Less than a year ago, Salah was sitting on a throne inside Anfield after renewing his contract and signing a deal until the summer of 2027.

His previous deal was set to expire in the 2025 but, given his numbers last season, where he topped the goalscoring and assist charts in the Premier League, the Liverpool hierarchy had no choice but to offer him a new deal.

Yet by December, Salah was benched – then left out of the squad entirely – after his explosive mixed zone interview at Leeds, where he claimed that his relationship with Slot had broken down and that someone at the club wanted him out.

Those close to Salah say he was always going to speak at Elland Road, regardless of the result, and that his initial discontent had started when he was benched for a Champions League game away at Eintracht Frankfurt in October, a match Liverpool won 5-1.

Slot admitted it was a difficult decision but it didn’t sit right with Salah, who believed he should be starting every Premier League and Champions League game, given what he had done for the club.

Put simply, that was the first seed that Salah would no longer be a guaranteed starter and, given Liverpool‘s summer outlay of £450m including Alexander Isak, Florian Wirtz and Hugo Ekitike, the direction of their attacking strategy was clear. Salah knew he would no longer be the main man.

In the weeks leading up to that explosive interview, he was left upset after meetings with the Liverpool hierarchy, including sporting director Richard Hughes, where it was outlined that he could be benched.

His punishment for the interview was being left behind for the trip to Inter Milan but, three days later, Salah came off the bench against Brighton and got an assist – with Slot saying post-match there was “no issue to resolve”.

From there, the Egyptian travelled to the Africa Cup of Nations while the club held talks with his agent Ramy Abbas and, when Salah returned to England in January, those close to the situation felt a verbal agreement was in place for both player and club to part ways this summer.

Last month, BBC Sport reported that a summer departure was increasingly likely.

Collagen supplements have become one of the bestselling products in the wellness industry, promising everything from smoother skin to stronger joints. But do they actually work?

A major new review of the evidence – pulling together data from 113 clinical trials – suggests that, for some health outcomes, the answer is probably yes. But as ever with nutrition science, the full picture is more complicated.

Collagen is a protein the body makes naturally. It gives skin its structure and elasticity, supports bones and muscles, helps wounds heal and plays a role in protecting organs. The problem is that production slows as we age, which is why so many people turn to supplements to top it up.

Not all collagen is the same, though. The collagen found naturally in food may be less well absorbed than the smaller forms used in most supplements. These hydrolysed forms – where the protein has been broken down into shorter chains called peptides – are thought to pass more readily into the bloodstream and making it easier for the body to transport these fragments to tissues where they may have biological effects, potentially supporting skin, joint and muscle health.

The new review examined research published up to March 2025, drawing on 16 systematic reviews that between them included nearly 8,000 participants. The overall picture was cautiously positive.

Collagen supplementation was linked to moderate improvements in muscle health and reduced pain in people with osteoarthritis. There were also improvements in skin elasticity and hydration – though these benefits built up gradually, suggesting that taking collagen consistently over a longer period matters more than a short-term burst.

Some of the findings were less clearcut. Results for skin elasticity and hydration shifted depending on when the studies were conducted, with newer research showing lower improvements in elasticity but greater improvements in hydration. That inconsistency is worth noting – it suggests the science is still settling.

The quality of the research itself is also worth scrutinising. The studies used a wide variety of methods, doses and ways of measuring outcomes, which makes direct comparisons difficult.

Fifteen out of the 16 reviews included were rated as low or critically low quality – not necessarily because the supplements don’t work, but because of methodological problems such as studies not being registered in advance and poor reporting on potential biases. Many trials were also short and included few participants, which limits what we can reliably conclude about long-term effects.

Not all collagen is equal

Part of the problem is that collagen supplements vary enormously. Some are derived from animals, such as cows, pigs and chickens, and others come from marine sources, including fish, jellyfish and shellfish. There are even so-called “vegan” collagen alternatives. Some studies used oral supplements, while others tested collagen dressings applied to the skin.

The way collagen is processed also affects the size and composition of the peptides in the final product, which in turn influences how it behaves and is absorbed in the body. Lumping all these different products together in a single analysis risks obscuring as much as it reveals.

Individual differences matter too. Factors such as sun exposure, smoking, sleep quality, environment and hormone levels all affect how skin ages and how it might respond to supplementation. If studies fail to account for these variables, it becomes very difficult to know whether any observed changes are genuinely due to the collagen or simply reflect differences in participants’ lifestyles.

This review adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting collagen supplements are not simply expensive placebos. There appear to be real, if modest, benefits – particularly for skin hydration, joint pain and muscle health.

The research base still has significant gaps. Without more rigorous, standardised studies, it remains genuinely difficult to say what is driving those benefits, or who is most likely to see them. Studies need to clearly specify the type of collagen used, the dose, how it was delivered and the characteristics of the people taking it.

Video footage of Donald Trump at a Memphis roundtable event has sparked social media concern, with viewers commenting on the 79-year-old president appearing to battle drowsiness during the gathering

Concerned viewers watching a Monday afternoon roundtable in Memphis featuring President Donald Trump expressed concerns about the commander-in-chief’s physical state.

Around an hour into the meeting, which began roughly 20 minutes earlier than planned, the president appeared to struggle with drowsiness after delivering his remarks and listening to other participants.

The gathering celebrated the Memphis Safe Task Force’s achievements over the past six months. This multi-agency operation, established in September 2025 to tackle crime, has led to 7,240 arrests and the seizure of 1,188 firearms, according to White House data. It follows after Melania Trump’s comments about Barron’s mental state revealed why he can’t be drafted into the army.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

However, footage showing Trump seemingly battling to stay awake spread across X, prompting numerous responses amid ongoing questions about the 79 year old leader’s mental acuity and physical health.

Sharing the video footage, journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on X: “If a guy next to you at the bar had his eyes rolling back and his head jerking around like this, you’d politely alert the bartender that a customer is in distress.”

“Struggling to stay awake,” one X user replied. Another commenter proposed: “Other people’s speeches bore him.

“He is soooo bored,” a third individual agreed. This comes amid growing speculation about Trump’s cognitive capacity and physical fitness. Recently, his hand bruising seemed to reappear, apparently covered with makeup, and he was seen with a rash on his neck a week earlier. The White House was forced to address the president’s visible rash, releasing a statement from Trump’s physician.

“President Trump is using a very common cream on the right side of his neck, which is a preventative skin treatment, prescribed by the White House Doctor,” White House physician Sean Barbabella previously told The Mirror U.S. “The President is using this treatment for one week, and the redness is expected to last for a few weeks.”

When a journalist asked for further information about Trump’s “preventative skin treatment,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt refused to provide more details, saying she does not “have anything to add to the physician’s statement.”

These latest medical issues come after months of growing questions about Trump’s physical and mental health. The White House has consistently dismissed all concerns regarding the president’s wellbeing, insisting he is in good health.

Leavitt previously stated that Trump’s hand bruising stems from “consistent” irritation caused by “frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.

“Look, you see the president every day,” Leavitt previously told reporters. “He’s moving, he’s working. There have been no adjustments made to his lifestyle.”

It was later revealed in July that the president had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency. A previous memo from the White House stated: “The president underwent a comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies. Bilateral lower extremity venous Doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency, a benign and common condition, particularly in individuals over the age of 70,”

In a January interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump proclaimed his “health is perfect,” but admitted to taking “more aspirin” than his doctor initially recommended.

He expanded on his routine, stating, “They say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood, and I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart. I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense?”

This follows Trump’s peculiar reaction upon discovering the sexuality of Iran’s new Supreme Leader.

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico jury determined Tuesday that Meta knowingly harmed children’s mental health and concealed what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its social media platforms, a verdict that signals a changing tide against tech companies and the government’s willingness to crack down.

The landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case.

New Mexico jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta — which owns Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp — prioritized profits over safety, and violated parts of the state’s Unfair Practices Act.

The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and also agreed that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities of and inexperience of children.

How much Meta owes

Jurors found there were thousands of violations, each counting separately toward a penalty of $375 million. That’s less than one-fifth of what prosecutors were seeking.

Meta is valued at about $1.5 trillion and the company’s stock was up 5% in early after-hours trading following the verdict, a signal that shareholders were shrugging off the news.

Juror Linda Payton, 38, said the jury reached a compromise on the estimated number of teenagers affected by Meta’s platforms, while opting for the maximum penalty per violation. With a maximum $5,000 penalty for each violation, she said she thought each child was worth the maximum amount.

What will change on Meta’s platforms

The social media conglomerate won’t be forced to change its practices right away. It will be up to a judge — not a jury — to determine whether Meta’s social media platforms created a public nuisance and whether the company should pay for public programs to address the harms. That second phase of the trial will happen in May.

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

“We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content,” the spokesperson said. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”

Attorneys for Meta said the company discloses risks and makes efforts to weed out harmful content and experiences, while acknowledging that some bad material gets through its safety net.

Other lawsuits against Meta

New Mexico’s case was among the first to reach trial in a wave of litigation involving social media platforms and their impacts on children.

More than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it’s contributing to a mental health crisis among young people by deliberately designing Instagram and Facebook features that are addictive.

“Meta’s house of cards is beginning to fall,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of watchdog group The Tech Oversight Project. “For years, it’s been glaringly obvious that Meta has failed to stop sexual predators from turning online interactions into real world harm.”

Haworth pointed to whistleblowers like Arturo Béjar, as well as unsealed documents and other evidence, saying it painted a damning picture.

New Mexico’s case relied on an undercover investigation where agents created social media accounts posing as children to document sexual solicitations and Meta’s response.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, also said Meta hasn’t fully disclosed or addressed the dangers of social media addiction. Meta hasn’t agreed that social media addiction exists, but executives at trial acknowledged “problematic use” and say they want people to feel good about the time they spend on Meta’s platforms.

“Evidence shows not only that Meta invests in safety because it’s the right thing to do but because it is good for business,” Meta attorney Kevin Huff told jurors in closing arguments. “Meta designs its apps to help people connect with friends and family, not to try to connect predators.”

Tech companies have been protected from liability for content posted on their social media platforms under Section 230, a 30-year-old provision of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, as well as a First Amendment shield.

New Mexico prosecutors say Meta still should be responsible for its role in pushing out that content through complex algorithms that proliferate material that is harmful for children.

“We know the output is meant to be engagement and time spent for kids,” prosecution attorney Linda Singer said. “That choice that Meta made has profound negative impacts on kids.”

What the New Mexico jury reviewed

The New Mexico trial examined a raft of Meta’s internal correspondence and reports related to child safety. Jurors also heard testimony from Meta executives, platform engineers, whistleblowers who left the company, psychiatric experts and tech safety consultants.

The jury also heard testimony from local public school educators who struggled with disruptions linked to social media, including sextortion schemes targeting children.

In reaching a verdict, the jury considered whether social media users were misled by specific statements about platform safety by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Meta global head of safety Antigone Davis.

Jurors also considered Meta’s failure to enforce its ban on users under 13, the role of its algorithms in prioritizing sensational or harmful content, and the prevalence of social media content about teen suicide.

ParentsSOS, a coalition of families who have lost children to harm caused by social media, called the verdict a “watershed moment.”

“We parents who have experienced the unimaginable — the death of a child because of social media harms — applaud this rare and momentous milestone in the years-long fight to hold Big Tech accountable for the dangers their products pose to our kids,” the group said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report.

The National Living Wage will rise by 4.1% to £12.71 an hour for eligible workers aged 21 and over, which the Government said will increase gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the rate by £900, benefiting around 2.4 million low-paid workers.

That will mean for the lowest paid workers on a 40-hour-week contract their pre-tax pay will hit £26,436.80 for the first time. A 37.5 hour week will see a salary of £24,784.50, while 35 hours will pay £23,132.20 a year.

The National Minimum Wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds will increase by 8.5% to £10.85 an hour, narrowing the gap with the National Living Wage.

This will mean an annual earnings increase of £1,500 for a full-time worker, which the Government said marks further progress towards its goal of phasing out 18 to 20 wage bands and establishing a single adult rate.

The National Minimum Wage for 16 to 17-year-olds and those on apprenticeships will increase by 6% to £8 an hour.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she had accepted recommendations from the Low Pay Commission so that those on low incomes are “properly rewarded” for their work.

The Chancellor said: “I know that the cost of living is still the number one issue for working people and that the economy isn’t working well enough for those on the lowest incomes.

“Too many people are still struggling to make ends meet, and that has to change.

“That’s why today I’m announcing that we will raise the National Living Wage and also the National Minimum Wage, so that those on low incomes are properly rewarded for their hard work.

“These changes are going to benefit many young people across our country, getting their first job.”

null (Image: Lucy North/PA Wire)

What does the minimum wage increase mean for small businesses?

Kate Underwood, Managing Director and HR Director at Southampton-based Kate Underwood HR and Training says: “It’s good news for workers who’ve been stuck on the lowest rung for too long. £12.71 an hour still won’t stretch far in today’s world, but it’s a start. And closing the gap for younger workers? About time.

“Will it be tough for small businesses? Yep. But so is constant staff turnover, sick days from burnout, and people juggling three jobs just to pay the bills.

“Can the UK afford it? Wrong question. Can we afford not to pay people properly? That’s the real one.”

Prem Raja, head of Trading Floor at Currencies 4 You agrees that it’s good news for workers.

“They need the extra cash and hopefully they spend it locally,” he says. “But we have to be real about the pressure this puts on business owners. It is getting incredibly hard to run a company right now. We’re already dealing with rising National Insurance and a weak Pound. Adding a big wage hike on top, especially that huge jump for younger staff, is squeezing us from every side.

“The brutal truth is that if employing people becomes too expensive, businesses just won’t hire. We’ll see jobs disappear because owners simply can’t afford the payroll, or prices will have to go up, which just fuels inflation further.

“It looks like they want to land some ‘good news’ before the Chancellor likely announces heavy tax burdens tomorrow. Without real help for small businesses, this could be the tipping point that forces many entrepreneurs to shut down.”

UK National Living Wage. Infographic from PA Graphics. (Image: PA Wire)

Recommended reading:

But Riz Malik, director at Southend-on-Sea-based R3 Wealth also has concerns: “The last budget impacted employers view on employment by adding further costs.

“Raising the national living wage will only add to it if you factor in this and the associated employment costs. This is on the eve of the budget, which is likely to make it even more costly to do business in the UK.”

The increases will benefit a total of 2.7 million young and older workers, said the Government, adding that by seeking expert and independent advice, it was able to ensure that the right balance is struck between the needs of workers, the affordability for businesses and the opportunities for employment.

Summer-Rae, 15, was last seen in Wigan town centre at 4pm on Monday March 23.

She is described as a 5ft 6in female of medium build, with brown hair and blonde highlights.

She is from Wigan but is known to also spend time in Bolton and Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester City Centre.

GMP said: “Can you help find missing Summer-Rae (15) from Wigan?

“She was last seen in Wigan town centre on Monday 23 March at around 4pm.

“Summer-Rae is believed to frequent Bolton and Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester city centre.

“Officers want to make sure she is safe and well.

“Anyone with information of her whereabouts is asked to call us on 0161 856 0364, quoting log 2615 of 23/03/26.

Summer-Rae was last seen wearing black leggings, a black hoody, a black Canada Goose jacket, and light blue and black Nike Jordan trainers.

Public transport has undergone a huge transformation in recent years, with buses being brought under public control and those serving Bolton being among the first.

According to Transport Focus, only 63 per cent of UK bus passengers believed they were getting value for money in 2025, down from 73 per cent in 2024.

But Greater Manchester bucked this trend – with 79 per cent saying the Bee Network offered value for money, up from 73 per cent the previous year.

Greater Manchester also shows the biggest improvement, rising seven percentage points from 79 per cent to 86 per cent, putting it above the England average.

Fran Wilkinson, Customer and Growth Director at Transport for Greater Manchester, said: “These results show the Bee Network is making a real difference to passengers.

“We’ve worked hard to keep the cost of travel down, capping fares and making multi-modal travel by bus and tram cheaper and more convenient and it’s great that passengers are already feeling the benefit of this.

“This report, which shows a significant improvement in passenger satisfaction, explains why more and more people are using public transport in Greater Manchester.

“Bringing buses under public control has allowed us to freeze fares at £2 for another year, make improvements to services, introduce new routes and increase reliability.

“It’s also meant that we were recently able to lift the 9.30am rule on concessionary passes, giving older and disabled people free round-the-clock travel every day.

“We are now looking at providing free travel for some children in temporary accommodation too.”

Bolton resident Wendy Pye said the bus pass changes were ‘welcome’ (Image: Dan Dougherty)

And 86 per cent of those surveyed said they were ‘satisfied’ with the service overall, up from 79 per cent in 2024 – the highest increase of any area in the UK.

Transport Focus surveyed 47,863 passengers throughout the UK to complete its survey, covering 43 separate areas.

Greater Manchester’s 79 per cent approval rating for value for money puts it high above the national average of 63 per cent.

Its overall satisfaction rate of 86 per cent puts it slightly above the 85 per cent national average.

Bus passengers across England have reported further improvements in satisfaction with their journey with overall satisfaction rising to 85 per cent in the third year of the independent watchdog’s Your Bus Journey survey.

The results of the annual Transport Focus survey show an improvement on last year’s score of 83 per cent, although results continue to vary significantly between local authority areas. Passengers in both Greater Nottingham and Warwickshire are the most satisfied with their journeys at 93 per cent. Passengers in Thurrock (Essex) are the least satisfied in England, scoring 73 per cent.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump’s surprising claim this week that talks with Iran were yielding great progress has only raised more confusion over a war whose goals were already unclear. The most basic question: What talks?

Iran denied any negotiations were taking place, pledging to fight “until complete victory.” Pakistan, Egypt and Gulf Arab nations are trying behind the scenes to piece together talks, but their efforts still seem preliminary. Israel is vowing to keep up its attacks.

If anything, the war appears to only be escalating. Barrages were fired into Iran, Israel and across the Mideast on Tuesday. Meanwhile, thousands more U.S. Marines were on their way to the Gulf, and the Army was preparing to deploy at least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East in the coming days.

Here is a look at what’s known and not known about possible talks to wind down the war.

Since launching the war alongside Israel on Feb. 28, Trump has given shifting and often vague objectives, and those mixed messages were on display in recent days. He has talked of degrading or destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, and its ability to threaten neighbors — goals that he has some flexibility in declaring accomplished. A much tougher goal is ensuring Iran can never build a nuclear weapon, and Trump has insisted that will be part of any deal.

A reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a vital waterway for oil shipments that Iran made virtually impassable when the war began — is now also a priority, for Trump and the global economy.

As Trump talks of engaging with leaders in Iran, he has backed off promoting the Islamic Republic’s collapse. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, continues to say the war aims to help Iranians overthrow the theocracy.

Trump claimed that U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner held talks Sunday with an Iranian leader. He did not say who that was.

Reports focused on Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf as a possible interlocutor. But Qalibaf quickly denied talks were taking place in a post on X.

The U.S. agreed “in principle” to join talks in Pakistan, according to three Pakistani officials, one Egyptian official and a Gulf diplomat, while mediators were still working to convince Iran. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide the details to the media.

The Egyptian official said efforts are centered on “trust-building” between the U.S. and Iran, aiming to reach a pause in fighting and a “mechanism” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump’s sudden declaration of progress in talks on Monday came just as the deadline was about to run out on an ultimatum he had made over the weekend threatening to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants unless the country releases its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz. Iran threatened to retaliate against power, water and oil infrastructure across the Gulf.

Trump on Monday pushed the deadline back five days and said there’s a “very good chance” a deal could be reached this week. That was a relief to global oil and stock markets.

Trump’s move could signal he’s wary of the war’s possible long-term damage to the U.S. and global economy, though his administration has insisted that any pain from spiking oil prices will quickly be reversed once the war is over.

“Trump could be actively seeking an offramp,” the Soufan Center, a New York-based think tank, wrote in an analysis.

On the other hand, the Soufan Center noted, Trump could be buying time for thousands of Marines heading to the region to arrive.

The Marine deployment could be a tactic to pressure Iran on negotiations. But it has also raised speculation that the U.S. may try to seize Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, which is vital to Iran’s oil network, or carry out an operation to remove enriched uranium from inside Iran. Either would mean a greater escalation and a longer war.

Trump has said he has no plans to send ground forces into Iran but has not ruled it out. Israel has suggested ground forces could participate in the war.

What is there to talk about?

Nuclear negotiations were already taking place when the U.S. and Israel launched their surprise attack on Feb. 28, killing the elder Khamenei in the opening salvos of the bombing campaign.

That only deepened Iranian mistrust of Americans in negotiations, especially after Trump’s unilateral withdrawal in 2018 from a landmark nuclear agreement reached with the United States three years earlier. Iran and the U.S. held negotiations in early 2025, and when a two-month deadline set by Trump ran out, Israel hit Iran in a surprise attack that the U.S. joined in a 12-day war, striking Iranian nuclear facilities and military positions.

Trump said Monday that any deal to end the war will entail the U.S. removing Iran’s enriched uranium, which is critical to its disputed nuclear program. Iran refused that demand in the past, insisting it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

A less ambitious goal for talks could be to reach a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

But Araghchi seemed to reject any partial deal in an interview with Al Jazeera last Wednesday. “We don’t believe in ceasefire. We believe in the end of war … the end of war in all fronts,” Araghchi said, emphasizing the need for solutions to conflicts throughout the region.

Police are assisting with a road closure while the vehicle is recovered

A major Cambridgeshire road has been closed after a lorry overturned at a roundabout. Police were called at around 6.30am today (March 24) to reports of an overturned lorry on the A47 roundabout near Guyhirn.

Officers attended and are assisting with a road closure on the roundabout, which connects the A47 to the A141, while the vehicle is recovered. Cambridgeshire Police has confirmed that there were no injuries.

A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire Police said: “We were called at 6.27am to reports a lorry had overturned on the A47 roundabout near Guyhirn.

“Officers attended and are assisting with a road closure on the A141 while the vehicle is recovered. We advise motorists to avoid the area. No injuries were sustained.”

Traffic monitoring site, Inrix said: “A47 Westbound closed, queueing traffic due to accident, an overturned vehicle involved from A141 March Road (Guyhirn Roundabout, Ring’s End) to B1167 Wisbech Road (Thorney).”

Despite achieving historic scores and taking control of over 60 municipalities in the French local elections, the far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally, RN) will be disappointed by its failure to make a breakthrough in the larger towns and cities. The headlines coming out of France after the second round of elections on March 22 tell of the resilience of the mainstream centre left and centre right, whose candidates held on to every major city hall in the country.

The two parties that dominate France’s political extremes – the far-right RN, led by Marine le Pen and Jordan Bardella, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise (France Unbowed, LFI) – made some gains in smaller towns. But they failed to capture a single one of the large cities.

This matters because France goes to the polls again in 2027 to elect its next president. The local elections were widely seen as a dress rehearsal – and the results expose the limits of both parties’ strategies. For the RN, the failure to break through in cities such as Marseille and Toulon — combined with the refusal of the centre-right Les Républicains (LR) to enter into alliances with RN candidates — shows that, for the far right, the path to the Élysée Palace remains highly complicated.

For LFI, a similar inability to translate national prominence into local power raises questions about Mélenchon’s capacity to unite the left ahead of next year’s presidential campaign.

For the RN, the dream result would have been a win in Marseille. Capturing France’s second city would have been a massive statement of intent. After the first round of the local elections on March 16, however, a victory in the port city seemed unlikely – especially after the refusal of the centre-right candidate, Martine Vassal, to enter into any alliance with the RN.

Vassal’s decision is emblematic of one of the big lessons of these elections: the centre-right LR has resisted the temptation to ally itself with the far right, even where doing so might have delivered local power. The centre-left mayor of Marseille, Benoît Payan, drew his own red line, refusing to merge his electoral list with LFI. He still held on to his job comfortably, winning 54% in the second round, well ahead of the RN’s Franck Allisio on 40%. The double refusal in Marseille – the centre right rejecting the far right, the centre left rejecting the radical left – encapsulates the resilience of the political mainstream in France’s major cities.

Battle for credibility

While taking Marseille was always going to be a long shot, the RN had invested heavily in winning back another important port city on the south coast: Toulon. This is the city where in 1995 the party, then called the Front National (FN) and led by Marine Le Pen’s late father, Jean-Marie, made a historic breakthrough, taking control of the council. This was the first time the far right had captured a major French city since the second world war.

But the FN mayor, Jean-Marie Le Chevallier, endured a disastrous time in office. He fell out with his own city councillors and in 1999 ended up quitting the party after a spat with Le Pen (père). The failure to manage Toulon city council (Le Chevallier scored less than 8% when he was up for reelection in 2001) became an albatross around the party’s neck for many years to come.

As we have argued in our research on the RN in local government, overcoming this reputation for incompetence has been an important goal for all the party’s mayors elected since 2014. Recapturing Toulon would have been highly symbolic. But the RN candidate (and current MP) Laure Lavalette, despite leading after the first round, eventually fell short with 48% in the runoff against centre-right incumbent Josée Massi.

The result shows the enduring power of the front républicain: the tactical alliance of voters from across the political spectrum to keep out the far right.

Nevertheless, RN supporters could console themselves with some important victories in smaller towns across the south including Carcassonne, Menton and Orange – another municipality originally captured by the party in 1995. The RN also held on to the vast majority of the towns it was already governing, several of which it won outright in the first round. This includes Perpignan, still the largest town run by the party. In these established strongholds, RN mayors have worked to normalise the party’s reputation and professionalise its approach to local governance.

The success of this strategy is shown by the re-election of the longstanding mayor of Hénin-Beaumont, Steeve Briois, with a commanding 78% of the vote in the first round. His success seems to have had a kind of “coattail effect” across the former coal mining basin in France’s far north – with RN victories in a number of neighbouring towns. The consolidation of a solid block of RN-run municipalities in northern France, alongside those in its traditional heartland of the south-east, is one of the most striking outcomes of these elections.

Signs of things to come?

Yet arguably the most significant result for the far right came in a battle between former allies on the centre right. In Nice, France’s fifth-largest city, Éric Ciotti – who broke with the centre-right LR in 2024 to ally himself with the RN ahead of the legislative elections – defeated his former mentor, the outgoing mayor Christian Estrosi.

Ciotti’s victory raises an uncomfortable question for LR. Even as the party nationally held the line against allying with the far right, one of its most prominent former figures has demonstrated that crossing that line can be electorally rewarding. Whether Ciotti’s path remains an isolated case or becomes a template for other ambitious centre-right politicians will be one of the key dynamics to watch as the 2027 presidential campaign takes shape.

These local elections confirm that the RN’s road to the Élysée runs through a France that is not yet willing to hand over the keys. However, the cracks in the adherence of some significant political figures to the front républicain, cracks which became visible in Nice, even if not yet spreading to voters at large, suggest that “not yet” may not necessarily mean “never”.