The historic Palestinian town of Sebastia, not far from Nablus in the Northern West Bank, is believed to be one of the oldest continuously inhabited places in the occupied territory. The town is an important destination for Christian and Muslim pilgrims, as St John the Baptist – known as the Prophet Yahya in Islam – is buried here.

Sebastia – an extremely important ancient Palestinian site the Israeli occupation intends to steal

Sebastia’s nearby archaeological site is also impressive. Excavations have taken place here for more than a century, and have revealed that its earliest remains date to the Bronze Age, 3000 years ago.

Ruled by multiple civilizations – including the Assyrians, Persians and Romans – it was named Sebaste, which means Augustus, by Herod the Great in honour of the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar. Its ancient ruins include a Roman amphitheatre, a Hellenistic tower, a Byzantine Church, and the remains of a colonnaded street.

For these reasons, Sebastia has been on the UNESCO Tentative List of World Heritage Sites for the State of Palestine since 2012.

To the local community of around 3500 Palestinians, the archaeological site and the town are inseparable. Both are part of the same important cultural and historical landscape, which not only plays an essential role in their rich heritage, but provides an economic lifeline to the population.

More than 2000 visitors arrived daily to the archaeological site, known as the acropolis. It was a favourite spot not only for foreign tourists, but Palestinians from the surrounding area, and the rest of the West Bank. But this is not the case any more.

In November 2025, the Israeli occupation’s ‘Civil Administration’ issued a confiscation order stating its intention to seize the entire acropolis of Sebastia, in Israeli occupation controlled Area C, along with around 1400 dunums, or approximately 350 acres, of surrounding land. This is the largest area confiscated by the Israeli occupation from an archaeological site in the occupied West Bank since 1967. The reason given was

the preservation and development of the site as a visitor-accessible site for the general public.

The Israeli occupation’s confiscation order will mean residents lose their ancient heritage and their source of income

Fascist Israeli occupation Heritage Minister and illegal settler Amichai EliyahuIn – who is part of Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party and openly supports full Israeli annexation of the West Bank – announced Sebastia’s land confiscation in a social media post.

Referring to the large Palestinian flag flying at archaeological site, he also declared that “the flag of the invented people” will be replaced by the “flag of the Jewish people.”

Sebastia’s mayor, Mohammad Azem, tells the Canary:

It’s empty here now. Nobody is coming to Sebastia, as all the people are afraid to come here and visit the site, since the decision in November.

The Israelis are stealing our land. Around 97 percent of this confiscation order is for private Palestinian land, mainly olive groves that belong to families from Sebastia and the nearby town of Burqa. And there are ownership documents from 1958 to prove this.

6000 olive trees will be lost, and 10 touristic facilities will be forced to close as a result of the Israeli occupation’s land theft. This will spell disaster for the community, who will not only lose their ancient heritage, but their two main sources of income – olives and tourism.

Azem says:

Then people will leave because they have no money. This is the plan of Israel, to emmigrate the people from their land. But it is not only about wanting to control the land. They also want to make the Palestinians feel scared, so they can expel them from Sebastia town as well.

Residents of Sebastia town – Palestinian administered and in Area B – endure constant raids, with Israeli occupation forces (IOF) storming the place day and night.

Because no one is stopping them, the IOF have become more and more aggressive. Residents are afraid, while most tourists have now decided against even visiting the town, as they also have to navigate their way through Israeli occupation checkpoints located close to the nearby illegal settlements.

The occupation is weaponising archaeology in the occupied territory in an attempt to erase Palestinian heritage, history and identity

In May 2023, the occupation approved a budget of 32 NIS, equivalent to almost £8 million, which came mainly from the Environmental Protection and Tourism ministries, to:

restore and develop Sebastia for public access.

These “development plans” for Sebastia include the confiscation of all open archaeological zones and historic remains, for the creation of a new “Israeli” park called “Shomron National Park”.

Of course, only the area’s Jewish roots will be highlighted in this park, while all other eras that form the site’s true identity will be completely erased by the Israeli occupation.

This is an attempt to rewrite history and erase Palestinian identity, something that has already happened in several places, including the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan, in East Jerusalem. Here, illegal settlers run the City of David Archaeological Park tourist attraction, in an attempt to forcibly displace the local Palestinian residents and judaise the neighbourhood.

The Israeli occupation is weaponising archaeology. It is using the false narrative of preservation and development to justify cultural erasure and dispossession of Palestinians from their land. At the same time, illegal settlers and the occupation’s military are tightening their control over the lives of Palestinians, expanding settlements, and are another step closer to annexation.

The “development” of Sebastia includes fencing off the site, charging for entry, and establishing a visitor’s centre. Unsurprisingly, the occupation sees these plans as yet another way to enforce their control over Palestinians, so increased law enforcement to “prevent vandalism” will also be a feature.

“Development plans” include a Jewish only access road that will cut off Sebastia town from its archaeological site

A new settler only access road is also currently being constructed to the archaeological site, which will completely bypass the town of Sebastia, severing the ancient site from the historic centre. If these measures are carried out, Sebastia’s residents will be cut off from their land and their heritage.

Azem says:

They say they want our land to make conservation and preservation for the archaeological site, for the public benefit. But we know this is an annexation plan – one that is not only for Sebastia, but all of the West Bank.

Israel is now making a road from the settlements in the North of Nablus – Shavei Shomron and Homesh – to Sebastia, which will get linked to Route 60, so settlers feel more comfortable, and it is easy for them to come here. Then it will be a closed area, only for these illegal settlers and Israelis.

Advertisement

This is stealing. Israel is stealing our land. They want to make settler controlled tourism projects, so Sebastia and other West Bank archaeological sites will be under full Israeli control and Palestinians will be excluded.

Emek Shaveh is an Israeli NGO that monitors and campaigns against the use of archaeology as a political tool for strengthening Israeli occupation control in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It too believes  the occupation’s focus is not on preserving heritage or encouraging tourism, but on ethnically cleansing the West Bank of Palestinians.

In a statement, it says:

Israel is taking weaponisation of archaeology to new heights. In this cynical move, Israel is fragrant violating international law, turning archaeology into a tool for settlement and annexation, while depriving the Palestinian residents of Sebastia and Burqa of their land and cultural heritage.

False claims that Palestinians neglect and destroy archaeological sites have increased Israeli occupation control over them

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in Israeli occupation control over archaeological sites in the occupied West Bank.

This has been aided by a settler led campaign that claims Palestinians are neglecting and deliberately destroying “Jewish heritage sites.” But nothing is further from the truth.

Palestinians treasure their heritage and do not practice selective archaeology, as zionists do. They try their hardest to maintain their heritage sites as best they can, although maintenance and restoration is made almost impossible by the Israeli occupation, who constantly invade the sites and prevent Palestinians from carrying out any necessary work.

Azem tells us that, several years ago, staff from the Palestinian Ministry of Antiquities wanted to do maintenance work on the loose stone from the Basilica inside the archaeological site. But the IOF and settlers turned up and stopped them working. They were arrested and detained for more than five hours.

Then, in 2023, when Palestinian archaeologists were working in Area B, in Sebastia town, they discovered a Roman cemetery. The Palestinian Antiquities department started working on the site, until the IOF arrested them again.

The Israeli occupation Antiquities Authority later came to work on the site, and stole a large number of artifacts from inside the cemetery.

According to reports, between 2013 and 2025, Israeli occupation authorities issued 63 military orders, concerning archaeological sites in the occupied West Bank. These resulted in more than 7000 dunums – equivalent to around 1730 acres – of land either being confiscated or placed under the exclusive control of the Israeli occupation.

These measures have been accompanied by new laws and government decisions expanding the authority of bodies like the Israel Antiquities Authority into areas previously administered by Palestinians. This includes parts of Areas A and B – which, under the Oslo Accords, fall under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

The purpose of this is to extend the Israeli occupation’s control under the guise of environmental and archaeological protection, and to use cultural heritage as a means of land theft and forced displacement.

#SaveSebastia before it is too late

Despite all the harassment and violence, the majority of Sebastia’s residents are going nowhere. They say they will never leave.

Although Sebastia’s municipality presented an objection to the courts – which are controlled by war criminals Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Netanyahu – it was refused. But they are not giving up. A new objection to the confiscation is currently being prepared after the courts rejected the first.

Azem tells the Canary that everyone around the world should join the Save Sebastia Campaign. The residents of Sebastia are calling for archaeologists, historians, human rights activists, and every free voice around the world to stand with them, visit Sebastia and Palestine, and speak out against the Israeli occupation’s assaults and violence, and its decision to annex Sebastia, before it is too late.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

OnlyFans creators have been weighing in on the storyline involving Sydney Sweeney’s character in the new season of Euphoria.

In the first two instalments of the current season, viewers discovered that Cassie, played by the Emmy nominee, had turned to modelling on the adults-only website OnlyFans to help fund her lavish wedding to Jacob Elordi’s Nate.

As the storyline progressed, Cassie began taking part in increasingly extreme photo-shoots, which has so far generated a lot of debate among critics and Euphoria fans.

Off the back of the controversy, many real-life OnlyFans performers have been sharing their takes on Cassie’s story arc, with a range of different opinions.

Advertisement

Alex Paige Moore has suggested that Euphoria oversimplifies how easy it is to become successful on OnlyFans.

“It’s not as simple as ‘send a message and make $50’ – if it was, everyone would be doing it,” Alex claimed.

“Most creators start on $1–2k (around £750–£1480) a month. It takes serious strategy, social media presence and consistency to build it up.”

She pointed out: “Cassie’s already rich – she’s just doing it because she wants more money, and for Nate to spend more money, which I think is a negative representation of the sort of girl that does only OnlyFans.”

Advertisement

Alex started her OnlyFans to help earn financial independence to leave a toxic relationship while still being able to spend time with her young daughter.

“I feel like for a lot of people, joining OnlyFans is more of a last resort,” she added. “They’re not spoiled brats. They’re not mean people that’re giving their partners ultimatums.”

She also took issue with the portrayal of OnlyFans modelling as “easy”, noting: “The idea that it’s easy work, easy money – that you don’t have to do much – makes it sound like a lazy job, which it really isn’t.”

Fellow performer Amira Evans agreed: “OnlyFans is NOT a get rich quick scheme. People need to understand the stigma and risks. The internet is forever.”

Others were more enthusiastic about OnlyFans modelling being represented on a show like Euphoria.

Advertisement

“I actually think it’s a positive step,” Bonnie Locket claimed. “For a long time, there’s been a lot of stigma, and shows like this open up the conversation.”

Alix Lynx went on to say: “The reality is that people are on OnlyFans and so I love that it’s being shown on such a big show.”

Meanwhile, Taila Maddison noted: “I think it’s actually a really good thing that OnlyFans is being represented in Euphoria. It might boost its popularity a bit and remind people of what it is.

“A lot of people already subscribe, but this could catch some viewers by surprise and spark new interest.”

Advertisement

Looking ahead, Taila suggested: “I do think Euphoria might initially portray joining OnlyFans as something a bit humiliating, because that’s often the reality when people first find out – especially friends and family. There’s usually shock, like, ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe they’re doing that’.

“But I’m hoping the narrative shifts over the season and people start to admire her for it. It feels like they’re trying to reflect real reactions first, and then maybe challenge them later.”

Euphoria star Chloe Cherry was also a pornographic performer and OnlyFans model before landing her role in the hit US drama.

Asked for her take on the OnlyFans storyline last week, Chloe told Refinery29: “People have the weirdest ideas and like fantasies of sex work being so empowering and we’ve seen all these news stories where they’re like, oh, OnlyFans models makes $700 billion in a month, and everyone’s like, ‘whoa’. I literally just think that these things are a bit of smoke and mirrors, actually.”

Advertisement

Chloe claimed: “It’s really hard to say if it would give [Cassie] any power. Obviously, Cassie is extremely attractive, so it probably would lead to her making a lot of money. But it just feels crazy as fuck to see somebody living like Cassie turn to sex work. It’s like, ‘holy shit, that’s where we’re at in society?’.”

Euphoria creator Sam Levison previously shared his intention with the portrayal of OnlyFans work in his show before season three began.

Euphoria is available to stream in the UK on Now, Sky and HBO Max.

Source link

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has let himself down and millions of Israel’s victims, those who advocate against genocide, and the millions in this country who need the reversal of decades of Thatcherism under successive blue and red governments. The situation is not yet irredeemable after he apologised for sharing a post condemning police brutality against an unconscious, immobilised and mentally unwell man. But it is very dangerous – both for the Greens electorally and for the nation that is looking to them to halt the drive into fascism.

Polanski capitulates

Polanski has capitulated to pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel’s enablers in government, who are busy turning the UK into a police state to protect the apartheid colony, and apologised for not ‘lowering the temperature’:

Full contact bullshit

Met Police commissioner Mark Rowley tried to excuse the brutal assault on an immobilised, sick man by quipping that policing is a “full contact and messy task”. This contemptible excuse makes it sound like they went in a bit hard in a rugby match. In reality, they had the Golders Green knife attacker immobilised, and stunned after being tased and kicked.

And then they kicked him in the head. Again and again and again. After he was helpless:

The law does not say it’s ok to risk kicking a suspect to death because you don’t like what he allegedly did. Polanski sharing an X post that condemned that brutality was not ‘raising the temperature’ of a ‘both sides’ debate. It was the least that right-thinking people expect from someone who is in a position to stand up for what’s right.

The lessons of abdication

Apologising is abdicating that responsibility, in order to try to appease people who won’t be appeased – because they want Polanski gone or neutralised and this is just one step toward that goal.

If there was any lesson from the Corbyn era of Labour, it’s that. Corbyn, terminally optimistic about finding common ground, thought he could meet the Israel lobby in the middle by apologising for ‘Labour antisemitism’. There was no Labour antisemitism. It was a scam. Now, after two and a half years of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the ‘Green antisemitism’ scam is even more transparent.

The people pushing the Labour scam didn’t really care about Jewish feelings, or even about antisemitism. They wanted him gone and any concession short of his resignation was going to be pocketed and then more demanded, never taking yes for an answer. And demanding more still, until the end goal was achieved. If someone wants your head, offering them an apology is only strengthening them. And Corbyn – encouraged by his advisers – strengthened his attackers until they had what they really wanted – his political head.

The Brexit Syndrome

What makes it even more dangerous for Polanski – and therefore millions of the rest of us – is the Brexit syndrome.

In 2017, Corbyn was seen by millions of voters as the genuine article – which he was – and he presented a ‘Labour Brexit’ that he genuinely believed in as an alternative to the Tories’ racist recklessness. And he stunned the establishment and came within a few thousand votes of winning a general election.

But in 2019, after allowing saboteur Keir Starmer to drag him and the party into a nonsensical ‘second referendum’ position, conman Boris Johnson was able to fool voters that he was the anti-establishment candidate, while Corbyn was one more politician who wanted to ignore their 2016 vote. It was a deadly combination and a huge scam – but it worked, and what happened to Corbyn is now history.

Now the same UK-Zionist establishment is terrified of Polanski and his party’s electoral surge. That surge is, in large part, because Polanski comes across as the real thing. Voters are impressed that he has not danced to the tune of the Labour-Reform-Tory uniparty and its Israel lobby. They like his irreverence and his refusal to lie down and take the smears against him.

So they are trying to manoeuvre him into a position where he loses that authenticity and edge; where he sounds and acts like one more politician – and if ‘they’re all the same’, what’s the point in choosing? And capitulating to attacks for doing the right thing in the face of police brutality and police-state collusion is what ‘one more politician’ does.

Polanski, please don’t fall for it

Polanski seemed to show he had understood what was done to Corbyn when he apologised to Corbyn for being fooled by it. But the lesson hasn’t gone deep enough. If Polanski wants to continue his surge, thwart the fascists, and rescue the UK, he has to learn it fast.

No, not fast. Right the hell now. No more apologies. No more falling for the scam or even flirting with it. Back to being the version of himself that scoffs at, and then wipes the floor with, his smearers.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Meryl Streep has admitted that she came close to turning down one of her most iconic roles in The Devil Wears Prada.

Appearing on The Today Show to promote the sequel, Meryl recalled how as soon as she read the script for the original film, she knew immediately that it was “going to be a hit”, so seized an opportunity.

“I thought, it’s a great script. And they called me up and made an offer and I said, ‘No, I’m not gonna do it’,” Meryl recalled.

She continued: “I knew it was gonna be a hit, and I wanted to see if I doubled my ask, and they went right away and said, ‘Sure’.”

Advertisement

Meryl went on to share that it took her a long time to “understand that I could do that” and that “you can ask for what you want”.

“I was sure it would be a hit, and they needed me,” she added. “I wanted it, but if they didn’t want to do that, I was OK because I’m old. I was ready to retire.

“But that was a lesson. That was a great way to start, so I was in a good mood when we began.”

Alongside the returning faces from the original Devil Wears Prada film, Meryl is joined in the new follow-up by the likes of Bridgerton’s Simone Ashley, Justin Theroux, Lucy Liu and a wave of celebrity cameos.

Advertisement

The Devil Wears Prada 2 arrives in cinemas on Friday 1 May. Check out HuffPost UK’s review of the film here.

Correction: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Meryl Streep initially turned down The Devil Wears Prada 2, rather than the first film. This has now been corrected.

Source link

Comedians Bob Mortimer and Paul Whitehouse have paid tribute to the canine companion with whom they shared the screen numerous times over the years in their hit series Gone Fishing.

The pair first encountered the Patterdale Terrier mix Ted in season three of Gone Fishing, back in 2020, and he went on to make numerous on-screen appearances alongside the presenters.

On Monday morning, the BBC announced that Ted had died, with both of Gone Fishing’s hosts sharing touching tributes.

“So very, very sad,” Bob lamented, remembering “lovely Ted” as “the best companion and the greatest little chum”.

Advertisement

“Going to miss him so much.,. and away boss,” he added.

Paul agreed: “He wasn’t a dog, he was a species all of his own. He’s gone to the great briefcase emporium in the sky. We will really miss you mate.”

Louise Meager/BBC/Owl Power/Louise Meager

After his first introduction in 2020, Ted became a fan-favourite with Gone Fishing viewers, and in the 2025 Christmas special, he was awarded an honorary Lifetime Achievement Award.

The BBC explained that when Ted was around six months old, he was rescued from a dog’s home and went to live with Gone Fishing’s executive producer Lisa Clark, who was his owner until he died.

Advertisement

In her own statement, the producer: “Ted was a much-loved family pet as well as a treasured companion to Paul and Bob on Gone Fishing. He took fame in his little stride and loved nothing better than messing around on the riverbanks, nicking jammy dodgers from Bob and bait from Paul.

“He will be sorely missed both at home and on screen. We’ll never forget him. He is survived at home by Bo the Briard.”

Ted is due to make one final posthumous appearance in Gone Fishing in its upcoming ninth season, which is expected to air on the BBC later this year.

Source link

Beef creator Lee Jung Sin is weighing in about what’s next for the award-winning show.

After Beef’s inaugural series proved to be a huge success with both critics and viewers, Netflix made the decision to turn it into an anthology series, focussing on a different set of characters – and, indeed, a different central feud – each time.

Season two premiered earlier this month, with Lee previously sharing his hopes to conclude after a third run.

However, in a candid new interview with The Hollywood Reporter, the three-time Emmy winner made it clear that he’s at peace if Beef were to come to an end without a third iteration.

Advertisement

“I’d be perfectly happy if this were the last season,” he claimed. “I think it’s really emotionally taxing, the making of it and the rollout of it.”

He continued: “I feel like I’ve said it through two seasons of Beef. But I do remain open if the universe shows me something in the future and it feels right for Beef. I’m definitely open.”

The first season of Beef featured Ali Wong and Steven Yeun as a pair of strangers who become engrossed in each other’s lives when a chance road range encounter bubbles over into an all-encompassing vendetta.

In the follow-up, the stakes were raised even higher, with Carey Mulligan, Oscar Isaac, Charles Melton and Cailee Spaeny playing two feuding couples on opposing sides of a generational and class divide that leads both pairs to ask big questions about their partners, and themselves.

Advertisement

Back in 2023, while promoting season one, Lee told Rolling Stone that he’d always envisaged Beef telling three separate stories.

“I have one really big general idea that I can’t really say yet, but I have three seasons mapped out in my head currently,” he claimed.

Seasons one and two of Beef are now streaming on Netflix.

Source link

Source link

Donald Trump has never been bothered about maintaining tradition.

Despite decades of work on both sides of the Atlantic to build and maintain the so-called “special relationship” between the UK and America, the president’s second term has put it under almost unbearable strain.

Prime minister Keir Starmer initially bent over backwards to woo Trump in a bid to secure a trade deal and keep the maverick Republic on side.

But then Trump began threatening to annex Greenland, undermining Nato, withdrawing support for Ukraine, tearing into British military capabilities and U-turning over the Chagos deal.

Advertisement

The scandal around Starmer’s decision to appoint, then sack, Peter Mandelson – a friend of convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – as the UK’s ambassador to Washington, did not help either.

But the final straw came when Trump, together with Israel, bombed Iran.

Starmer rejected the US’s requests for UK support, leading to fresh verbal abuse from the president.

Trump said Starmer was “no Winston Churchill” and compared him to Neville Chamberlain who championed the Nazi appeasement policy before World War 2.

Advertisement

He’s even threatened to withdraw the US recognition of the Falkland Islands as a British overseas territory.

It’s unsurprising, then, that the UK’s ambassador to the US Christian Turner suggested the relationship between the two countries was not that special after all.

In comments dating back to February, leaked to the Financial Times this week, he said while there is a “deep history and affinity” there, the special relationship phrase was “nostalgic, it’s quite backwards-looking, and it has a lot of baggage to it”.

He’s not alone in this thinking. Less than half of Americans (43%) polled by Public First for Channel 4 News agree that the UK is one of their greatest allies.

Advertisement

So why do we still call it a “special relationship”?

The phrase has been bandied around British and American politics for years.

First coined by Winston Churchill in 1944 after America joined the Allies’ efforts to defeat the Nazis during the Second World War, the term has played a pivotal role in trans-Atlantic politics for decades.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seen as ideological soulmates in the 1980s, while Tony Blair and George W Bush took the “special relationship” to new heights following the 9/11 terror attacks and Iraq war.

Over the decades, the lower rungs of government started working together on intelligence, defence and security too, encouraged by the bond between leaders.

Advertisement

That’s not to say it’s always been plain-sailing. Lyndon Johnson and Harold Wilson, for example, repeatedly clashed over the Vietnam war.

But Trump’s recent behaviour threatens to take the “special relationship” to new lows.

So Starmer deployed one of the UK’s most powerful diplomatic weapons this week: the royal family.

King Charles III and his wife Queen Camilla headed to the US for a state visit in a bid to try to amend the fraying bond between Downing Street and the White House.

Advertisement

The King definitely won over his American audience with an extraordinary speech to US Congress, and a later one at the State dinner, where he made a series of tacit digs towards Trump.

He stressed the need for “executive power” to be kept in check and subtly reminded Trump that Nato allies jumped to America’s defence after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Charles even gave the president a golden bell from a World War 2 submarine, HMS Trump (the jokes write themselves).

His trip marks a significant moment in the international relationship, especially as no British monarch has addressed Congress since 1991.

Trump, known for his infatuation with the royal family and their grandeur, told Charles this week: “Americans have no closer friends than the British.”

Advertisement

He previously told the BBC that Charles could “absolutely” fix the fraying relationship.

But any hopes that this Trump vs Starmer episode was just a blip seem to be short-lived.

Just after the monarch left Washington, Trump tried to create a fresh diplomatic row with Starmer by claiming the King agrees with him on Iran – though the Palace is yet to confirm or deny that allegation.

Considering the monarch is meant to be completely apolitical representative for Britain, their private conversations are highly confidential.

Advertisement

This revelation was a huge breach of diplomatic protocol.

The move suggests not only does Trump not grasp the nature of British politics, but he is clearly not be willing to “forgive” Starmer for not joining in with the Iran war.

Further tensions could come down the line, too, with so many of their initial grievances yet to be resolved.

The Ukraine war and the conflict in the Middle East rumble on, while the Trump adminstration could renew its ambitions to seize Greenland.

Advertisement

The UK-US trade deal still hangs in the balance too, as does the agreement to hand over the Chagos islands to Mauritius.

Former Nato secretary-general and UK defence secretary, Lord Robertson, told Chatham House pointed out that the States no longer tells Britain about its plans ahead of time.

Trump did not warn Downing Street about his air strikes on Iran, his plan to implement widespread tariffs or his threats to launch military aggression against Greenland.

Robertson said this demonstrated a “growing divergence” between the countries.

Advertisement

“All the while Washington’s diplomatic tone towards the United Kingdom has reached a historic low point,” he added.

While, acknowledging that the Trump administration does not represent the whole of the US, he warned that America is expected to become “more transactional” in its foreign policy – including in its approach to the UK.

British ministers have repeatedly claimed that frictions at the top were not too unusual, and that the lower levels of government would still continue to operate in sync.

But is that cooperation at threat if the leaders are at loggerheads?

Advertisement

Listen to this week’s Commons People as we unpack the origins of the “special relationship”, why it looks more precarious than ever and what that trans-Atlantic bond could look like in the future.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

The war on Iran has led to a predicted 2026 inflation rate of up to 4%, meaning rising costs for UK households. Three million households are now skipping meals, while corporations like BP and Lloyds are making much more profit from rising inflation. Moreover, this year has seen corporations increase their profitability as costs surge.

Consumer confident plummets

A survey of consumers found confidence of -62, the lowest level since 2022 where the war on Ukraine led to high inflation. This sends demand for products and services spiralling further. Demand is already low because of high economic inequality, which is a reason banks generally aren’t lending to small and medium size businesses or corporations.

This is compounded by the survey finding that -71% of adults believe the economy will get worse in a year’s time. Consequently, corporations have faced increased scrutiny for their role in the inflationary environment.

Due to the high inflation, 43% of households are buying cheaper food and one in ten (three million) are going without some meals.

The cost of food has risen by more than 37% in five years across the board. Some essentials are even up by 69% since 2022. Meanwhile, Tesco’s operating profit has leapt from £1.8 billion in 2020/21 to £3.1 billion in 2024/25 — an increase of 72%.

Labour has done little to address the cost of living. Under pressure, the administration U-turned and removed the Tory party’s two child benefit cap. But that will actually only decrease child poverty — a direct result of the affordability crisis — by 1% as of 2029.

Mitigating the crisis

Structural changes to the system would be optimal, such as public ownership of essentials and cost-price housing to address the affordability crisis. Removing rent from utilities such as water, electricity, the national grid and trains, along with housing, would do a lot to address the cost of living crisis. In summary, reforms could ensure that corporations are not cashing in while public wellbeing.

Labour has nationalised the operating services for rail, but not the actual trains themselves, which we will still rent.

Failing a robust strategy to address the cost of living, a higher windfall tax on the increased profits of oil giants, along with one for companies like banks would ease UK households’ hardship.

Further, a government should heavily invest in public research and development in order to automate the economy through common ownership of robotics. That would be progress.

Featured image via Unsplash

By James Wright

Source link

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.

You might have noticed, but when Charli XCX married George Daniel of The 1975 last year, there was a cosmic shift in the wedding world.

Vivienne Westwood wedding dresses have had a chokehold on pop culture since Carrie Bradshaw rocked one to be stood up at the altar by Mr Big.

Advertisement

But when The Brat singer paraded her own mini version through the streets of Hackney, she became instant wedding inspo for an entire generation of women.

Star-studded photos from the duo’s weddings dominate every Millennial bride-to-be’s Pinterest board (with the exception of one Actually Romantic singer).

And while you might not be able to splash out quite the same wad of cash on multiple designer dresses, shoes, and sunglasses as the creative duo, there is endless inspo to be had from their big day(s).

Just, maybe without flying hordes of A-list guests out to Sicily (but we don’t know you!).

Advertisement

Whether you’re infatuated with Charli’s mini wedding dress, or want to emulate the hidden-in-plain-sight vibes of their nuptials, here’s everything you need to recreate their wedding on a budget.

Wedding dresses

While Charli’s Vivienne Westwood gown came in at a sweet £3k, this Meshki number has the same corset feel, without the insane price tag.

This Nadine Merabi dress has the same trailing hem as Charli’s VW, for around a tenth of the price.

You’ll wear this cotton mini for years, but doesn’t it double as just the sweetest wedding dress – like if you’re getting married at Hackney Town Hall, for example.

For her second wedding dress, Charli rocked a sheer Danielle Frankel. If you’re not feeling quite so bold, this Simkhai option is a happy medium between bearing all, and a little lace.

Groom’s suits

While Charli stole the show in a white mini, George donned a simple tan suit.

If you’re marrying in colder climes, this corduroy jacket and matching trousers might make for warmer cladding.

Shoes, sunglasses, and more

Advertisement

Of course, Charli rocked her signature wrap around sunnies on her big day. The pair she actually wore from Port Tanger are, naturally, sold out, but this pair from Jimmy Fairly demands less cash.

This high street pair will help you channel the same levels of mystique.

Charli went for a clip-in veil moment like this one, which soared past the hem of her dress to bring the drama.

This short one won’t risk you tripping down the steps of your local town hall.

You can bet on one thing: Charli did not purchase her wedding day shoes from ASOS. But we can’t all be award-winning singers, so this pair of white pointed-heel court shoes is a cheaper alternative to her designer pair.

Not that Charli cares about daintiness, but this pair offers something more delicate to an otherwise skin-bearing look.

We can’t see Charli and George flying economy (although that is quite Brat…) but if you want to jet out to their second wedding destination – Sicily – there are Easyjet flights available for as little as £60. Romantic!

What better to serve your wedding cigarettes on than a silver platter? We mean, don’t smoke kids.

What does a dual musician couple do after they wed? Have a rave after-party of course – oh, and have personalised disposable cameras to memorialise the night with all their famous friends.

Source link