Politics
Manchester tenants organisers launch Resist Rent Rises campaign
Housing expert lawyers Nick Bano and Kate Bradley told a packed GMTU audience in Manchester that the recent Renters’ Rights Act (RRA) is a great foothold, but not the finish line. They balanced joy in the wake of the monumental Act with cautious pessimism about our collective next steps.
Greater Manchester Tenants’ Union was buzzing on a recent evening as campaigners, tenants and housing lawyers packed the GMTU offices for the Manchester area launch of the national Resist Rent Rises campaign.
Two of the sharpest minds in housing law — Garden Court barrister and Against Landlords author Nick Bano, and Greater Manchester Law Centre lawyer Kate Bradley — set out exactly why tenants now have more power than they realise, and why they must use it. Turns out that GMTU and GMLC are in fact joint office tenants!
From reform to rent controls
Nick Bano gleefully clarified that the RRA converted every private tenancy into a lifetime tenancy overnight on 1 May. But this was never the movement’s final destination, in his telling — it’s our launch pad.
He told the room:
We don’t stop. … The Renters’ Rights Act is what’s going to give us the stability to move on to the next thing, which is rent controls.
The shift on 1 May was seismic. As Bano put it:
Overnight, every single tenancy got magically converted into a housing association-style lifetime tenancy where you cannot be evicted unless the landlord can find a legal pretext.
He was candid about the risks. Landlords will lie, cheat, and push every loophole. It’s in their interests, as a class, to do so. But Bano insisted the narrative must change, and that it is:
A home is for life. Taking someone’s home away is unbelievably draconian.
And now landlords, he argued, are already on the back foot:
Landlords are losing. They’ve been at the centre of this debate for seven years. We’ve got used to giving them a kicking in the policy realm, on the streets, and in the activist scene.
Now is a brilliant time to use that momentum.
What the RRA gets right and wrong
Kate Bradley offered a forensic read of the legislation, welcoming the removal of dreaded Section 21 evictions from what Bano calls the “ratchet mechanism.” It’s the landlord’s longstanding power to serve a rent increase and an eviction notice simultaneously, thereby forcing tenants to either pay up or get out.
Tenants everywhere can sigh in deep relief now that it’s gone. Bradley and Bano are certain of that much.
But Bradley was unflinching about the gaps left behind by the RRA:
- Landlords can now cite intention to sell or move in as grounds for eviction, with a potentially cripplingly low evidential bar — and enforcement on the ground hasn’t kicked in yet.
- Defences that previously blocked Section 21 evictions (gas safety certificates, energy performance certificates, the How to Rent guide) are now gone. She said, worryingly:
I really predict we’re going to see an increase in carbon monoxide deaths and house fires as a result.”
- Anti-discrimination rules for benefits claimants and families with children exist on paper, but local authorities lack the funding and duty — not just the power — to enforce them.
- Key protections are enforceable only by local authorities, not tenants themselves — and most councils aren’t yet resourced to act.
“Paper rights are worth almost nothing,” Bradley warned:
Getting something that’s on paper but never being able to do anything about it is the problem.
The Tribunal, your new best weapon
That may sound grim, but there’s much to be hopeful for, too. Both speakers were clear that challenging rent increases through the First-Tier Tribunal is now a genuinely viable and low-risk tool.
Bradley spoke about any Section 13 notices served now, after 1 May. She articulated the removal of two of the previous gravest deterrents that tenants faced in challenging a rent rise:
- If a tenant refers a rent increase to the First-Tier Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot raise the rent above what the landlord originally asked for;
- Furthermore, any increase will only take effect from the date of the Tribunal’s determination, rather than being backdated.
Bano set out the positive case plainly for where we find ourselves now, regarding Tribunals:
- There are no disincentives to raising a tribunal challenge, because rents will be stuck at the old rate while the dispute is pending;
- The tribunal cannot increase the rent beyond what the landlord asked for, so the risks are low;
- When tenants negotiate lower increases — perhaps under threat of a tribunal challenge — those agreements are used by the tribunal to assess rents in other cases.
Hence, Bano says on this last point that these can be strategically leveraged by the tenant movement:
You’re doing your neighbours a service by reducing the general rate of rent increases.
Bano’s vision is where everyone picks a fight against annual rent increases. This is entirely new.
If everyone is fighting every single rent increase, that’s an incredibly empowering thing. If it’s just standard practice that every year we help each other fight our rent increases, that’s a way to build a movement.
The road to rent controls
The political weather is shifting. Bano noted that think tanks including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and IPPR had recently backed rent controls, and that Rachel Reeves, however briefly, publicly floated the idea.
The dial has moved enormously in the past 12 months alone. That’s a testament to this movement.
He was pithy in dismissing the landlord lobby’s counter-argument:
They say rent controls push rents up. That’s utterly nonsense on its face. The fact they’re having to argue that — yes, rents going up is bad, but if you did this rents will go up — that’s them admitting rents going up is bad. That’s how badly they’re losing that argument.
Andy Burnham twice won Greater Manchester on a (supposed) rent control platform, and now eyes up PM. These campaigners are clear — local pressure, tribunal challenges, and collective organising are not just ends in themselves. These must now become the engine of all future fights.
The Resist Rent Rises campaign is just getting started. Follow it on social media and get involved through GMTU branches, the London Renters’ Union or your local renters’ organisation.
Featured image via Cameron Baillie / the Canary
The deaths of Ollie Long and Ellen Mulvey expose the dangers of illegal gambling sites. Derek Webb argues that new evidence challenges widely repeated claims about the size and drivers of Britain’s unlicensed gambling market
Two recent inquests have exposed the most disturbing consequences of Britain’s illegal online gambling market. This year coroners concluded that gambling disorder contributed to the suicides of Ollie Long and Ellen Mulvey, two people who had actively tried to escape gambling but ended up on illegal sites.
Both had first become addicted through legal online casinos and had tried to quit by using the self-exclusion tool GamStop. Nearly 700,000 people struggling with gambling harm have signed up to GamStop, which blocks access to any legal British gambling site. Yet illegal casinos deliberately use “casinos not on GamStop” as a marketing tool, luring people such as Ellen and Ollie back into harm.
A new research report prepared this month by the intelligence platform Gaming Compliance International (GCI) for my Campaign for Fairer Gambling shows that both the regulated and unregulated online gambling sectors grew between 2024 and 2025. The regulated market remains overwhelmingly dominant, accounting for around 91 per cent of online gambling revenue, while the unregulated sector accounts for less than 9 per cent.
This data also suggests that casino-style gaming, rather than betting, is the main driver in the unregulated sector, with 75 per cent of unregulated gambling revenue coming from gaming products. This challenges trade claims that affordability checks on sports and racing bettors are the main drivers of illegal market growth.
The scale of the problem has also been exaggerated. If we consider the whole GB gambling market including land-based and the lottery, the illegal portion equates to only around 4 per cent. Excluding underage and self-excluded gamblers reduces it to less than 2 per cent. That is smaller than the gambling market in Northern Ireland, despite the province having no dedicated regulator and outdated gambling laws.
It is therefore fascinating that an All-Party Parliamentary Group for Action Against Illegal Gambling has just been set up. Vice-chairs Esther McVey MP and Neil CoyleMP, aided by secretariat Jordan Lea of Deal Me Out, have an opportunity to prove to be reliable independent voices by avoiding parroting the trade lines.
Despite the attention illegal casinos receive, the reality is that Britain still has one of the smallest unregulated online gambling sectors of any major jurisdiction globally. Trade voices are forecasting that by 2028 unregulated turnover will reach £33bn and present this as an existential threat to the regulated sector.
But turnover is not revenue. My campaign to reduce the stakes of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) resulted in a turnover decrease of £25bn in the first year (2019-20) but a much smaller revenue decrease of £750m. Those opposing that harm reduction move forecast that betting shop numbers would decline to 4,500. There are still over 5,600 betting shops, despite the pandemic and bookies pushing conversion from land-based to online.
The Treasury has awarded the Gambling Commission £26m to tackle illegal gambling. No longer led by Andrew Rhodes, who has left to become a gambling sector adviser, the Commission is using the funds to establish an illegal gambling task force under DCMS whose membership remains secret.
Mr Rhodes and other executives at the Commission have a history of attending and speaking at trade events where many of the participants are unlicenced operators and suppliers, or representatives of jurisdictions hosting those unlicenced sites.
So many people, including parliamentarians, worked so hard to get the Conservatives’ Gambling White Paper done, but DCMS delegated some projects to the Commission. If the Commission had been less friendly to the gambling sector in the resulting consultations, would Mr Rhodes have been as welcome in his new role?
Despite their expertise, GCI is not on the task force, and neither is Gamban, the premier self-exclusion tool. Gamban can block both legal and illegal sites from all devices when activated, but was recently refused funding under DHSC from the £120m per year statutory levy, raising questions about DHSC oversight in that process.
The task force should start by asking why many illegal sites are still accessible from Britain despite being known to DCMS. It should also look into whether companies licensed by the Commission are in business relationships with illegal sites.
It is the same addictive content on illegal sites as on legal ones. Illegal electronic roulette is still electronic roulette. Changing a name from Super Silly Slots to Silly Super Slots does not change the games.* Gamblers have no guarantee that the games are fair, winnings will be paid or deposits will be protected.
The deaths of Ollie Long and Ellen Mulvey should change the conversation. We need to move on from abstract discussions about “safer” or “protected” gambling. The same marketing techniques and algorithms operate across both sectors. The totality of harm is greater in the regulated sector, which remains the primary gateway to illegal gambling. Any serious strategy to reduce harm must acknowledge that reality.
* Game names invented for illustrative purposes
David TC Davies was Secretary of State for Wales from 2022 to 2024. He was the Member of Parliament for Monmouth from 2005 to 2024 and previously sat in the Welsh Assembly.
Communities across Wales and the United Kingdom are marking Armed Forces Day.
We rightly pay tribute to the men and women of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, who stand ready to defend our country, often at great personal sacrifice.
But there is another group of people who are crucial to the defence of our nation, who rarely receive the recognition they deserve. I refer to the thousands of workers who design and build the weapons and equipment that keep our service personnel and all of us safe.
As a Welsh politician, I am very conscious of their contribution because the defence sector is vital to the Welsh economy. Global companies such as BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Airbus, Raytheon and Babcock all have a significant presence in Wales. But there are also dozens of smaller firms further down the supply chain, employing a highly skilled workforce.
I recently visited Sierra Nevada Corporation Mission Systems in South Wales, one of a number of companies based in Wales and developing advanced defence technology. Not far away is IrvinGQ, which manufactures parachutes used by the British Armed Forces and allied nations around the world. Remarkably, much of the highly skilled work involved in manufacturing these life-saving products is still carried out by hand.
These are highly skilled jobs that support families and communities across Wales, yet too often the people who work in the defence sector are treated as though there is something morally questionable about what they do.
Last year, I discovered that the Welsh Government-owned Development Bank of Wales was explicitly stating on its website that it would not provide funding to defence companies. Following my intervention, that wording was removed, but I never received a satisfactory explanation as to why it had appeared there in the first place. The message seemed to be that building the equipment used by those defending our democracy is somehow less worthy than other forms of manufacturing.
That attitude still exists in some political circles. We now have a Plaid Cymru Government in Wales. One of their Ministers, Heledd Fychan, previously criticised Welsh Government attendance at a major international defence exhibition, describing it as a “contemptible event”. Another Plaid Senedd Member publicly called for the arms industry to be “moved out of Wales”.
Others are demanding that pension funds withdraw investment from the very companies that equip our Armed Forces.
Plaid Cymru politicians are entitled to hold those views. But they should also understand the consequences. Our Armed Forces cannot defend Britain, with slogans, and protest banners.
But if we expect our servicemen and women to defend our country, we must also be willing to support the industries that equip them. We cannot send them into war zones armed with pea shooters and bows and arrows.
They need advanced aircraft, precision-guided weapons, armoured vehicles and the countless other technologies that modern warfare demands.
Some politicians want to be seen celebrating Armed Forces Day while remaining hostile towards the people who make the equipment our Armed Forces rely upon every day. This could most kindly be described as inconsistent.
I am proud of Wales’s defence industry and the thousands of Welsh workers whose skills help keep Britain safe. I will continue visiting defence companies across Wales and championing the contribution they make to our economy and national security.
At a time when international instability is increasing, we should be cheering on our defence companies, not undermining them. And if the UK Government finally wakes up to the scale of the geopolitical challenges we face and increases defence spending, Wales must receive its fair share of that investment.
It is pointless to champion the men and women of His Majesty’s Armed Forces if we are not also willing to champion those who provide them with the equipment they need to fight and win.
A strong Britain requires strong armed forces and strong armed forces require a strong defence industry.
Wales has every reason to be proud of the role it plays in both.
LOS ANGELES — Moments after Iran and Belgium battled to a scoreless draw at SoFi Stadium, the Belgian players beat a hasty retreat to the locker room.
Not the Iranian World Cup team.
The players on Team Melli lingered on the field, doing a slow lap to cheers from supporters who’d dominated stands with chants of “Iran!” The Iranian players held their hands aloft and clapped for the spectators, some of whom waved Iran’s pre-revolution lion and sun flag, which is seen as a symbol of resistance against the Islamic Republic and is banned by FIFA.
One Iranian American fan, who gave his name as Majid, said he came from Seattle for the game. “The team, even though there is controversy … the team is here, they want to win … and we support them,” he said.
The scene made for a striking juxtaposition: Iranian players representing the Islamic Republic applauding a crowd in which some fans waved a flag symbolic of opposition to the very theocracy whose colors they wore.
Iran plays its final group stage match against Egypt in Seattle on June 26 — during the city’s monthlong LGBTQ+ Pride celebration, drawing formal complaints from both Middle Eastern countries.
VANCOUVER — On the opening day of the 2010 Winter Olympics, protesters marched to BC Place, the culmination of a decade-long tug-of-war over whether Vancouver had room for a global sports mega-event. Activists first tried to block the Olympics from coming to town, then tried to use it to extract social commitments from organizers, and finally to shame anyone involved.
On Thursday, when Canada was preparing to play the most important match in the country’s soccer history, the streets around BC Place appeared to be free of protesters, filled only with gleeful fans swathed in patriotic red and the occasional dishdasha preferred by the Qatar Football Association’s traveling contingent.
“It’s kind of a nothing-burger,” observed Am Johal, who as the chair of the Impact on Communities Coalition had been a leader of the city’s anti-Olympics movement, hours before kickoff on the World Cup’s second match day.
Johal was walking through the Downtown Eastside, a scruffy neighborhood that had been the site of the greatest pre-Olympic friction, along the lines of conflict that define the modern North American city — between new transplants and existing residents, tourists and locals, police and civil-rights activists, global capital and local resistance.
Now, however, Johal was carrying a fiscal conservative’s laments rather than those of the community organizer. Canada’s governments were projected to spend over $1 billion to host World Cup matches in Vancouver and Toronto, with a roughly even split between funds coming from the federal budget as opposed to provincial and local ones. More than 70 percent of voters in both cities told pollster Angus Reid that it was not worth the public cost.
“I think if the government is looking to spend a billion of public funding related to economic and social benefit, it should really do a proper opportunity cost,” said Johal. “If there’s a massive public subsidy being done to groups that are unaccountable to the broader city — if these things are going to go ahead — why is public money going into them?”
Those were arguments Johal made when Vancouver voters were asked in November 2002 to weigh in on the merits of an Olympic bid. Almost two-thirds of those casting ballots in the municipal plebiscite voted to proceed. But over the course of the decade, as the games grew near, the coalition of skeptics appeared to grow. (The Vancouver Sun dismissed them as “whiners and grumble-bunnies.”)
There were anti-gentrification activists who feared that an Olympic Village and other new developments would price out renters and displace property owners. Anti-consumerist radicals, many with ties to the Vancouver-based magazine Adbusters, saw it as a corporate spectacle. Civil libertarians anticipated heavy-handed police measures to clear streets of the homeless and drug users. (Vancouver is home to North America’s first supervised injection facility.) Environmental activists and tribal groups, who hold disproportionate sway in British Columbia’s politics, sought to protect what they said was unceded aboriginal land.
As the anti-Olympic coalition grew, it split along the lines that often fracture protest moments. Johal’s community coalition sought to extract 37 specific policy commitments to ensure what one City Council resolution described as a “transparent, inclusive and socially sustainable” games.
The Anti-Poverty Committee took a more militant approach, threatening to “evict” members of the local Olympics organizing committee from their homes, attacking branches of games sponsor Royal Bank of Canada with rocks, and vandalizing the office of British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, a leading Olympic booster. The militants also took aim at those on their own side, even if more playfully: David Eby, who as executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association had been the anti-Olympics’ movement most prominent spokesman, received a pie to the face after arguing for non-violence at a community meeting.
Despite the irreconcilable “diversity of tactics,” as activists politely described it, the rebellion attracted notice beyond Vancouver, inspiring a new era of local resistance to global mega-events. Veterans of the Vancouver campaign shared lessons with activists in Boston, who in 2015 forced then-Mayor Tom Menino to withdraw plans to bid for the 2024 Summer Games due to civic opposition. Two European cities, Hamburg and Budapest, subsequently killed their bids once voters expressed their disapproval in referenda. The NOlympics LA movement, currently attempting to rally political opposition to the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles, draws from the lessons of Vancouver.
Evidence of that legacy has been scarce on the streets of Vancouver this month, even after the city enacted “FIFA Bylaws” designed to give police specific tools to use against street vendors and buskers and remove advertising that interferes with the World Cup sponsorship deals. The Pivot Legal Society deployed crews of “legal observers” who chased law-enforcement officials through the Downtown Eastside, and activists shared Vancouver Police Department press releases boasting of new drone surveillance capacities.
“These are always moments where policing gets new tactics and technologies,” observed Johal, “and they oftentimes get deployed during mega events as a way of moving forward.”
But the Downtown Eastside did not feel like a neighborhood under siege, as it had in 2010. Even if it competes with the Olympics in cultural and geopolitical salience, the World Cup is a more logistically diffuse experience. Rather than being consolidated within a single metropolitan area for two jam-packed weeks, this year’s World Cup lasts for more than five weeks and is spread across 16 cities in three countries.
In 2022, the same year that Vancouver offered itself up to host World Cup matches, Eby was elected British Columbia’s premier. Now instead of using his words to inspire the activists who massed outside BC Place, he was inside. Inside a luxury box, Eby greeted sports executives who lobbied him to make a new commitment to the Vancouver Whitecaps franchise that joined Major League Soccer the year after the Olympics. (Eby’s office did not make him available for an interview.)
“We’re so excited to be hosting,” Eby said in one social-media video. “And we’re so excited to have a win under our belts.”
Tomorrow, the King of the North will grace southerners with his exulted present and travel to London to claim the throne that he considers his by right. It’s as if he has hypnotised his party to lay down their collective shawls in order that the chosen one can walk on water. It’s as if the Messiah is coming to rescue those who have proven incapable of running the country. It’s almost as if he, like Barack Obama appeared to be in 2008, considers himself the only human being in the country who can come to its rescue. He’s even using Obamaesque language, promising hope and change. Obama soon found out that governing was more difficult than that. Andy Burnham is about to discover the awful truth, that changing things in government and changing things in Whitehall are much more difficult. Having been a cabinet minister for three years under Blair and Brown, you’d think he might know that already.
I like Andy Burnham, but I’m afraid we are about to find out that our new emperor has no clothes.
One of the main complaints about Keir Starmer is that he has no grounding political ideological groundings. This means that he is very proficient at swaying in the political wind, and flip-flopping on a policy in the hope that no one will notice.
Burnham has a longer history than Starmer in the Labour Party. Indeed, he’s been a Labour activist from a young age. But can anyone identify what Burnhamism actually is or means. People point to ‘Manchesterism’ but as Sam Coates’s excellent 20 minute film points out, the ground for what Burnham has allegedly achieved in Manchester was laid by Sir Richard Leese. Burnham has been very adept in claiming the glory for himself. Running a city region the size of Manchester is very different to running a country.
Since it became clear that Burnham intended to topple the prime minister, the media has had a collective failure in scrutinising what Andy Burnham really believes in. We’ve seen plenty of examples of issues which he has u-turned on in a way that would make even Keir Starmer blush, but there is scant little evidence of anything which he believes in except himself.
In 2007, when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, everyone thought he would come in with an agenda for government. That he knew exactly what he wanted to do and achieve. After all, he had had ten years to think about it. But when he walked through the Number 10 door, it turned out the policy cupboard was bare. It led to three years of listless government, with a prime minister incapable of making decisions or to reflect the priorities of the people he was there to serve.
I genuinely hope I am wrong and that Burnham has some visionary policies up his sleep which he can deploy to the benefit of the nation. I am, however, sceptical, because I see no evidence of it. However, assuming he has two months to prepare to take over, perhaps there is still time to put some meat on the bone.
Theresa May became prime minister two months earlier than she might have expected, when Andrea Leadsom pulled out of the 2026 Tory leadership contest in early July 2016. I do hope history does not repeat itself. There should be a context, but if there isn’t, Keit Starmer would do his successor a favour by staying on until the beginning of September. May had no time to prepare for government, and we all know what happened to her.
There is a huge responsibility on Burnham’s shoulders. If he becomes another prime minister who overpromises and underdelivers, the electorate’s faith in politics will diminish to an even more dangerous level than it already has.
Welcome to political realism, Andy. You’ve campaigned in poetry. Now is the time to realise that, as Mario Cuoma memorably said, you have to govern in prose.
Get writing.
Gov. Josh Shapiro is quickly becoming the prospective 2028 presidential campaign field’s biggest World Cup fan.
On Monday, the Pennsylvania governor and potential presidential candidate is set to attend his second match of the tournament when he is in the stands at Lincoln Financial Field to see Iraq play France in Philadelphia, according to a spokesperson. He also attended Ivory Coast vs. Ecuador there a week ago with his wife Lori. Shapiro is also expected to hit the FIFA Fan Festival before the match.
Shapiro joins a growing list of 2028 hopefuls to take in the tournament. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, attended the U.S. opener against Paraguay. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attended the American squad’s match against Australia. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, who hasn’t actively made moves toward a campaign but has carved out a leadership role in the party, attended the France vs. Senegal game at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
A number of potential 2028 candidates in states hosting games have not yet made the pilgrimage to a game: Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) hasn’t partaken of an East Rutherford match. Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, for example, have not attended matches at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta (Ossoff has said he has no interest in running for president), nor has Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) hasn’t taken in a match at either AT&T Stadium in Arlington or NRG Stadium in Houston.
Shapiro is known on local sports radio as “Josh in Abington,” and is a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles and 76ers. That fandom could help him build stronger relationships with voters. Philadelphia’s fan zone has drawn significant crowds.
Shapiro has also used host status to distribute 700 free tickets to Philadelphia community organizations. He said it was “really important” to him that it would happen when he landed matches.
“Governor Shapiro believes the FIFA World Cup is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that should benefit all Pennsylvanians,” his office said in a press release earlier this month, and “he is working to make the matches free and accessible to as many people as possible.”
The tickets are also an economic development tool: “As part of Visit PA’s sponsorship of Philadelphia Soccer 2026, the Commonwealth gains access to a mix of suite, VIP, and general admission tickets, which are being used to host business leaders, prospective partners, and other guests to further strengthen Pennsylvania’s economic development and promote the Commonwealth as the best place to visit, live, and do business,” a Shapiro spokesperson said.
More broadly, the politics of attending a FIFA World Cup game are tricky, says Eric Koch, a soccer fan and Democratic consultant based in New York City.
“In fairness the ticket prices are insane and the U.S. matches have all been on the West Coast so it’s hard for anyone to get out there — and AOC has been (rightfully!) basking in the Knicks win,” Koch said. “The U.S. loves a winner and this squad is not only super talented but is also on the cusp of really capturing the hearts of the whole country as we go to the knockout rounds so I expect we will see more candidates embracing them. It’s going to be a great unifying thing to rally behind.”
For Democrats in particular, embracing the World Cup could help them with two political projects, Koch said: embracing some kind of patriotism and relating more with voters, but it has to be an authentic effort.
“As with all things in politics, if it’s not authentic to you and what you’re about, it’s going to seem fake and forced and this applies extra to sports, which people have actual deep connections to,” Koch said. “The good thing is the USMNT can be everyone’s team and as the hype train builds I think we will see more pols embracing them.”
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
One day, someone will invent an injection that means we never have to reapply sunscreen again. But until that day comes, it is a sad and unfortunate truth that sunscreen is a daily skincare essential – and more so in the sunny months than ever.
Despite the undeniable benefits of wearing SPF – it protects against skin cancer, and prevents visible signs of ageing, etc, etc – it is a pretty spenny necessity, which can make it all the more tempting to skip it. Fine, we’ll admit it.
So you need a little extra nudge to stock up on sunscreen this year, that’s completely understandable.
If you’ve not yet stocked up on sunscreen for the season ahead, I’ve made it my job to round up the best tried and tested SPFs.
Keep reading for our suggestion of the best face, sensitive, Korean, and beach-appropriate sunscreens to shop now.
How I tested the best sunscreens
As a shopping writer, I’m constantly bombarded by packages. What an affliction, right? That means I’m always receiving the newest and latest SPFs.
Over the last few months, I’ve been trialling a new SPF every day. I’ve already found the best face sunscreens for sensitive skin, and now I’ve been branching out to find the best overall.
Using a different one on my face weekly, I’ve made sure each sunscreen stands the test of time on the beach, while out and about in a city, without makeup, and with.
I’ve considered price points, whether they’re planet-friendly, if they have a combination of UVA and UVB protection, their SPF rating, the size of the bottle, and sometimes their scent. The best are listed down below.
Best sunscreens to shop now
Best all-round
If you’re looking for a sunscreen that won’t leave a white cast, isn’t greasy, and is sensitive-skin friendly (who isn’t?) this one from La Roche Posay covers all bases. It’s not only formulated with sensitive, rash-prone skin in mind, but uses a combination of long and short-range UVA and UVB technology to keep you ultra protected.
Best value for money
As a sensitive skin girly, I’m more than used to struggling to find sunscreen that’s affordable and won’t leave me covered in an awful rash. Thankfully, Boots has the solution in the form of this face and body sunscreen combo. It genuinely won’t break you out, isn’t too greasy, and most importantly is a steal.
Amazon
Best for kids
If there’s one thing that’s going to convince your kids to wear sunscreen, it’s if it smells like tangerine and vanilla. This SPF 30 zinc formula might leave a little greasy layer on your skin, but it’s water resistant for over an hour, and it’s made from 98% natural ingredients.
Best for the beach
If there was ever a scent that encapsulated summer, it would be Hawaiian Tropic. I don’t know how they’ve done it, but the brand has bottled what it feels like to be on a beach, and the sunscreen is great for that, too. It does leave stains on white clothing, so beware, but the formula comes with hints of shimmer that leave you looking and feeling like you’ve been coated in a ray of sunshine. With factor 50 protection and added hydration, it’s ideal for loading up when you’re by a body of water, and it’s water-resistant.
Best SPF moisturiser for ageing
Okay, hear me out: £92 is a lot to ask you to spend on a moisturiser. But if you’re really serious about a two in one SPF moisturiser that feels good, and keeps you protected, this is it. Not only is the packaging truly luxurious, but it also smells delightful, and most importantly uses real science to back up its age-defence properties. Using Nobel Prize-inspired technology, it has been clinically proven to protect against collagen degradation and inflammation. Plus, it won’t pill under makeup and doesn’t leave a white cast, so what more could you want?
Best organic sunscreen
Of course you want a sunscreen that looks after you, but it should look after the planet, too. At least, that’s what Green People thinks, as its formulas are made from entirely natural and organic ingredients, meaning it’s friendly on sensitive skin. This one is scentless, invisible, and has a boost of B5 to leave your skin feeling hydrated – all without any oiliness.
Best Korean face sunscreen
I’ve recently discovered there’s a reason Korean skincare has taken off in the last few years: it’s really fucking good. This SPF 50 from Laneige is completely invisible and lightweight, and absorbs faster than you can say ‘protection’, making it ideal for wearing under makeup.
I wish my eyelashes would take some lessons from the hairs that grow on my mole.
For some reason, the ones I least want to appear end up darker, thicker, and longer-looking than the kind on my head.
Friends have said they experience the same thing, too. So what’s going on?
Why does mole hair grow so thick and dark?
Pigmented moles, or those which are a different, darker colour to the rest of your skin, are melanocytic, the British Association of Dermatologists writes.
That means they “are made up of the cells (melanocytes) which produce the dark pigment (melanin) that gives the skin its colour”.
Healthline says this might affect any hairs growing there.
“In some cases, the hair that grows out of a mole may appear darker or thicker than the other body hair surrounding it. This is because the extra pigment in the cells may darken the hair, too,” they suggested.
But speaking to Mental Floss, dermatologist Lauren Ploch said that the exact process is still a “mystery”.
She said that microscopic investigations have shown that nevus cells, a type of melanocyte, don’t seem to invade the actual structure of mole hairs and haven’t been seen to affect colour or growth speed.
But we do know the skin that makes up moles is different to “normal” skin. It can be created by different hormonal balances and signalling proteins.
“I suspect that, while the mole itself may not have a direct role in creating a darker, coarser hair, the local milieu of signaling molecules and hormones in the skin that created the mole leads to a darker, coarser hair within the lesion,” Ploch posited.
Are hairy moles less likely to be cancerous?
Some people think that hairy moles can’t be cancerous. But while some anecdotal accounts suggest the risk may be lower, the Dermatology Associates of Atlanta calls the idea that hairy moles never have cancer a “dangerous myth”.
They added, “While melanoma tends to eventually make mole hairs fall out, this doesn’t happen until the cancer has advanced”.
They’re not alone. In a TikTok video, dermatologist Dr Sam Ellis said: “Whether or not a mole grows a hair has absolutely nothing to do with whether ot not it’s cancerous”.
Experts recommend following the ABCDE method to identify potentially cancerous moles instead.
- A: asymmetry,
- B: border irregularity,
- C: colour variability,
- D: diameter (a mole that’s bigger than 6mm across),
- E: evolution (watch out for moles that change in size, shape, or colour).
If you notice these, visit your GP.
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
It’s time to start expecting more from your suitcases. Point blank.
Yes, they’re mainly something to store all your things in, and they should do that really well. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be so much more.
There are so many stressful elements of travelling, but for more me one of the worst fears is losing my case, and with it, all my belongings.
I had a near brush with this once when my checked suitcase was irretrievable for four days on a month-long trip to the US a few years ago.
But I must admit I’m always worrying about someone grabbing my carry-on case off a plane or train without my knowing, or even out of a hotel lobby (sorry if this is unlocking a new fear for you).
Thus, anything I can do to abate that fear is top of my list of priorities. So there couldn’t be a more perfect product for me than July’s latest release: a top-down packing suitcase that has a built-in tracking device, so you can always have peace of mind.
As soon as it arrived, I knew we’d be firm and fast travel buds.
My honest review of the July Capsule Carry On Pro
How I tested the July Capsule Carry On Pro
You would not believe the divine timing on this case – it launched the week before I was set to go on a long weekend trip to Paris, and arrived at my house no more than an hour before I had to leave.
Thus, I had to reorganise my packing from a duffle bag into this case. I took enough clothes for five days (and then some) including my laptop, three pairs of shoes, and plenty of toiletries.
I travelled on the Eurostar, so this case withstood lots of tube, train, and metro travelling over the course of five days. And, I’m pleased to say, I didn’t take another bag.
First impressions
I must admit, I’m quite precious about my clothes and shoes, so when the case arrived with a supremely hard shell made from 100% polycarbonate, I was a happy bunny. I ordered the white version, but it’s also available in tan, black, navy, and green.
Risky, you might think (my friends and girlfriend have taken to calling it ‘The Kim K’) but even after five days it is barely scuffed, and I think the exterior will be easy to clean when it inevitably gets dirty.
Immediately, I could tell it would have the smoothest glide – and I was right. With a solid build, the case doesn’t topple over unlike other carry ons (which I’ve noticed especially happens when I overpack, weird!).
It’s also extremely easy to drag, as it comes with completely silent 360 double spinner wheels. I had a lot of fun pushing it ahead of me and seeing how little I could touch it on my journey to and from Paris.
The handle is easy to open at any given moment, thanks to the button underneath, which makes it intuitive to unlock when you wrap your hand around it. It also has multiple stops, so you can raise it to the ideal height for you.
Next to the handle is a combination code, for extra reassurance that no one is going to take your things en route, and a location tracker.
Of course, I had to get synced up to that straight away, which you can do with Find My iPhone or Google Hub, and took mere seconds to set up. All you have to do is remove the tab, and add an ‘item’ to your tracker on your phone, which will then pair with your suitcase.
Packing and arrival
Now, probably the most notable thing about the Carry On Pro is that it doesn’t have a front pocket – at least not on the outside.
But when you unzip it (by pressing the button that releases the magnetism on the zippers) you’re met with a handy front pocket that allows you to have access to anything you’ll need on your journey – shoes, book, or laptop.
There’s also a zipper pocket in there for your more sensitive items like passport, phone, and keys. This means you don’t have to open your entire suitcase to reach your essentials on the go.
To unlock the rest of the suitcase, you simply undo another set of zips to move from the front pocket to the rest of the suitcase.
July describes this mechanism as ‘top-down’ packing, which means essentially there’s only one compartment, rather than two halves, so there’s plenty of volume and depth to fit everything you need in there.
The other side of the front pocket doubles as a separator with a small and large pockets for things like underwear, toiletries, or whatever else you want. Then there’s the large compartment, which I had no trouble fitting more than enough clothes for a long weekend in.
Plus, there’s a small interior pocket near the wheels so you can hide sensitive items (like travel sex toys… just saying), and a Y-compressor strap to keep everything held in one place.
Final verdict
- Silent, easy to drag wheels
- The top-down system is easy to use
- Location tracker and combination lock for extra security
- Handle easy to unlock
- Plenty of internal pockets
- Comes with a wash bag
- On the heavier side at 4.1kg
- No side handle
I loved the fact that I didn’t have to worry about all of my bits and bobs flailing around from one half of my case into the other. The ‘top-down’ approach is completely intuitive to use, from packing through to travelling, and eventually unpacking.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that you have the security of the location tracker, combination lock, and multiple internal pockets to keep everything safe.
It really is the details the make the difference between easy packing and a chore, which is why I have to give bonus points to the inclusion of a stain-proof laundry bag.
And, as someone who hates taking a suitcase with me, I appreciated how easy it was to drag this along – it was completely noiseless, I could drag it with two fingers, and you can even lock the wheels while you’re travelling so it doesn’t go flying down the carriage.
My one note would be that there isn’t a side handle, which might make lifting it into the overhead locker quite awkward, depending on how much you’ve packed.
But honestly, that’s being picky, because overall I’d rate this a 4.5 out of five stars, and I’m already raring to break it out for my next trip.
Sen. Ruben Gallego repeatedly used campaign cash to fund luxury outings with his wife and to care for his children since launching his campaign for Senate in 2023, according to a POLITICO review of campaign finance records and a person familiar with the senator’s spending.
The Arizona Democrat has used his leadership PAC to fund recent trips to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland and Disney World with his family. Gallego has tapped that PAC and his main campaign committee for more than $18,000 in reimbursements for child care since 2019 — including $400 to his wife’s mother for babysitting.
And Federal Election Commission records show that on one such occasion, Gallego used a joint campaign account with disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell to attend the 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona with his wife, Sydney.
Federal lawmakers can legally use campaign committee funds for travel, food, events and even child care, as long as those funds are not for “personal use,” meaning they may not cover activities that would exist irrespective of the campaign, according to the FEC. Leadership PACs are not even beholden to that “personal use” rule, meaning lawmakers have broad latitude to use the money they raise as long as it has some fundraising function. Ruben Gallego has leaned into that leeway, with his three children, Sydney Gallego, her mother and their full-time au pair frequently joining the senator on donors’ dime, according to the person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.
“He just spends his campaign account like it’s his personal slush fund,” said the person. “He’s using campaign cash to live a luxury lifestyle.”
Gallego did not dispute using donor funds to pay for family travel or child care. “This is not breaking news,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “With the rising costs of child care and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”
Gallego is considering a presidential run in 2028. On Friday, Gallego traveled to South Carolina, where he took part in the Democratic Party’s “On the Road” series on Juneteenth.
But the pattern of spending could pose a major liability on top of his longtime friendship with Swalwell, who resigned from Congress in April amid allegations of sexual assault and a series of headlines about his misuse of campaign funds. Gallego’s team has recently brought on former Biden White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates to assist in political communications. Jacques Petit, Gallego’s communications director, told POLITICO that Gallego “is weighing all options for his political future. He has brought on Andrew to help navigate those processes.”
The person familiar with his spending said that there was concern among some members of Gallego’s inner circle that he would not pass the required vetting to be president or vice president.
“Any person close to Gallego would know that he is one of the most vetted candidates after his tough 2024 campaign where millions of dollars were spent against him,” Petit said in a statement to POLITICO. “Despite that, he overperformed the top of the ticket. Now he is focused on delivering for Arizonans and electing Democrats in 2026.”
Gallego has denied any knowledge of Swalwell’s actions and called for him to be expelled from Congress. Swalwell has called the allegations against him “false” and pledged to fight them.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told CBS News in April that she had asked Senate leadership to investigate Gallego about allegations of misconduct that are “sexual in nature,” as well as “issues of campaign finance violations” but did not release details. A Gallego spokesperson called those allegations “right wing conspiracy theories.” Luna did not respond to a request for comment.
Asked about the status of the ethics probe, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune directed POLITICO to comments he made in April, when he told reporters that “the Ethics Committee will be tasked with trying to determine whether there’s a there there.”
Last month, Gallego established a legal defense fund.
The Big Game
In February 2023, 20 days after Gallego had launched his Arizona Senate bid to replace Kyrsten Sinema, the Gallegos, Swalwell, Swalwell’s then-chief of staff Yardena Wolf and several donors and their guests piled into State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, to watch Super Bowl LVII.
The gathering was billed as a fundraiser for the “Swallego Victory Fund,” a joint committee Swalwell and Gallego established in October 2022. Tickets to attend cost $5,000 and included a “pre-game brunch” that could be attended independently for $1,000, according to a copy of the invitation provided to POLITICO by Swalwell’s lawyer, Sara Azari. The committee raised a total of $56,505, all but $900 of which the FEC logged between Jan. 31 and Feb. 13, 2023, the day after the Super Bowl, according to FEC records. It spent $34,700 on event tickets and about $2,715 at The Henry, a brunch restaurant in Phoenix, the records show.
Donors to the committee included Rick Smith, the country’s highest paid CEO in 2024, and Dina LaPolt, a celebrity entertainment lawyer, both of whom attended the Super Bowl with family members. Neither Smith nor LaPolt responded to a request for comment. Wolf, Swalwell’s chief of staff at the time, also did not respond to a request for comment.
Gallego and Swalwell established the joint committee “in connection with Super Bowl LVII, and supporters who met the applicable contribution requirements were eligible to attend,” a Gallego spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO. The spokesperson added that “tickets were purchased at fair market value” and that “Hosting donors and supporters at sporting events in their areas is a common, bipartisan practice.”
In a statement, Azari told POLITICO that Swalwell had “followed his campaign counsel’s guidance to plan the event,” noting that “Tickets were purchased [and] distributed through the fundraiser, and all activity was properly reported and conducted in compliance with applicable campaign finance rules.”
The Swallego Victory Fund, which raised no money after March 2023, was shut down on Jan. 1, 2025. Swalwell and Gallego each received $7,643.89 in their personal campaign committees, with the remainder going to standard operating fees.
It is unusual, though not unheard of, for candidates to fundraise at the Super Bowl. Former Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) hosted a fundraiser at the Super Bowl in 2010 that cost $5,000 to attend. And Swalwell dipped into campaign funds in 2024 to watch his San Francisco 49ers play in Las Vegas.
Lawmakers also sometimes have their tickets paid for in other ways. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a fellow Democrat widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, drew headlines when he attended the 2023 Super Bowl at the expense of a nonprofit. In President Donald Trump’s first term, for example, the Republican National Committee paid almost $500 per seat at the World Series for Trump, 11 members of Congress and senior White House staff, The Washington Post reported.
But it is far more common for politicians to pay their own way. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) attended the 2023 Super Bowl in Glendale but paid personally, his office told POLITICO. When New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani watched the Knicks play in the NBA finals earlier this month, he emphasized to reporters that he had personally paid for his $1,000 nosebleed seats.
Earlier this year, Gallego used the high price of Super Bowl tickets to lean into Democrats’ affordability messaging. “The average Super Bowl ticket now costs $6,773,” he wrote in an X post. “That’s not just a game — it’s a luxury bill.”
‘There’s a pattern’
Gallego cemented himself as a battleground-tested Democrat when he defeated Republican challenger Kari Lake in 2024, despite sweeping losses for his party across the country — immediately elevating him to the 2028 conversation.
In February 2024, about a month after being sworn in to the Senate, Gallego established the “JUNTOS PAC,” a leadership PAC used to raise and spend money separate from his official campaign committee. Since then, that committee has raked in nearly $1.5 million, more than half of which came from corporate PACs, according to FEC records.
Gallego, like many politicians with leadership PACs, has used those funds for an array of campaign and fundraising-related travel. He has also paid for his family to come along on several of those trips, according to the person familiar with Gallego’s spending.
That includes PAC retreats at Disney World where Gallego brought his wife, children and their au pair, and another to Disneyland with his wife and kids that FEC records show totaled nearly $1,500 in meals and hotels, not including flights, the person said.
The Gallegos also used PAC money to travel to St. Barts for Sydney Gallego’s boss’ birthday and to Miami for Sydney Gallego’s own birthday, according to the person familiar with his spending, staying at a Loews hotel on Miami Beach that cost more than $9,000, FEC records show. And when Gallego traveled to Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood in November 2025 to denounce the federal immigration crackdown there, the family stayed in a vacation rental, the person said, which records show cost the PAC nearly $1,500.
The Gallego spokesperson did not address the birthdays, but told POLITICO that all of those trips included fundraising activity. The Gallegos’ trip to St. Barts was part of “a multi-stop political and fundraising swing—as senators regularly do,” the spokesperson said. They added that Gallego hosted a fundraiser in Chicago and that the Gallegos “attended several widely attended political events and fundraisers” in Miami.
Gallego’s campaign committee and leadership PAC have also disbursed more than $18,000 in child care reimbursements and direct payments to an au pair company — including a $400 payment to Sydney Gallego’s mother, Moria Comini, for “Babysitting while at [a] campaign fundraiser.”
The child care reimbursements and trips to Miami and St. Barts were first reported by The Daily Beast.
Sydney Gallego and the children also used campaign committee and leadership PAC funds to fly between Washington and Phoenix 13 times in 2025, according to the person familiar with his spending.
“There’s a pattern,” the person said, adding that Sydney Gallego “just basically rides [Ruben Gallego’s] wave.”
Adam Wren contributed to this report.
Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.
Morgan Stanley Amends ETH, SOL ETFs to Reveal Cheap Fees
Travis Kelce Spotted at NASCAR Race After L.A. Bachelor Party
Joe Hart backs Arsenal star’s surprise World Cup snub | Football
-
Crypto World7 days agoCrude Oil Plunges Over 4% as US-Iran Agreement Reopens Hormuz Strait
-
Tech6 days agoThe Adder At The Heart Of Intel’s 8087 FPU
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Miami – Corporette.com
-
Business2 days agoWall Street Week Ahead: Investors see Micron earnings as pulse check of AI rally momentum
-
Crypto World2 days agoHIVE shares jump as $220M AI deal speeds Bitcoin mining pivot
-
Sports3 days agoFIFA World Cup 2026: Canada beat 9-men Qatar 6-0 to register first ever win | FIFA World Cup 2026
-
Crypto World2 days agoJake Chervinsky accuses CME of protecting derivatives monopoly
-
Business1 day agoMHP SE 2026 Q1 – Results – Earnings Call Presentation (OTCMKTS:MHPSY) 2026-06-20
-
Crypto World4 days agoAnthropic’s Dario Amodei Urged AI Unity at G7, Even as US Banned His Models
-
Business3 days agoBrexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests
-
Business1 day agoSoccer-U.S. defends Iran World Cup travel restrictions, says discussions ongoing
-
Crypto World2 days agoCan Charles Hoskinson Really Rescue Cardano?
-
Tech4 days agoWeeks Of In-The-Field Testing And A Verdict
-
Tech4 days agoAdobe adds its AI assistant to Premiere, Illustrator and InDesign
-
Politics2 days agoAndy Burnham and the meaning of Makerfield
-
Entertainment1 day agoRenter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
-
Crypto World4 days agoIren (IREN) Stock Surges on Jefferies Buy Rating: AI Infrastructure Play Gains Momentum
-
Tech3 days agoInstagram Now Lets You Add A Unique Caption To Each Carousel Slide
-
Politics3 days agoBBC Reporter Discusses Cross Party Criticism Of Trumps Iran Deal
-
News Videos3 days agoNightcore – MONEY ON THE DASH (Soft Rock Version) (Lyrics)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login