A white van was rammed into the two cops in the town yesterday afternoon.

A van driver is being hunted after attempting to murder two police officers in Lanark. A white Renault Traffic was rammed into the officers as they carried out enquiries at a property on Glen Avenue on Saturday at around 2:10pm.

Two male officers, aged 41 and 43, were rushed to hospital for treatment to serious injuries. The 41-year-old has since been released and the 43-year-old remains in hospital in a stable condition. There were no reports of any other injuries as a result of the incident.

The van was later recovered in Kirkstyle Place, Glassford, and police are treating the incident as attempted murder and desperately trying to trace the driver. He is described as a white male, 6ft tall, wearing dark shorts, a grey jumper and a beige baseball cap.

Detective Inspector Gary Smillie said: “This was a deliberate and despicable attack on two officers who were simply carrying out their duties.

“Extensive enquiries are ongoing and I am appealing for anyone who was in the area around the time and witnessed the incident to contact us.

“I would also appeal to anyone in the area who may have dash cam footage or private CCTV which could assist to get in touch. Any information, no matter how insignificant it may seem, could assist with the investigation.”

Chief Inspector Paul Doyle said: “Violence is not part of the job for police officers – it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

“I would like to reassure the community that we are working to trace the person responsible and will continue to carry out enquiries in the local area.

“We are speaking to members of the public and there will be additional patrols in the area, and would encourage anyone with any information or concerns to speak to officers.

“Our thoughts are with the officers, their families and colleagues at this time. We will continue to offer them all the necessary support.

“Anyone with any information should contact 101 quoting reference 1652 of 25 July, 2026. Information can also be given to Crimestoppers anonymously by calling 0800 555 111. “

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE.

Police are urging witnesses to come forward following a burglary at The Barn, Ruddings Farm, Wetherby Lane, Kirk Deighton.

It happened sometime between Monday, July 20 and Friday, July, 24, when thieves broke into a metal storage container.

Recommended reads:

TV star buys iconic North Yorkshire pub made famous by hit show

RECAP: Major police incident at York venue – people told to stay inside

York garage confirms permanent closure as prime site faces uncertain future

A North Yorkshire Police spokesperson said: “This is a rural location, but we’re keen to hear from anyone who was in the area and may have seen anything unusual. Did you notice any suspicious vehicles, people, or activity around Ruddings Farm during this period?”

Police are also asking people to check any CCTV, doorbell, or dashcam footage from those dates.

Anyone with information is asked to contact North Yorkshire Police on 101, quoting incident number NYP-24072026-0230.

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration has imposed double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countries, using a legal justification that permits the president to levy import taxes and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices.

The new tariffs announced in recent days take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expired, and critics say they are less about cracking down on forced labor than they are a way to replace those tariffs. The expired tariffs were themselves a temporary replacement for worldwide tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February.

The tariffs were levied on countries that the U.S. says either don’t have or don’t effectively enforce a forced-labor import ban. The affected countries, which account for 99% of U.S. imports, were quick to protest, calling the Trump administration’s claims unfounded and arbitrary, as nations with vastly different records on forced labor received the same tariff level. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates, which are either 10% or 12.5%.

Sidestepping Congress

The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on countries that the U.S. determined had failed “to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

During President Donald Trump ‘s first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

“The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute,” said Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law. “That’s what all of this is about. The president doesn’t want to knock on the front door of Congress, so he’s trying every side door and every unlatched window to get in.”

Little evidence that countries failed to enforce import bans

The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation and held two rounds of public hearings, elicited more than 2,100 public comments, and had “engagement” with its trading partners about what they were doing to combat forced labor bans.

It didn’t detail its talks with the countries, saying those were confidential. Experts say it is fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban or not, but it is difficult to determine the government’s exact rationale for each country’s failure to enforce import bans.

“There’s not a lot of hard evidence there,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “It’s pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren’t doing enough to police forced labor.”

And even if countries do enact and enforce the forced-labor import bans the U.S. wants, they would still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs would be removed, said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

“This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available,” he said.

In 2021, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed. It blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove the items were made without forced labor.

But goods made with forced labor can still make it into the U.S. In 2015, an Associated Press investigation found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia. The seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S.

An investigation by The Associated Press in 2020 into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among an invisible workforce consisting of millions of men, women and children in Asia. The fruit they harvested made its way into the supply chains of major companies, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Nestle and Procter & Gamble.

Calls for a more comprehensive approach to combat forced labor

During hearings on the tariffs this month, National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, who was representing the business coalition the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group at the hearing, said that in order for the import bans to work, they would have to be much more extensive.

He said there need to be “clear, measurable benchmarks” tied to tariffs for countries to hit, and that the U.S. should help countries build enforcement programs.

Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, said an effective ban needs a “comprehensive approach” that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.

MOSCOW (AP) — A U.S.-Russian space crew landed safely in the steppes of Kazakhstan on Sunday after an eight-month stint on the International Space Station.

NASA astronaut Chris Williams and Russian crewmates Sergei Kud-Sverchkov and Sergei Mikaev touched down in their Soyuz MS-28 that landed smoothly by parachute in a designated area southeast of Dzhezkazgan.

Their 241-day stint on the orbiting outpost was the first space mission for Williams and Mikaev and the second for Kud‑Sverchkov.

The crew will be flown by helicopter to Karaganda, where Williams will board a plane to return to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, while Kud‑Sverchkov and Mikaev will take a flight to their training base in Star City, just outside Moscow.

Once bitter rivals in the space race during the Cold War, Russia and the U.S. cooperate on the space station and other projects. That relationship was marred by tensions after Moscow sent troops into Ukraine in 2022, but Washington and Moscow have continued to work together, with U.S. and Russian crews flying to the orbiting outpost on each country’s spacecraft.

On July 14, the crew of NASA astronaut Anil Menon and Roscosmos cosmonauts Pyotr Dubrov and Anna Kikina arrived at the International Space Station for an eight-month mission after launching from the Russia-leased Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on July 14.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman attended the launch, the first visit to Baikonur by a NASA chief in eight years.

The newly arrived trio have joined NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Jack Hathaway, European Space Agency astronaut Sophie Adenot and Roscosmos cosmonaut Andrei Fedyaev as part of Expedition 75.

Simon Jordan has questioned the nature of Anthony Joshua‘s victory over Kristian Prenga as he recovered from two knockdowns to set up a lucrative showdown with Tyson Fury.

Joshua, who had been returning to the ring after seven months of inactivity, appeared on the brink of defeat in the opening round against Prenga.

The Albanian heavyweight knocked Joshua down just 20 seconds into the contest with an uppercut.

Joshua then survived another knockdown later in the round, with fans fearing the long-awaited showdown with Fury was at risk.

The second round proved dramatically different as Joshua unleashed a series of heavy blows to force Prenga towards the ropes, before delivering a knockout blow.

Joshua’s stunning turnaround, coupled with Fury’s victory over Mariusz Wach just 24 hours earlier, cleared the path for the two British heavyweights to finally meet in one of the most lucrative fights in boxing.

Joshua responded in the second by delivering a second round knockout of the Albanian

Simon Jordan questioned the nature of Joshua’s victory given the difference between the two rounds

talkSPORT presenter Simon Jordan controversially questioned the dramatic difference in the rounds between Joshua and Prenga.

Jordan declared ‘something not quite right’ as he appeared to reference the sums on offer for Joshua’s fight with Fury.

‘Not having that… #anthonyjoshua fight,’ Jordan posted.

‘Dropped twice and sets the tempo, how’s that ? … Prenga totally different in 2nd 

‘Something not quite right, all designed to rinse maximum amount of money…’

Punch stats for the fight revealed the stunning difference between the two rounds, with Joshua landing just five of his 22 attempted punches in the first, while Prenga connected with 15 of his 32.

The second round swung with Joshua landing with 13 of his 46 punches, as Prenga dramatically dropped off by landing three of 17 attempted.

Despite Jordan’s comments on social media, Joshua insisted that ‘champions rise’ in a post-fight interview after coming through the test.

Prenga had stunned Joshua in the opening round and landed 13 of his 32 attempted punches

He landed just three of 17 punches in the second round as Joshua became the aggressor

Advertisement

Prenga was sent to the canvas by a brutal blow from Joshua, who later declared ‘champions rise’ when asked about the dramatic turnaround

‘He [Prenga] gave me a good test but this is what champions do, we rise,’ Joshua said.

‘We get knocked down and stand up. That is life, that is life’s motto.

‘I want to give a massive thank you to Prenga and his team for putting up a good fight. It means a lot to them and it means a lot to me and that is why you see what you see in the ring.

‘I want to give thanks to God. It was more than me in that situation, it can’t just be me in them type of situations. There is a higher power that is calling.

‘He’s a strong guy and I think Eddie [Hearn] wants to sign him now! He is going to do well and he has a bright future. 

‘Maybe with a bit more experience, he [Prenga] will be up there with the rest of us. He is strong and durable.’

Looking ahead to the showdown with Fury, with contracts having already been signed, Joshua said in the ring: ‘Have we got Tyson Fury in the room? Is he here or not?

‘I am the meanest, most vicious champion. Nobody can stop me. He is no Oleksandr [Usyk].

‘All jokes aside, there are two sides. One is the fighter and the other is respect. I respect everything he has done and everything that he has achieved, but as a fighting person, we’re here now. 

‘I hope the fans will be in for a lovely treat.’

Joshua had paid tribute to his two close friends, who were killed in a car crash in December.

Joshua will finally face Tyson Fury in a money-spinning contest with his rival having beaten Mariussz Wach a day earlier

Joshua paid tribute to his close friends Sina Ghami and Latif ‘Latz’ Ayodele, who died in a car crash in December

Sina Ghami and Latif ‘Latz’ Ayodele died while the car they were travelling in struck a truck on a road near Lagos in December. The pair were on holiday with Joshua after he beat Jake Paul in Miami. 

The heavyweight boxer, who was also in the vehicle, was taken to hospital before being discharged and flying home to the UK – where he attended the funerals of his strength and conditioning coach Ghami and Ayodele, one of his trainers.

Fighting in honour of Ghami and Ayodele, Joshua paid tribute to his friends by having their names printed on his military camouflage trunks. 

He also walked to the ring wearing a military-style jacket to match his camo shorts. The jacket featured a medal bar displaying the IBF, IBO, WBA, and WBO titles – which he previously held – alongside pennants bearing Ghami and Ayodele’s names.

Meanwhile, ‘Latz x Sina, My Brother’s Keeper, MBK’ was printed on the canvas in his corner.

Asked about how he has been coping after beating Prenga, Joshua said: ‘It’s been tough,’ before becoming emotional. ‘That’s my brothers. I don’t want to talk about that.’ 

Speaking on DAZN, Matchroom Boxing chief Eddie Hearn admitted he feared the heavyweight had returned to the ring too soon after witnessing his struggles in the opening round.

‘Nobody can imagine what he’s been through in that last seven months. In that first round, I thought we’d come back too soon,’ Hearn said.

‘Boxing got him through. To even be in the ring tonight is astonishing. You don’t know what he’s been through. He had to go to the depths one more time to get up, like he has done the last seven months.’

In February, Joshua memorialised Ghami and Ayodele by having their names tattooed on his arm.

Visitors in elaborate Victorian-inspired costumes have gathered for the return of the popular festival.

Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026. (Image: Garry Hornby)

Photographers were spoiled for choice as Whitby’s streets and the pavilion filled with corsets, goggles and top hats, with many of the most eye-catching outfits captured on camera by The Press Camera Club’s talented members Garry Hornby and Simon McCabe throughout the weekend.

Recommended reads:

Delays building on A64 as traffic slows to just 5mph

Legendary singer James Taylor closes European tour with unforgettable Scarborough gig

Guests rescued after lift breakdown leaves five trapped at North Yorkshire hotel

Firefighters cut trapped casualty free after North Yorkshire crash

We’ve created this gallery of Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026: 31 photos of amazing outfits to showcase all the fabulous photos – and to give the participants the audience their outfits deserve!

Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026. (Image: Garry Hornby)

The three-day event, held at Whitby Pavilion from Friday, July 24 to today, Sunday, July 26, is widely regarded as one of the largest free steampunk gatherings in the UK, attracting crowds from across the country.

Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026. (Image: Simon McCabe Photography)

Organisers said the family-friendly festival, first launched in 2017, once again transformed the seaside venue into a hub of “fanciful extravagance”, with around 70 traders offering clothing, accessories, and handmade curiosities.

Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026. (Image: Simon McCabe Photography)

Alongside the retail emporium, visitors are being treated to a packed programme of talks, workshops, and live entertainment.

Highlights have included presentations on Whitby’s ghosts and legends, Vikings and vampires, Viking mythology, the town’s links to Bram Stoker, and the history of Victorian funeral customs.

Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026. (Image: Simon McCabe Photography)

Experts and guest speakers have included author and parapsychologist Paul Fitz-George, funeral director Emma Sparre-Newman covering how and why Victorian social conditions gave rise to the modern day funeral director and shaped so many funeral customs, and curators from Whitby Museum showcasing unusual artefacts from their collections.

Entertainment extended beyond the pavilion over the weekend, with performances from Ravens Morris from East Yorkshire, and sea shanty group Whitby Tillermen Friends drawing crowds outdoors.

Whitby Steampunk Weekend 2026. (Image: Simon McCabe Photography)

Evening events included a charity quiz and a tribute concert at the Whitby Pavilion Theatre featuring the Duran Duran Experience and Ant Trouble – Adam & The Ants Tribute.

Organiser Andy from WSW Events encouraged visitors to attend, saying: “Don’t wait for all the pictures to appear on social media and wish you’d come—make the effort and enjoy a day to remember.”

The event, which offers free daytime entry, is held every February and July.

Were you in Whitby for the Steampunk Weekend? Share your photos in the comments below – or join The Press Camera Club here.

Ruby Rae’s Country Bar is to open its doors on Thursday. August 6 in the former Jalou nightclub on Bridge Street.

Dean Saunders, co- founder of the Newcastle-based company, says he has ‘loved’ York for years.

He told the Press: “I have been coming down to York for years. I used toi come when the church contained Jalou. When I knew the building was available, an opening in York was a no brainer.”

RECOMMENDED READING:

Dan Cooke, Twinnie-Lee Moore and Dean Saunders open up the former Jalou. (Image: Jake Usman)

Dean says he has been working on developing the York site since February, which will be inspired by the world-famous Ryman stage in Nashville.

The venue will open Thursday to Sunday.

It will be situated a few doors away from York’s other main country and western-themed venue, the recently-opened Silver Spur in Bridge Street, and a short walk away from FortyFive Vinyl Café in Micklegate.

Clive Johnson Horsemanship and the team. (Image: Jake Usman)

Dean continued: “A lot of people who come to our Newcastle venue, they say they love the atmosphere. It’s a predominately female crowd, a about 65 per cent. People love the idea of dancing and dressing up. They might not initially be into country music but they might get converted.”

In the renovations of the former church, all the floors have been changed. Much LVT flooring has been used, which Dean says is great for line dancing.

Ruby Rae singers Ashleigh Bell and Harriet (Image: Jake Usman)

He said: “We have sanded some of the original flooring. We have removed the lighting to reveal a lot of the original features of the church. We have taken off the curtains to expose the brickwork. We have changed the bar to make it look more like Nashville.

“It’s all about the music. We are making the stage the main feature. It will have a deejay booth. Behind is a Ruby Rae’s York sign that will be epic.”

Furthermore, to add character will be plates reflecting the region, ‘dollar walls’, flags, lots of vinyls and ‘lots of neon signs everywhere.’

Singer Ashleigh Bell (Image: Jake Usman)

“It will be very Nashville,” Dean explained, adding lots of seats will be added.

“We want it to be somewhere where people can come in for hours and chill out. We have tried to expose as many of the original features of the church as it is such an epic building.”

Singe Ste Wilson (Image: Jake Usman)

And whilst the work has been underway, Ruby Rae received a boost with a visit from York-born country and western performer Twinnie-Lee Moore. The 39 year-old has appeared on the stage, as well as soaps including Hollyoaks and more recently Emmerdale as boxing promoter Jade.

Though based in Nashville, she regularly visits home and showed her support for Ruby Rae’s by turning up on a horse and with Ruby Rae singers Ashley Bell and Harriet.

Dean added that Twinnie-Lee will perform at Ruby Rae’s York one day.

What do you think of Country and Western music? Will you be going to Ruby Rae’s York?

A heatwave lasting four months, followed by water shortages and crop failures. This is England in the 13th century, not the 21st.

What is often called the Medieval warm period saw elevated temperatures in many parts of the world between the 10th and 13th centuries.

These warmer temperatures were caused in part by an increase in solar irradiance. This is the amount of solar energy reaching Earth, which effects global temperature patterns and influences weather systems. There were also very few volcanic eruptions in this period, which can produce a temporary global cooling effect.

Water shortages and poor harvests

In England, the 13th century saw extreme droughts, devastating city fires and outbreaks of disease. The dry summer of 1212 contributed to the devastation of the Great Fire of Southwark in London, which killed thousands of people.

Contemporary medieval chroniclers recorded a severe drought in 1252. The English Benedictine monk Matthew Paris described four months of “intolerable heat and drought” between March and July, unrelieved by “any fall of rain or dew”.

The Tewkesbury Annals, a contemporary chronicle written by the monks of Tewkesbury Abbey, agreed that “drought prevailed for four months, causing the grass to disappear”. Rubbing the grass between one’s hands was said to turn it into dust.

The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales (Brut y Tywysogion), a medieval record of Welsh history, similarly noted that “the heat of the sun was so great that all the earth became so dry therefrom, that no fruit grew on the trees or [crops in] the fields, and neither fish of the sea nor of the river was obtained”.

Paris went on to describe the lack of available pasture, which led to cattle and livestock wasting away. The warmer weather produced an “abundance of fleas, flies and gnats”, and led to a surge in diseases, with reports of malaria – or the “sweats” and “ague” – in low-lying marshlands.

À lire aussi :
Six tips from the middle ages on how to beat the summer heat

Manorial accounts confirm the difficulties facing farmers, with one Bishopric of Winchester manor recording that the ground was so hard they could not plough for six weeks.

The good and the bad

But it wasn’t just England and Wales that was experiencing unusual weather in this period.

Most of the northern hemisphere plus South America, China and Australasia recorded temperatures 0.3-1.0°C higher than those recorded for 1960-1990 – a period that includes the hot summer of 1976.

Conditions in the North Atlantic were so favourable that Norse people were able to cross oceans as the ice melted. They established settlements in Iceland and Greenland, and travelled as far as Vinland (Newfoundland).

South-east England was warm enough to support vineyards – 45 were recorded in the hands of Normans or great abbeys in the Domesday Book of 1086. Yet significantly cooler conditions prevailed in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Warm water was pushed towards Asia, creating wetter conditions in Australasia, but limited rainfall in what we now refer to as the American west. And there were changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (a weather system over the north Atlantic), which brought warmer and wetter conditions to parts of northern Europe.

There are many sources of evidence for reconstructing past climates. These range from ice cores (long cylindrical samples drilled from glaciers which reveal hundreds of thousands of years of climate history) to tree rings showing the annual growing conditions – and from documentary evidence to the archaeological record.

Although some of the precise chronologies and contours of this evidence are still debated, the overall trends in reconstructed climates are becoming increasingly clear.

Not all regions experienced warmer temperatures during this period, however. Many scholars prefer the label Medieval Climate Anomaly instead. This better reflects the fact that climatic changes varied across the globe, and involved more than just rising temperatures.

Although the warmer temperatures produced occasional drought conditions, the overall economic effects of the Medieval Climate Anomaly were largely positive for northern Europe and parts of Asia. It led to large-scale and widespread agricultural expansion and population growth.

Between 600-900, the population of Eurasia only marginally grew from 167 million to 178 million. Between 900-1200, however, it nearly doubled to 324 million.

It was during the Medieval Climate Anomaly that a highly commercialised and monetised economy developed in large parts of medieval Europe, in what historians have described as its commercial revolution.

Yet, the period had far more serious negative consequences elsewhere. The warm storms led to drought conditions in the southern US and parts of South and Central America. This initiated the outbreak of exceptionally large wildfires in the Rocky Mountains. Severe droughts, exacerbated by extensive deforestation and ecological degradation, were a contributing factor in the decline of the classic Maya civilisation (250-900).

The Medieval Climate Anomaly period was brought to an end by climatic instability in the second half of the 13th century – including a volcanic eruption in 1257 that led to global dust clouds and crop failures. These resulted in mass starvation in medieval London.

The early 14th century saw a shift in weather conditions, with exceptionally heavy rain and cool temperatures preventing crops from maturing. This culminated in the Great Famine of 1315-17, which killed around 10% of the European population.

Other significant historic events of the period were also linked to unusual weather and atmospheric conditions. For instance, the Black Death of 1347-53, which killed between a third and two-thirds of the European population, was brought into Europe on grain shipments imported to alleviate famine caused by another volcanic eruption, around 1345.

Any parallels with today?

The Medieval Climate Anomaly was a largely regional episode of natural warmth. Today’s climate change is a rapid worldwide warming trend driven primarily by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, temperatures are rising today at unprecedented rates. Records continue to tumble, as weather that was once considered extreme is becoming normal.

There are, however, some salutary warnings from the past. As climates change, so too will the risk of diseases spreading and the possibility of weather extremes. With increasing temperatures, it is possible, for example, that malaria may once again become endemic in the UK.

As the medieval period has demonstrated, fire spread can be another acute risk in long periods of dry weather. But unlike the medieval period, we now have the technology to help us prepare, as well as national fire services and more ways to share information quickly. That gives us an advantage that medieval communities just did not have.

Meghan Markle revealed Prince Harry‘s favourite meal during her surprise appearance on MasterChef Australia on Sunday night.

The Duchess of Sussex, 44, who guest starred on the popular Channel Ten reality TV show, was asked by series judge Jean-Christophe Novelli what her preferred dish was to cook for her husband and their two children – Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five. 

The former Suits actress admitted it was a ‘tough’ decision to make given the different taste preferences in her famous family. 

‘It’s a tough one because I have a lot of palates to appease. My husband, being from the UK, loves a lot of meat, potatoes, cream sauce,’ Meghan began.

‘As a California girl, I like a grilled fish, grilled meats, citrus. I just like using lots of really pure natural herbs and spices. I like heat in my food, anything with spices.’

She revealed that her love of spicy food was shared by her husband. 

The Duchess of Sussex , 44, who guest starred on the popular Channel Ten reality TV show, was asked by series judge Jean-Christophe Novelli what her preferred dish was to cook for her husband and their two children – Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five 

‘He can handle a really good curry! We just do a lot of barbecues, whatever is seasonal. The kids are great eaters, we are very lucky on that front,’ Meghan added.

Meghan then went on to proudly boast that both her young children enjoy eating Brussels sprouts.

For her guest spot, contestants of the hit show were asked to create a ‘dish fit for a Duchess’ using ingredients she handpicked from the pantry.

She asked them to whip up a dish using ingredients like honey, macadamia nuts, citrus, edible flowers and celeriac.

As she unveiled a table laden with seasonal produce, Meghan told the contestants ‘my kids eat Brussels sprouts‘, as judge Poh Ling Yeow could be heard saying ‘that’s impressive’.

The Duchess, whose Netflix series With Love, Meghan was recently nominated for a Daytime Emmy, also had a few words of wisdom for the contestants as she acknowledged ‘there is a lot of pressure in this kitchen’.

‘I don’t like to cook that way; I like to cook in a really relaxed fashion,’ she continued.

‘So, all I can say to the competitors is to just remember to have fun, to keep a sense of humour about it, and to cook from the heart’.

The former actress admitted it was a ‘tough’ decision to make given the different taste preferences in her famous family 

Advertisement

Meghan added that ‘food and cooking are how I show my nurturing and love for my friends, family and my kids’ in a sweet nod to her and Prince Harry’s children.

She told the contestants: ‘I’d love it if there’s a connection that you can find when, as you’re cooking something, what is the story behind it?… What is something from your family or from a memory… something sentimental that we can also taste as we taste your dish?’

‘These are all things that, for me, feel really nostalgic,’ she added.

At the start of the show, Meghan insisted that she did not want to be called ‘Duchess’ as Poh introduced her.

‘Welcome. Do I call you Duchess?’ Poh asked. 

‘Oh, call me Meghan. Absolutely, yeah,’ Meghan insisted.

Meghan’s insistence that the cast use her first name rather than her title comes after her alleged sensitivities over claims that her Australian tour with Prince Harry back in April was cashing in on their royal links.

She was reportedly ‘frustrated’ when she was described as ‘royalty’ in a promo for Australia’s wildly popular reality TV show.

‘Meghan and her team had ‘specifically’ made clear they did not want the word ‘royal’ used‘, a source said at the time the promo was released.

The report went on to claim Meghan was unhappy about being described as royalty, despite the fact that, through her marriage to Harry, the term is technically correct.

After introducing herself as ‘Meghan’ on the show, she went on to declare her love for the land Down Under, explaining the trip was a ‘full circle’ moment for her and her husband as they had announced they were expecting their son Archie while visiting the country eight years ago.

‘Oh, we’re so excited. We love Australia. We had the most sentimental, amazing time. We were here almost eight years ago.  We announced we were pregnant with Archie at the time. So, it’s full circle, here we are, but thrilled to be here with all of you and taste some really good food. I’ve heard you’ve been cooking up a storm this season,’ she said.   

Summer 2001. Tony Blair had just won a second thumping election victory, promising opportunity for all. The new census showed a nation losing its religion, more inclined to live alone and more ethnically diverse. The maximum temperature was a tepid 32°C in west London in late June, while the twin towers rose tall and proud as always over the New York skyline.

Twenty five years on, we wanted to look at how the UK has changed. Welcome to the first of a six-part report from a group of 35 specialists, exploring all of the key developments in the intervening period.

Domestic politics

Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

2001: A Political Odyssey is one way of framing how Britain has changed in the first quarter of the 21st century. When that year arrived, it turned out to be rather less advanced than the world of moon bases and video calls that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick had imagined (even in 2026, the test launch for the latest moon rocket recently exploded on the launchpad).

Tony Blair’s Labour government had been re-elected in June 2001 in a second landslide, its last untarnished victory. By 2005 Labour would be mired in war, and coming to terms with a reduced – though still substantial – parliamentary majority on only 35% of the vote.

Populism was certainly a word in 2001, but its usage in Britain was rare – it derived from America, along with much else in our cultural life. In Britain, the same two parties had been in government since 1924, and power alternated between them. When in opposition, Labour or Conservative had only to wait for their next opportunity.

How has the UK changed since the start of the century? From Blair to Burnham, from the dotcom era to AI agents, time has certainly not stood still. In this six-part series, a team of some 35 experts look at everything from defence spending to species populations to the rise of populism to try and make sense of the intervening years.

The Britain of 2001 was much simpler – only one of the two legacy parties ever in office, their longevity lubricated by economic growth – though complications were in train. Devolution had become institutionalised three years earlier. Those who had advocated for self-government for Wales and Scotland did so for one of two reasons (Northern Ireland being a quite different matter).

Either they saw devolution as a staging post to independence, or they thought the opposite: that desire for independence could only be addressed by devolving – repatriating, as a nationalist might see it – powers from London to Cardiff and Edinburgh. Who was right? Too soon to say, but the First Ministers of both Scotland and Wales are nationalists who advocate independence for their nations.

Brexit

In one very limited sense things actually got simpler. In 2001 Britain had for 28 years been part of the European Economic Community, which had become the European Community, and then the European Union. For those who supported Brexit, the implication of those changes in title were of more than semantic interest: they helped explain the vote to leave. Brexit wasn’t even a word in 2001, of course. “Eurosceptic” was the nearest equivalent, in consequence of Margaret Thatcher’s landmark 1988 Bruges speech, warning of the dangers of a “European super-state”. From such acorns do mighty oaks rise.

The simplification of not having to be part of the 27-country assemblage, however, is dwarfed by the complications spawned by Britain’s departure, not least politically. To effect withdrawal from the EU, a culture of party political insurgency developed, usually promulgated by – one might say requiring – a charismatic individual.

James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party came fourth at the 1997 general election, with nearly a million new voters. A million also voted for Nick Griffin’s almost explicitly racist British National Party in the 2009 local elections. Yet by the 2015 general election, Nigel Farage’s Ukip, effectively the successor to Goldsmith’s party, received almost 4 million votes. Both the Ukip and BNP votes collapsed later that year with the Conservative offer of an EU referendum; Goldsmith died, but Farage would be back.

Brexit was a process as much as an event, but there were several others that were epochal: the 2003 Iraq war and the 2010 political “expenses scandal” shattered much of what public trust remained in Westminster. The SNP winning power in Scotland in 2007 led to the 2014 independence referendum. The nationalists lost, but in doing so created national faultines that could no longer be ignored.

Most of all, the 2008 financial crash defined the period. Stagnant living standards provide fertile grounds for grievances – catnip to populists. And so, in part, the appeal of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, of Jeremy Corbyn and Farage, and now the Green party’s Zack Polanski; charismatic individuals that characterise an increasingly individualistic society (curious how – conventionally – tainted so many of them became).

The new divisions

The greatest complication is voter fragmentation. In the 1950s more than 90% of voters voted Labour or Conservative (more often than not for the same party as their parents). It would have been inconceivable that there could be comparable standings for five parties in England, and six in Scotland and Wales. Multi-party politics is the new normal.

But the Westminster voting system wasn’t created to deal with such an array. Keir Starmer’s Labour government was elected on 33% of the vote, not only the most disproportionate outcome in British electoral history but the fourth most disproportionate in the world. Proportional voting could become a clarion under Andy Burnham (a longstanding supporter). As advocates see it, this would allow voters to vote for what they actually want, rather than for what they want to prevent.

Today, the new is helping revive the old in the sense that the 1970s question is being asked again: is Britain governable? Then, successive Conservative and Labour governments were both forced from office, effectively by trade union power. Nationalism and populism, in their different forms, have taken its place.

It is increasingly challenging for those who seek to explain and interpret, even predict, this uniquely fractured and fluid British political scene. In 2001 the Green Party managed 0.6% of votes in the general election. In 2026 they are on around 15%, run councils and have elected mayors.

In Reform UK polling suggests that Britain may have its first new party of government for over a century. Between 1979 and 2007 there were three prime ministers; since 2016 there have been seven.

In Clarke’s and Kubrick’s 2001 conception, a monolith had been left behind by an alien civilisation to help guide the evolution of intelligent life on Earth. If only, one may be forgiven for thinking, there was something similar in British politics.

Geopolitics and defence

Geraint Hughes, Reader in Diplomatic and Military History, King’s College London

In July 1998, the then-Labour defence secretary, George Robertson, presented the new government’s strategic defence review to parliament, with one of its conclusions being that Britain faced no real threat of attack by a major state adversary.

In April 2026 the now Baron Robertson of Port Ellen publicly berated the current Labour government for its “corrosive complacency” over defence. Robertson had co-authored the 2025 strategic defence review, which stated that the UK has to prepare for a possible war between Nato and a resurgent Russia.

Advertisement

He has clearly become frustrated that the review’s recommendations are being slowly (if at all) implemented, because of costs. And he’s not the only one: John Healey resigned as defence secretary for the same reason, telling the prime minister that the government’s spending plan “falls well short” of what is required to keep the country safe.

Keir Starmer finally responded on June 30, rushing out his long-delayed defence investment plan. It offers a £15 billion top-up focused heavily on drone warfare, yet still leaves the military well short of the funding Robertson and Healey believe is needed.

The new geopolitics

It is of course a constant challenge for the government to ensure that British armed forces have sufficient troops, firepower, ships and planes. Even at the time of the 1998 review there were fierce quarrels between Robertson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, over defence costs. In 2010 the then-coalition government imposed swingeing cuts on the armed forces’ capabilities on the front line and the so-called rear echelon, which includes things like supply lines, logistics and medical care. The Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force are still suffering as a result.

However, the strategic backdrop for British defence policy was very different in previous decades. Ten years after the cold war ended, Europe was largely at peace. Closer to home, the Good Friday agreement of April 1998 ended 30 years of British military operations in Northern Ireland.

At that time, the UK’s armed forces were involved in peace support operations in the former Yugoslavia. In retrospect, the 1999 stand-off between Russian and British paratroopers at Pristina airport, Kosovo, at the end of the war in that country should have warned us that great power rivalries hadn’t disappeared.

After 9/11, Tony Blair’s government committed British forces to fight alongside the US in Afghanistan and – far more controversially – Iraq. These conflicts led to the deaths of 636 British servicemen and women, and undermined public support for military interventionism.

Blair justified both wars by arguing that the UK needed to pay a “blood price” to bolster ties with its most important ally. President Donald Trump’s denigration of the sacrifice Britain and other Nato allies made in Afghanistan raises the question of whether this price was worth it.

Today, Britain and its European allies face the threat of a major war in Europe. Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 may have been a miscalculation, but Vladimir Putin has overseen a process of rapid military expansion, which means that the Russians could still potentially attack a Nato member state.

More alarmingly, the foundation of British defence policy – US membership and support for Nato – is being undermined by the Americans themselves. Trump and his officials blame the lack of European support for Operation Epic Fury against Iran for undermining the Atlantic alliance.

In reality, the current US president has long been a Nato sceptic, and his administration’s 2025 national security strategy had harsher language for America’s European allies than it had for Russia. Although US-European relations have rarely been trouble-free, previous presidents did not threaten to seize territory from their allies by force, as Trump has done with Denmark and Greenland.

It is true that it is very hard for any democracy to spend money on military power when there are other pressing requirements in the form of health, policing, education or welfare. The main political parties will accuse each other of running down Britain’s armed forces, but the uncomfortable truth is that in peacetime defence is never a priority for the British public.

Britons generally respect their servicemen and women. But at this moment of rising geopolitical tensions, they are split over whether to cut other public services to fund them, as well as generally unwilling to join up themselves.

Whether these attitudes will change in the event of another 1914 or 1939 moment is a matter for speculation and debate both inside and outside the UK’s defence establishment.

Constitutional challenges

Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional, Administrative and Public Procurement Law, Bangor University

Following the September 11 attacks, the UK government moved to expand its powers through measures such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. While intended to strengthen national security, it created tension with civil liberties by permitting extended detention, surveillance and restrictions on the rights of suspected terrorists.

This was tested at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2009 in a case about a group of 11 foreign nationals in the UK, who had been detained without charge on the grounds that they had links to al-Qaeda and posed a threat to UK national security. Their lawyers argued that the power to indefinitely detain individuals without a formal charge ran contrary to human rights obligations, and the court found in their favour, forcing the UK government to revise the 2001 legislation.

These events highlighted the struggle to balance security concerns with human rights. It demonstrated the power of the ECHR to intervene in matters concerning individuals’ liberties and the rule of law (in this case the principles that the law applies equally to everyone and no one can be indefinitely imprisoned without a fair trial).

The UK supreme court

The supreme court was established in 2009, replacing the former appellate committee of the House of Lords.

This resulted in the UK’s most senior judges no longer sitting in the House of Lords. The head of the judiciary is now the Lord Chief Justice (rather than the Lord Chancellor) and is therefore no longer a cabinet minister and politician.

This strengthened the separation of powers by formally separating the judiciary from parliament and enhancing judicial independence, as well as incorporating elements of separation of powers in modern legislation for the first time.

The court also moved to a new publicly accessible building and began live-streaming most open-court proceedings, which improved transparency.

Devolution

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have gained expanded legislative and fiscal powers through successive devolution acts. There have been challenges to the status quo such as the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. There have also been difficulties surrounding the Northern Ireland power-sharing agreement, which notably collapsed from 2017-2020 over a green energy scandal.

These tensions exposed weaknesses in the UK’s unwritten constitutional model and raised questions about Westminster’s parliamentary sovereignty and the future of the union. Meanwhile, devolved governments increasingly shaped their own domestic policies, particularly during the pandemic, demonstrating both the flexibility and fragility of the current constitutional arrangements.

Brexit…again

The vote to leave the EU in 2016 triggered major constitutional change for the UK. Brexit was enacted by the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repealing the European Communities Act 1972, while retaining some EU law within domestic legislation to ensure legal continuity.

Over the Brexit period, the supreme court ruled on the limits of government power in several cases brought by business leader Gina Miller. It reaffirmed parliamentary sovereignty by requiring the UK parliament’s approval for the government to trigger article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (to start the legal process of leaving the EU). It also confirmed the limits on the government’s power to suspend (prorogue) parliament at a strategic point during the negotiations to force through what it wanted.

The initial high-court ruling in the Miller cases in 2016 earned judges newspaper headlines branding them “enemies of the people”. This highlighted constitutional concerns about judicial independence and attempts to undermine their ability to make decisions in such circumstances.

Brexit’s effect on constitutional tensions could also notably be seen through the Northern Ireland Protocol, which created trade arrangements to avoid a hard Irish border, but also generated political and unionist opposition.

Tumultuous elections

Nine prime ministers since 2001 represents a high turnover by the UK’s historic standards. Frequent leadership changes, including prime ministers assuming office mid-parliament, raise concerns about their democratic legitimacy to govern.

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

There are also questions about broader executive accountability, since they can’t properly be held to account by parliament for the mistakes of their predecessor.

Frequent elections and party leadership challenges have led to concerns that the UK system has become constitutionally unstable, and shouldn’t be so flexible as to permit things like changes of prime minister without elections.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a move in a different direction, mandating general elections every five years and removing the prime minister’s power to unilaterally call them earlier. However, the act’s repeal in 2022 restored the prime minister’s discretion to call elections.

Coronavirus lockdowns

COVID-19 emergency powers expanded government authority to impose lockdowns and restrictions. These developments raised constitutional concerns about the balance between civil liberties, ministerial power and parliamentary scrutiny through extensive secondary legislation which isn’t required to go through the full parliamentary legislative process.

At the same time, we saw rows over perceptions of inequality in how the lockdown rules were applied to elected officials, including through the “partygate” scandal over social gatherings at the heart of government.

The pandemic tested the ability of judicial review to act as an effective check amid a national crisis, in relation to government procurement of personal protective equipment. It also tested how the devolved governments could work with Westminster in such a period.

New head of state

After Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the accession of King Charles III in 2022 marked a once-in-a-generation constitutional transition.

The immediate transfer of the crown demonstrated the UK constitution’s principle that sovereignty is continuous, with no vacancy in the head of state.

Despite national mourning, the king was formally proclaimed without disruption. It represented a notable “first” for citizens witnessing a modern accession and coronation under contemporary constitutional and media conditions.

The future of human rights

More recently, criticism of judicial influence in immigration cases, migrant hotel use, and small boat asylum claims has fuelled calls for reform or repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and for the UK to leave the Council of Europe.

These pressures, alongside the rise of the Reform and Restore parties, have created a major constitutional battleground. They expose a deep clash between what the government can achieve politically, and the strict legal rules around human rights that currently limit what they can do.

The UK’s constitution has become more complex over the past 25 years. While Westminster parliamentary sovereignty remains fundamental to the UK model, it is increasingly balanced with judicial interpretation, devolved power, and stronger rights protections.

The events since the turn of the century confirm that the UK constitution is a living breathing instrument. Whereas it was largely about continuity in the past, where things were done in a certain way out of tradition, the constitution has increasingly been defined by its ability to adapt to major changes like devolution or react fast to developments like the pandemic.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.