For decades since the end of the Second World War, Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States rested on more than shared history and diplomatic rhetoric. Britain provided bases, intelligence, nuclear cooperation, warships, soldiers, and, perhaps most importantly, a government Washington could generally expect to stand beside it during a crisis. But the recent departure of 12 American B-1B Lancer bombers from RAF Fairford following security threats against the base raises an uncomfortable question: Can the United States still rely upon Britain as a serious military ally?

The National Pulse keeps you informed on global affairs. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

The bombers had been deployed to RAF Fairford, the strategically important Royal Air Force base routinely used by the United States for bomber operations in Europe. Following the arrest of several suspects in connection with suspicious activity around the base, and intelligence concerning a potential Iranian-linked drone attack, the entire deployed B-1 force left Britain. President Donald J. Trump subsequently acknowledged that threats played a role in moving the aircraft.

The Fairford Debacle.

Five British men were initially arrested following suspicious activity involving vehicles near the base. They were subsequently released on bail just a day later. A British-Iranian dual national was later arrested and bailed; additional arrests followed.

From Washington’s perspective, the more important question is whether Britain can adequately secure a base housing billions of dollars’ worth of American strategic aircraft against the sort of comparatively cheap drone threat that has transformed modern warfare in places like Ukraine and the Middle East.

Trump himself expressed surprise over the release of suspects, while the B-1s ultimately departed. Whatever conclusions the investigation eventually produces, the sequence of events hardly inspires confidence. Fairford, however, is merely the latest example of a much wider problem.

Chagos and the Limits of the Special Relationship.

Britain’s handling of the Chagos Islands has already raised similar questions over whether Washington can automatically rely upon access to British territory during wartime. Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos Archipelago, is one of America’s most strategically important overseas military facilities. Sitting in the middle of the Indian Ocean, it provides America with a vital staging point for operations stretching from the Middle East to Asia.

London, under former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, pursued a controversial agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which has a close relationship to China, while retaining arrangements intended to preserve the Anglo-American base on Diego Garcia in exchange for substantial cash payments.

The problem became especially visible during the Iran conflict. Britain did not completely prohibit American use of British bases. The British government authorized narrowly defined American operations involving British territory. But the Labour government continued to insist that the use of British bases for combat operations was subject to approval on a case-by-case basis.

The question facing the Trump administration is not simply whether Britain technically remains an ally, but whether American commanders can confidently assume access to strategically vital British facilities during a rapidly developing conflict.

The National Pulse keeps you informed about international developments that affect American security. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Britain’s Vanishing Royal Navy.

Britain is an island nation dependent upon international trade and maritime freedom, making the security of waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz a direct British national interest. However, when tensions escalated in the Gulf, the British government did little to provide any sort of armed response.

Asked in Parliament about deploying forces to Hormuz, the government said it was considering military options while declining to discuss operational planning. The reality is that Britain’s political hesitation coincides with an increasingly severe shortage of available warships. Official Ministry of Defence statistics showed Britain with just 52 Royal Navy surface vessels as of April 2026, following years of contraction and the retirement of additional frigates and amphibious ships, down from 1,176 navy vessels following the Second World War. The Ministry of Defence maintains that the Navy retains high operational readiness, but it has declined to publish precisely how many warships are immediately available for operations, making it unclear how many ships Britain’s navy could send to a theater like the Strait of Hormuz even if it wanted to.

An Army Struggling with Recruitment.

Britain’s Army is faring no better and has undergone a similar decline. According to House of Commons Library figures, the British Army had approximately 70,759 trade-trained regular personnel in April 2026, below its target strength of 73,000. Across the armed forces, Britain was approximately 8,460 trained personnel below target. The Royal Navy and Royal Marines were around seven percent below target, while the Royal Air Force was roughly 12 percent short.

By contrast, Britain had approximately 186,000 full-time armed forces personnel in 2012. By 2026, that number had fallen to roughly 149,000, a reduction of around 37,000 personnel in little more than a decade. Britain’s Army is now smaller than at any point after 1793, just before the Napoleonic wars, according to some estimates.

Despite this, Britain continues to talk like the global military power it was in prior decades, while maintaining armed forces increasingly lacking the manpower and numerical depth traditionally required of one.

From America’s Closest Ally to Strategic Liability?

Britain remains deeply integrated into American defense and intelligence structures. Five Eyes intelligence cooperation, nuclear collaboration, NATO planning, joint special forces operations, and America’s continued access to British facilities still give Britain a privileged position among America’s allies.

For much of the last century, Britain offered Washington a uniquely useful combination: geography, intelligence, military capability, diplomatic support, and governments prepared to fight alongside America from Korea and the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why the image of America’s B-1 bombers departing RAF Fairford is so striking.

American bombers arrived in Britain because Britain was supposed to provide a secure forward operating location from which the United States could project military power to places such as Iran, something Britain seemingly cannot do itself.

The danger for the special relationship is that Washington may increasingly find itself asking a very different question: not whether Britain remains America’s friend, but whether Britain can be relied on.

To keep independent reporting at The National Pulse alive, we need your support. Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

President Donald J. Trump is tightening the economic noose around Cuba’s communist dictatorship, targeting the fuel supplies keeping the increasingly desperate regime afloat. Last week, U.S. authorities announced the seizure of 90 shipments of biodiesel headed for the island, totaling more than 600,000 gallons and valued at approximately $3 million.

The National Pulse gives you the best analysis of geopolitical trends. If you help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

The shipments, intercepted in Houston and Port Everglades, Florida, were allegedly intended for ENETEC, a sanctioned Cuban state-owned energy company. The operation is the latest escalation in Trump’s campaign to economically isolate the Communist country. It also raises questions as to whether Trump and his administration can topple the communist regime through economic means, rather than sending troops.

Six Decades of Communist Rule.

Cuba has been an issue for the U.S. since 1959, when Fidel Castro overthrew President Fulgencio Batista and subsequently transformed the island into a Soviet-aligned communist state just 90 miles from Florida. Successive American administrations attempted to contain Castro’s revolution, beginning with economic sanctions under Dwight Eisenhower and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy in 1961. The following year, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought Washington and Moscow to the brink of nuclear war after the Soviets deployed nuclear missiles to the island.

Despite decades of American sanctions, Castro survived, largely because the Soviet Union provided an economic lifeline through subsidized petroleum products, financial assistance, and preferential trade agreements.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Cuba saw its economy contract dramatically. Food became scarce, and transportation infrastructure deteriorated. Despite this, the Communist Party survived.

The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 subsequently strengthened American sanctions, tying their removal to democratic reforms. Former President Barack Obama controversially restored diplomatic relations in 2015, but the communist government retained its monopoly on political power.

Trump, by contrast, has embraced economic coercion, betting that the regime’s deteriorating finances and dwindling foreign support will accomplish what previous American presidents could not.

From Soviet Subsidies to Venezuelan Oil.

For decades, Cuba’s socialist economy has depended on foreign benefactors to keep the country’s economy afloat. Following the Soviet collapse, Havana eventually found another patron in Venezuela’s socialist dictator Hugo Chávez, who supplied subsidized petroleum in exchange for Cuban medical personnel and other services. His successor, Nicolás Maduro, maintained the relationship, even as Venezuela’s own economy collapsed.

That arrangement suffered a potentially fatal blow in January 2026, when American forces captured Maduro during a military operation in Caracas. Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba subsequently stopped, depriving Havana of one of its most important sources of energy. Venezuela had supplied approximately 26,500 barrels of oil per day in 2025, covering roughly half of Cuba’s petroleum deficit.

Mexico, another important supplier, has also suspended shipments under American pressure. Russia remains an ally, but its assistance has been insufficient to replace the lost petroleum supplies, while China has shown little interest in rescuing the Cuban regime. Cuba now faces the very real prospect of economic collapse without a reliable foreign patron willing to finance its survival.

Cuba’s Economy Is Running Out of Power.

Cuba’s aging electricity infrastructure, already plagued by decades of underinvestment and poor maintenance, has suffered repeated nationwide failures. The island’s chronic fuel shortages have compounded the problem, leaving entire communities without electricity for extended periods.

In May, Cuban authorities acknowledged that the country had exhausted its diesel and fuel oil reserves. Parts of Havana experienced blackouts lasting 20 to 22 hours daily, provoking demonstrations in which residents demanded the restoration of electricity. Meanwhile, food shortages, collapsing purchasing power, inadequate public transportation, and deteriorating public services have contributed to a huge exodus of Cubans seeking better lives elsewhere.

Cuba’s centrally planned economy has long suffered from low productivity, restrictions on private enterprise, inefficient state monopolies, and chronic shortages of foreign currency. American sanctions are just part of the country’s problems.

However, the Trump administration’s latest restrictions have undoubtedly intensified the crisis, particularly by limiting the fuel needed to operate power stations, factories, and transportation networks. For Trump, this vulnerability presents an opportunity to force concessions from a communist government increasingly unable to meet its population’s basic needs.

Regime Change Without Another American War.

The administration’s strategy appears designed to exploit Cuba’s dependence on imported energy while avoiding the costs and risks of a direct military intervention. Rather than invading the island, Washington is targeting the economic resources sustaining the Communist Party’s control.

Whether economic devastation will translate into political change remains uncertain. Communist governments have historically demonstrated considerable resilience, often shifting the costs of economic crises onto ordinary citizens while preserving the privileges of ruling elites.

The humanitarian consequences also threaten to undermine Washington’s objectives. Prolonged blackouts, food shortages, and unemployment could encourage further migration toward the United States rather than organized opposition capable of replacing the government.

Havana has shown little willingness to surrender. In an October 5 interview, Cuba’s senior diplomat in Washington acknowledged continuing communication with American officials but denied that formal negotiations were underway.

Is the End Finally Near?

For 67 years, Cuba’s communist leadership has survived American sanctions, diplomatic isolation, economic disasters, and the collapse of its most powerful allies.

However, the situation confronting the Communist regime today is different. The Soviet Union is long gone, Maduro is imprisoned in the United States, Venezuelan oil shipments have stopped, and Cuba’s economy is struggling to function amid an unprecedented energy crisis both in Cuba and worldwide.

President Donald J. Trump’s approach to Cuba represents an unusually direct challenge to a communist system that has relied on foreign subsidies for much of its existence. For the first time in decades, Cuba’s rulers may be running out of both money and powerful friends. Deprived of the energy and foreign assistance that have sustained it, Cuba’s regime may be toppled without a shot being fired.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep providing you with top-tier analysis and reports, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Pierre Marshall.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

The Elon Musk-backed Restore Britain party suffered another humiliating electoral defeat last Thursday, securing just 692 votes of 27,211 cast in the Holborn and St Pancras parliamentary by-election. Analysis suggests Rupert Lowe’s insurgent political party is increasingly likely to serve as a spoiler for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, helping only to usher in a far-left alliance of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party.

The National Pulse is solely funded by readers like you. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

The official results show Restore’s candidate, Tyler Johnson, finishing sixth with approximately 2.5 percent of the vote, trailing even the Liberal Democrats and securing fewer than half the votes won by Reform.

Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali won the left-dominated constituency, previously represented by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with 12,292 votes, followed by Green Party leader Zack Polanski on 8,928.

The result represents yet another embarrassment for Lowe’s party, which has benefited from considerable social media attention, particularly from billionaire X owner Elon Musk, but it has struggled to translate its online exposure into votes.

The party dedicated significant resources to the race, hosting almost daily “action days,” and distributing tens of thousands of leaflets at great campaign cost. The campaign also saw their activists have physical confrontations with far-left agitators who attempted to disrupt the democratic process.

A Growing Record of Electoral Failures.

The London humiliation follows Restore’s disappointing performance in the June parliamentary by-election in Makerfield, where Labour’s Andy Burnham defeated Reform candidate Rob Kenyon by 24,927 votes to 15,696. Restore’s Rebecca Lee Shepherd finished a distant third, collecting just 3,111 votes.

Before the contest, data revealed that Restore could split the anti-establishment vote, as polling placed Labour on 45 percent, Reform on 40 percent, and Restore on approximately eight percent. Although Burnham ultimately won by a margin substantially larger than Restore’s entire vote, the result demonstrated the party’s ability to attract thousands of right-wing voters without seriously threatening to win the constituency itself.

Restore also failed to make a breakthrough in July’s Greater Manchester mayoral election, where it attracted approximately 8.7 percent of the vote and finished fourth.

Restore’s parliamentary results remain nil, aside from Lowe’s own seat, which he won as a Reform candidate. The danger for Reform is not that Lowe will defeat Farage nationally, but that even modest Restore support could make the difference between victory and defeat in marginal seats.

Origins.

Restore Britain traces its origins to a feud between Lowe and Reform UK.

The former MEP and loathed Southampton FC owner is alleged to have made violent threats towards Zia Yusuf, the party’s shadow home secretary. Shortly after, Lowe briefed establishment news reporters against Farage, stating: “We have to change from being a protest party led by the Messiah.”

At this point in time, March 2025, Reform UK was polling neck-and-neck with the Labour Party. Lowe’s actions since have helped contribute to a decline in Reform’s fortunes, and an uptick for the left-wing Labour Party.

He then established his own political movement in June 2025, eventually transforming it into a registered political party in February 2026.

Restore has faced questions about its political direction and personnel. Restore spokesman Charlie Downes described the organization as an enemy of populism, raising questions about its relationship with the wider anti-establishment movement. Restore claims to represent a more uncompromising alternative to Britain’s political establishment, yet its electoral interventions may make it easier for establishment parties to retain power.

Elon Musk.

One of Restore’s most significant political assets has been the public support of Elon Musk, whose relationship with Farage deteriorated dramatically after the billionaire began criticizing the Reform leader’s suitability to lead Britain’s populist-right movement.

Musk has repeatedly promoted Lowe on X, publicly praised his political positions, and amplified Restore’s messaging to his enormous online audience. Lowe, as a result, has been forced to declare over £100,000 in X payments.

Musk’s political influence and financial resources could theoretically heavily influence Restore’s prospects, but neither his endorsements nor the party’s existing funding have yet produced any sort of parliamentary breakthrough. Instead, the billionaire’s preferred alternative to Farage appears increasingly capable of dividing Britain’s right-wing electorate without building a viable governing coalition of its own.

Restore Could Cost Reform 77 Seats.

The potential consequences of this division were examined in a September 24 National Pulse analysis, which used constituency-level YouGov MRP polling to identify 77 parliamentary seats where Restore’s projected support was at least as large as Reform’s deficit to the projected winner.

Speaking with former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam recently warned that Lowe’s party could inflict substantial electoral damage even without winning constituencies itself. “Seventy-seven seats, which is a significant number of parliamentary seats that they would effectively block Reform from winning,” Kassam explained.

The constituencies at risk include working-class communities, traditional Conservative Party strongholds, and former Labour heartlands where Reform has increasingly challenged the establishment parties.

“You’ve got a lot of East of England, a lot of working-class communities, a lot of old tourist towns, fisheries, and then you have some Red Wall seats in there as well,” Kassam said.

“Restore hasn’t really moved from hovering between six and eight percent since they launched,” he observed, arguing that the splinter party appeared to have reached a relatively firm electoral ceiling. “But that’s all they need to be spoilers,” he added.

If just 25 percent of Restore’s projected supporters transferred to Reform, the latter would move ahead in 19 additional constituencies and draw level in another seven on the rounded polling figures. At a 50 percent transfer, Reform would move ahead or draw level in 46 constituencies, rising to 58 at a 75 percent transfer. Transferring the entire Restore vote would put Reform ahead in 58 seats and level in another 19.

These scenarios illustrate the potential consequences of right-wing vote fragmentation under Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system. In Heywood and Middleton North, for example, YouGov projected Labour on 31 percent, Reform on 30 percent, and Restore on five percent. Reform would need only one-fifth of Restore’s support to erase Labour’s projected advantage. In Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour’s projected two-point lead over Reform could similarly disappear if just one-quarter of Restore’s eight percent support transferred to Farage’s party.

Kassam also suggested that a substantial portion of Restore’s electorate might eventually be persuaded to back Reform rather than risk another Labour or Conservative victory. “It can be done,” he told Truss, arguing that some Restore supporters were former Reform voters while others might be persuaded by the prospect of preventing an establishment victory.

Restoring Britain, or Saving the Establishment?

Restore Britain’s central electoral problem is becoming more and more apparent. The party has attracted major publicity, the richest man on Earth as a supporter, and its leader sits in Parliament, but its results suggest it is lacking the ability to go any further than a single MP elected on a Reform ticket.

Meanwhile, the potential consequences of its continued participation in competitive races could have a much larger effect on the outcome of the next general election. Farage’s Reform UK is attempting to displace Britain’s established political parties. Lowe’s “Restore Britain,” by contrast, risks dividing the very electorate that could make such a major realignment possible.

For all its promises to restore Britain, Musk’s preferred political project may ultimately be remembered less for the seats it won than for the seats it prevented Reform from winning.

If you want to help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep bringing you original reporting, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

A Reform UK party government under Nigel Farage will face an immediate attempt by the permanent bureaucracy to nullify the election result, and it must have the legal powers to fire participants ready before hospitals and police stations empty, The National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has warned.

The National Pulse is 100% reader-funded. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Speaking to former Prime Minister Liz Truss, Kassam said the scale of the bureaucracy’s reaction will depend on the size of any parliamentary majority. With a large enough bloc to pass legislation comfortably, a Farage government could move at once. Without one, he warned, the apparatus of state simply waits the elected officials out. “I imagine that, day one, you’re going to get sort of a mass slowdown or general strike” in the National Health Service (NHS) and other government entities, he said. “If Reform wins, you need to have legislation passed immediately that says if you participate in these sorts of things, you lose your jobs.”

Hospitals and police stations cannot be left understaffed, he argued, because civil servants have decided to make a political point after the public has already voted. The threat of dismissal would make many think twice. A minority government or a confidence-and-supply arrangement would be far harder to explain to voters, and Kassam has not ruled out Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives cutting a deal with Labour specifically to keep Reform away from the levers.

Kassam rejected the usual label for the permanent bureaucracy as “the Blob,” calling it “cartoonish.” Instead, he argued it should be called “the regime,” or something like “the Deep State,” as is now commonly used in America.

Raheem J. Kassam and his team bring you deeply researched, original analysis every day. To help us keep you ahead of the curve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Part of the legal foundation for the deep state, Kassam and Truss agreed, is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It placed civil servants under a code interpreted by other civil servants, made government ministers unable to fire them, and allowed officials to withhold information from the Prime Minister on the grounds that they were legally obliged not to share it. Kassam’s answer is that the Act has to be repealed on day one, with Parliament sitting continuously if required, as Farage has vowed, in the same spirit as the early Trump executive order blitz. Talking about anything else, he said, “is for the birds.”

He highlighted the American experience with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as a warning rather than a model. Operatives in the U.S. reported getting nowhere near half of what they intended, he observed, because the permanent state slowed, litigated, and applied external pressure until the effort shrank. A Farage government that has not already written a strike-and-dismissal statute and committed to tearing out the Tony Blair-era insulation around the Civil Service, the Bank of England, and the quasi-governmental agencies, will discover the same limits on the morning after its elections.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

A British Green Party campaign coordinator admitted this week that mosques coordinate their parishioners’ votes, despite British regulations stating that, as registered charitable organizations, they must remain politically impartial. Asma Alam, campaign coordinator for Green Party Member of Parliament (MP) Hannah Spencer, stated that mosques had secretly switched to Spencer because they had become dissatisfied with the ruling Labor Party failing to cater to them enough.

The National Pulse researches topics deeply to bring you the big picture. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team in their work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

“Talking about mosque endorsements, it’s actually really, really hard; in fact, it’s impossible because they all have got charitable status, and with that charitable status, it means that they can’t endorse a political party. So they can do it under cover, which happened with me,” Asma told an audience at an event last Friday.

Her comments not only show the willingness of mosques to violate election law but the growing influence of the Islamic bloc vote in Britain, where mosques can sway their members to vote as a singular entity in elections, a phenomenon that is occurring all over the Western world.

Britain’s Increasingly Powerful Muslim Vote.

Many Muslims have traditionally voted for the leftist Labour Party for a variety of reasons, including Labour’s permissive stance on immigration and socialistic policies on welfare benefits, as Muslims tend to have a much higher unemployment rate on average. Many Muslims still vote for Labour in Britain and provide the party with many prominent Muslim politicians, such as London Mayor Sadiq Khan, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, and former Scottish Labour Party leader Anas Sarwar, now Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s Minister of State for Trade in the House of Lords.

There have been ruptures in Labour’s historic relationship with the Muslim community in Britain, which now makes up around six percent of the population overall but is often concentrated in areas of major cities like London, Birmingham, and others, where the Muslim bloc can sway elections for local Members of Parliament. In Birmingham alone, Muslims make up around 30 percent of the population, nearly one in every three people, with the numbers increasing rapidly.

Israel’s war in Gaza and Labour’s response to it led many Muslims to support independent Muslim candidates and the Greens in the last election in  2024, with four independent MPs winning seats on an explicitly pro-Palestinian platform.

Some Muslim politicians have also been caught engaging in fraud. In 2015, Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman was found guilty in Election Court of corrupt and illegal practices that voided his 2014 election victory. Rahman had used his Muslim faith to garner votes and flouted election rules on the day of the vote. Despite this, Rahman was allowed to run again and became Tower Hamlets’ Mayor for a third term earlier this year.

Continental Europe May Be Even Worse.

France, which has one of the largest Muslim populations in the Western world, at around ten percent, also sees the same trend of Muslims voting as blocs for left-wing parties. For the Muslims in France, far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his France Unbowed party tend to be the most popular choice, with some terming the movement “Islamo-Leftism.” Mélenchon captured around 69 percent of the Muslim vote in the first round of the 2022 presidential elections and 58 percent in the 2024 European elections after denouncing Israel’s war in Gaza.

Political Islam is such a major issue in France that President Emmanuel Macron addressed it in 2021 by creating a “charter of principles” to combat sectarianism and radicalism, which have both been blamed for the wave of terror attacks in the country that have been ongoing over the last decade or so.

In Italy, a mosque outside Milan was caught explicitly telling its members to vote for left-wing parties in a bulletin in 2018. The reason was that the left supported birthright citizenship, which would allow Muslim migrants to easily stay in the country if they had “anchor babies” who were automatically given Italian citizenship.

The Bloc that Mass Migration Built.

Muslim influence in elections across the West, including in American cities like Dearborn, Michigan, and in parts of Texas, is likely to increase due to the mass migration policies that allowed it to emerge in the first place. The question for much of the West in the coming years will not be whether or not the Muslim voting bloc exists and is coordinated, but who is taking its votes and at what cost.

Seeking religious endorsements risks fuelling sectarian politics. It is dangerous and divisive.

As charities, mosques must not endorse political parties or candidates. So why did the Green Party knowingly join an attempt to circumvent these rules?
More👇https://t.co/XqmXwL2pkM pic.twitter.com/erHTUU8STY

— National Secular Society (@NatSecSoc) October 7, 2026

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep delivering you RADICALLY INDEPENDENT news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Don Sniegowski.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.