What is a dumpling lasagne?

How do you make a dumpling lasagne?

A stock market investor took to social media to share the vast benefits of renewable energy, namely solar panels. His electric bill dropped 71% in the week that began on 10 March compared to the same time last year. He is likely to save even more as fossil fuel prices surge because of the war on Iran, given gas largely sets the price of energy bills.

Two weeks ago we had solar panels and a battery fitted. We have just completed our first full week with the system.
Our electric bill for the week commencing 10th March 2026 compared to the same week last year has dropped by 71% from £31.71 to £9.05.

We also have not received… pic.twitter.com/lqRtuI35X5

— Justin Waite (@SharePickers) March 21, 2026

Solar panel scale across the country

The issue is low income people do not have the disposable cash to install a solar panel and battery system, which can cost £8,000 to above £14,000. And the Labour government is predominantly letting the market solve the energy and climate crisis, rather than taking an active and strategic state investment approach.

In Green party leader Zack Polanski’s first economic speech, he pointed to Spain as an example of a country that has “doubled” its renewable energy capacity:

Spain… has doubled its wind and solar capacities since 2019, taking it from having some of the highest energy bills in Europe to some of the lowest. Other countries have been able to learn the lessons from previous crises and prepare – why is our response so weak when disaster strikes?

Spain’s investment in renewables means that gas set the price of electricity just 15% of time, compared to 89% in Italy and around 66% of the time in the UK. The FT further notes:

Spain’s average electricity price for the remainder of this year is forecast at about €66 per megawatt hour, or half the level of Italy’s.

Going backwards?

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry and many politicians want to take us into the past with increased fossil fuel usage. Labour MP Henry Tufnell, writing in the Sun, called for ministers to scrap the ban on new North Sea drilling – over 90% of which has already been used up. He attempted to reverse reality, saying that the move away from fossil fuels is “impoverishing our communities”.

Big Oil has long propagandised against renewable energy, despite its own reports from 70 years ago predicting the dangers of climate change.

No-brainer

While the war on Iran is a catastrophe, it is highlighting the benefits of renewable energy.

In 50 years burning fossil fuels will be looked on as being as ridiculous as burning candles for light is now.

It is stone age technology, expensive, polluting and inefficient.

— BladeoftheSun (@BladeoftheS) March 22, 2026

Quite.

Featured image via the Canary

High Court, 1998: Naz Shah and her sister Fozia protest against their mother’s conviction for murder | Image by: : PA Images / Alamy

3 min read1 hr

A fearless memoir of survival, Honoured is both painful and inspiring. Naz Shah recounts her life with unflinching honesty, a witness to her father’s violence towards her mother, enduring his abandonment, and being taken out of school aged 12 and sent to Pakistan. She shares her experiences of living in Pakistan, including only being allowed to return after being forced into marriage at 15.

Back in the UK, as education was no longer an option, she ends up working in a factory packing nappies. Just as adulthood seemed to offer some relief, she experienced more trauma. Her mother Zoora was arrested for killing the man Naz had believed to be a trusted uncle. Convicted and sentenced to 20 years, Zoora’s imprisonment shocked Naz. She had been unaware that he had been physically and sexually abusing her mother for many years. Naz writes with raw honesty about how, as a child, she had even questioned her mother’s character, not realising that Zoora had endured so much to protect her children, even sending Naz to Pakistan to protect her from being exploited too.

Through these memories, the weight of abuse and societal shame becomes clear. Her mother carried the blame, while those responsible were often protected by silence. Shah explores how honour, or izzat, shaped their lives: how shame silenced her mother, how single mothers were judged unfairly, and how coercive control – unrecognised at the time – governed women’s lives.

Honoured is not just a story of trauma  but a story of resilience, faith, activism, and triumph

She also reflects on her own lack of agency in her first marriage: “When I first went to Pakistan, there was a list of things I couldn’t do because I didn’t have a father. I was returning to the UK with the same lack of control, only now I belonged to a man who had power of veto over my life. My existence was once again defined by a man.”

Forced to grow up quickly, Naz recounts shouldering parental responsibility for her younger siblings while navigating a marriage she never wanted. She confronts her darkest moments with unflinching honesty, including her suicide attempts. Amid this turmoil, she campaigned relentlessly to reduce her mother’s prison sentence – a campaign she ultimately won. Early in her efforts, she sought support from then long-serving Labour MP Marsha Singh, never imagining that one day she would rise from hardship to occupy his seat as the MP for Bradford West.

Honoured is not just a story of trauma  but a story of resilience, faith, activism, and triumph. Naz’s Islamic faith provided a quiet anchor through her hardships, and her grit propelled her to a remarkable political victory, defeating George Galloway in the 2015 general election despite his aggressive campaigning. The book begins on the eve of that election, marking the start of a new chapter in her life.

Naz’s experiences continue to fuel her politics. The same fire that helped her survive childhood drives her advocacy for vulnerable women, children, and families, especially those who, like her, feel abandoned or unheard. She confronts uncomfortable truths about abuse, honour culture, and the justice system, challenging readers to face these realities. Ultimately, Honoured is a story of transformation – showing how one life, forged in hardship, can ignite change for countless others.

Baroness Gohir is a Crossbench peer

Honoured: Survival, Strength and My Path to Politics

By: Naz Shah

Publisher: W&N

In an interview with Green Party leader Zack Polanski, BBC presenter Nick Robinson insisted on amplifying the voice of genocidaires and genocide-deniers. He even claimed it’s the BBC‘s job to do so.

With the overwhelming weight of expert opinion calling Israel’s mass murder in Gaza genocide, however, people expressed serious concern about the BBC still clinging to its longstanding efforts to downplay the genocide.

BBC wants to be “fair” to the people committing genocide

In the interview, Robinson interrupted Polanski to say:

I don’t want to have a debate about the word, but I do want it noted that no court has said it’s genocide and Israel completely rejects the idea it’s genocide.

Criticising the BBC‘s pro-Israel bias in 2025, actor Liam Cunningham asked:

Are we saying, due to impartiality, that if this was 1944 or 1945 when we discovered the horrors of Auschwitz, would we be contacting Heinrich Himmler for his take on the genocide? Because that’s what’s going on now.

Fast-forwarding to 2026, Robinson did just that. Because after emphasising the genocidaires’ denial, he insisted:

it’s only fair to point that out.

And when Polanski challenged him on X after the interview, Robinson doubled down:

Simple answer Zack. Our job is to report. We interview you & those you quote who use the word genocide. We do the same for those who disagree. We also report that no international court has yet made a judgment. Nor has the UN. That’s not me or the BBC taking sides or downplaying…

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) March 22, 2026

Hi @bbcnickrobinson, you said “Nor has the UN made a judgment” but on the 16th of September 2025 the UN made a judgment (see below). I trust you’ll have the integrity to acknowledge your honest oversight to @ZackPolanski & BBC licence fee payers.

Source: https://t.co/yBkL6cU3VZ https://t.co/3aldaJ8H1x pic.twitter.com/uzcvSYGgK0

Advertisement

— Ben Goren (@BanGaoRen) March 23, 2026

As the Canary has documented in depth, UN legal expert Francesca Albanese absolutely has called Israel’s actions genocide, as has the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.

Countless genocide scholars, legal professionals, human rights groups, and humanitarian organisations have joined them. Even prominent Israeli genocide scholars have reached the conclusion that Israel has committed genocide. And a Dutch media report summarised that “leading genocide researchers are surprisingly unanimous”.

This overwhelming consensus is why so many people are sick of BBC figures trying to explain away their shocking ‘both sides‘ approach to genocide:

When the overwhelming body of experts describe it as genocide, and you still disagree, this is making a judgement. The BBC would not deny climate change. Nearly every major human rights and academic experts on genocide have determined Israel has carried out genocide.

— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) March 22, 2026

You’re wrong on the UN. The UN Commission concluded in their report in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide. You should not only know this, you should state this every time the issue arises.

https://t.co/iUD5AUgWlG

— Omar Baggili 💙 (@OmarBaggili) March 23, 2026

Balance, Nick. Please.
We’ve have been here before on climate change denial. pic.twitter.com/4ChWfVTFuP

— Mick ☕️🍉 (@MickCoffey2) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

Giving genocidal allies an equal say is complicity

Genocide expert Martin Shaw has previously called media outlets avoiding the word genocide “tame“. And he highlighted that the BBC has hardly been rushing to amplify his voice, saying:

But Nick you don’t “interview those who use the word genocide”. I’m one of the most prominent British genocide scholars and I called Israel’s genocide in October 2023. I’ve had a lot of international media attention but my BBC total in 30 months is one interview on Radio Ulster.

He also suggested that the BBC probably wouldn’t jump to highlight the voices of genocidaires in other cases:

This. Even in his interview with @ZackPolanski, @bbcnickrobinson had to say ‘but Israel says’.

I don’t think he would have said ‘but the Myanmar government says’ if Zack had referred to the genocide of the Rohingya. https://t.co/isUZQCdcb0

— Martin Shaw (@martinshawx) March 23, 2026

Advertisement

A terrible betrayal of journalistic standards & duty of BBC @bbcnickrobinson

Genocide Convention 1948 is designed to stop genocides. Not for the world to wait for a final court judgement

The evidence of a genocide in Gaza is conclusive

BBC is protecting Israel, the… https://t.co/tRRP0mQGSm

— Tom London (@TomLondon6) March 22, 2026

Advertisement

And as experts have highlighted, genocidal campaigns would struggle to get off the ground without favourable media coverage:

From the Gaza Tribunal, which of course the BBC completely ignored.

Genocide denial is ALWAYS a part of genocide. https://t.co/ifRPWmxYpZ pic.twitter.com/kFGfJkHUnP

— Wokerati Marty (@WokeratiMarty) March 23, 2026

Polanski: “it feels like it’s getting a lot worse”

Polanski, meanwhile, shared a speech that he thinks is appropriate to consider:

whenever a BBC journalist denies the evidence in front of our very eyes in the name of “balance.”

The speaker was former BBC presenter Emily Maitlis, who spoke about the famous ‘boiling frog’ scenario, where a frog will jump out of already boiling water but stay in water that gradually boils around it. She said:

we have to stop normalizing the absurd.

And in a critique of the kinds of attitude that lead the BBC to both-sides genocide, she explained that:

we don’t have to be campaigners, but nor should we be complacent, complicit onlookers. Our job is to make sense of what we’re seeing and anticipate the next move. It’s the moment, in other words, that frog should be leaping out of the boiling water and phoning all its friends to warn them. But by then, we’re so far along the path of passivity, we’re cooked.

The BBC has a history too. In the past, for example, the broadcaster’s director of news and current affairs had to admit that its climate-change coverage was “wrong too often”, insisting that:

You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.

The speech from Maitlis, Polanski said, “should have been a turning point”. Instead, he stressed:

it feels like it’s getting a lot worse

And it really is hard to get much worse than constantly straining to emphasise the denial of genocidaires when experts overwhelmingly conclude they’ve been committing genocide. We know the BBC is state propaganda. But this is just nauseating.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot/BBC Politics

Why might that be?

What are some examples of animal and vegetable fats?

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

Ask an SNP voter to name the Scottish government’s greatest achievements since it came to power in 2007 and you are all but guaranteed to hear the following: free university tuition, free prescriptions, free school meals, baby boxes, and free bus travel for young people. Nicola Sturgeon’s handling of the covid pandemic might also get a mention.

The trouble with these feats of civic nationalism, towering though they may be, is that they date, respectively, from 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020. In other words, none of this passes what political scientists call (or ought to call) the Janet Jackson test: What have you done for me lately?

In my latest round of Scottish research, even some previously loyal SNP voters were starting to wonder if their party’s record over 19 years – let alone the last five – wasn’t beginning to look a bit thin. Only around half of them say it has done a good job on health, schools or the economy, or on keeping its promises. Some even dared commit the heresy of asking whether the money spent on universal free benefits might have been better directed towards those actually in need.

Among voters as a whole, the proportion saying the SNP has done well on these measures barely exceeds three in ten. Things like the ferry fiasco, the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital scandal and the police investigations into the party’s finances have done nothing for its reputation for competence or for honesty and integrity – the single measure on which it scored lowest in my survey. Energy and momentum have drained away since the intoxicating days of the referendum campaign and the subsequent election surge. Voters described John Swinney as an “interim manager” and a “wet weekend”; nobody expects him to come up with anything that could honestly be called a new idea.

So why, in common with other pollsters, do I find the SNP once again entering the election campaign in pole position?

One reason is that – not for the first time – they have been given a considerable helping hand by their opponents. I barely found even a Labour voter in Scotland who had a good word to stay about Keir Starmer’s record since 2024. Few thought his party had brought any change for the better, and Scots were more than twice as likely to say the SNP were doing a good job in Holyrood as to say the same of Labour in Westminster. Though they were much more likely than not to think Anas Sarwar had been right to call for Starmer’s resignation, most also saw it as a somewhat desperate tactical move to try and distance Scottish Labour from the London party.

Another reason for wavering SNP voters to fall into line is the rise of Reform UK, vying to become the second largest party in Holyrood after May. This phenomenon has not come out of nowhere. The effects of small-boat migration are increasingly making themselves felt in Scotland, and the records of the Conservatives and Labour in London and the SNP in Edinburgh have condensed into what one chap articulated as “a strong need to give someone a sore face”. While former Tory voters are the biggest source of Reform support, they are not the only one: I found more than one in ten 2021 Labour list voters leaning in Reform’s direction, not to mention one in sixteen of those who backed the SNP.

Even so, this gives the SNP a new purpose: that of a bulwark against the “far right” and, of course, the threat of England’s nasty political culture taking hold north of the border. (I would expect to see that message on a leaflet or two in the next few weeks).

Being the antidote to England, whether in the form of Starmer’s hopelessness or Farage’s right-wingery, is the SNP’s sweet spot. “Standing up for Scotland” was the only area in which I found most Scots – and three quarters of SNP voters – saying the Holyrood government had done a good job.

This can only be pushed so far, however. Only a quarter of Scots backed the idea that a pro-independence majority would constitute a mandate for another referendum. Indeed, only just over half of likely SNP voters agreed with the proposition. Those leaning towards the Greens – whose profile and credibility had received a boost from their success in the Gorton and Denton by-election – were divided but on balance agreed that we can’t assume someone supports independence just because they vote for a particular party. In fact, only a quarter of likely SNP voters put independence in the top three most important issues facing Scotland; for those leaning Green, the issue ranked equal eighth.

Just as the failings of the established parties – including the SNP – have opened the door to Reform, so Nigel Farage will concentrate nationalist minds. In other words, in this election, Reform and the SNP need each other. Who knows what the campaign will bring. But if, when the votes are counted, Farage and Swinney are the two big winners, both will regard that as a pretty good night’s work.

4 min read8 min

Our nation is facing serious challenges: war in Europe, chaos in the Middle East, and a cost-of-living crisis that is hitting households and businesses hard.

Tough choices had to be made. Fiscal discipline and defence of Britain’s interests must be the order of the day.

This does not mean that the profound challenges faced by other countries around the globe no longer exist, particularly for those facing the impacts of extreme weather events. The government is therefore right to try to create a smarter, more streamlined aid budget, but it must leverage more private investment to make up the shortfall.

Last year at COP30 in Brazil, I heard firsthand about the damage wildfires are causing to both the Amazon rainforest and farmers’ livelihoods. But wildfires, floods, and droughts happening in faraway lands are not without consequences for the UK.

Although I would much rather British farmers feed our nation, we still import up to 48 per cent of our food, including products even the best British farmers would struggle to produce at scale, such as bananas, coffee, and cocoa. Britain still imports over 110,000 tonnes of tea annually, mainly from Kenya (36 per cent), which is on the frontline of extreme weather events.

If these crops are damaged or destroyed abroad, food shortages and price increases in the UK are inevitable.

But extreme weather events won’t just drive up the price of tea. When crops fail, and whole regions become uninhabitable, migration levels will continue to increase as people look to escape the harsh consequences of food systems failing.

Britain has to come first. We need to fix our own economy, increase defence spending, and keep inflation under control.

But we should remember that putting Britain first also means a role, even if it is much smaller, for strategic climate finance.

This spending has too often been used to fulfil some misplaced sense of moral obligation that makes us feel better. Instead, it should be about making a tangible difference that boosts Britain’s own security by protecting food prices and reducing migratory pressures.

Fortunately, even with tighter fiscal restraints, we still have levers we can pull to help mitigate these disasters, particularly from private finance.

That is why the government’s decision to cut funding for British International Investment (BII) by 70 per cent is such a damaging blow to our interests overseas, as this finance institution is the best vehicle for the UK to leverage private investment.

BII should be a core part of what a smarter aid budget looks like. It currently manages a £1.5bn portfolio, investing in aid opportunities globally with a mandate to make a return on its investment.

Due to its rate of success — a 5.1 per cent return in 2024 — private investors can see first-hand the value of investing with BII. For every $100 of public money invested, private investors add an extra $71, making this one of the most efficient ways that the government can spend our aid budget. The returns are then reinvested, creating an even larger portfolio to support developing countries by investing in climate-resilient crops, nature-based defences for flooding, or heat-proofing technologies.

Instead of cutting funding for BII, ministers should have at least protected it. BII is an overlooked organisation that strategically invests taxpayers’ money, grows aid spending organically via the returns it makes, and encourages private investment to serve our interests without burdening taxpayers. It’s an efficient, common-sense approach to spending public money.

While reducing the aid budget is necessary, the £300m cut to BII is a huge mistake. If we want to continue tackling the impact that extreme-weather events overseas have on us here in Britain, we have to incentivise private investment, not just rely on public money, and BII does precisely this.

Now more than ever, we have to build a more efficient and affordable aid budget, living within our means and ensuring that it serves Britain’s interests first. BII and private investment should be the cornerstone of this approach. Before it is too late, the government must reconsider its funding priorities and once again back the BII.

Blake Stephenson is Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire