Politics
Meghan Markle And Netflix’s The Gentlemen: What’s The Actual Story?
For the past few days, the entertainment world has been abuzz with conflicting reports about Meghan Markle making an acting comeback in the unlikeliest of places.
Word on the street has been that the Duchess of Sussex had been eyed for a role in Guy Ritchie’s The Gentlemen.
First, she was in, then she was out, then she was never “in” in the first place – with the whole thing being made even more complicated by the fact that none of the parties involved had actually spoken out to confirm or deny the bizarre story.
So, for those who’ve not been following, or just need a recap, here’s a quick reminder of everything that’s been said so far – and, notably, who’s been saying it. Just keep in mind, none of this has actually been confirmed to true (so far!)…
Thursday 20 August: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are reported to be moving back to the UK
It’s now been over six years since Prince Harry shocked the world by announcing that he and his wife Meghan would be stepping down from their roles as senior royals, and eventually moving overseas.
The rest has been well-documented, but after a Netflix documentary, a tell-all book and numerous revealing interviews, it’s fair to say that relations between the Sussexes and the rest of the Royal Family haven’t always looked the rosiest.
So, it came as another bolt from the blue last week when People magazine reported that the couple were planning to move back to the UK alongside their two children, seven-year-old Archie and five-year-old Lilibet.
People’s report claimed that two would “establish a private, non-royal home base in Britain” while keeping their production company Archewell overseas, and maintaining properties in the USA (Montecito, California, to be more specific) and Portugal.
It was also suggested that the wheels were already in motion, with Harry and Meghan having already enrolled their children in a school, where they’d begin classes when term begins in just over a week’s time.
Friday 21 August: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s move is reported to be based on the fact that the Duchess of Sussex has been ‘offered a role in an upcoming project based in the UK’
This is when things began veering into “hold onto your hats, folks” territory.
While the motivations behind the Sussexes’ move were not disclosed, Australia’s news.com.au was the first to allege that the couple’s decision was based on the fact that Meghan had been “offered a role in an upcoming project based in the UK”, according to their undisclosed “entertainment sources”.
BBC News even picked up on the story, after which the showbiz outlet Variety claimed to have had it “confirmed”.
The journalist who broke the story, Bronte Coy, later told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the role was “significant”, and that the Duchess of Sussex was “very excited about it”.
Meghan last acted in Suits, the TV show where she made her name internationally, before stepping down from the series in 2018 ahead of her marriage to Prince Harry.
USA Network/Netflix/Kobal/Shutterstock
Since then, she has had a number of on-screen roles, though not in an acting capacity, perhaps most notably her ill-fated Netflix lifestyle series With Love, Meghan and a guest judging stint on the Australian version of MasterChef.
Later this year, she’ll also make a cameo appearance as herself in the comedy Close Personal Friends, starring Oscar winner Brie Larson, Emily In Paris’ Lily Collins and Crazy Rich Asians’ Henry Golding.
Friday 21 August: Meghan Markle is reported to be ‘in talks’ for a role in The Gentlemen
Once whisperings about a return to the acting world for Meghan and a mysterious role she’d been offered, Deadline alleged within hours that she was being “eyed” for a role in a future season of Guy Ritchie’s hit gangster series The Gentlemen.
They cited unnamed “sources” who’d told them she was in the “early stages” to play a role in a potential third season, with a specific part having supposedly not yet “been identified”.
The Gentlemen is a spin-off of Guy’s film of the same name, and proved to be a huge hit with both critics and viewers when it premiered on Netflix in 2024, with a second run due to debut next week.
In the next run of episodes, series regulars Theo James and Kaya Scodelario will be joined by some new additions, most notably Love Island host Maya Jama.
Crucially, Deadline pointed out that the rumoured talks between Meghan and The Gentlemen were “hypothetical” because the show hasn’t even been commissioned for a third season yet.
They also alleged that reps for both the Sussexes and Netflix had “declined to comment”.
Meanwhile, The Hollywood Reporter had its own version of the story that same morning, suggesting these early talks were actually in the “advanced discussions” stage, and that Meghan’s role was “being written” after she and Guy met “through mutual acquaintances”.
Saturday 22 August: Veteran journalist Tina Brown claims Meghan Markle’s ‘offer’ to appear in The Gentlemen has been ‘withdrawn’
Naturally, news of Meghan potentially appearing in a show like The Gentlemen raised eyebrows, with former Tatler and Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown – who penned the explosive royal book The Palace Papers in 2022 – claiming the following morning that the talks had abruptly ended.
“I learned this morning that the casting of Meghan Markle in season three of Guy Ritchie’s Netflix series The Gentlemen has been withdrawn,” she wrote on Substack. “The backlash in the UK was so intense, it became untenable to go forward. This does not bode well for Meghan’s acting comeback in the UK.”
She also teased “more to come”, but has not posted since Saturday morning.
Crucially, it’s worth remembering that Meghan’s “casting” in season three hadn’t even been established to be “withdrawn”, with the initial report claiming she’d only entered preliminary talks with show bosses, rather than receiving any kind of formal offer.
Sunday 23 August: A journalist supposedly in the know contests the whole story
A day later, Complex quoted a journalist supposedly in the know, who’d posted on X that Meghan’s casting in The Gentlemen wasn’t “off” because “it was never on”.
He wrote that he knew Guy Ritchie, and that the original story was a “total fabrication” and “ridiculous”.
So, what exactly have Meghan Markle, Netflix and Guy Ritchie said about the rumours?
Well, that’s the exactly it – none of them have commented publicly, although HuffPost UK has contacted reps for the Duchess of Sussex, Netflix and Guy Ritchie for comment.
The second season of The Gentlemen, meanwhile, will begin streaming on Thursday 3 September…
The ‘Shenstone 5′ anti-genocide activists have spoken out after receiving only conditional discharges for damaging a UAV Engines Ltd factory belonging to Israeli murder drone manufacturer Elbit.
Shenstone 5: rare and fair trial
The Shenstone 5 praised the judge for allowing them a fair trial – a rarity since the UK state’s war on the rights of citizens to protect Israel. The court allowed the activists to plead their political motivations for taking the action and even to show evidence of Israel’s use of drones made at the factory. And the judge even agreed they were prisoners of conscience.
Small wonder, then, that an Israel-compromised regime is determined to prevent juries from hearing about the crimes Israel commits with these weapons – or even of their legal right to acquit:
Following our trial, the Shenstone 4 were found guilty of criminal damage but are relieved to have been given only a conditional discharge. This has been almost 4 years after the action.
During the trial we were given the chance to each speak as to our motivations, what we knew about Elbit and why we did what we did. The lawyers also commented on these aspects. As such, we are glad to have been able to politicise the trial.
The judge even allowed the submitting of news articles about the Hermes 450 [drone], CAAT report on Elbit’s export licences etc as evidence after the first day.
The prosecution failed to present clear evidence regarding the sum of damage we did – they failed to present the relevant witness (two others also didn’t show up and hence the claims of violence from us also couldn’t be corroborated) but it was established that we did break 6 windows.
The one person they called up to give an estimate about the damage admitted, during cross-examination, that he knew the engines made here are used in military drones and specifically are also sent to the other Elbit- owned factory in Leicester. He had said in his statement that the business conducts lawful business but our lawyers grilled him and established that he was not in a position to say this – they got him to claim he doesn’t really know where engines do and don’t go.
The judge, after hearing our defences and evidence, said that it was clearly a crime of conscience and that he was convinced as to our belief that we were doing the right thing. As a result he gave a very light sentence and, unusually, did not force any compensation to Elbit.
We had feared having to compensate Elbit and also went in mentally prepared for for a short custodial (even if suspended) sentence if unlucky. The conditional discharge means that this will essentially disappear from our record as long as we don’t get convicted of a crime committed in the 12 months. He explained he was unable to find us not guilty due to the letter of the law.
But the action still carried a terrible cost in the face of state repression and contempt – though the Shenstone 5 said it was nothing compared to the suffering of the Palestinians:
This conviction only serves to show the imperialist injustice that lies in the so-called “justice” system. Our own comrade and co-defendant JoJo was deeply affected by the stress of this prolonged case and repression of the anti-Elbit movement, which he faced directly. This was a contributing factor to him taking his own life. We affirm that he never should have faced legal proceedings for acting to prevent genocide.
The prosecutor sought to bully us, particularly Jay, with circular questioning and and putting forward absurd statements. He told us our actions were pointless and did nothing for the Palestinians but also argued that the damage was “significant”. He said that we should have pursued other means including reporting war crimes to the police’s war crimes department, lobbying MPs and even emailing UAV Engines to tell them about our concerns. This exposed the absurd and genocidal logic of liberalism to us.
Further to this, the legal system refuses to hold the real criminals and perpetrators of genocide to account. The Palestinians continue to be the principal subjects of the genocidal settler-colonialism of Zionism. The judge said something along the lines that some of what was being disputed needed an investigation into UAV Engines but that this was beyond the purview of the court.
No repression on us can be compared to that the Palestinians face. We do not regret our actions and for this reason we have won. Long live the resistance.
Inquilab Zindabad
Shenstone 5
Featured image supplied
By Skwawkbox
Speaking to The Times recently, actor Richard E. Grant – who lost his wife of 35 years, voice coach Joan Washington, in 2021 – said the experience led him to cut certain friends out of his life for good.
“There are people that have been edited out of my life, and I will never see them again,” he shared, speaking about friends who became distant after his wife’s death. “If I had done that to them, I wouldn’t be able to look them in the face.”
I’ve heard a similar sentiment from many bereaved loved ones (I’ve been blindsided by it, too). Something tragic happens, and just when you need support the most, people you’d have thought were closest to you appear to fade away.
Or maybe you feel you can never “connect” the same with your old pals after such a life-changing event (another common issue friends have shared).
What’s happening here? HuffPost UK spoke to BACP-registered therapist Laurie Hole about why friendships so often fall apart after a death.
Why do so many friendships break apart after a death?
Hole said that while death is universal, the topic of grief remains incredibly taboo for many.
“We are generally very under-equipped to understand grief or know how to support somebody through it,” she explained.
“Until you experience a significant loss, it can be almost impossible to comprehend the enormity of it – and even the grieving person themselves may struggle to make sense of what they are experiencing.”
That might mean those suffering a terrible loss feel the responsibility to explain their feelings or the nature of their pain when they might be least equipped to do so.
Therefore, the griever might isolate themselves first: “Sometimes withdrawing from friendships becomes a way of protecting already very limited emotional reserves”.
Other times, the therapist added, “Another person’s loss can bring up [friends’] own unacknowledged or unresolved grief, or confront them with feelings about death and mortality that they would rather avoid. They may have their own life challenges that mean they simply don’t have the capacity they ordinarily would.”
She said this isn’t always intentional, though it still stings.
“And sometimes people genuinely believe they are saying or doing something helpful, but it lands painfully. Good intentions don’t necessarily prevent hurt, particularly when we have so few conversations about what grief actually looks and feels like.”
How can I be a better friend to a grieving person?
Given how little grief and death are talked about, Hole shared some guidelines that can help you if your friend is going through it.
- Ban the phrase “at least”. The therapist said we should avoid sentences like “’At least they lived a long life’, ‘at least they’re no longer suffering’, ‘at least you had the time you did’ – however well-intentioned, trying to find a positive in somebody’s loss can feel incredibly devastating to the person hearing it”.
- Forget about timelines. When someone loses a loved one, Hole said, don’t try to give them a schedule for getting over the pain or “accepting” their loss. “Instead of asking whether they have accepted or moved on from the death yet, you could ask, ‘How is grief showing up for you right now?’ Be curious about their experience rather than assuming what it should look like,” she advised.
- Read up. You might not be able to imagine your friend’s pain, but it can help to “read memoirs and accounts of grief rather than expecting your friend to teach you everything – while remembering that nobody else’s grief will be exactly like theirs”.
- Don’t forget big dates. Check in on “the dates that matter: the anniversary of the death, birthdays and other significant occasions. And if you knew the person who died, share your memories,” the expert advised.
- Say their loved one’s name. “People sometimes worry that mentioning somebody who has died will remind the grieving person of their loss, but they haven’t forgotten,” stated Hole. “Hearing their loved one’s name can instead be a reminder that this person mattered to other people too.”
When should I give up on a friendship that’s suffering after a death?
Sadly, Hole said, “Friendships don’t necessarily have to last a lifetime, and losing friendships following bereavement can itself become another loss that has to be processed. The death of someone you love is already a profound loss; discovering that some of your friendships cannot survive your grief can become another loss that has to be grieved”.
There’s no right or wrong answer when it comes to breaking a friend off, she continued. “Repair might involve acknowledging what happened, listening without becoming defensive, and taking responsibility for the impact – even when causing hurt was never the intention.
“But if somebody who is grieving has explicitly communicated what they need or set boundaries and a friend continually ignores or dismisses those needs, it is reasonable to consider whether that friendship can support them at this point in their life. Sometimes that means temporarily stepping back; sometimes it means allowing the relationship to end.”
Sometimes, the therapist shared, grief can expose existing problems that were easier to hide before a death. And bereavement can make someone who used to put up with a lot more bad behaviour less forbearing, too.
“If maintaining a friendship is repeatedly causing more hurt, it may be worth asking whether that person can still have a place in your life in the same way they did before.”
On Sunday 23 August, Andy Burnham visited Ukraine. And his first trip to the besieged nation has given the UK media the perfect opportunity to once again demonstrate how ridiculous they are:
Call me old-fashioned if you like, but a zip-up polo shirt on a visit to a warzone? What on earth is he thinking? Even Boris worse a suit. Knowing how the Ukrainians like their protocols to be respected, I imagine this will have caused some offence. Surely the FCDO advise PMs on… https://t.co/F4Fr77FWhh
— Iain Dale
(@IainDale) August 24, 2026
Un-suit-able
There’s quite a lot to think about in Dale’s comment, as we’ll demonstrate:
Call me old-fashioned if you like, but a zip-up polo shirt on a visit to a warzone? What on earth is he thinking?
At this point, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Dale wanted to see Burnham in camo and body armour. The next sentence put that notion to bed:
Even Boris worse a suit.
Okay, so what did this suit achieve exactly? It certainly wouldn’t have protected him from the bullets – not unless it was made of a Top Secret material from Q Branch.
The next point from Dale was probably the wildest thing he said:
Knowing how the Ukrainians like their protocols to be respected, I imagine this will have caused some offence.
Famously, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was criticised in the White House earlier this year for not wearing a suit. His sartorial choice was no blip, either; the guy never wears suits. In fact, he notably wasn’t wearing one when he met Andy Burnham:
Burnham to hand long-range missile blueprints to Zelensky as he visits Kyiv https://t.co/73zJ6NqILE
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) August 24, 2026
Dale ended on the following point:
Surely the [Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office] advise PMs on things like this?
We imagine they did advise Burnham, and that said advice was: ‘probably best not to dress up given who you’re meeting, eh?‘.
Hysteria
Dale wasn’t the only one to become uncontrollably upset by the image of Burnham’s polo neck; GB News had this to say:
'It's totally performative. It's ridiculous, he's not a man of the people!'
Andy Burnham faces criticism as he arrives in Ukraine for his first foreign visit as Prime Minister wearing a polo shirt. pic.twitter.com/XNql9qno4g — GB News (@GBNEWS) August 24, 2026
It’s not wrong to suggest the decision was ‘performative’; everything world leaders do in public is a performance. Burnham almost certainly did have conversations about what he wore, and he no doubt anticipated the move upsetting our permanently offended media class.
Actual problems with Burnham
Saying all the above, there are plenty of good reasons to be unhappy with Burnham, as we’ve extensively reported:
- Burnham’s £350k pre-PM donor revelations expose Labour Together continuity op.
- His reported oil plan is an insult to our intelligence.
- Burnham’s actions since becoming PM scream ‘business as usual’.
Featured image via Henry Nicholls
By Willem Moore
Hull City marked their Premier League return with a controlled, confident and fully deserved 2-0 win over Manchester United at the MKM Stadium, delivering a jolt to Michael Carrick’s side on the opening weekend. First‑half goals from Semi Ajayi and Nobel Mendy exposed United’s defensive frailties and set the tone for an afternoon where the visitors never looked comfortable.
United arrived with optimism after a strong finish last season. Hull arrived with noise, energy and a point to prove. By the final whistle, only one of those moods remained.
Ajayi strikes as Manchester United unravel early
Hull’s opener came from the kind of moment Carrick will recognise all too well. A routine ball into the box wasn’t dealt with, Manchester United hesitated, and Ajayi reacted quickest, poking home from close range on 17 minutes. It was scruffy, simple and exactly the type of goal United have been warned about.
The MKM Stadium erupted. Hull, back in the top flight for the first time since 2017, fed off the atmosphere. Acun Ilicali had spoken pre‑match about people writing his team off, inside 20 minutes, Hull were making their own argument.
United, meanwhile, looked physically second best. Hull’s intensity, particularly in midfield, forced mistakes and pinned Carrick’s side deeper than they wanted. Every Hull attack carried purpose. Every Manchester United defensive action looked improvised.
Mendy doubles the damage
The second goal arrived before the break and again exposed Manchester United’s lack of organisation. A simple delivery, a clean run, and Mendy rose unchallenged to power a header past Senne Lammens on 38 minutes. Hull didn’t need to be spectacular; they just needed to be sharp. United weren’t.
By half-time, Carrick had seen enough. Marcus Rashford was sent on for his first competitive United appearance in 618 days. It was a moment of significance for the forward, but it didn’t change the pattern of the game.
Rashford’s introduction didn’t bring the spark United needed. Hull remained compact, disciplined and confident. United remained flat.
Bryan Mbeumo carved out Manchester United’s only genuine second‑half chance, breaking into space before firing a half‑volley that Konstantinos Tzolakis saved superbly with one hand. It was the kind of moment Hull had been dealing with all afternoon, decisive, calm, assured.
United never built sustained pressure. Hull never looked rattled. The newly‑promoted side managed the game with maturity, slowing it when needed, speeding it when space opened, and winning duels across the pitch.
Hull’s control highlights problems
Carrick’s side finished last season strongly, but this performance revived familiar concerns. Hull’s wing‑backs were aggressive, their midfielders relentless, and their forwards led superbly by Oli McBurnie held the ball, drew fouls and kept United pinned back.
McBurnie’s work rate and hold‑up play were central to Hull’s approach. He gave his team territory, time and a focal point. Hull didn’t just defend well; they carried a threat throughout.
Manchester United, by contrast, lacked intensity. They were second to loose balls, slow to react in transitions and vulnerable at set‑plays an issue Bruno Fernandes later admitted had been flagged before kick-off.
Hull’s win is more than an opening‑day surprise. It’s a statement that they intend to compete, not simply survive. Their organisation, physicality and clarity of approach suggest a team comfortable at this level.
For United, the defeat triggers familiar questions. Defensive reinforcements have been demanded by supporters, and with around 10 days left in the window, the pressure on recruitment and on Carrick will now intensify.
Manchester United’s next fixtures offer little margin for error. Hull, meanwhile, take momentum into their schedule, buoyed by a performance that showcased both quality and resilience.
Hull show fight as Manchester United show fragility
Hull’s performance was built on energy, organisation and belief. They were first to duels, aggressive in transitions and composed in possession. Their wing‑backs stretched Manchester United, their midfielders controlled the tempo, and their forwards carried constant threat.
United lacked those qualities. They were passive, disjointed and repeatedly exposed. Carrick’s side will argue it’s only one game, but the manner of the defeat ensures the conversation won’t be quiet.
Hull City earned this win. They were sharper, hungrier and more cohesive. Manchester United were not. For Carrick, the challenge now is to ensure this isn’t the start of another familiar story.
Featured Image courtesy of Reuters
By Faz Ali
Russia has withdrawn its ambassador to the UK amid rising tensions over Britain’s role in the Ukraine war.
Andrei Kelin, who spent seven years as the Russian ambassador in the UK, left the posting on July 21 and the Kremlin has not submitted any names to the Foreign Office to be considered as his replacement.
According to The Times, embassy staff have no clear idea of when the role might be filled – sparking fears of a communication breakdown between the UK and Russia.
It comes after Moscow officials expressed outrage when it was confirmed British drones had been used by Ukraine to strike targets deep within Russia.
The embassy in London then claimed Britain would face the “consequences”, though the UK government doubled down on its support on Ukraine.
Prime minister Andy Burnham said the UK was not a “fair weather friends” and supports “Ukraine 100%”.
A spokesperson for the Russian embassy claimed Kelin had made “considerable efforts to preserve contacts and channels of communication” with Britain.
They accused Downing Street of choosing a “path of confrontation” with Russia.
Putin’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov also told the media: “I feel sorry for the United Kingdom, if it is going to stand with Ukraine until the very end.
“As for the substance of our Embassy’s comment, it means only one thing: President Vladimir Putin has warned of our right to act in any area of the world’s oceans, should anyone encroach on our interests or our property.
“We have exactly the same right to regard the proudly announced direct involvement of British missile forces in strikes against the Russian Federation as participation in the war. With all the consequences that entails.”
The reason for Kelin’s departure from the role remains unclear.
Russia has threatened to downgrade its relationship with the UK over Britain’s support for Ukraine following Putin’s illegal invasion in 2022.
As Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in June 2024: “The issue of lowering the level of diplomatic relations is a standard practice for states that face unfriendly or hostile manifestations.”
Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
My skin’s a little dry, dull and pale. The rings under my eyes stay shadowy no matter how much sleep I get, and my hair could stand to be thicker.
This, TikTok assures me, is “ferritin face” – a series of visual signs that suggest my iron stores are low.
In my case, that’s been proven true through blood tests. These tests are the only reliable way to work out whether you’re iron deficient: you should see your GP if you suspect low iron.
So, does the social media trend have any merits?
Here’s what Dr Kathryn Basford from Asda Online Doctor had to say.
How common is low ferritin?
Low ferritin levels refer to depleted long-term supplies of iron. Dr Basford said it’s very common in the UK, especially among teens, kids, older people and women.
People who menstruate are at particular risk, because of the blood they lose during their periods or while pregnant.
“Women with heavy periods are likely to lose even more iron and may benefit from iron supplements, but most people can get enough iron from the foods they eat,” the GP expained.
“Iron deficiencies can be under-recognised causes of fatigue, especially in women, and larger studies, alongside increasing public interest in testing has raised awareness of this.”
What are the signs of low ferritin?
Some symptoms of low iron, like paler-than-usual skin and (more rarely) ulcers in the corners of your mouth, really do form something of a “ferritin face”.
But Dr Basford said there are loads of other possible signs of low iron we should pay attention to, like:
- tiredness
- shortness of breath
- heart palpitations
- headaches
- hair loss
- nail changes
- feeling itchy
- tinnitus
Again, however, you’ll need to see a doctor to know if you’re anaemic.
“Speak to your GP if you think you have low iron levels, and they will ask you about your lifestyle and medical history. They will likely perform a blood test to diagnose low ferritin,” the doctor stated.
“If it is unclear what is causing low iron, a doctor may issue further tests to uncover the reason for your symptoms, like a faecal immunochemical test that looks for blood in a small sample of your poo.”
Can other conditions cause symptoms like ‘ferritin face’?
That’s another reason to see your doctor if you have what you think are signs of iron deficiency. Dr Basford said that “conditions that cause fatigue, weakness, or dizziness can sometimes mimic low iron”.
“The most common are alternative forms of anaemia, or conditions like hypothyroidism and chronic kidney disease, as these impair red blood cell production,” she stated.
These might not appear on your face, but they can be confused with other symptoms of low iron.
Meanwhile, sleep apnoea can lead to fatigue, and far more rarely, some heart and lung conditions can create symptoms like palpitations and/or difficulty breathing.
What should I do if I’m diagnosed with iron deficiency anaemia?
It depends on what’s causing it, Dr Basford shared. If the issue lies mainly in your diet, your GP might recommend eating more:
- red meat
- pulses (like beans and chickpeas)
- nuts
- dried fruits
- leafy greens (especially alongside vitamin C-rich foods)
They might also instruct you to “drink less tea and coffee, and eat less dairy and foods with high levels of phytic acid, like wholegrain cereals, as these can make it harder for your body to absorb iron”.
Your doctor could put you on iron supplements, too. Whether you’re taking them after being told to by your GP, or just bought some over-the-counter, the doctor said: “Make sure not to take more than the recommended daily dose, as this can cause constipation, nausea, vomiting and stomach pain”.
Rebecca Smith is the MP for South West Devon.
For too long, our national debate has assumed that decline is inevitable. As something to be managed, rather than reversed. We block housing instead of building more homes. We ration energy instead of producing more power. We restrict infrastructure instead of unleashing more growth. And increasingly, we are rationing water on an island famed for its rainfall.
Britain cannot build a prosperous future on a politics of scarcity, which tells the public to consume less, build less, and expect less. This mindset assumes that Britain’s best days are behind us and that the Government’s role is simply to manage decline as fairly as possible.
Central to our plans for renewal of both our party and our nation, the Conservatives must reject this managed decline and instead champion abundance. And, from the food we grow to the data centres we want to attract, securing an abundant supply of water now and for generations to come must be central to this vision.
However, water infrastructure currently takes decades to deliver. If we do not act swiftly, Britain risks sleepwalking into chronic shortages that will damage growth, push up food prices, constrain housebuilding, and undermine national resilience.
As I have seen first-hand with farmers and the Westcountry River Trust in my constituency, water storage, such as ponds, could provide much-needed relief when water is in short supply and play a vital role in irrigating crops during heatwaves. Too often, however, farmers are forced to navigate a regulatory headache to create ponds, on top of facing the financial pressures from droughts, heatwaves, and Labour’s war on rural communities.
The Environment Agency has already tried to block thousands of homes around Cambridge because of water shortages. Meanwhile, water-intensive businesses in my constituency and across England are being told additional supply cannot be guaranteed. Data centres, essential for the future of artificial intelligence, are increasingly constrained by water stress.
At the same time, climate change is making rainfall less predictable. We face wetter winters, drier summers, and more severe droughts. Despite these realities, Britain has not built a major reservoir since 1991. This statistic alone should shame us all.
Rather than respond to rising water demand and greater weather uncertainty by expanding supply and prioritising resilience, Britain instead has constructed a labyrinth of regulators, obstacles, and rules that make almost any meaningful infrastructure project painfully slow, prohibitively expensive, or outright impossible. This makes managing scarcity appear to be the only viable option.
The problem is not a lack of rainfall, expertise, or private capital. It is a regulatory culture built around pessimism, risk aversion, and the assumption that growth itself is the problem. That mindset is embedded most clearly in the EU-derived Habitats Regulations, which increasingly operate as barriers to resilience rather than tools for sensible environmental stewardship.
Wanting abundance is not anti-environment. In fact, scarcity is often what destroys nature. The current framework is failing both the economy and our natural world. Conservatives should be honest about this.
The system we have is littered with perverse incentives that have distorted investment decisions, by encouraging box-ticking compliance over genuine environmental improvement. This bureaucratic rigidity has resulted in water scarcity, leading to bottlenecks for homes, infrastructure, and economic growth. This is decline dressed up as environmentalism.
Conservative environmentalism should be about stewardship, resilience, and abundance. Just as we should strive to supply our economy with the water it requires, we should be striving for biodiversity in abundance, not conserving dwindling quality and quantity of habitats and species.
We must, therefore, replace these EU-era rules and pursue a more flexible, outcomes-based regulatory system that looks at entire landscapes, rather than try to address what is going on in isolated individual sites.
The current system also plans water supply around politically aspirational assumptions and a belief that “there is no longer a strong link between non-household water demand and economic activity.” The rapid growth of sectors such as artificial intelligence, hydrogen production, carbon capture, and gigafactories strongly suggests the opposite may now be true.
And yet, the Environment Agency continues to require water companies to plan future supply on the assumption that the target will be achieved, despite growing evidence to the contrary. This reckless approach creates the illusion of water resilience without actually delivering it.
Successive governments have pursued ambitious demand reduction targets while avoiding the trade-offs required to achieve them. Unable to easily increase supply, such as by building reservoirs, those responsible with delivery reductions in consumption have limited powers to influence demand.
Again, with a clear pressure to act, governments have pursued piecemeal policies that tinker at the edges, like water efficiency standards and product labelling. While striving for water abundance should not encourage unnecessary waste of resources, equally it should not be an excuse for managing scarcity through ever tighter restrictions on demand because it is easier than increasing supply.
A country that cannot provide enough water for new homes, new industries, and future generations is a country that has accepted decline. Conservatives should reject that future because, ultimately, the choice is not between prosperity and sustainability. It is between managing scarcity and creating the conditions for both to flourish.
Netflix has made a very timely announcement about the future of the hit gangster series The Gentlemen.
On Monday afternoon, with just over a week to go until the long-awaited second season of Guy Ritchie’s Emmy-winning show returns, Netflix dropped a two-minute trailer featuring Theo James and Kaya Scodelario back in action.
“Ambition can’t be tamed,” they teased. “The Gentlemen season two, starring Theo James and Kaya Scodelario, premieres next Thursday.”
Responding to recent speculation about a third run, they added: “As for Season 3? Consider it official.”
Check out the trailer for yourself below:
Guy enthused: “The ambition of The Gentlemen has accelerated, the world has expanded and the consequences carry weight.
“A third season felt inevitable, and I’m looking forward to pushing the boundaries of it further.”
In the lead-up to its return, The Gentlemen has been majorly back in the news over the last few days, over conflicting reports in the entertainment press suggesting that Meghan Markle had begun talks about appearing in a potential third season.
Following the news that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were moving back to the UK next month, it was suggested that the former Suits star could make a return to the acting world in The Gentlemen’s third outing, after reportedly meeting director Guy Ritchie at a social event.
While initially it was claimed that Meghan had entered “advanced talks” about a role in a future storyline, it was later suggested that these had fallen through due to the discourse sparked by the media reporting – although others who claim to have knowledge of the story have claimed that the whole thing was a total “fabrication”, anyway.
The Gentlemen’s first season – a spin-off of the Guy Ritchie film of the same name – premiered on Netflix in 2024, and was a hit with both viewers and critics.
Returning for season two are Vinnie Jones, Daniel Ings and Ray Winstone, while Love Island host Maya Jama is also joining the cast this time around.
The Gentlemen returns on Thursday 3 September.
GBR/Alamy
4 min read
Running railways is a complex job – we can’t afford to lose valuable experience
As countries across the world encourage greater competition and modernise their railways, Britain is heading in the opposite direction. While Labour’s rail nationalisation plans has its advantages, it risks atrophying the very leadership skills, entrepreneurship and innovation that has been built over the last three decades.
While a MP and Chair of the Transport Committee, I saw our rail industry achieve world-class standing. Though challenges remain and better integration of operations and infrastructure is needed, Britain developed something remarkable: deep experience managing complex, operationally demanding railways at genuine scale, combining commercial discipline with the technical and managerial expertise required to run world-class networks. In fact, many countries have looked to the UK model for their own systems.
The Government’s Railways Bill changes that. It will exclude commercial operators from large parts of our rail system. While dedicated frontline staff will transfer their expertise into Great British Rail (GBR), the “secret sauce” of proven commercial leadership will not. That capability should become part of Britain’s export strategy – actively sponsoring British transport expertise abroad and positioning operators as strategic assets.
Handled strategically, the UK could compete far more assertively abroad, unlocking wider opportunities. Exporting transport expertise to India deepens one of Britain’s most significant bilateral relationships. Embedding British operators in Gulf infrastructure builds long-term influence in a region where presence and credibility compound over time. Working alongside European neighbours on competitive networks strengthens exactly the kind of delivery-focused partnership that underpins the Government’s approach to the EU.
Britain’s private operators are credible in these markets. They have spent decades solving the problems many expanding rail systems now face: integrating new rolling stock, managing high-frequency services on constrained infrastructure and modernising networks without shutting them down.
Today, Britain’s railways manage nearly two billion passenger journeys annually. More than £20 billion of private investment has entered the network since privatisation, while more than three-quarters of passenger rolling stock has been introduced during that period, helping create one of Europe’s youngest fleets.
Private operators have driven innovations and efficiencies in the UK.
Commercial leadership of fleet management, network operations, safety systems, workforce development and high-volume passenger delivery is what international transport markets are increasingly competing to secure.
From national programmes like India to the modernisation of major networks such as the MBTA Commuter Rail contract, there is significant investment in expansion and modernisation, creating demand for operational expertise that Britain has perfected.
In Europe, countries like Spain and Germany continue opening markets to greater competition and private participation. These countries are not just looking for infrastructure; they are actively seeking commercially disciplined management teams that can deliver improvements in modernisation and reliability.
It would be an extraordinary paradox of rail reform to secure greater national control while pushing some of Britain’s most valuable transport expertise overseas. I hope that GBR can still retain and benefit from that private sector skill and innovation, while strengthening jobs, exports and Britain’s long-term industrial influence abroad.
The Government can make this happen through trade missions. The 2022 rail mission to Australia and New Zealand proves the concept; rail must remain a priority. The Government’s roadshow for the UK-India Free Trade Agreement provides an ideal platform for British operators. Moreover, Labour’s ambition for a closer relationship with the European Union opens a further avenue. Liberalisation of rail markets across the continent is generating demand for commercially experienced operators.
Incorporating rail operators into those missions, alongside a dedicated strand within the Government’s sector support programme and UK Export Finance backing for British-led overseas concession bids, would channel capabilities that the world has actively sought from Britain. Our new trade Minister, Lord Anas Sarwar, should seize this opportunity.
For 200 years, Britain has inspired and shaped railways. Today, the expertise developed by private operators should now be treated as an export we can proudly champion.
Iain Stewart is a former Conservative MP for Milton Keynes South, minister and chair of the Transport Committee
Arsenal began their Premier League title defence with the kind of clarity and control that has become their trademark under Mikel Arteta, easing past newly‑promoted Coventry City 3-0 at the Emirates. Goals from Kai Havertz, Bukayo Saka and Martin Ødegaard delivered a comfortable victory. The performance itself was sharp, connected, and relentlessly dominant. That was the real statement for the rest of the league challengers.
Coventry’s return to the top flight after 25 years brought noise, anticipation and a sense of occasion, but the gulf in speed, precision and familiarity with Premier League tempo was obvious from the opening minutes. Arsenal, fresh from dismantling Man City in the Community Shield, simply picked up where they left off.
Tzolis sets the early tone for Arsenal
Christos Tzolis, electric in Cardiff last weekend, was again central to everything arsenal produced. the Greece international’s energy, aggression and directness shaped the opening exchanges. With three early efforts, two over the bar and one deflected. Saka, drifting inside from the right, also forced a corner after Tzolis popped up on the opposite flank.
Declan Rice, operating with authority in midfield, sent a 25‑yard effort over as Arsenal tightened their grip. Coventry couldn’t get near them. Opta later confirmed the visitors failed to make a single tackle or register a touch in the Arsenal box during the entire first half. The first time any Premier League side has done so since records began in 2007.
The breakthrough arrived on 15 minutes and again Tzolis was at the heart of it. Again pressing high, he robbed Milan van Ewijk deep in Coventry territory. Riccardo Calafiori, stepping forward from left‑back, delivered a low cross into the area. Havertz, sharp and composed, swept in a clean finish to give Arsenal the lead.
It was a goal built on structure and aggression: the press, the regain, the immediate verticality. Arsenal looked fully in rhythm, and Coventry looked overwhelmed.
Saka doubles the advantage
The second goal came eight minutes later. Rice and Ødegaard combined neatly in midfield before Tzolis, now back on the left, whipped in a cross. Coventry goalkeeper Carl Rushworth attempted to intervene but only succeeded in diverting the ball straight into Saka’s path. The winger, perfectly positioned, tucked home from close range.
It was another example of arsenal’s wide combinations functioning smoothly. Ben White, Saka and Ødegaard knitted patterns down the right; Tzolis and Calafiori stretched Coventry down the left. The champions were in complete control.
Coventry’s first half was summed up by their inability to disrupt arsenal’s rhythm. Loum Tchaouna’s overhead kick onto the roof of the net was their only moment of note before the interval. otherwise, they were pinned back, chasing shadows, and struggling to adjust to the intensity of premier league football.
Frank Lampard, overseeing his first top‑flight game as Coventry manager, watched his side scramble repeatedly as Arsenal worked the ball into dangerous areas. White saw a shot blocked, Rice curled one just wide from a short corner, and the champions moved the ball with a calmness that suggested they were already weeks into the season.
Four minutes into the second half, arsenal sealed the result. White, Saka and Ødegaard combined down the right channel, slicing through Coventry’s defensive shape. Ødegaard’s finish was miscued, but the strike deceived Rushworth and bounced into the net for 3-0.
It was a fitting moment for the captain, who had dictated the tempo throughout. Even when Arsenal eased off slightly, the patterns remained crisp and the control absolute.
Arsenal’s midfield machine
Declan Rice and Myles Lewis‑Skelly operated with authority, recycling possession and stepping forward when space opened. Lewis‑Skelly forced Rushworth into a fine save with a curling effort on 53 minutes, while Tzolis continued to threaten, stinging the goalkeeper’s palms with a drive from the edge of the box midway through the half.
Havertz almost added a fourth late on, denied only by Rushworth’s full‑stretch save after neat footwork inside the box.
Overall this was a controlled, confident opening‑night performance from the champions. The patterns were familiar, the tempo was high, and the new pieces, particularly Tzolis have slotted in seamlessly. Coventry struggled, but Arsenal’s authority was unmistakable.
The champions are up to speed. and on this evidence, they will take some stopping.
Featured Image courtesy of The Guardian
By Faz Ali
‘Shenstone 5’ speak out after receiving light sentences in rare fair trial
Gianni Infantino told ‘enough is enough’ as players accuse Fifa president of being blinded by power
Drive for salary transparency ‘not solely a top-down agenda’, finds report
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Madewell – Corporette.com
-
Business6 days agoSMA Solar Technology AG (SMTGY) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Crypto World2 days agoanatomy of crypto’s biggest liquidation event since 2021
-
Business2 days agoMusk’s Tesla, SpaceX Confirm $16.8 Billion ‘Terafab’ Chip Plant as World’s Largest Building in Texas
-
Tech6 days agoQwen3.8-27B runs frontier-class coding agents and reasoning locally, no cloud API required
-
Crypto World7 days agoOCC Greenlights Trump Family Crypto Firm for Trust Charter
-
Politics2 days ago6 months on, Irish renters crushed by effects of government housing bill
-
NewsBeat2 days agoThe ‘Lucky Dip Gang’ causing carnage for clicks: After five thugs were killed speeding in the wrong direction on a motorway, GUY ADAMS investigates a sick new trend… and why police aren’t even allowed to pursue them
-
Crypto World7 days agoNAVI Prime launches institutional lending framework on Sui
-
Tech5 days agoGLM-5.3 hits the API at $1.4/$4.4 per million tokens
-
News Videos4 days agoDon’t Leave Your Financial Future To Chance | August 19, 2026
-
Tech7 days ago
5 Of The Most Reliable Car Brands To Consider If You’re Buying A Used SUV
-
Crypto World7 days agoDow’s 3-Year Winning Run Isn’t a Crash Signal, Still 49% Odds of Double-Digit Gains
-
Tech6 days agoKeychron K8 Ultra 8K review: a great value keyboard with comfort issues
-
Business6 days agoStock Market Today: Tech Futures Slide As Treasury Yields Jump; Nvidia, Micron, Sandisk Sell Off
-
Tech7 days agoNvidia discloses $21B stake in SpaceX
-
Business5 days agoMarvell Shares Jump 7% as Google Chip Deal Confirms Custom AI Silicon Partnership, Analysts
-
NewsBeat7 days agoTrump explodes at CNN reporter after question about young blonde aide who wrote him besotted letters
-
Business7 days ago
Fabrinet (FN) Q4 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Business4 days agoFive Below: Kids Discount Retailer Reaps Rich Rewards
You must be logged in to post a comment Login