One Battle After Another went into this year’s Baftas leading the way when it came to nominations – so it’s no great shock that it also came away with the most awards on the night.
But that’s not to say that it was a night without any surprise wins.
During Sunday night’s ceremony, three actors who hadn’t received any other prizes so far this awards season triumphed in their categories.
Advertisement
Wunmi Mosaku gave Sinners one of its three wins when she scooped Best Supporting Actress, while Best Supporting Actor went to Sean Penn for One Battle After Another, the first time the two-time Oscar recipient has ever picked up a Bafta.
Who were the winners at the 2026 Bafta Awards?
Here’s the full list…
Sean Penn (One Battle After Another)
Advertisement
Paul Thomas Anderson (One Battle After Another)
Best Special Visual Effects
Best Film Not In The English Language
Best Children’s And Family Film
Advertisement
Best British Animated Short
Two Black Boys In Paradise
Outstanding Debut By A British Writer, Director Or Producer
Is Wes Streeting a details man? What do his days look like? Who does he delegate to? Sienna Rodgers and Zoe Crowther explore how the Health Secretary runs his department
Advertisement
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way to run the Department of Health and Social Care.
Some secretaries of state for health have chosen to dive into the detail, immersing themselves in white papers and policy minutiae. Others have preferred to exert control through the press office, gripping the system via the grid.
The House has spoken to MPs, ministers, political advisers and civil servants, as well as health experts and officials, to get an understanding of how Wes Streeting runs his department.
Advertisement
The portrait that emerges is of an intensely political politician – the opposite of a micromanager or a technocrat lost in spreadsheets. Supporters say this has helped him in having a clear view of what needs to be done to transform the NHS. Critics argue he has been distracted by his own broader ambition.
Ready, set, go
Unlike many of his predecessors, Streeting knew he was going to be secretary of state for health for a good period – almost three years – before assuming the role. This gave him the chance, while still a shadow, to consult with previous secretaries of state and permanent secretaries.
“He used the access talks a lot,” says a source who works with Streeting, referring to meetings between the Civil Service and opposition party in the run-up to a general election.
Advertisement
“But when you go in the day after an election, it’s different. The thing he did to set his seal on day one was say: ‘The NHS is broken.’ That was a dramatic input, which nobody in the department expected to happen. And nobody had come in as secretary of state saying that before.”
Streeting was also confronted on his first day with a vastly different situation to that encountered by any previous Labour health secretary: the department he heads no longer runs the NHS – that is NHS England’s job. Those responsible for NHS waiting times, for example, are not found in the department.
“For every meeting he has with the department, he has to have another with NHSE – sometimes two separate meetings and sometimes he has to construct joint meetings. Over the first six months, he realised that was clearly not working,” recalls the same source.
So, with DHSC not able to pull levers in the way other departments of state can, unwinding the Lansley reforms became a priority for Streeting. This culminated in Keir Starmer’s March 2025 speech announcing that NHS England would be abolished and its responsibilities brought in-house over a two-year transition period.
Advertisement
Another well-placed source agrees that Streeting has found the “invisible barriers” to getting things done in government – the subject of complaints by former No 10 head of political strategy Paul Ovenden and other departing spads – “harder than most”.
“He has struggled to get his priorities through,” they say. “He’s a very sharp guy. But when he came in, after getting his own way on policy in opposition, he was shocked about needing Treasury sign-off… It was a rude awakening.”
Streeting had a difficult start in terms of Civil Service churn, the source points out, with long-serving permanent secretary Sir Chris Wormald being lost as he was chosen by Starmer to be cabinet secretary (before being forced out after just a year in post). Chris Whitty was an interim (“as brilliant a mind as that man has, he’s not a permanent secretary”), then Samantha Jones – formerly of Boris Johnson’s No 10 – became the permanent successor last year.
“It’s been a period of big and fast change. I don’t think he would see that as a bad thing but as necessary,” a source close to Streeting remarks.
Advertisement
Streeting welcomed a totally new leadership, including Alan Milburn as lead non-executive director of DHSC (referred to as “the brain of the department’s policy output” by one source), Sir Jim Mackey as chief executive of NHSE and Dr Penny Dash as chair of NHSE. “That has really helped turn things around – the right people in the right jobs.”
A day in the life
Every day in Streeting’s ministerial life is different, but it always begins bright and early. He gets the car in at 5.45am if he is going to the gym, or half past six if he is not. The red box is worked through in the back seat and again at his desk in Victoria Street.
Mondays are for planning the week ahead and delivery meetings. Performance data is reviewed with his private office, departmental officials and NHS leaders. Over the last few months, with pressures intensifying, there have been weekly winter sessions. If a target is off track, he wants to know why.
Advertisement
Tuesdays bring Cabinet and external meetings. Once a fortnight, Streeting blocks out time to meet what he calls “the victims of the NHS” – maternity campaigners, families caught up in care failures, relatives of patients who have died after systemic errors. A source close to Streeting says he was advised by the department not to meet with victims of the maternity scandal, nor to set up inquiries into such failings, on the basis that it would set an undesirable precedent, but he has gone ahead regardless.
Wednesdays are for the longer-term agenda, such as negotiations with the British Medical Association. On Thursdays, he tries to get out of Westminster, visiting hospitals, GP surgeries and dental practices. Fridays are for Ilford North – a constituency day, as is typical for all MPs at the end of the week. Weekends are often spent campaigning or attending regional party conferences.
The ‘vision thing’
Streeting’s allies say he is clear about what he sees as his job: set the vision and define broad outcomes, then ensure the system delivers it. He believes the department’s power lies in direction-setting and enforcement. His supporters also freely admit that he is intensely political, which shapes everything he does.
“He cares about the details, but he doesn’t let them get in the way of narrative, drive and direction,” says a staffer. “He paints a picture and then leaves it to the Civil Service to deliver – but that’s normal. That’s his job.”
Advertisement
“He is acutely aware of the political context that he operates in, which is really important for getting things through,” adds a different source.
Rarely, if ever, has the same been said about the Prime Minister, who is not deeply rooted in the Labour Party’s factional undergrowth, and is often criticised for his managerial instinct. This facet of Starmer’s style and background is blamed by many observers, near and far, for his problems in Downing Street today.
Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting in 2023 (Stefan Rousseau / PA Images / Alamy)
While Starmer seems irritated by Westminster, Streeting – who cut his teeth in student politics – is animated by it. “He’s political up to his eyeballs,” as one source puts it. This is not always taken as a positive.
Politics so shapes Streeting’s approach, one source tells The House, that he tends to hire politically sympathetic civil servants to his private office. This is disputed by a source close to him who points out that he has brought in people who have worked for Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and David Cameron; plus Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage was appointed to lead a children’s cancer taskforce, and Tory peer Baroness Blackwood has been appointed to chair the Health Data Research Service.
Their framing is instead that he does not see the job as a technocratic exercise nor as a mathematical formula, but as a mission determined by his values. He has decided, for instance, that savings coming in from NHSE redundancies should be redistributed to health services in areas most in need – rather than to trusts who process patients quickly, which would cut waiting lists faster.
Advertisement
Some question whether Streeting lacks a ‘North Star’, while others say he has a (Michael) ‘Goveish’ focus on projects for short periods. Multiple sources who have worked with him and met him in his role as health secretary say he often does not give the impression he expects to stay in post for the long term.
One Labour source who used to work directly with Streeting when the party was in opposition says they are convinced that he never wanted the shadow health secretary role in the first place – likely preferring a job in which he could be more overtly political.
Labour MPs and health stakeholders describe the post as somewhat of a poisoned chalice. A senior health policy expert who has worked with Streeting and his team says it is “quite a hard bit of government to play politics in, because it’s really hard to secure quick wins”.
“It’s probably the hardest job of all secretary of state positions, because your level of control over things is very, very limited,” they add.
Advertisement
“He can be quite up and down with his satisfaction with how the department is performing, but I think that happens with any health secretary – the job is so stressful. I think it’s second only to chancellor in terms of cabinet positions, which are just the worst,” an insider agrees.
“You’re dealing with the largest employer in Europe, with a budget the size of a small country, and it feels like however much money you throw at it, there’s nothing you can do.”
An ally of Streeting counters claims he lacks focus, saying: “Wes has got a North Star around inequalities and opportunities. His whole biography is about that.” (A longtime friend similarly mentions his East End memoir published in 2023, One Boy, Two Bills and a Fry Up, pointing to it as evidence that “his biography is not separate from his politics”.)
The ally draws a comparison between the Health Secretary and Milburn, with neither coming from a privileged background. “Both are driven to improve services for real reasons.”
NHS waiting times are seen as a bureaucratic problem – but Streeting, the source continues, understands that it means millions not knowing what is going to happen to them and when, because the NHS is currently such a “passive” experience. “Politics is about changing the nature of public experiences. Wes has a strong North Star that the NHS is not good enough.”
Advertisement
They add that Streeting being intensely political should be taken as a positive: “We do need politicians to be good at politics. If a perm sec were good at politics, that would be a problem – but for a secretary of state, that’s a good thing!”
Soft landings
The charge that Streeting is “driven by press” surfaces repeatedly. In meetings, say those who attend them, he often reframes technical advice in political terms. If Chris Whitty explains a public health risk in dense epidemiological language, Streeting’s reaction is to test how it would sound on ITV’s evening bulletin.
“You’re sitting around a table talking to him about a complex bit of policy – like the neighbourhood health service – and he’ll start to develop a narrative. ‘How am I going to explain this?’ becomes an important part of forming it. I’ve never seen a secretary of state do that before,” says a source.
Most meetings, reports another insider, eventually circle back to the question: “How will this land?” Some will see this as cynical politicking, but it is not always cited as a criticism. “He knew that communication was half the battle, so it is justifiable from a policy perspective,” the source notes.
Advertisement
Streeting believes a big part of his role is translating expert advice into something the public can understand. As often the only elected politician in the room, surrounded by people explaining why X and Y isn’t deliverable and why Z is at risk of judicial review, it is his responsibility to consider the public’s view of policy and delivery. Taxpayers spend £200bn a year on the NHS – they deserve to know where it’s going, says a source close to Streeting.
Wes Streeting speaking to the media during a visit to the specialist surgical unit at Trafford General Hospital in Manchester, February 2026 (Martin Rickett / PA Images / Alamy)
Sources say his interest in the media has produced tangible change, perhaps his most solid win so far: a transformed DHSC communications operation. It was “so inept, so stuck in the noughties”, says one, whereas it is now video-led, quicker off the mark and better at turning dense statistics into usable lines.
The Health Secretary has paired with celebrities, including Geordie Shore’s Vicky Pattison and Jade Thirlwall of Little Mix, wanting to raise the profile of certain health issues. “Getting the machine to put out stuff like that is a result of him and Will [Streeting’s spad] being relentless on comms. It’s made video a primary output, and the department is no longer doing government by press release – a real success,” the same source says.
A Labour MP’s staffer, who notes that Streeting has his own Health and Social Care WhatsApp group for MPs, praises the speed with which his spads reply and how health figures are made easy to translate for a wider audience.
There is a counter-argument, of course. In a department that is permanently firefighting, bandwidth is finite. Some question whether the relentless focus on presentation risks becoming a distraction.
Advertisement
Bonfire of the quango
Streeting’s vision is encapsulated in the 10-Year Health Plan, which is built around three shifts: hospital to community, analogue to digital, sickness to prevention. The Lord Darzi review formed the basis of this intellectual underpinning, particularly in its warning that the NHS lags badly behind the private sector in its use of tech, and it will take a decade for it to reach modern standards.
The Health Secretary wants the NHS app to become the front door of the service. He is hopeful that artificial intelligence tools will free up clinician time and the UK’s life sciences sector will be boosted when it can fully make use of the golden goose that is the UK’s universal health system of 60 million patients.
The biggest gamble of his tenure has been the decision to scrap NHS England and fold it back into the department.
Supporters say the old arrangement had become dysfunctional, with blurred accountability, blocking and leaking making ministers miserable. “Everybody hated it. Policy dreams went to die with NHS England,” says a source.
Advertisement
NHSE staff have been told they will need to apply for jobs in the merged workforce between January and March 2027. There is widespread scepticism about this timeline, however, with many believing it will be pushed back. Senior figures in NHSE are encouraging staff to refer to it as the “New Department for Health” in the meantime.
An NHSE source tells The House they believe energy that could be spent improving services risks being diverted into legislative wrangling and internal restructuring for the next two years.
Hugh Alderwick, director of policy and research at independent charity the Health Foundation, warns that large-scale reorganisations can distract local leaders from improving care.
He also says Streeting’s two major reforms – the NHSE restructure and the 10-Year Health Plan – could conflict with each other. The challenge is that the detail of what the plan means in practice and how it will be delivered is “still thin”, he adds, and “the resources to deliver those reforms are constrained”.
Advertisement
Alderwick believes pressure directly from Starmer to bring down waiting lists could push the Health Secretary towards focusing more on that than “bigger, more fundamental” reform of the health system.
Another looming question is what progress DHSC has made on social care. The government has set up an independent commission, led by Baroness Casey, to look at reform. According to Alderwick, although it could help to “set a vision”, there is a risk it is simply “another commission, which we’ve had a long line of before, that kicks questions of social care reform back into the long grass”.
On the view that Streeting has conflicting priorities, a source defending him responds: “Think tanks say the NHS can’t do two things at once. I find that a bit weird. If you change the machine, they think that’s getting in the way of making the machine work better.”
There are 7.3 million people on elective treatment waiting lists. If we want to reduce the flow in 2027-28, the source says, new tech will be helpful – 20 per cent of dermatological diagnostics can be done initially with a photograph rather than a face-to-face appointment, for example. “That’s a new model of care that can reduce waiting now, not in 10 years’ time.”
Advertisement
But so far, NHSE abolition has been little more than a job-cutting exercise, say critics. A source close to Streeting acknowledges the change has mostly been on headcount so far, but argues this is no bad thing given the level of duplication and how the two organisations were marking each other’s homework. “I’m sure there will be unhappiness. But was the relationship between the two working well beforehand?”
The risk for Streeting is that, by 2029, his major achievements could be seen to amount to having cut the waiting list to the trajectory that it was already being cut in the last months of 2023 under the Conservative government, and ditching a large administrative body whose role the public was unlikely to have recognised.
While the government has achieved a fall in NHS waits for elective care, experts warn that this could prove to be a complicated legacy for Streeting when waiting lists for other services remain high. There is little public understanding of the difference between different types of NHS waiting lists – for example, elective care, diagnosis, or specialist appointments.
What will Streeting’s legacy be? One health expert offers a damning verdict: “The picture will be a person who talked a big game about reform, and talked a big game about transforming the NHS, but didn’t really have the tenacity to see it through.”
Advertisement
A for ambition
Staff describe Streeting as an “empowering” boss. Those who work directly for him have “extreme loyalty” to him, says one: “People stay with him for years. He will always tap into them and work things through with them. That means everyone feels valued.”
They insist that the perception he is driven by ambition for his own career is not borne out by the facts: he has not run away from Ilford North, he has no plans to take out a sitting PM, and he has done the toughest press rounds when the government has been at its lowest.
But that in itself is seen by some as a negative for becoming a revolutionary health secretary.
“You can’t be the guy who shovels the shit for the government at the same time as being the person who is delivering a policy revolution in your department. One thing totally distracts the other,” says a source who knows Streeting well.
Advertisement
“Because he’s got political ambitions elsewhere, Wes has wanted to have views on everything from Palestine to social media bans. That implies to me that you’ve got a secretary of state who is much more interested in the wider political context the department operates in than the infinite number of problems at his doorstep. You only have so much bandwidth.
“I think he’d be the first to admit that he’s been too distracted by what’s going on elsewhere on Whitehall, and too eager to jump in and involve himself in the other stuff going on. But that’s because he’s ambitious – he’s got eyes on the prize.”
According to a 2023 study, a high consumption of sugar among older adults appears to be linked to an increased dementia risk.
More recent research published in the journal Neurology has found a link between the high consumption of some artificial sweeteners and dementia risk among under-60s, too.
In the paper, which followed 12,772 adults with an average age of 52 for a mean of eight years, some artificial sweeteners appeared to be linked to faster cognitive decline.
Among the highest consumers, that equalled “about 1.6 years of ageing”.
Advertisement
Which sweeteners were used in the study?
In this research, the scientists looked at the effects of:
aspartame,
saccharin,
acesulfame-K,
erythritol,
xylitol,
sorbitol, and
tagatose
on participants’ brain health.
Only tagatose did not have a link to faster cognitive decline in this study.
What did the study show?
Advertisement
The researchers asked participants to fill in questionnaires about their diets at the start of the study. They were then split into three groups: low, medium, and high sweetener consumption.
The lower group consumed about 20 milligrams (mg) a day on average, and for the highest group, it was as high as 191mg a day.
They also took cognitive tests at the beginning, middle, and end of the study. These were designed to assess six cognitive factors including memory, word recall, and verbal fluency.
After adjusting for things like age, gender, and blood pressure, this research showed a link between a higher consumption of six low- and no-calorie sweeteners (LNCSs) and dementia risk, especially among under-60s.
Advertisement
Those in the higher-consumption group experienced cognitive decline 65% faster than those in the lowest-LNCS consuming group. The middle group experienced cognitive changes 35% more quickly compared to those who consumed the fewest LNCSs.
“Daily consumption of LNCs was associated with accelerated decline in memory, verbal fluency and global cognition,” the paper read.
This effect seemed to be stronger among those with diabetes.
Study author Professor Claudia Kimie Suemoto said, “While we found links to cognitive decline for middle-aged people both with and without diabetes, people with diabetes are more likely to use artificial sweeteners as sugar substitutes.
Advertisement
“More research is needed to confirm our findings and to investigate if other refined sugar alternatives, such as applesauce, honey, maple syrup or coconut sugar, may be effective alternatives.”
This study only shows a correlation
“Low and no-calorie sweeteners are often seen as a healthy alternative to sugar, however our findings suggest certain sweeteners may have negative effects on brain health over time,” Professor Suemoto shared.
The NHS said that “all sweeteners in Great Britain undergo a rigorous safety assessment before they can be used in food and drink. All approved sweeteners are considered a safe and acceptable alternative to using sugar”.
The International Sweeteners Association (ISA) shared in a statement that said, “This research is an observational study, which can only show a statistical association, not a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
“The reported link between sweetener consumption and cognitive decline does not prove that one causes the other.”
And it turns out that when you water your garden matters, too.
Advertisement
Water your garden in the morning to stop slugs in their slimy tracks
According to Gardener’s World, watering your garden in the morning helps to block slugs’ path at night (when slugs tend to eat their dinner).
“This ensures that the soil has dried out by the evening, when slugs are most active. Wet soil at night can create a slug highway between plants,” the publication shared.
“There has been a study that showed that switching from watering in the evening to watering in the morning can provide as much protection as slug pellets,” their site reads.
Indeed, research published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment found that slug leaf consumption over the course of their study was 60% in untreated areas, and shrunk to 12% in both patches watered in the morning and those covered in metaldehyde pellets.
“Morning irrigation thus gave a level of protection against slug damage as good as metaldehyde pellets combined with evening irrigation,” the paper said.
The RHS said that this works because “if you water in the evening, when the majority of slugs are most active, you’ve created a nice wet film that they can happily travel over.”
Water applied in the morning, meanwhile, is mostly gone by nighttime.
How else can I get rid of slugs without killing them?
But what you might not have realised at the time is that they were joined by some familiar faces.
On Friday night, Foo Fighters performed the title song from their next album Your Favorite Toy on Graham’s BBC talk show, after which Dave joined fellow guests Benicio Del Toro, Jennifer Garner, Charli XCX and Gordon Ramsay for a quick chat on the iconic red sofa.
Advertisement
After the performance aired, Jake Shears confirmed that he and his Scissor Sisters bandmate Babydaddy had been drafted in by fellow 2000s music icon Dave to join them for the performance.
“Sometimes you just end up in the Foo Fighters for a night!!” Jake joked. “What is life?! Thank you Foos and Graham for having us. Will never forget it!!”
Meanwhile Babydaddy enthused: “Teenage me’s head just exploded. This guy has been a friend, ally and (insanely) fan for over 20 years now! Dreams come true!”
During his chat with Graham, Dave confirmed that the Your Favorite Toy album will be out in April, and that the UK should expect more Foo Fighters live shows to promote the release in the next 18 months.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, after their hugely successful arena tour in 2025, the reunited Scissor Sisters have more live shows coming up in the year ahead, with Jake telling HuffPost UK last year that he’s also open to releasing more music with the band in the future.
“The nice thing is, there is no record label, we’re able now to have the luxury of making whatever we want, and taking however long we want to do to make it,” he explained. “There’s no rush.”
Jake added: “To me, the most important thing is creating something that we’re super proud of, and that we love and can have fun doing.”
But who are Plaid Cymru really? Just how devastating will they be for the future of the country?
Given it has many supporters in a rump Welsh media, being both left-leaning and nationalistic, the public’s perceptions of the party are on the more positive side by virtue of rarely being subject to the scrutiny faced by the Conservatives, Labour, and Reform.
Advertisement
The so-called Party of Wales celebrated it centenary last year; its foundations rooted in the preservation of the Welsh language. Its “home rule” ambitions were more diluted than the full-on independence rhetoric of the modern day but quickly moved onto that turf.
Their heartland has always been in the Welsh-speaking west, known as “Y Fro Gymraeg”, ever since winning their first parliamentary seat in the 1966 Carmarthen by-election. They have had a decent number of councillors in the South Wales valleys but only rarely and briefly reaching positions of power on councils, whilst largely relying on help from others to do so.
When the Welsh Assembly was established in 1999, they had their best-ever result in a convincing second place but, since their 2007-11 coalition with Labour have come third, second, and third again, vying with the Conservatives to be Wales’ second most popular party.
Since that coalition, Plaid aimed to outflank Labour from the political left, first, under Leanne Wood and then, Adam Price, even if this was against the instincts of their rural, small-c conservative voter base. Ex-BBC journalist – who naturally has many friends in the media – Rhun ap Iorwerth was appointed leader uncontested in time to benefit from the Starmer disaster.
Advertisement
As a party that has always been hostile to Conservative England but aware of the unradical nature of their voting base – Welsh independence aside – Plaid has been careful to not pigeonhole itself for most of its history but has now committed itself to a hard-left agenda.
Its leader recently said, “there’s no such thing as illegal immigration”. Its former leader said women shouldn’t go to prison. They have very much sided with trans extremists even after last year’s Supreme Court ruling.
Recent manifestos included commitments to rent controls (which are proven to actually increase rents), reaching net zero by 2035 (bringing forward the already straining 2050 target), rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union (even though Wales voted to leave the EU), and increasing benefits (which is already slowly bankrupting our unproductive economy).
They criticise Labour for governing Wales poorly, despite doing so largely in accordance with their own separatist politics and whilst being directly complicit through formal coalitions and workaround deals that were coalitions in all but name.
Advertisement
Together, these parties delivered for Wales the worst NHS waiting times in Britain, the lowest school standards in the UK, and the least competitive region of the British economy. Water sewage spills were four times higher per head than in England and housebuilding last year was its second lowest during the devolutionary era (beating only the Covid year by 20 units).
Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru support their hated 20mph default speed limit. With Labour, they are happy to embezzle taxpayer money for non-devolved areas such as fake foreign embassies and the Nation of Sanctuary scheme that encourages illegal immigration. Alongside Labour, they gave free school meals to primary school aged children on millionaires and are committed to doing it now for teenagers from rich families.
They backed Labour blocking the much-needed M4 relief road even after £150m of public money was spent on an independent feasibility study that said it should be built. They are, of course, the main driver behind the Senedd expansion, costing £120m despite no public mandate for doing so. Both parties complain that Wales is underfunded but make no case or attempt to generate more wealth in Wales. They oppose a begging-bowl culture in words but battle tooth-and-nail to maintain in practice.
Plaid argued that pupils should skip school to go on climate protests and that we should import American-style anti-colonial, anti-white, race-baiting education, all while its Councils remove English language education rights when the law gives parity not precedence for Welsh.
Advertisement
Recently, they voted to block an inquiry into child sex abuse, they argue Labour’s anti-racist action plan does not go far enough, and they campaigned against proscribing Palestine Action even after they broke into an RAF base, damaged vital defence resources, and attacked a female police officer with a sledgehammer. They are now indistinguishable from a moronic Green Party.
As a councillor in Cardiff, they have used their precious annual motion not to talk about the one rural ward they represent. The people of Pentyrch, Creigiau, and St Fagans will feel shortchanged knowing that while I, as a councillor for a neighbouring ward, have doubled bus services – from which people in Pentyrch will also benefit – and fight inflation-busting tax rises, their local Plaid representatives prioritise Palestine and devolving the Crown Estate, neither of which are the province of the Council. This is how contemptuous of the public Plaid really are.
But the rot goes deeper. They boast of the “strong link” with Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, and the Scottish National Party. Plaid sent a delegation to Gaddafi’s Libya to learn from them, the regime that armed the IRA to murder British citizens and troops. Their supporters deface English place names on public signage and have a record of burning holiday cottages. Anglophobic arson is just an occupational hazard in their quest to destroy the United Kingdom.
The point is, Plaid is not some mainstream, Welsh choice. They are a radical, leftist party whose core belief is that every input and every outcome must move Wales closer to independence. They do not share the public’s priorities. The commonweal comes second to their separatist goals. Plaid wants to facilitate a woke-on-steroids agenda that goes further than the damage already done by Labour using money Wales simply does not have. The compromised media will never give them the scrutiny the public demands, so it is up to us unionists do it ourselves.
Advertisement
A glimmer of hope: Plaid’s ex-leader Adam Price has the support of his colleagues to push through a Bill that would ban lying by politicians at election time. Should it ever become an Act, Plaid will never be able to say Welsh independence is viable future for our proudly British nation.
Democratic attorneys general are bracing for President Donald Trump to interfere in the midterm elections — and war-gaming how to stop him.
The party’s top prosecutors have been strategizing for months about how to counter a series of increasingly extreme scenarios they fear could play out this fall. They have huddled in hotel conference rooms and over Zoom meetings to run tabletop exercises anticipating the president’s moves and choreographing responses.
They’re preparing for the administration to potentially confiscate ballots and voting machines, strip resources from the postal service to disrupt the delivery of mail ballots, and send military members and immigration agents to polling locations to intimidate voters. They’re readying motions for temporary restraining orders to preserve election materials and remove armed forces from voting sites.
“[Trump] wants to continue to have his party prevail, seemingly by whatever means necessary,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “So we have to be ready for that, sad and tragic as it is.”
The Democratic attorneys general, some of whom battled Trump’s election-subversion tactics in the courts in 2020, have already challenged the president’s efforts to overhaul election administration and access sensitive voter data ahead of a midterm contest that could turn him into a lame duck.
But the president’s more recent moves have prosecutors ratcheting up their preparations for November, five Democratic attorneys general said in interviews.
Trump and his allies’ rhetoric is the type of “red-alarm fire that people need to take very seriously,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who leads the Democratic Attorneys General Association’s election protection working group.
“He will try anything,” Brown said, so “we have to just sort of think creatively about: If you were the president and you were trying to invalidate an election or undermine an election, what are the oddball, ludicrous, unconstitutional theories that you might advance?”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson fired back in a statement accusing Democrats of “plotting to undermine commonsense election integrity efforts supported by a vast majority of Americans” and arguing existing law gives the Department of Justice “full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls.”
Advertisement
“President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters,” Jackson said. “The President has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to ensure the safety and security of our elections.”
Democratic attorneys general have panned the SAVE Act as an attack on the right to vote and urged Congress not to pass it and other measures Trump is pushing.
They also fear the Trump administration could aim to intimidate legal voters by sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations.
When asked about Bannon’s comments during a briefing earlier this month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said while she “can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November” she hadn’t “heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations,” calling the question “disingenuous.”
Democrats aren’t reassured.
“If the president said, ‘Look, I want my ICE people to protect American elections … go to all these polling places and stand out in front with guns,’ I think they would do it,” said Attorney General Keith Ellison of Minnesota, where an immigration enforcement surge earlier this year resulted in two deaths. “And I think we all need to be prepared to deal with that problem.”
Several Democratic attorneys general said they’re particularly alarmed after the FBI seized voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, based on a referral from Kurt Olsen, an attorney who worked with Trump to undermine the 2020 election results. They’re now bracing for similar seizures in other places Trump has previously targeted over debunked claims of voter fraud.
Advertisement
Those concerns are heightened in battleground states with contests that could decide control of Congress.
“We recognize that what happened in Fulton County could happen in Detroit. Not because there’s any merit to claims that anything wrong happened in Detroit, but because we know that those claims will be made again,” said Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel of swing-state Michigan.
“The president and his administration know and understand that Democrats don’t win statewide in Michigan without counting the Detroit vote,” she added. “So of course Trump wants to undermine in people’s minds the integrity of Detroit elections, even though that’s not borne fruit whenever that has been investigated.”
Democrats in states that rely heavily on mail-in ballots are also girding for an assault on the voting system that Trump is trying to eliminate, but that GOP operatives and even some Republicans in Congress support as a way to keep voters engaged in non-presidential years.
Advertisement
They are worried about Trump weaponizing the postal service, either by again blocking funding for the agency or installing allies to slow operations. And they cautioned that his push to discount ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward could disenfranchise voters in states with grace periods. The Supreme Court is due to consider a case on ballot deadlines next month.
Democratic attorneys general, meanwhile, will argue in a lower court next week in a multistate lawsuit seeking to permanently block portions of Trump’s executive order — which includes cutting off mail ballots and requiring documentary proof of citizenship for the national voter registration form — from taking effect.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who is co-leading the lawsuit alongside Bonta, urged his counterparts to “stay nimble.”
Trump “likes to sow chaos because he thinks it’s going to throw people off their game,” Ford said. “But he has met his match when it comes to the Nevada attorney general’s office; he’s met his match when it comes to the Democratic attorneys general.”
A newly-published excerpt of Liza’s book Kids, Wait Till You Hear This! in People magazine sees the EGOT recipient reflecting on this, confirming long-held rumours that she hadn’t wanted to appear in a wheelchair, having previously requested that she appear on a director’s chair.
The passage reads: “I was inexplicably ordered – not even asked – to sit in a wheelchair or not appear at all. I was told it was because of my age, and for safety reasons, because I might slip out of the director’s chair, which was bullshit.
“I will not be treated this way, I said. My co-presenter insisted she would not go on stage with me unless I was in a wheelchair. I was heartbroken.”
The excerpt continues: “I was much lower down than I would have been in the director’s chair. Now I couldn’t easily read the teleprompter above me. How would you feel if you were wheeled out, against your will, to perform in front of a live audience, and unable to see clearly?
Advertisement
“So when I stumbled over a few words, Gaga, who was at my side, didn’t miss a beat to play the kindhearted hero for all the world to see. ‘I got you,’ she said, leaning down over me.”
In apparent shade towards Gaga, Liza’s book claims the Poker Face singer later paid a visit to the screen legend’s dressing room to check on her.
The passage concludes: “I looked at her and said simply, ‘I’m a big fan’. I learned this lesson years ago from Mama and Papa. At a moment of high stress, you stay gracious.”
HuffPost UK has contacted Lady Gaga’s team for comment.
Advertisement
Kids, Wait Till You Hear This! was written in collaboration with Heidi Evans and Josh Getlin.
In a statement to People in 2024, Liza claimed she’d been inspired to tell her own story after “a sabotaged appearance at the Oscars”, “a film with twisted half-truths” and “a recent miniseries that just didn’t get it right” made by “people who didn’t know my family, and don’t really know me” left her feeling “mad as hell”.
But that doesn’t mean it’s failsafe. All too often, I’ve begun stewing the purple stems with glossy purple perfection in mind, only to end up with flavourless browinsh-yellow mush.
So, I tried a trick both Gordon and Jamie swear by to prevent the sog – and I’m never going back.
Advertisement
Roasting rhubarb prevents it from going mushy
Normally, I cook rhubarb on the hob (ideally with some butter, ginger, cornflour, and citrus juice). But this can be a delicate process: as Nigella notes, much longer than five minutes in the pan risks a watery mess.
Neither chef mentioned the BBC-recommended trick I like for pies, crumbles, and tarts, though. Strain the rhubarb over a large bowl until cooled to both remove the need for cornflour and to save the delicious syrup as a delicious bonus.
Advertisement
I poured mine all over their almond rhubarb pie, which involves roasting rhubarb with orange juice and sugar in a pan.
And because there was some left after the dessert was finished, I’ve learned it’s a great addition to cocktails too (somehow, the removal of this orange-y, rhubarb-y syrup doesn’t detract from the tangy flavour of the veg in the pie).
Set your oven to about 180°C, trim and slice the rhubarb, and add it to a roasting tray with whatever combination of spices and liquid you like. For a stickier, slightly thicker syrup, I like a dessertspoon of sugar for roughly 600g rhubarb.
Advertisement
Prosecco, fresh fruit juice, and (my favourite) crystallised ginger will all infuse the flavour further, though water will do too.
Nicki Minaj spent the past year transforming herself from a polarizing rap superstar into a high-profile conservative provocateur, lobbing viral attacks at Democratic leaders, boosting MAGA talking points and earning public praise from President Donald Trump and his allies.
On social media, Minaj’s pugnacious persona and sharp-edged posts — including repeated broadsides against California Gov. Gavin Newsom — have made her a darling of the Trump administration and the conservative movement, drawing millions of views and steady amplification from far-right influencers.
But quietly, humming in the background of her varied social media blitzes, a sophisticated army of bots was unconditionally praising and amplifying Minaj’s content, according to a new report shared exclusively with POLITICO.
The report, compiled by the disinformation detection company Cyabra, identifies a coordinated network of bots — more than 18,000 of them — that drove algorithms to spread Minaj’s posts on X.
Advertisement
The analysis, which looked at social media activity from Nov. 11 to Dec. 28, provides a window into how the rapper was able to capture millions of views online and position herself as a celebrity the White House found value in partnering with. Last month, Minaj joined the president at the Trump Accounts Summit — where Trump invited her on stage, showered her with praise and recorded a chummy TikTok video with her afterward.
“We don’t really see a lot of high volume, high impact orchestration of bad and fake actors within that intersection of the geopolitically driven and music culture,” said Dan Brahmy, the CEO and founder of Cyabra. “It is scarce in our field to see the combination of the bad and the fake online world with the entertainment world.”
The report found inauthentic accounts repeatedly amplified Minaj’s posts with praise that used “highly similar language,” particularly in response to posts where authentic accounts were criticizing Minaj.
“Supportive comments generated by fake profiles were predominantly brief, repetitive, and low in semantic complexity, consisting largely of praising keywords and positive hashtags rather than original or substantive engagement,” the report found.
Advertisement
Other inauthentic activity surrounding Minaj included “longer, more detailed comments designed to appear organic.”
“Nicki you are brave for living your truth, people might not always agree with what’s being played out, but as an artist and watching your growth as a person is inspiring,” read one comment from a purported Minaj fan, @LAX76283656, that was deemed fake by Cyabra.
“This pattern suggests a deliberate attempt to integrate into genuine conversations, increasing the credibility and visibility of the amplified content,” the report read.
Cyabra identified one day, Dec. 26, when fake profiles made up 56 percent of all comments on political posts made by Minaj.
Advertisement
Bot networks have become a familiar feature of modern politics since revelations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, when coordinated inauthentic accounts were used to inflame divisions and manipulate online discourse. Such campaigns are now routinely detected around wars, elections and geopolitical flashpoints — but far less often around celebrities or the music industry.
That backdrop helps explain why Cyabra’s findings seem so peculiar. Rather than a short-lived spike tied to a single event or appearance, the company found sustained and coordinated amplification of Minaj’s posts across a range of political and cultural topics over time.
When Minaj posted about her support for Trump, her concern over the persecution of Christians in Nigeria and Newsom’s perceived alignment with the transgender community, the bots were there to back her up, Cyabra’s report shows. They also amplified her posts related to the music industry.
Representatives for Minaj did not respond to requests for comment.
Advertisement
Alex Bruesewitz, a media and political adviser to Trump who considers Minaj a “very close friend,” told POLITICO he is confident there are no bots involved with the rapper’s social media presence.
“Nicki has never used bot activity to promote herself on social media, because she doesn’t need to,” Bruesewitz said. “She has one of the largest fan bases of any musician that’s alive today.”
The Cyabra report was commissioned by a person who was granted anonymity because they fear public retaliation.
Cyabra is about 85 percent confident the more than 18,000 profiles identified are fake. But if the company were to narrow that scope to profiles that exhibit even stronger signs of inauthenticity, the confidence level could easily rise into the 90s, Brahmy said.
Advertisement
“We always have to make sure that we play at a confidence level that’s strong enough for people to rely on it, and doesn’t really change the narrative,” he said.
And when accounts boosting Minaj posted content that researchers identified as “toxic,” the algorithm drove her posts even further. Companies like Cyabra determine toxicity by assessing not just the “positive” or “negative” words used in a post, but the apparent intent behind them, Brahmy said. Personal attacks, slurs, threats or comments that seem designed to deter a reasonable person from engaging in conversation are typically considered toxic.
“When the conversation is limited to toxic content, a substantially stronger amplification effect emerges,” the report found. “These accounts predominantly amplify content produced by Nicki Minaj and Turning Point USA, indicating a notable overlap between the two within this discourse. Several of the accounts involved had previously been identified as exhibiting fake campaign-like behavior in the context of Minaj’s online activity within and relating to the music industry.”
Turning Point USA didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Advertisement
The analysis also shows how foreign and domestic political narratives can be manipulated by bot networks without broad public awareness — and how influential figures in the hip-hop world are making inroads into the conservative political conversation in America.
Minaj’s online activity was not only amplified by inauthentic accounts — but also a string of authentic accounts, including those of popular conservative influencers Dom Lucre and Matt Wallace, Cyabra found. The way those accounts parroted Minaj’s talking points suggest strategic coordination behind the scenes, Brahmy said.
“Real human beings are behaving the exact same way, utilizing the exact same behavioral patterns, as you would expect from a well coordinated campaign,” Brahmy said. “They amplify each other. They are riding the same, similar wave of narrative.”
Lucre responded with a statement saying, “This is one of the most absurd conspiracy theories I have ever seen in my entire life brother.”
Advertisement
He then uploaded videos to his X and YouTube accounts reacting to POLITICO’s questions about whether he was coordinating his posts about Minaj with others or being paid for posts related to the rapper.
“Nicki Minaj is now pulling so many liberals to the right that they now have to push out a theory that these aren’t real organic people, and that she’s now manipulating the system with bots,” Lucre said. “If Nicki Minaj was manipulating systems with bots on Instagram, TikTok, X, do you not think there would be a conclusive data that they would have to present this instead of asking influencers to say yes?”
Wallace did not respond to a request for comment.
Minaj’s foray into politics comes after Trump made inroads with Black and Hispanic voters in the 2024 election. He and his allies have been eager to propel a political realignment around a multiracial, working-class, right-populist coalition, but polls show that that 2024 coalition has frayed badly over the last year.
Advertisement
Minaj has moved toward embracing the MAGA movement since July of last year. Her rightward shift was cemented in December during her appearance with Erika Kirk, the widow of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest convention. In late 2025, before Trump embraced her at last month’s summit, her political views also drew praise from the likes of Vice President JD Vance and Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz.
On social media, her barrage of GOP-friendly posts garner millions of views, including those taking aim at Newsom.
“Career politician at the brink of his moment realigns to become nothing more than a Nicki Minaj ANTI. OOF,” Minaj wrote in December, with a photo depicting Newsom behind bars in a jail cell. “So now he’s the guy running on ‘wanting to see trans kids’ AND willing to lower himself to becoming just another FEMALE RAPPER to get obliterated by NICKI MINAJ.”
“Let’s wait…I think Gavvy’s still transitioning,” she said in another post on the same day, which generated over 1 million views.
Advertisement
A spokesperson for Newsom — who is named multiple times in the report and was a frequent target of Minaj during Cyabra’s analysis period — sent a statement ridiculing Minaj when asked for comment on the report’s findings.
“Like most MAGA mouthpieces, we are not surprised Nicki Minaj needs bots to stay relevant,” Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon said.
Cyabra’s report identifies 18,784 fake profiles that were at the ready to boost Minaj’s content.
Those accounts represented 33 percent of the total profiles evaluated by Cyabra — a ratio of inauthentic activity similar to those seen during wars and presidential elections, Brahmy said. Inauthentic accounts typically represent between 7 and 10 percent of organic social media discourse, the company said.
Advertisement
Cyabra works with corporations to identify online bot activity and misinformation campaigns, with the goal of helping them protect their reputation and understand malicious actors online. It uses software to analyze social media activity — and provides its services to PR firms, legal practices, multinational corporations and governments.
Cyabra gleaned the bot activity by examining the accounts’ temporal synchronization, their linguistic and stylistic uniformity and the similar demographics shared by the fake identities. The company developed a machine learning algorithm to identify fake accounts.
Jen Golbeck, a computer science professor at the University of Maryland who studies artificial intelligence and social media, told POLITICO the purpose of a “botnet” can go beyond manipulating the narrative in a single comment section. The bots’ interactions signal to social media algorithms that a post draws high-engagement, which drives the algorithm to spread the content further.
“You can really expand your reach beyond your follower base if you get high levels of interaction, and these interaction bots do that,” said Golbeck, who also writes the MAGAReport substack.
Advertisement
Joel Penney, a professor at Montclair State University who studies popular culture and politics, said Trump’s adoption of Minaj into his political project is likely part of a larger strategy to reach younger, more diverse audiences.
“They’ve made a lot of efforts to include celebrities who are supportive, including hip-hop figures; Nicki Minaj is probably the biggest name to kind of become a pretty public advocate,” Penney said. “They don’t have the power to wave a wand and make all their followers or fans of their music support their political advocacy. But it matters. It contributes to this kind of war for public opinion that we see play out on social media.”
After celebrating their fellow nominees and thanking their collaborators on their film, Akinola gave a shout-out to “all those whose parents migrated to obtain a better life for their children”, “the economic migrant”, “the conflict migrant”, “those under occupation, dictatorship [and] persecution” and “those experiencing genocide”.
“Your stories matter more than ever. Your dreams are an act of resistance to those watching at home,” he said. “Archive your loved ones. Archive your stories yesterday, today, and forever.”
Advertisement
Akinola concluded: “For Nigeria, for London, the Congo, Sudan, free Palestine.”
However, the BBC – who airs the Baftas ceremony on a two-hour time delay – chose not to include this last section of Akinola’s speech, which has since been uploaded to Bafta’s YouTube page in full.
The BBC omitted “free Palestine” from their broadcast of the BAFTAs, which is on a 2 hour delay, but not the part where two Black men were called a racial slur while on stage.
The ablism and racism since this moment has been wild, but I have to say — the fact the BBC didn’t censor the moment but apparently censored “Free Palestine” is utterly utterly indefensible and outrageous. https://t.co/WSiMqHGnH1
The BBC owe us a thorough explanation. Unless they can confirm this was some kind of terrible technical glitch we can be sure this was an active editorial judgment to allow the racial slur to air. https://t.co/hJlciDyD8d
The fact that the BBC censored out Free Palestine during a winners speech by black filmmakers but kept in the racial slur used against fellow black creatives really irks me.
also fuck the bbc they can edit out free palestine no issue but can’t edit out a horrendously uncomfortable situation for three men that didn’t need to be televised. they crave the division and the drama. fuck them
1. Tourettes is an arse, and can make people say horrific things they do not mean at all.
2. If BBC can edit out “Free Palestine” they can bloody well edit out the disabled person ticcing horrific language, rather than making a spectacle of him and magnifying the racist injury.
The BBC deemed “Free Palestine” to be more offensive than a racial slur.
“But he has Tourette’s” not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about how the BBC thought that “Free Palestine” is offensive and needs to be cut, but the N word was important for “spreading awareness” https://t.co/5nD9Nv4U6X
Advertisement
— Fairuz Al Bahr 🏳️⚧️🇵🇸🇸🇩🇱🇧🇸🇾🇨🇩🇭🇹 (@FairuzOfTheSea) February 23, 2026
All the smoke needs to be for the BAFTAS and BBC. Because what do you mean there was a 2 hour delay and you can edit out “free Palestine” but not the N word towards two black actors on stage ?🤨
A BBC spokesperson told Deadline: “The live event is three hours and it has to be reduced to two hours for its on-air slot. The same happened to other speeches made during the night and all edits were made to ensure the programme was delivered to time.”
HuffPost UK has contacted the BBC for additional comment on the backlash over its editorial decision.