern Islamism in the Indian subcontinent, saw it as an opportunity to galvanise support. Its high-profile campaign for the book to be banned was linked to calls for an Islamic blasphemy law. If there was one key point in the radicalisation of a significant minority of British Muslims, it was this.

Then in 1997, while the Rushdie affair was still sore in the minds of many British Muslims, the Runneymede Trust produced a report Islamophobia: a challenge for us all thereby introducing that term to public debate. Whilst widely lauded today that report actually sowed the seeds of later problems by defining Islamophobia as “dread or hatred of Islam and of Muslims” – effectively conflating protecting a belief system with protecting people.

The word ‘Islamophobia’ was then jumped on by Islamists around the world. In 2005 the OIC produced a ten-year strategy whose section on ‘combatting Islamophobia’ made no reference whatsoever to protecting Muslims from hate. Instead, it solely referred to protecting the religion of Islam from “defamation” and called for deterrent punishments to be introduced to counter it in western countries. Effectively, it was calling for an Islamic blasphemy law to be created across the west, under the guise of tackling ‘Islamophobia’.

At the same time, Tony Blair’s 2003 decision to go to war in Iraq proved the catalyst to actually achieve this as Labour’s previously rock-solid hold on the Muslim vote began to haemorrhage significantly to the Lib-Dems who opposed the war. Blair responded with a pledge in Labour’s 2005 manifesto to introduce a law against incitement to religious hatred. This was understood by many Muslim organisations as being the Islamic blasphemy law they had been campaigning for since the Rushdie affair sixteen years earlier.

However, the legislation largely failed to achieve its aim when the government lost a crucial vote on a Lord’s amendment to only make ‘threatening’ comments about religion illegal, not ‘abusive’ or ‘insulting’ ones. Ironically, Blair himself failed to attend the vote resulting in the government losing by a single vote.

However, the campaign against ‘Islamophobia’ continued largely focused on ‘educating’ the public sector. In doing so, it repeatedly conflated the legitimate aspiration of protecting Muslims as people, with attempts to proscribe any criticism of Islam.

In 2018 an All Party Parliamentary Group produced what it called a working definition of Islamophobia, which defined it as a type of racism that targets “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” It was a definition which seemed innocuous enough until one realised that “expressions of Muslimness” included anything related to the religion of Islam.

The importance of making that distinction was laid bare in a report published only a year later by the Commission for Countering Extremism, which noted that

“One of the biggest successes of mainstream Islamists in Britain is, in fact, the campaign to normalise Islamophobia in public discourse as a concept that blurs the distinction between genuine anti-Muslim bigotry and the legitimate criticism of Islamism, outdated shari’a precepts and the illiberal practices justified by them.”

However, by this time the Labour Party had already committed itself to the APPG Islamophobia definition.

The shock loss of five supposedly safe Labour seats to Gaza independents in the 2024 general election sent shockwaves through the party and heightened demands for the government to formally adopt an official definition of Islamophobia.

But Keir Starmer also faced with a chorus of protest that the APPG definition of Islamophobia risked becoming a backdoor Islamic blasphemy law. He therefore appointed former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve to lead a working group to come up with a better definition. The result now finally published, is a vague definition of ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ that as Sir John Jenkins recently observed in a paper for Policy Exchange is potentially even broader than the APPG definition of Islamophobia.

In the same way that Pakistan’s 1982 and 1986 blasphemy laws broke new ground with laws which solely protected Islam, so this definition provides special protections to Muslims not extended to Christians or other minorities. What Keir Starmer may also not appreciate, is that his actions in pushing this policy to shore up his own political support, do not simply mirror those of Tony Blair after the Iraq war, but also those of General Zia, Pakistan’s military dictator who introduced the country’s Islamic blasphemy laws in the 1980s.

Three months before the general election the Commission for Countering Extremism published another report, which noted that ‘blasphemy extremism’ which has exploded in Pakistan in recent years and particularly targets Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims and other minorities, is now gaining momentum in the UK.

Far from tackling extremism, this official definition of Anti-Muslim hostility may actually fuel it.