We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.

When you’ve run a whole damn marathon, you want to show it off. It’s only natural.

But there are certain ways you want to do it; we’re guessing bloody nipples isn’t one of them.

Groin, thigh, and neck chafing is also not on our wishlist of wounds (of course, ideally you’d have none, but that’s what you get for running an abnormally long distance in a few hours).

Whether you want to avoid feeling like your flesh is exposed to the elements, or your pursuits are more shallow (read: looking good in those medal-bearing pics you’re going to plaster all over your socials), here’s everything you need to avoid chafes, blisters, and wounds when running a marathon.

Why might our gut health affect our brain ageing?

What gut health mistakes would Dr Yarav never make?

1) Eating ultra-processed, inflammatory foods regularly

2) Ignoring how you feel after eating

3) Not feeding your good gut bacteria

4) Eating at the wrong time

5) Chronic stress without any management

How can I help to ensure my brain stays healthier for longer?

On 12 April, Donald Trump announced his latest plan to open up the Strait of Hormuz. As he said, if Iran wouldn’t un-block the strait, the US would…

…implement a blockade of its own.

So double-blocking it, essentially.

He planned to unblock it by double blocking it.

This was always a ridiculous plan, and now vice president JD Vance has made things worse:

Does he realize what he just admitted lol https://t.co/MXimzOk08k

— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) April 13, 2026

JD Vance announces United States of Terror

As HG reported for the Canary on 12 April:

Iran has blamed the US for the failure of the ceasefire talks in Islamabad, Pakistan. In response, and in true toddler fashion, ‘President’ Trump threatened a naval blockade if “Iran wont bend”.

How many global powers does it take to blockade the same strait?

That isn’t a joke; it’s a serious question we apparently need to ask.

The new move from trump against our country is so comical that we don’t even have a meme for it.

— Iran Embassy in Thailand ☫ (@IranInThailand) April 12, 2026

Why did the ceasefire fail?

Because it was supposed to be a ceasefire across the Middle East, including Lebanon.

Israel ignored this, however, and intensified the attacks on their northern neighbour.

In the clip above, Vance says:

When it comes to weapons of war, what they have done is engage in this act of economic terrorism against the entire world. They basically threaten any ship that’s moving through the Straits of Hormuz.

The US appears to be struggling to understand the consequences of their unprovoked attack on Iran – Iran retaliating via a blockade.

The US and Israel launched an illegal war against them, and now they’re doing what they can to prevent Iran collapsing in on itself like Libya or Syria.

Vance continued:

Well, as the President of the United States showed, two can play at that game. And if the Iranians are going to try to engage in economic terrorism, we’re going to abide by a simple principle that no Iranian ships are getting out either.

If the US can understand this logic, they can understand why Iran closed the strait in the first place.

There’s a simple pathway to ending all this, and it’s to end the hostilities now.

That includes the hostilities carried out by Israel.

What’s going on?

The allegiance between the US and Israel is coming at increasingly greater costs – a staggering amount of money sent the way of the genocidaires, unending support, and a humiliating extended defeat to Iran.

At some point, America needs to tell them no.

According to vice president JD Vance, however, that day is not today.

And we’re all going to suffer as a result.

Featured image via Fox News

Increasingly, Reform UK’s lineup for the local elections looks like something out of the Monster Mash. The latest horrorshow we’re drawing your attention to is James Bembridge. Much like Nigel Farage, Bembridge has stated a desire to get rid of the publicly run NHS.

You know – that thing we all rely on to live:

Oh, sorry, you thought that Reform UK were running ‘salt of the earth’ candidates?

No, no – they said they’re running ‘salt the earth’ candidates.

Good luck if the earth they’re salting is the same that you happen to live on.

Reform on the NHS: “hate is too weak a word”

James Bembridge is the deputy editor of Country Squire magazine. We’re sure Reform’s working class voters know this already, because they’re all avid readers.

If you’re wondering how his work reads, here’s a sample:

‘Just write,’ my editor said.

What a load of Woman’s-Weekly-self-helping bollocks.

Advertisement

Did Monet just paint? Did Whitney Houston just sing? Did Jemma Jameson just wiggle that tremendous arse of hers? I think not. That arse made men pawns to her star, just as my writing will make –

‘You’re disgusting!’ some small, hen-faced woman says, and I realise I’m thinking aloud again – in Bloomsbury Street of all places.

Dreadful, isn’t it?

The sort of migraine-inducing stuff that makes you glad we have a free-to-use medical service.

It was Reform Party UK Exposed who drew attention to Bembridge’s opinions on the NHS. They’ve also exposed Bembridge for defending Tommy Robinson (a far-right activist that Reform generally distance themselves from):

Heres a video of Reform UK’s candidate in Soho, Westminster, James Bembridge (@TheBembridge) glibly defending Tommy Robinson against racism allegations.

He was a member of the BNP and EDL, and in the video Bembridge states he’s looked everywhere and not found any racism by him… pic.twitter.com/qE4Q59CMB1

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) April 13, 2026

Tommy Robinson and David Starkey loving James Bembridge no less, the Reform UK candidate for West End, Westminster.

Wonder if he agrees with Starkey’s statement that slavery was not genocide because of the survival of “so many damn blacks”. https://t.co/LgG3WMXd0K

Advertisement

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) April 11, 2026

You’ll note Bembridge looks like a Doctor Who-style regeneration of the guy from the Crystal Maze (that or a British One-Punch Man). Unlike everything else in this piece, that isn’t a criticism:

‘For the past six years, I’ve been a louche bohemian writer writing about Soho. I think I have authority on this matter.’ I am a Sohoite standing for @reformparty_uk for the West End. @danwootton @Nigel_Farage pic.twitter.com/YpDXzKKX8q

— James Bembridge (@TheBembridge) April 9, 2026

Getting back to the criticism, this guy is properly evil:

Imagine thinking this is funny, two days before Christmas, then posting it.@TheBembridge is a Reform UK candidate in Westminster. pic.twitter.com/7HK5ds5Ile

— Reform Party UK Exposed 🇬🇧 (@reformexposed) April 14, 2026

Other problematic Reform candidates include the following:

Public health

Unlike Bembridge, most people in the UK don’t want a private insurance system.

Using the US as an example, there are two key reasons why we shouldn’t go anywhere near an insurance-based system.

The first issue is one that most people are aware of. When you have an insurance based system of health, your citizens end up trapped beneath mountains of debt. As Health System Tracker note:

analysis shows that 20 million people (nearly 1 in 12 adults) owe medical debt. The SIPP survey suggests people in the United States owe at least $220 billion in medical debt. Approximately 14 million people (6% of adults) in the U.S. owe over $1,000 in medical debt and about 3 million people (1% of adults) owe medical debt of more than $10,000. While medical debt occurs across demographic groups, people with disabilities or in worse health, lower-income people, and uninsured people are more likely to have medical debt.

The second and most shocking issue is the US pays more per head for their healthcare.

That’s right; we’re not saying the US pays more overall; we’re saying more per head.

Despite US citizens having to arrange their own health insurance, the government still – somehow – ends up paying more to prop up their system than we do on a person-to-person basis.

The U.S. spends far more on healthcare than other rich countries. $15,000 per person (almost double), 18% of GDP (nearly twice as high), and healthcare inflation is 7% (roughly double others).

Yet outcomes are worse. Life expectancy is lower, infant & maternal mortality higher,…

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) April 9, 2026

Sure, we Americans may not have universal healthcare and fine, maybe we also have some of the worst healthcare in the developed world, but at least we get to pay thousands of dollars every month in health insurance for basically nothing and still go broke if we get sick

— Conspiratorial Templates (@mynamehear) April 13, 2026

The sick party

Saying you want to swap the NHS for a Yank-style system is like saying you want to swap your working car for a wheelless junker.

We’ll be the first to admit the NHS is in a sorry state of affairs following years of ideologically-driven austerity. The solution to that problem isn’t to replace it with the worst system imaginable, though; it’s to properly fund the NHS.

The country squires don’t worry about losing the NHS because they know they won’t be the ones to suffer.

Featured image via Reform UK

White Rice Is Mainly A Source Of Energy

Eat Rice With Your Health Needs And Goals In Mind

Brain Health

Immune Health

Heart Health

Digestive Health

Gluten Sensitivities

Diabetes Management

Annie Japaud via Getty Images

Cancer Prevention

Bone Health

Joint Health

Vision Health

Port of Dover has achieved its highly ambitious net zero Scope 1 and 2 target, ‘Target 2025’, positioning it as the first UK port to reach net zero.

It has done so an incredible five years ahead of any other UK port and 25 years ahead of the Government’s own maritime net zero target.

Since 2007, Dover’s carbon emissions for Scope 1 and 2 have fallen dramatically by a staggering 98.3%, with the residual 1.7% of emissions being offset through an approved local regenerative farming scheme. 

The Port’s announcement has come after emissions were independently verified against ISO 14064: 2018 and the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard to ensure accuracy.

Operating on one of the busiest shipping corridors in the world, the Port of Dover / Short Straits system accounts for eight percent of all UK international maritime emissions, so this news is a major step forward for the future of maritime decarbonisation.

That importance, and the disproportionate benefits that the shortest sea crossing delivers for Britain and its single biggest trading partner, means that there is a fantastic opportunity for the Port, in partnership with government, to demonstrate significant global leadership in maritime decarbonisation and avoid future UK, European and global carbon levies.

Decarbonising the Short Straits is not, however, just about doing the right thing for the planet, as important as that is for the port.  It will keep consumer and supply chain prices down at a time of ongoing pressure on energy prices and the wider cost of living, reflecting the crucial role that Dover plays for the whole nation.

With 130 ferry movements a day facilitating £144 billion of trade per annum – that’s a third of the UK’s trade in goods with the EU – ‘Target 2025’ represents a key milestone on Port of Dover’s mission to establish the Short Straits as the world’s first high-volume Green Shipping Corridor.

On its journey to leadership on the global stage, the port has already been recognised by the Ecoports Port Environmental Review System, the main environmental management standard of the European ports sector.

“Dover’s leadership sets an inspiring example for all other ports across Europe and beyond.” (Tim Verhoeven, EcoPorts Coordinator)

There is incredible pride at the port, particularly in the way its in-house environment team have implemented modern and forward-thinking assets, sustainable processes and progressive behaviours across all areas of the port to get here.  This has given Dover the tools for its customers, partners and internal stakeholders to follow. 

One such example is the Port’s SEA (Safety and Environment Awareness) Award, a Dover-created initiative which recognises cruise lines that minimise their environmental footprint whilst in port through emissions reduction and recycling.

Dover’s committed sustainability drive is an essential part of its masterplan to 2050, helping to protect the UK’s competitiveness and drive economic growth, whilst future-proofing its operation and business on the UK’s key trade artery.

The Port’s longer-term ambitions require strong partnerships with industry and government, and the Port is already working hard with both.  Its Scope 1 and 2 achievements have, nevertheless, all been accomplished through its own drive and determination to champion sustainable maritime trade and travel through a range of targeted measures.  These have included the use of alternative fuels, renewable energy generation and efficiency initiatives.

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

4 min read16 min

As politicians get older, they talk less about the future. That’s the key finding from an article forthcoming in the Journal of Politics, based on analysis of parliamentary debates in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the UK.

Sentences spoken in debate were classified depending on whether they focused on the past, the present, or the future. To do this, a team of researchers initially coded a sample by hand, and then – using the data from that exercise – trained a computer program to code the rest automatically. This allowed an impressive scale of analysis: the British data alone draws on 709 million words spoken in the Commons, back to the 1940s; there are around 900 million words of text from the other three countries.

Overall, politicians mostly talk about the here and now; 64 per cent of all sentences spoken in the Commons since the 1940s have been about the present. The past accounts for 23 per cent, with the future just 13 per cent. But the future focus of speeches declines with increasing age. The decline is shallow before a politician hits 65, but it becomes much steeper thereafter. The effect is at its most extreme in Australia, and less sharp in Ireland, but it was evident in all four countries.

Yet although older legislators talk less about the future, it’s not because they are banging on about the glories of the past. If we take the UK as an example, the proportion of past-focused speech increases until roughly 45 and plateaus after that.

And some good news, I think: “Ministers in our data tend to talk more about the future than backbenchers.” That’s all those targets and missions.

As someone who recently pondered how many general elections he might have left in him – like a psephological J Alfred Prufrock measuring out my life in parliaments – I wonder whether this effect is specific to politicians or more general; perhaps we all become less future-focused once we’ve realised that most of the sand is in the bottom of the hour glass.

Either way, interesting as it is, I’m less convinced it matters hugely in substantive terms, because although the effect is clear it isn’t all that large. At its maximum, there’s about five percentage points difference comparing the oldest politicians to the youngest. Plus, the percentage of parliamentarians over 65, when the effect becomes steepest, is relatively small, at least in the UK. Still, if we want more politicians who look to the future, rather than the short term, then we need fewer oldies.

Relatedly, some research published recently in the Policy Studies Journal shows that when a politician talks about the short term, the British public thinks that means around a couple of years; “long term” typically means something in the range of five to 10 years. Those figures vary little across party lines, age groups, and such like.

In electoral terms, then, the public’s view of the short term is roughly the first half of any parliament; the long term is two parliaments. This government‘s short term is therefore coming to an end very soon.

You are a bright bunch, and so you will see the broader issue here. Lots of public policy takes a lot longer than even 10 years to come to fruition. To take one example: the government recently announced new reservoirs, the first to be built since the 1990s; the initial two are planned to come online in 2036 and 2040, with nine by 2050, some 25 years after the announcement. Another example: the all-England coastal path inaugurated by the King last month was initiated during the government of Gordon Brown; it took 18 years and seven prime ministers. This is less a case of jam tomorrow, rather jam at some point in the far-off distant future. 

Further reading: C Hanretty et al, Legislators talk less about the future as they age, The Journal of Politics (2026); M Barnfield et al, Long-Term Time Horizons and Support for Public Investment. Policy Studies Journal (2026)

Like other European countries, the United Kingdom faces twin pressures of meeting its legal obligations to people seek­ing asylum while responding to public concern about cost, capacity and local impact. Accommodating those arriving in the UK sits at the heart of this challenge – highly visible, operation­ally complex and central to both those housed in it and maintaining public trust.

Over the course of three decades, Serco has provided immigration services across the asylum system on behalf of governments. Not just in the UK, but in Switzerland, Germany and other coun­tries around the world. Our experience says that the best asylum systems are grounded in fairness, safety and value for money – both for local communities and for the people being accommodated.

That’s why we support the UK govern­ment’s plan to exit hotels. They were never designed to be a long-term answer. Since the peak in 2023, we have halved the number of asylum hotels in use across the regions we operate. But what is the long-term solution? How can we be flexible to changing flows while delivering value for taxpayers?

A new report by the Social Market Foundation (SMF), sponsored by Serco, shows how Switzerland has overcome these pressures and reformed its asylum process to generate a faster, fairer and firmer approach.

What differs from the UK is that, upon arrival, claimants are accommodated in larger asylum centres – either purpose-built centres or retrofitted former hospitals, offices and former student accommoda­tion – evenly spread across the country. Located alongside them are officials to process claims, legal advisers and welfare support services. Everyone is accessible; everything needed to resolve a claim is under one roof. That means people can be processed more quickly – a maximum target of 140 days. Those deemed eligi­ble for asylum are then dispersed into communities, while those with no right to remain are removed.

The report by the SMF highlights how accommodation can support the objectives of the asylum system as a whole – enabling faster decision making, better access to services and clearer tran­sitions through the process, ultimately reducing the pressure often felt by local communities. In Switzerland, Serco deliv­ers asylum accommodation on behalf of federal and cantonal governments across over 50 per cent of the country.

Operating in Switzerland, in Germany and previously in Australia gives us valu­able lessons to share. That experience matters if we are to develop long-term sustainable solutions. It means we under­stand not just what works on paper, but what can be delivered at pace, at scale and in partnership with communities. Today, our role is clear: to provide safe, decent accommodation while claims are determined, and to support government ambitions to move away from hotels towards more sustainable solutions.

Looking ahead, exiting hotels is an important milestone, not the end goal. The real prize is a long-term accommodation system that is resilient, cost-ef­fective and publicly credible, built through learning from international practice and a relentless focus on deliv­ery, by experienced delivery partners working with communities.

To find out more about the Swiss role model report, please click here.