nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

As UK’s Prime Minister fades away, will his beloved Small Nuclear Reactor dream fade too?

5 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/as-uks-prime-minister-fades-away-will-his-beloved-small-nuclear-reactor-dream-fade-too/

As soon as mid-July, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to finally quit his job as British Prime Minister. He’s not very popular, either within his own party, or with the general public. Labour’s previous popular leader, Jeremy Corbyn, opposed nuclear power. Soon after coming to power, Starmer called for tech companies to work alongside the government’s Great British Energy – Nuclear, to build SMRs to power energy-intensive AI data centres across Britain. Starmer might be hoping to be, later on, renowned for his legacy in revolutionising British energy systems, and producing a glorious renaissance for the global nuclear industry.

But possibly not.

“I say: build, baby, build,” – Starmer’s theme on Small Nuclear Reactors looks now, on the face of it, to be a resounding winner for Britain on the global nuclear scene. Why? Because… haven’t you heard? It is all over the British press that the UK is to get a fleet of SMRs with a multi-billion dollar “privately financed” scheme (helped just a bit by the government), to start generating in 2034.

SGE is a European Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development and investment platform. Founded by Polish billionaire Michał Sołowow, SGE has plans for SMR developments across Europe. On July 1st SGE announced in glowing terms, its UK plans for “delivering efficient, safe, affordable, and clean nuclear energy power at fleet scale.” It has established a consortium, SGE SMR UK Limited, as its dedicated UK-based project vehicle.

SGE hopes to use the GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 design, to build under the government’s advanced nuclear framework (which was initiated by Starmer in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”). SGE boasts that this SMR design is a “proven technology,” but it’s really a smaller, and as yet untested, version of the large boiling water nuclear reactor.

Where’s the money coming from?

The plan is to put in £35bn of private capital to build 14 small modular nuclear reactors on three sites across the UK. The consortium SGE SMR UK consists of SGE (formerly Synthos Green Energy), GE Vernova, Hitachi Nuclear, Samsung C&T, Laing O’Rourke, Aecon Group, Google Cloud, Fermi Development, and Etara. The biggest investor presumably is the Polish company.

Under the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) set up its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technical Partner contract (TP Contract) as a way for the government to help fund SMR development. It initially forecast that it may need £20bn to cover the cost of the (TP) Contract. “GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”

SGE plans to deploy under a Contract for Difference framework with National Wealth Fund engagement. I know that the contract for difference scheme means a fixed price for electricity bills once the project begins generating electricity. If the market price is below the fixed price, the government tops up the payment to the company. I don’t know what the National Wealth Fund engagement means, and I suspect that I’m not the only one puzzled about this.

In May 2026 Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) announced that Rolls-Royce SMR has been awarded Stage 1 of its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technical Partner contract (TP Contract). Stage 1 has a “forecast” price of £359M. A furtherr £8.17bn is estimated for the second delivery phase. Rolls Royce expects the SMRs to start operating in the mid 2030s.

So how much of the tax-payers’ £20bn is Rolls Royce going to get? And is SGE SMR UK going to get some too, and if so, how much? Or is the Polish entrepreneur’s SGE SMR UK truly really going to go it alone – with private financing?

Mysterious unanswered questions

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The New Civil Engineer requested some detail on the breakdown of the TP Contract award ‘s available £20bn. Great British Energy – Nuclear ‘s reply was – “GBE-N does not hold the information you have requested.”

Given the nuclear industry’s notorious history of delays and cost overruns, it’s pretty important to know how much each of these competing SMR projects is likely to cost, how long each would really take to come into operation, and how much the tax-payer will have to cough up.

What a complicated mess!

In 2023 the UK joined enthusiastically with world leaders in The Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050. The Starmer Labour government took this up with zeal, and the message has been reinforced by academia and the media. Several UK universities have jumped on the nuclear bandwagon. Just this week, the Manchester University announced:

The University of Manchester and United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalising a wide-ranging partnership to advance nuclear science, grow the UK’s nuclear workforce, and strengthen the country’s position as a global leader in nuclear technology.

The UK media, except for The Guardian and New Civil Engineer, is ecstatically regurgitating nuclear lobby handouts. On July 2nd we have excited and positive articles on the SGE SMR UK project – from The Times, Telegraph, PR Newswire, Energy Live, Business Green, as well as from leading international news media. This privately-funded SMR project is a global first.

The New Civil Engineer is peskily pursuing its search for information on the UK government’s planned funding of small nuclear reactors, while the rest of them continue applauding this small nuclear fantasy.

I’m not here to push the points that SMRs are not cheap, not proven, not safe, not clean, not environmentally beneficial, not free of toxic wastes, and not actually in existence. Plenty of economists and scientists have made those assessments. Is the SGE UK thing going to really happen? Or is the Rolls Royce SMR thing going to beat it? When and where are these reactors going to operate? I’m just wondering about – for how long the UK pro SMR charade is going to play. Now that the leading actor Keir Starmer is about to bow out, will the whole performance have a very short season indeed?

July 5, 2026 Posted by | Christina's notes, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Starmer Lied: Britain Is Cutting £11 Billion from Frontline Defence

The new Defence Investment Plan delivers almost nothing for our armed forces in the near term

Ian Proud, The Peacemonger, Jul 02, 2026

The United Kingdom is in effect going to spend up to £11 billion less per year on the day-to-day running of its armed forces under Keir Starmer’s Defence Investment Plan — and that’s before we even take inflation into account.

Despite the apparent uplift in spending toward 2.7% of GDP by 2029, the UK will get no meaningful increase in front-line conventional capability or personnel.

Our armed forces are at their smallest size in two hundred years, and that situation is not going to change under this plan.

Spending on long-term nuclear capabilities — programmes that will not deliver anything usable until the 2030s and 2040s — is absorbing the great majority of the headline increase.

This comes at a time when the government claims Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO by the end of this decade.

At the heart of the problem is a foreign policy that wants to confront multiple adversaries while maintaining armed forces that simply do not have the mass or readiness to do so credibly.

Important to point out that I am the son of a former British soldier and I am incredibly proud of the armed forces and anyone who serves this country. I also served alongside the British Army in Helmand province in 2010 and worked with some truly remarkable people. I am not criticising the men and women who put on the uniform. I am criticising how badly led we are as a country.

Keir Starmer announced the UK’s long-awaited Defence Investment Plan yesterday, 30 June. To describe it as a damp squib would be generous. It is a document that confirms the continued stagnation of the UK armed forces and the deep sclerosis at the heart of defence procurement.

Do not believe the headlines and the spin.

This plan will not transform our hollowed-out forces.

The British Army is already at its smallest size since 1823. That will not change.

There are no new soldiers being recruited in any significant numbers. Money available for the day-to-day operation of the armed forces is not going up — in real terms it is under severe pressure.

Having crunched the numbers, it’s clear to me that yearly spending on the actual running of the armed forces has effectively declined by up to £11 billion per year under this plan, set against the government’s claim of a £15 billion per year increase by 2027…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The outgoing UK Prime Minister has declared a big increase in defence spending, yet we are getting no new troops and very little new conventional capability in the near term.

Why?

Because the great majority of the additional money is being directed into nuclear programmes and a procurement system that has repeatedly failed to deliver on time or on budget.

………………………………………………….. As I write, I understand that all of the Astute-class submarines are operationally unavailable.

……………………the largest cost increases and overruns have been in the nuclear and naval programmes.

………….As the National Audit Office reported in 2023, the combined costs of nuclear and naval programmes rose by £54.6 billion between 2022 and 2023, with the nuclear element increasing by £38.2 billion.

The three biggest programmes are the SSN-AUKUS attack submarines, the Dreadnought ballistic missile submarines, and the new Astraea nuclear warhead.

The first UK-built AUKUS submarines are not expected until the late 2030s.

We already have ballistic missile submarines maintaining Continuous At-Sea Deterrence.

We already have attack submarines, even if they cost too much, took too long to build, and don’t work.

We already have nuclear warheads. Do we really need a slightly flashier design folks? Serious question.

The plan is being presented as a response to current and near-term threats, while a war continues in Ukraine and with political leaders abandoning diplomacy.

……………………I have a clear alternative. We should cancel or significantly scale back the highest-risk and longest-lead nuclear programmes — particularly the new Astraea warhead and major elements of the SSN-AUKUS programme.

The savings should be redirected into fixing and sustaining the equipment we already possess, improving the availability of existing platforms, and beginning the serious work of rebuilding conventional force numbers and readiness for the core task of defending the United Kingdom and its immediate interests………………………….. https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/starmer-lied-britain-is-cutting-11?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=204491995&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

July 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

MSP says ‘no’ to nuclear power plant as UK Government eyes Fife

Dunfermline Press 1st July 2026

Fife has been revealed as a potential site for a nuclear power plant in a new UK Government report – but a local MSP says it “wouldn’t go down well” with communities.

The document, titled ‘Potential future nuclear power plant siting in Scotland ‘, published on Tuesday, June 30, was penned by both the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Great British Energy – Nuclear.

The report sets out to offer “technical advice” on potential future sites.

In a section called ‘Land Areas of Interest ‘, Fife was identified as part of areas across eastern Scotland which could be eyed up for new development by the UK Government.

The report read: “The northern shore of the Firth of Forth benefits from a strong industrial heritage, existing brownfield land, good transport connections and historic use of river water for power station cooling.

“The presence of previous energy generation sites and proximity to major industrial hubs supports technical suitability.”

However, it did note that flood risks were a notable constraint, with some areas identified as high likelihood for coastal flooding and limited existing defences.

It continued: “The proximity of major COMAH sites and oil and gas infrastructure, including the Forties Pipeline System, introduces additional safety and planning complexity.”

MSP for Cowdenbeath, David Barratt said: “The document implies quite heavily, I would say, about nuclear power at Longannet. It’s talking about a site on the north side of the Forth, in close proximity to areas of flood risk and oil and gas.

“The SNP’s position aligns, from my perspective, closely with what communities think. I don’t think if you went to any community and asked them whether they like a nuclear power station next door, I struggle to imagine any in Fife, or along the Forth shore, would say yes please.

“I don’t think that would go down well at all with communities (near Longannet) who have put up with enough environmental consequences of that site. Scotland is blessed with an abundance of renewable sources, and we don’t require nuclear.”…………….. https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26243980.mps-says-no-nuclear-power-plant-fife-uk-government-eyes-fife/

July 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Westminster’s nuclear obsession will cost us dearly – Scotland

The irony of Scotland’s sky-high bills is that we sit on one of the goldmines of clean, renewable energy potential in Europe.

Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will.

 the SNP, 12 July 26, https://www.snp.org/westminsters-nuclear-obsession-will-cost-us-dearly/

The case for transferring full control of energy policy to the Scottish Parliament has never been more urgent.

As we head toward what is shaping up to be a winter of deep financial hardship for households across the country, it is clearer than ever that the only way to secure affordable, stable energy bills for the people and businesses of Scotland is to take control of our own immense resources from Westminster.

Before taking office, Labour campaigned heavily on a promise to lower energy bills for families across Scotland by £300. The reality since July 2024 has been a story of utter failure to deliver.

When Labour entered government in July 2024, the Energy Price Cap stood at £1,568 per year. To fulfil their signature pledge, that cap should heading towards £1,268.

Instead, fresh analysis from Cornwall Insight shows that the price cap is set to soar to £1,849 by this October.

That leaves Scottish households facing a staggering bill that is £581 higher than what was promised.

It is a profound injustice that in energy-rich Scotland, citizens are paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe while the country is haemorrhaging up to 1,000 energy sector jobs every single month.

The irony of Scotland’s sky-high bills is that we sit on one of the goldmines of clean, renewable energy potential in Europe.

Scotland regularly produces more clean electricity than it actually consumes, achieving an historic milestone where renewable generation already reached the equivalent of 113% of our gross electricity consumption in 2024.

Our natural landscape and seas make Scotland a significant green powerhouse:

Instead of letting Westminster mismanage this wealth, these resources should be utilised directly to lower local energy tariffs in Scotland and build a thriving green economy, much like Norway has done with its own native energy supplies.

Rather than supporting Scotland’s booming renewables sector or honoring promises to fund vital carbon-capture carbon capture infrastructure, Westminster remains locked into an obsession with nuclear energy.

Reports indicate that Labour’s GB Energy has secretly identified multiple sites for nuclear plants across Scotland, completely ignoring the Scottish Government that was democratically elected last month.

The push for nuclear power ignores the hard economic and environmental facts:

1 It is the most expensive power generation: Nuclear energy is financially draining. Industry experts and watchdogs routinely highlight it as one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation on Earth, with ballooning strike prices that lock consumers into high bills for generations.

2 t takes decades to come online: Major projects are notoriously crippled by logistical failure. For example, the flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset was originally expected to cost £18 billion and open by 2025; it has now spiralled to an estimated cost of up to £46–£48 billion and is delayed until at least 2030 or 2031. Future projects like Sizewell C are projected to face similarly restrictive timeframes and even higher starting expenses.

3 A deadly legacy of radioactive waste: Nuclear reactors leave behind hazardous, highly radioactive waste that must be managed and monitored for centuries. The most toxic components of this spent fuel remain lethal to human life and the environment for up to 100,000 years, passing a dangerous and expensive ecological debt onto dozens of future generations.

Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will. The Scottish Parliament has already passed an SNP motion demanding that power over our energy resources be fully devolved to Holyrood.

If the Westminster government is truly committed to the principles of devolution, they must listen to the Scottish people, remove the punitive taxes currently stifling our domestic energy markets, and transfer energy powers to the hands of the people who live here.

With the fresh start of independence, we can finally link Scotland’s immense natural wealth directly to lower, affordable bills for everyone.

July 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Billionaire to invest £35bn in small modular nuclear reactors rollout across UK

Consortium led by Michał Sołowow planning enough SMRs to power equivalent of 8m homes for more than 60 years.

Jillian Ambrose, 2 July 26


A consortium led by the billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow has announced plans to build 14 small modular nuclear reactors on three sites across the UK, including the location of a former nuclear plant in Gloucestershire..

The Polish entrepreneur and rally driver plans to use £35bn of private capital to roll out enough small modular reactors (SMRs) to power the equivalent of 8m UK homes for more than 60 years, or even power datacentre investments alongside Google.

Sołowow’s nuclear development company, SGE, plans to make the “significant investment” of between £2.2bn to £2.5bn in each 300 megawatt reactor alongside a string of industrial partners including the US manufacturer GE Vernova and Japanese industrial conglomerate Hitachi, which are responsible for the design.

The consortium, known as SGE SMR, hopes to secure three sites for the boiling water reactors (BWRs) by this time next year as well as a government support contract which would guarantee a “competitive” price for its electricity once it starts generating in 2034.

It has not disclosed which sites it hopes to use for the GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 design, or which energy company would be the operator. However, the Guardian understands the consortium has submitted an application to use the Oldbury site in south Gloucestershire which was earmarked earlier this year for the development of SMRs under the government’s advanced nuclear framework.

Sołowow said the government’s framework, which aims to fasttrack the rollout of nuclear technologies, had created “a clear path to market” in the “home to one of the world’s most experienced nuclear workforces”.

Because of this, I am confident we will set a new standard for nuclear development by combining our disruptive business model with the BWRX-300’s 10th-generation proven technology. We will rely strongly on the UK supply chain; it is a critical element for our project. Our project will create a distinct competitive advantage for the UK economy,” he said.

The Labour government unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power across England and Wales within months of coming to power, with Keir Starmer calling for tech companies to work alongside the government to build SMRs to power energy-intensive AI datacentres across Britain.

SGE’s plans will put it in competition with Rolls-Royce to be the first to roll out SMEs in the UK, after the British engineering company won a government competition earlier this year to allow it to start generating power by 2032 at the earliest.

SGE’s joint venture agreement, signed this week in London, includes Google Cloud, which Sołowow hopes will also partner on investing up to £4.5bn in datacentres to make use of the nuclear output. The Guardian understands this is viewed as an accompanying proposal which is not part of its current application.


Instead, the consortium hopes to secure a similar deal to the contract offered to the Hinkley Point C nuclear project. It has opted for the contracts for difference scheme, which pays a fixed rate from energy bills once the project begins generating electricity, rather than the controversial model used to fund the Sizewell C project. Under that scheme the developer is paid during the construction phase, meaning billpayers risk bigger costs if there are delays.

Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the nuclear industry association, said SGE’s SMR plans showed the government’s nuclear framework “has really revived and spurred interest in privately led nuclear projects”.

July 5, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

No nuclear energy in Scotland – Greens

Labour’s nuclear obsession would be waste of time and money.

1 June 26, https://greens.scot/news/no-nuclear-energy-in-scotland

Labour’s plans to build nuclear power plants all over Scotland would be a costly error, says Scottish Green MSP Kristopher Leask.

This week saw the publication of a report by Great British Energy Nuclear, ordered by Ed Miliband, which identified multiple sites in Scotland which could be used if the Scottish Government’s opposition to nuclear was to change.

The report was publicly welcomed by Anas Sarwar, Michael Shanks and other Scottish Labour bosses.

Kristopher said:

“Labour’s obsession with forcing a new generation of nuclear power on Scotland rides roughshod over devolution and ignores the will of the Scottish Parliament. 

“Opening new plants across Scotland would be a huge waste of time and money. It would swallow billions of pounds and take decades to deliver, while doing nothing to tackle energy bills or the climate crisis. 

“Focusing on nuclear energy would be a huge missed opportunity. It would mean turning our backs on Scotland’s world-leading renewable resources. 

“Instead of pouring money into expensive nuclear projects, the UK Government should be backing renewable energy that can create jobs, cut bills and strengthen energy security at a fraction of the cost.

“Our priority should be creating clean, green, secure jobs that support nuclear workers into new industries while revitalising communities across Scotland.”

July 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

When the right denies the true danger of heatwaves, ask yourself this: whose children’s lives is it willing to risk?

The Guardian, George Monbiot, 1 July 26

The class politics of extreme heat are very real and very dangerous – but that doesn’t stop the billionaire press from peddling its agenda

Every time you think the idiocy has hit rock bottom, it discovers a new level. It turns out there’s an even deeper hole you can dig for yourself than climate-science denial: heat-stress denial. Across the billionaire press last week, columnists and leader writers minimised the health impacts of the heatwave, particularly in schools. Expect more of this next week, when temperatures are forecast to soar again.

An editorial in the Telegraph (which represents the newspaper’s view) titled “Hot weather alarmism treats the public like children” maintained that “unlike in the seventies, when people were largely trusted to look after themselves, officialdom now feels the need to lecture the public about the risks of hot weather at every opportunity”. Extreme heat warnings are issued and weather maps are “painted in an alarming red”. Outrageous! Instead of issuing warnings, the government should just trust people to “take the appropriate precautions”. We should all “learn to live” with it. Quite right too: whatever happened to the bulldog spirit of ignorance and needless death? Cricket, warm beer, excess mortality: these are the markers of national character.

Also in the Telegraph, under the headline “Heatwave hysterics wouldn’t have lasted a day in 1976”, the columnist Ysenda Maxtone Graham insisted that during the heatwave that year – which she remembers as “two months of blissful messing about” – “common sense was applied by most without the need for nannying intervention”. Now, however, “health messages range from the patronising – tube announcements imploring travellers to carry a bottle of water – to the preposterous, as if a healthy adult is liable to drop dead from a little bit of sun exposure”. Never mind the unhealthy adults. Or disabled people, or elderly people, or children, all of whom are likely to be more vulnerable. She claimed that in 1976, “schools didn’t close because of the heat”, and that children and teachers heroically “sweltered in 30-degree classrooms”.

Maxtone Graham’s column was remarkably similar to Jane Moore’s in the Sun, titled: “Why on earth do schools need to CLOSE in hot weather? Forget today’s nannying, alarmist state – let’s go back to ’76.” Moore remembers 1976 as “the best summer of my life”. Apparently there was a “gung-ho spirit” that “should be used as a standard benchmark for common sense”………………………


There is a powerful body of evidence showing that warnings and advice save lives. The Red Cross discovered in 2023 that there’s a strikingly poor understanding of the health risks of heatwaves in the UK, where they used to be rare. A survey reported in the journal Energy Research & Social Science last year found that 49% of participants had “little to no knowledge on how to cope with extreme heat”. Nevertheless, government warnings, doubtless to the delight of the Telegraph, remain vague, hard to interpret and unsupported by effective action. Let the bodies pile high.

……………..There’s nothing new about feather-bedded columnists in nice homes in leafy streets or air-conditioned offices instructing other people to tough it out. But the class disparity in heat shielding is especially acute in Britain, where homes and public buildings are woefully unsuited to extremes.

The paper I mentioned above also found that 82% of households reported difficulty in keeping at least one room cool during the summer. The rate of overheating for the poorest half “was twice that of householders in the top half of higher-income earners”. Many other studies have produced similar findings. Steady temperatures are the preserve of the rich.

Extreme heat hits children – who have higher metabolisms and lower sweating rates – harder than most adults. Their thermal comfort levels are, on average, 1.9-2.8C lower. There are many reports of children vomiting and losing consciousness in class during heatwaves. Temperatures above 25C limit their cognitive performance. The government’s Climate Change Committee finds that “taking an exam on a 32C day leads to around a 10% lower likelihood of passing compared to a 22C day”. Yet another advantage for private schools, which can generally afford better buildings and air-conditioned exam rooms.

But, as the government confirms to me, it sets no maximum temperature limit for schools. Otherwise it might have to do something. Instead, it advises schools to open and close doors and windows and minimise heat from equipment: advice that leaves teachers with sealed windows and impossible heat loads in despair. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/01/right-danger-heatwaves-children-class-politics-extreme-heat-billionaire-press

July 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

SNP blocks new nuclear power

 SNP blocks new nuclear power despite ‘high-potential’ sites. A
Westminster-backed study identified places capable of hosting future
reactors, but the Scottish government’s longstanding opposition remains
unchanged. The SNP has shut down any hope for new nuclear power in Scotland
after a Westminster-backed report that highlighted the “high potential”
for projects. “The Scottish government is focused on supporting the
development of Scotland’s renewable energy potential, which provides
jobs, are safer and doesn’t leave a legacy of nuclear waste.

Times 30th June 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-blocks-new-nuclear-power-high-potential-sites-vfrcjx5ns

July 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Polish tycoon backs Britain’s £35bn mini nuclear reactors plan.

Michal Solowow’s Synthos Green Energy is seeking approval for 14 small modular
reactors at three sites including Oldbury in Gloucestershire.

SGE would not
disclose the location of the sites, two of which are privately owned, but
one of those that it has submitted an application to use is understood to
be the state-owned Oldbury nuclear site in Gloucestershire. Oldbury is one
of eight sites that has been designated for new nuclear power stations in
the UK.

The SMRs will deploy designs developed by GE Vernova Hitachi, a
joint venture between GE Vernova, the American energy equipment
manufacturer, and Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate. It was one of four
technology providers that had been in the running to build the UK’s first
SMRs under a selection process led by Great British Nuclear, an
arm’s-length, state-backed body set up by the previous government, now
renamed Great British Energy — Nuclear.

It is hoped that the first unit
will start generating power by 2034, about the same time as the first
Rolls-Royce SMR, and will be funded by SGE through a mixture of debt and
equity. It is understood to be in discussions with the taxpayer-backed
National Wealth Fund over an investment and is aiming to apply for support
under the contracts-for-difference framework, which guarantees developers a
minimum that they will be paid for the power they generate. If future
wholesale prices are lower than this guaranteed price, developers will
receive a top-up payment, but if they are higher, they will repay the
excess as a saving to consumers.

 Times 2nd July 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/polish-tycoon-britains-35bn-mini-nuclear-reactor-dsj5kc7s9

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Revealed: Illegal West Bank settlements advertised at Israeli event in London

Despite denials from organisers, evidence gathered inside the event shows occupied Palestinian land was being marketed

DANIA AKKAD, 15 June 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-illegal-west-bank-settlements-advertised-at-israeli-event-in-london/

Properties from seven illegal settlements were advertised at the Great Israeli Real Estate Event on Sunday in London, days after more than 100 MPs and groups urged the UK government to ban it.

Organisers had told journalists last week that all exhibitors at the event “without exception” would only provide information about properties for sale within the Green Line – the internationally recognised border between Israel and Palestine.

But brochures circulated at the event which Jewish Anti-Zionist Action (JAZA) shared with Declassified and others posted online show companies touting properties for sale in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In one pamphlet, Harry Zahev Developers advertises apartments and private homes in Kfar Eldad and Teneh Omarim, illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank near Palestinian towns and communities.

“Bringing gardens and spaces where nature is your closest neighbour,” the pamphlet reads.

In another brochure, the Jerusalem Real Estate company offers the city’s “most sought-after Anglo neighborhoods” including French Hill and Ramat Eshkol, two settlement neighbourhoods in occupied east Jerusalem. 

Neither company responded immediately to requests for comment on Monday. Declassified attempted to reach the event organisers, but could not find any contact details.

Other illegal Israel settlements featured in the promotional materials which JAZA collected include the West Bank settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev, and Givat Hamatos, a settlement currently under construction in East Jerusalem.

“Through these pamphlets and information we collected on the inside, we can prove that this event was selling properties in the occupied West Bank,” said Guy Zilberman, a JAZA activist who gained entry to the exhibition.

‘Crazy times’

Zilberman described his experience at the real estate show. “After passing through security, I was given a free tote bag and a booklet advertising the different real estate companies present at the fair that day,” he said.

At the stall for one developer, he said he was told the company had “properties they were selling in ‘Judea and Samaria’ that he thought would be perfect for me”.

The company representative “had all the booklets and papers for it but couldn’t get them out because the police had said in order for the event to go ahead they couldn’t advertise properties illegal under international law,” Zilberman said.

The man then told him these were “crazy times we live in” and asked for Zilberman’s contact details so he could follow up after the event. 

He visited another stall and said he was given a leaflet advertising properties in Ma’ale Adumim, which is an illegal West Bank settlement. 

After about an hour inside, Zilberman disrupted the event, calling for “sanctions now” and saying “don’t steal” in Hebrew.

“After disrupting the event, I was pulled out by my neck by security,” Zilberman said.

He noted that the Board of Deputies had said that the event was “an excuse to harass and intimidate members of the Jewish community”. 

“I would invite the Board of Deputies to look at the documents here that clearly depict in writing that these properties in illegally occupied territories…have been advertised at this event,” he said.

The Board of Deputies did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

What’s in Keir Starmer’s defence investment plan? Key points.

The ten-year military blueprint outlines billions in spending on special forces and hypersonic weaponry but leaves some major equipment programmes uncosted


 More than £63 billion will be spent on the nuclear deterrent over four
years, including new warheads for the future Dreadnought-class submarines,
as well as 12 new F-35A aircraft that will be able to carry tactical
nuclear weapons, American B61-12 gravity bombs. The nuclear investment will
also include £26 billion over the next decade in Project Royal Oak, the
largest naval base upgrade for over 45 years. This will see
multi-billion-pound upgrades at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport.


 Times 30th June 2026 https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/defence-investment-plan-keir-starmer-key-points-cgxtn69qf

July 4, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK: Inside Labour Together’s secret war against Jeremy Corbyn

Documents disclosed to Corbyn expose covert efforts by Starmer’s former chief of staff to combat the British left

DECLASSIFIED UK, PAUL HOLDEN, Jessica Murray and JOHN McEVOY, 24 June 2026

  • Labour Together monitored views on antisemitism in Labour while stoking that crisis
  • Media outlet The Canary was targeted amid concerns it was trusted among Labour members 
  • John McDonnell says new information about Labour Together “makes a call for a public inquiry overwhelming”

Newly released documents reveal the inner workings of Labour Together and its role in covertly undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party.

The documents were disclosed to Corbyn in response to a subject access request. They contain emails from Labour Together’s two key figures Morgan McSweeney and Josh Simons.

McSweeney went on to be Keir Starmer’s chief of staff while Simons became a cabinet minister until he resigned following revelations that he had hired a reputation management firm to “proactively undermine” journalistic investigations into Labour Together, McSweeney and Sir Keir Starmer. 

Simons subsequently vacated his Makerfield constituency seat for Andy Burnham.

Internal documents detail how Labour Together under McSweeney’s watch (2017-20) conducted polling of the Labour membership to monitor its views on the incidence of antisemitism in the party.

This polling allowed McSweeney and his allies to track responses to the antisemitism narrative that they were simultaneously helping to sustain by placing arguably alarmist stories in the media.

The documents further detail how The Canary media outlet was highly trusted among Labour members and identified as a political challenge because it defended Corbyn amid antisemitism accusations.

The Canary was subsequently targeted by the McSweeney-linked Stop Funding Fake News campaign with an advertiser boycott, which helped to diminish its revenue.

Weaponising antisemitism

McSweeney quietly inflamed the “antisemitism crisis” that would dog Corbyn’s leadership from at least 2018.

He did so by seeding and placing stories into the press that helped to build the narrative that Corbyn’s Labour had become riddled with antisemitism and that this flowed inexorably from a resurgent left-wing anti-imperialism. 

At the same time, the new documents show, Labour Together was paying YouGov to repeatedly poll Labour members on whether they agreed with the framing of the party as a hotbed of antisemitism.

The goal was apparently to gain a detailed guide to the opinions of the party’s membership as McSweeney sought to detach it from Corbyn’s leadership.

Although the precise cost is unknown, polling of this kind was likely to be expensive. 

It was also at this time that Labour Together unlawfully failed to declare most of its donations, amounting to over £700,000, with key funders of the organisation including hedge fund manager Martin Taylor and pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn.

‘Deliberately exaggerated’…………………………………………………..

‘Dreadful performance’…………………………………………………..

The Canary……………………………….

Stop Funding Fake News

When read against other emails and Labour Together’s polling, the briefing note points to concerns about how The Canary was undermining the antisemitism narrative that McSweeney and his allies were covertly helping to inflame in this period.

In March 2019, McSweeney and his ally Imran Ahmed would launch the Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN) campaign, which sought to demonetise The Canary by pressuring companies to withdraw advertising from its website. 

While being led by factional Labour insiders, the SFFN campaign presented itself as a project run by committed grassroots activists who were concerned with the proliferation of “fake news”.

Interestingly, the internal briefing note, which appears to have been a precursor to the SFFN campaign, made no mention of the accuracy of The Canary’s reporting.

The emphasis was on its political influence, strongly suggesting the subsequent campaign was initiated in response to The Canary’s challenge to the political ambitions of Labour Together, onto which claims of “disinformation” were grafted.

Indeed, McSweeney reportedly told Labour Together colleagues: “Destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us”.

That campaign, alongside changes to social media algorithms, played a powerful role in circumscribing the impact and reach of The Canary by late 2019. 

By then, Labour Together’s plan to install Sir Keir Starmer as the leader of the Labour Party was well-advanced.

McSweeney and Labour Together’s fixation on polling would carry over the organisation while led by Josh Simons (2022 – 2024).

These intense polling efforts apparently also helped the organisation to create caricatures of target voters for the Labour party which were at once crude, bizarre, and insulting.

A version of the “Workington Man” curated by Labour Together was 62 years old, white, “absolutely despised Jeremy Corbyn”, “hates Europe and European culture”, drives an “Audi A4”, and “thinks South Asians who live nearby are terrible drivers”…………………………………………..

Labour Together is now called ThinkLabour. Think Labour, Josh Simons, Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney were asked to comment.


Paul Holden is a journalist for Shadow World Investigations and author of the book The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney and the Crisis of British Democracy. Between 2020 and 2021, Holden worked directly with the Zondo Commission to assist its investigations into complex money laundering schemes used to hide and dissipate state capture loot in South Africa. https://www.declassifieduk.org/inside-labour-togethers-secret-battle-against-jeremy-corbyn/

July 3, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

More issues reported during manufacture of Sizewell C’s reactor vessels than Hinkley Point C’s

01 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/more-issues-reported-during-manufacture-of-sizewell-cs-reactor-vessels-than-hinkley-point-cs-01-07-2026/

“Quality issues” relating to the manufacture of the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) for Sizewell C have been identified by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) during an inspection by the regulator.

The number of “non-conformance reports” has increased at Framatome St Marcel (FSM) – the French manufacturer of the RPVs – compared to when it was manufacturing the RPVs for Hinkley Point C.

Sizewell C and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) have regularly highlighted how Sizewell C will be delivered more efficiently than Hinkley Point C because of how much design work can be copied over.

The Sizewell C – Inspection ID: 54200 report from the ONR, which was carried out in April 2026 and published on 22 June, reported that “manufacturing quality issues” had been identified at FSM.

The ONR stressed the importance of the RPV in its report. “The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is manufactured by Framatome (manufacturer of nuclear equipment based in France),” it said.

“The RPV is a nuclear safety class 1 component which forms part of the primary circuit. It has been categorised as a high integrity component (HIC) within the SZC safety case.

“Therefore, the consequences of failure during operation cannot be tolerated and a highest reliability claim is made on the structural integrity of the RPV.”

The aim of the ONR’s inspection was for it to “make an informed judgement on the adequacy of SZC’s specification, control and oversight of RPV manufacture at FSM in compliance with LC12 and LC19.”

LC12 means License Condition 12, and required that “the licensee (meaning Sizewell C) shall make and implement adequate arrangements to ensure that only suitably qualified and experienced persons perform any duties which may affect the safety of operations on the site or any other duties assigned by or under these conditions or any arrangements required under these conditions.”

Meanwhile, LC19 requires that “where the licensee proposes to construct or install any new plant which may affect safety the licensee shall make and implement adequate arrangements to control the construction or installation.”

July 3, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Regulator says additional scrutiny was not required over Hinkley Point C bullying concerns

26 Jun, 2026 By Tom Pashby

An MP’s claim that the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) increased
scrutiny of Hinkley Point C over bullying allegations has been contested by
the regulator, NCE understands.

Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton and
Minehead Rachel Gilmour raised concerns about bullying at Hinkley Point C
(HPC) during the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) evidence
session on Sizewell C on 8 June. MPs challenged senior representatives of
Sizewell C on the project’s commitment to transparency around possible
future cost overruns.

Representatives also provided new details on the
infrastructure being built at the site. During the session Gilmour said:
“I want to ask about bullying […] my constituency includes Hinkley A,
Hinkley B and Hinkley C. Once elected, I was inundated with whistleblowers
and people who have great concerns about the bullying culture at Hinkley C,
to such an extent that I had a meeting with Simone Rossi, the chief
executive of EDF Europe, and the ONR.

“The ONR felt that the situation
was so bad that they had to put in extra scrutiny. I was joined by
WhistleblowersUK in that.” However, NCE understands that it is ONR’s
position that no additional regulatory measures or scrutiny have been
required at Hinkley Point C for any bullying or harassment issues.

 New Civil Engineer 26th June 2026,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/regulator-says-additional-scrutiny-was-not-required-over-hinkley-point-c-bullying-concerns-26-06-2026/

July 3, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

White Flag Judgments: Palestine Action, Protest and the UK Courts

1 July 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/white-flag-judgments-palestine-action-protest-and-the-uk-courts/

The justice system of the United Kingdom, represented by stout cathedral structures and solemn rituals, tends to resemble a casino rather than a priestly haven of solemn judgment. It’s the justice of the punt, the throw of the dice, not the fairness of judicial deliberation, that prevails. That, at least, has been the prevailing view of Richard Ingrams, a co-founder of Britain’s rapier satirical publication Private Eye.

Since the decision by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to ban Palestine Action in 2025, some 3,000 people have been arrested for doing such unthreatening things as holding placards with the following words: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Over 700 of these, according to Human Rights Watch, “are pending in the courts of England and Wales, with many more at the recharges stage.” This, in a country where free speech is said to be a verdant forest, and the right to protest a sacred right.

In the middle of last month, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the High Court regarding the proscription of Palestine Action which had been made under section 3 and schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Palestine Action, described by their founders as “a direct-action protest group aimed at preventing military targets in the UK from facilitating gross abuses of international law,” had made its stock and trade targeting Israeli arms manufacturers such as Elbit Systems and businesses with links to the Israeli arms trade. The proscription followed the group’s break-in at RAF Brize Norton, where two aircraft were spray painted. In the proscribed list, which includes such violent luminaries as Boko Haram and Islamic State, Palestine Action is hysterically assessed as an entity that “prepares for terrorism” and “promotes and encourages terrorism.” Its attacks had included “targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public.”

Co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, challenged the lawfulness of the proscription in the High Court in November 2025, claiming, along with the intervening parties Liberty and Amnesty International UK, that it had involved a disproportionate use of counter-terrorism powers. Initially, Ammori scored a resounding success, all the more remarkable given the persistent record of courts in Britain to side with the national security apparatus.

The Divisional Court held in February 2026 in R (Ammori)v Secretary of State for the Home Department that the Home Secretary’s approach on proscription had failed to follow her own long-standing proscription policy. These involved five factors intended to constrain the office holder’s discretion. The resort to “other factors” would have to be read with that constraining purpose in mind.

The Court also found that a fair balance between the rights of individuals to free speech (Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights) and freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the ECHR as against the national security and protection of the rights of others (Articles 10.2 and 11.2 of the ECHR) had not been struck. In applying the test of proportionality to the decision the Court held that “the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities, so far as they [comprised] acts of terrorism, [had] not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are a consequence of proscription, and the very significant interference with Convention rights consequent on those measures.”

The government of Sir Keir “Human Rights” Starmer was never going to let things stand, nor should not be forgotten that the High Court decision was hardly brimming with praise for the actions of Palestine Action. The definition of terrorism in UK counter-terrorism legislation is intentionally outrageous in its broadness, encompassing causing or threatening “serious damage to property” that would suggest an intention to influence government policy and advance a political case. The High Court did, at least, note that the act of proscription was based on 385 actions committed over 5 years, of which only three were deemed “terrorist incidents.”

Back to the casino of justice the case went. On June 15, the Court of Appeal handed down its quashing judgment. The national security state could again rejoice at this grand exhibition of judicial abdication before the alleged, and unfounded wisdom, of executive power. The judges found, for instance, that the Home Secretary had, in fact, conducted a proper evaluation of the rights issue in considering the banning of Palestine Action. This analysis was shallow at best, given the Home Secretary’s continual insistence that neither Article 10 nor 11 off the ECHR applied in the case. Article 17 of the Convention – the prohibition of an abuse of rights – was what counted in her mind.

The Court of Appeal went so far as to admit that the rights of those holding placards opposing genocide and supporting the Palestinian cause “may be affected by proscription, because they may be dissuaded by it from exercising their lawful individual rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.” The Home Secretary had been wrong to assume that Article 10 and 11 rights were not engaged, or that no test of proportionality was required. The court even conceded that the ban was “highly controversial” and possibly even “borderline.” But in their own assessment on proportionality, the judges felt reluctant to challenge the vast, self-evident wisdom of the executive, given that the Home Secretary was “invested with the statutory and constitutional authority to make proscription decisions to protect the public where national security is at stake.” It was not for the court to “take over the function of the primary decision-maker, least of all in a case such as this.” Such proscription decisions were part of national security, an area that no UK judges would have thought inappropriate to scrutinise before the Human Rights Act 1998. (How mothballed can judges be?)

The logic of this abysmal abdication before power was guided by the views of Lord Robert Reed made in the UK Supreme Court decision of ABJ, which was decided in February this year: “Although a strict approach is generally taken to restrictions on political speech, the European Court has recognised that states must enjoy a wider margin of appreciation when countering terrorism.” In a rather conflating, muddled manner, Lord Reed thought judicial supervision, be it by UK courts applying the Human Rights Act or the European court applying the ECHR, had “to respect the institutional expertise and constitutional legitimacy underlying the judgment made by those authorities by according them a correspondingly wide margin of appreciation.” This is what surrender by the wigged classes looks like.


The Court of Appeal also decided to make much of the fact that Palestine Action had committed three deemed “terrorist incidents” over three years, a mere 0.78% of its list of actions. With disapproval, they noted the organisation had not “disowned or condemned” such actions. It was therefore “permissible for the Home Secretary (and, therefore, is permissible for us), in considering Palestine Action’s characteristics and activities, not just its activities classified as terrorist.” The rationale for this bumbling reasoning was that proscription was preventative: the Home Secretary had to “assess the risk of future acts of terrorism. All of an organisation’s activities, such as recruitment, fundraising, radicalisation and all terrorist and non-terrorist activities may be relevant to that assessment.”

Veering off into the feral undergrowth of the bizarre, the appeals court also  considered the allegedly more sinister nature of the group, mangling the history of British protest along the way. Its activities had been “planned and undertaken secretly with the objective of avoiding detection.” Its members had not shown “sincerity by accepting” the imposed penalties. But most of all, “on a fair analysis, Palestine Action has little or nothing in common with the suffragettes or the anti-apartheid or Iraq War protest groups.”

With this sort of fair analysis, one rooted in a distorted reading of history, a horrendous refusal to consider a flawed, executive assessment of protest activities, and a general concession to an anti-democratic temper, the only thing left to do is exactly what the suffragettes, anti-apartheid activists, and previous anti-war activists did: break the law with courage and clog the prisons with effect.

July 2, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »