Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting is causing serious harm

Published

on

Inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting is causing serious harm

Inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting is causing serious and ongoing harm to individuals and deepening tensions between communities. That’s the verdict of the Press Recognition Panel’s (PRP) 10th Annual Report on the Recognition System.

The report illustrates how irresponsible press coverage is being amplified online and across social media platforms. And this continues to stoke divisions and hatred, and lead to community tensions.

Stories circulate far beyond their original context, with misleading headlines repeated and reframed at scale. This is creating patterns of harm that impact a wide range of people, including women and children, and particularly marginalised groups.

More than 35 stakeholders responded to the PRP’s recent Call for Information. These included regulators, publishers, journalists, academics, campaigners, civil society organisations, and members of the public.

Advertisement

Groups including Amnesty International UK, the Runnymede Trust, Imkaan, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Sport in Mind, and Trans Media Watch, reported widespread impacts and a lack of effective routes to redress.

Public wants better press regulation

Public polling reviewed in the report shows strong and consistent support for regulation independent of government and the press industry. Over half (54%) want a regulator independent of both, 22% favouring a statutory model. But only 3% support an industry-run body, an example of which would be the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

More than a decade has passed since the establishment of the Recognition System following the Leveson Inquiry. Yet Impress remains the only regulator to have demonstrated that it is independent, has proper funding, and is able to protect the public. Most major national publishers continue to operate outside this system, relying instead on membership of a trade complaints body or in-house arrangements.

This means that, across much of the press, accountability is not independently assessed, systemic issues are rarely subject to formal investigation, and access to low-cost arbitration is limited. This creates a system in which only the very wealthy can seek redress through the courts.

Advertisement

Legislative incentives designed by parliament to encourage participation in the Recognition System were never commenced and have since been repealed. This leaves the public with uneven access to redress and justice, and with limited protection against modern press harm. The Labour Party was once a staunch supporter of the Leveson framework. But it has yet to articulate a clear policy direction since taking office.

Kathryn Cearns, chair of the Press Recognition Panel, said:

The substantial harm caused by inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting to individuals and communities across the UK is clearly evident. Lives are being destroyed, intruded upon, and marginalised groups in particular face sustained and enduring attacks.

Digital distribution, algorithmic amplification, and AI-assisted production, coupled with weak and inconsistent oversight, are magnifying this problem, sowing division and stoking community tensions.

The existing fully independent Recognition System remains operational. It protects the public through clear and consistent complaints processes, high standards, structural safeguards, and an independently assessed arbitration scheme that offers low-cost redress.

Advertisement

Yet despite this, most news providers have chosen to remain outside the system, overseeing their own output, leaving ordinary people at the mercy of political and industry choices.

The PRP is calling for new incentives to encourage publishers to join a recognised, truly independent regulator, reform existing bodies, or form new bodies that could apply for recognition.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Graham Norton Defends Claudia Winkleman After Talk Show’s Mixed Reviews

Published

on

Graham Norton

As is often the case with a brand new TV format, there were a couple of bumps in the road when The Claudia Winkleman Show launched last week.

Claudia’s BBC talk show premiered on Friday 13 March, and was quickly met with somewhat mixed reviews from critics.

The Guardian gave it just two stars, branding the debut episode a “mess”, although it fared slightly better in The Telegraph, where it received three stars even if it was described as a “bit of a bore”.

In The Independent’s three-star review, the outlet’s critic compared her interviewing style unfavourably to Graham Norton, claiming that the format “might need a few tweaks” to achieve its “brilliant potential”.

Advertisement

Radio Times questioned whether the show was “too reliant on its audiences participation”, lamenting there aren’t more of the “off-script moments” Claudia has excelled at in her past, although The Times called it a “respectable first shift” and The Sun gave it a glowing five stars, calling it “awkward, endearing, and full of fun banter”.

Graham Norton – whose production company helped create The Claudia Winkleman Show – has now weighed in on the Traitors host’s first outing, praising the presenter for doing things her own way.

Graham Norton
Graham Norton

BBC/So Television/PA Media/Matt Crossick

“What Claudia did was The Claudia Winkleman Show, and that’s what she’s supposed to be doing,” he told the Daily Mail.

“She shouldn’t be trying to be me. She should be trying to be Claudia, and she nailed that.”

Advertisement

The second instalment in The Claudia Winkleman Show’s initial seven-episode run will air on Friday night on BBC One.

Her guests this week include pop singer Niall Horan, musical theatre legend Rachel Zegler, actor Guz Khan and comedian Joanne McNally.

When her new show was confirmed in December, the former Strictly Come Dancing presenter said in a statement: “I can’t quite believe it and I’m incredibly grateful to the BBC for this amazing opportunity.

“I’m obviously going to be awful, that goes without saying, but I’m over the moon they’re letting me try.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Reform UK Policy Chief Confronted Over NHS Plans

Published

on

Reform UK Policy Chief Confronted Over NHS Plans

Reform UK’s policy chief was left squirming as he was confronted on BBC Question Time over his party’s plans for the NHS.

James Orr repeatedly refused to rule out introducing an insurance-based funding model if Nigel Farage becomes prime minister at the next general election.

The Reform leader has previously called for a “fundamental rethink” of the way the NHS is run.

When Question Time presenter Fiona Bruce asked what that meant, Orr said: “What he’s talking about is the model, which I think everyone can see is simply not working.”

Advertisement

Health secretary Wes Streeting, who was also on the panel, said: “Farage has said he wants an insurance-style system and he’s said he’s up for anything. I’m sure he is. And I’m sure he can afford it … but most people can’t.”

Asked by Bruce what options for NHS reform his party was considering, Orr said: “There will be a long process of policy ideation. We’ll be talking to experts.”

Pressed by the presenter again, Orr said: “What [Farage] is saying and what I think everybody recognises is that more money, more investment, is not delivering gains in the quality of the system.”

Bruce then asked again: “What other options are Reform UK considering in terms of the NHS?”

Advertisement

Orr replied: “We are preparing for government, we are looking for ways to maintain the basic principle that the NHS will always be free at the point of delivery.

“But there are all sorts of ways in which we could rethink management structures, think about the ways that the funding is allocated more efficiently, working out why mental health is getting worse despite increased funding.”

Bruce then asked him: “Just to be clear, are you categorically ruling out that part of the mix for funding the NHS would not be a social insurance policy under a Reform UK government?”

Orr said: “It would always be free at the point of delivery.”

Advertisement

Streeting told the audience: “He’s not ruling it out, that’s exactly what they’re going to do. They’re just not willing to say it because they know it’s unpopular and people would never vote for it.

“You would dismantle the NHS given the chance, you just don’t have the guts to say it.”

But Orr said: “Read our manifesto Wes, that is not on the table.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Darren Millar: Wales has had enough of Labour – but there is a pathway to real change

Published

on

Darren Millar: Wales has had enough of Labour - but there is a pathway to real change

Darren Millar MS is the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales.

It has been less than two years since Keir Starmer became Prime Minister and voters elected a UK Labour Government, yet his personal ratings are already at record lows and it’s clear that people are fed up.

Just imagine being lumbered with a Labour Government for more than quarter of a century. Because that is precisely the situation for us here in Wales, where we have endured 27 years of Welsh Labour, propped up by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats.

The impact has been devastating.

Advertisement

Amongst other things, the Welsh Government is entirely responsible for running and funding the NHS, education, transport, economic development and local government.

Welsh Labour like to portray themselves as the architects of the National Health Service, although this is not entirely accurate (the NHS developed from the Emergency Medical Service established under Winston Churchill’s wartime government). But what matters is the situation today. And I am afraid that it is a sad fact that patients in Wales currently wait longer in emergency departments, longer for ambulances, and longer for tests and treatment than patients elsewhere in the UK. With patients here being hundreds of times more likely to be waiting two years plus for treatment than over the border in England.

And Labour’s record on education in Wales is equally woeful.

Wales’ most famous political figure, David Lloyd George, apparently described our nation as a land of “teachers and preachers.” But no matter how hard individual teachers work, our educational standards have plummeted. In the 1990s, GCSE pass rates suggested that education standards in Wales were broadly in line with the rest of the UK. Twenty-seven years later, the independent PISA tests show that Wales’ standards are the worst in the UK and ranking below former Soviet bloc countries.

Advertisement

The failure to get to grips with health and education standards are mirrored by Labour’s stewardship of the Welsh economy.

Wales has the lowest employment rate in the UK and the lowest pay packets in Great Britain. Small businesses such as pubs and post office pay higher business rates than in England. Tourists are threatened with an overnight tax, and major investors are put off by the slow planning system, Labour’s failure to invest in building new roads, and an unnecessary default 20mph speed limit that has slowed our motorists and economy down.

The results of Labour’s mismanagement of our economy and public services are plain to see. Just last week an IFS report found Wales has been receiving around 15 per cent more funding per head for public services than England, yet has delivered far worse outcomes.

But there is hope. Because on 7th May, the people of Wales will go to the polls.

Advertisement

The Welsh Conservatives have produced a manifesto with a clear plan to fix Wales and get Wales working.

On day one of a Welsh Conservative Government, we would declare a health emergency to  get every part of government focused on addressing the crisis in our NHS by surging bed numbers to end corridor care and free up ambulances stuck outside our hospitals.

We will restore discipline in schools, ban mobile phones, and back teachers by automatically expelling pupils who bring knives into schools; something which, amazingly, Labour has refused to do.

We have set out a range of measures to kick-start the Welsh economy. With an income tax cut of 1p in the pound to put £450 back into the pockets of the average hardworking family in Wales. And by scrapping Welsh Stamp Duty (known as Land Transaction Tax) on people’s main homes, to help people realise their dream of home ownership, move up and down the housing ladder, and support the many small businesses that depend on the housing market – plumbers, electricians, decorators and many others.

Advertisement

But how would this be paid for?” cry the interviewers.

It is a pleasure to answer.

We would start by cutting back on the mountains of Labour waste.

For example, we would reverse the outrageous decision to spend £120 million increasing the number of Senedd Members from 60 to 96. We would make real efficiency savings in civil service costs which have increased by more than £150 million over the past few years.

Advertisement

We’d also scrap spending on matters for which the Welsh Government is not responsible, such as aviation, immigration, international development and foreign affairs.

The Welsh Labour is spending £200m on grants for the nationalised Cardiff Airport, millions on a ‘Nation of Sanctuary Plan’, a small fortune on tree planting in Africa and solar panelled canoes in the Amazon, and millions more of taxpayers’ money on overseas ‘embassies’ in a range of exotic cities. All this will face the axe.

Closer to home, Wales is dotted with empty Welsh Government offices, set up for civil servants who now largely work from home. We would end this waste.

We will also scrap business rates for small businesses such as pubs, cafes and post offices and axe Labour and Plaid’s toxic tourism tax.

Advertisement

We will expand free access to free childcare, which is vital for enabling new parents to return to work. Mums and dads here have been denied the 30 hours of free childcare available for parents in England, even though the funding has been made available to Wales as a result of the extension of childcare by the previous UK Conservative Government.

We will make sure this cash is spent to support families in Wales, so that working parents here have the same rights as those in England, and we will also pioneer a policy allowing new parents to choose to nominate a grandparent to care for their children instead of using a traditional childcare placement.

Under our proposals, a grandparent could receive a payment of up to £4,800, to recognise their role in supporting their families. Our plans would cost less than formal childcare provision and enable families to choose what works best for them.

Where Labour cancelled new road building because of their anti-motorist agenda, we are committed to investing in our economic arteries, including delivering an M4 relief road, upgrading the A55 and dualling the A40 to Fishguard in west Wales.

Advertisement

We will stand up for the rights and safety of women and girls, by respecting the ruling of the Supreme Court on women-only spaces, and commissioning a Wales-wide grooming gangs inquiry.

We will fight for our farmers and rural Wales, by boosting the farming budget, ditching unnecessary regulations, and promoting Welsh produce and honest labelling.

We will also honour our heroes. We are committed to establishing a National Military Museum for Wales to celebrate the enormous contribution Wales has made to the armed forces of the United Kingdom. And we will back our military veterans by increasing funding for Veterans NHS Wales, and extending free bus travel to all who have served in our armed forces.

Finally, we will stop the obsession with trying to grab more powers for the Senedd. Defence, immigration and policing are reserved matters, and rightly so. Only the Conservatives will respect the devolution settlement and promote the benefits of being part of the UK to the people of Wales.

Advertisement

This is a fully costed and authentically conservative manifesto.

After 27 years of falling standards and economic decline under Labour, this is an offer of a better future: lower taxes, better public services, and a growing economy.

After nearly three decades of Labour rule, we are offering real and credible change.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Lesser-Known Women Authors Austen Loved

Published

on

The Lesser-Known Women Authors Austen Loved

Additional comment provided by Rebecca Romney, a rare books specialist and co-founder of Type Punch Matrix and author of Jane Austen’s Bookshelf.

We’ve written before at HuffPost UK about why Jane Austen (and Brontë) fans should give Elizabeth Gaskell a read.

But Gaskell was seven when the Pride and Prejudice writer died. What about the authors Austen herself grew up reading?

We know that she enjoyed William Shakespeare, John Milton, and Samuel Richardson.

Advertisement

However, Rebecca Romney, author of Jane Austen’s Bookshelf, said that women authors – some of whom aren’t as well-known as the likes of the Bard – made a significant impression on the author, and are still worth reading today.

Which women authors did Austen love?

Romney told us that her favourite women authors were likely Frances Burney and Maria Edgeworth.

“We can say this with some degree of confidence because of the famous passage in Northanger Abbey in which Austen defends reading novels,” she told HuffPost UK.

Advertisement

“In that passage, she specifically names Burney’s novels Cecilia and Camilla, as well as Edgeworth’s novel Belinda, as works in which ‘the greatest powers of the mind are displayed.’”

As for the lesser-known writers she liked are novelist and playwright Elizabeth Inchbald, “whose comedy Lovers’ Vows becomes a major plot point in Mansfield Park,” and Charlotte Smith, “one of the most popular novelists of the 1790s, about whom Austen’s characters speak effusively in her teenage novella Catharine, or the Bower”.

Did they affect Jane Austen’s writing?

Romney said that once you’ve read these authors, “you begin to see the similarities everywhere!”

Advertisement

For instance, “Frances Burney’s first novel Evelina features tropes and scenes that Austen turned to her own purposes in Pride and Prejudice.

“In Persuasion, Austen elaborates upon themes from the Charlotte Smith novels she read as a teenager, in which not simply true love but the timing of formalising that love plays a critical role in achieving a happy ending.”

And Emma, the “false suitor” sub-plot reminded Romney of Maria Edgeworth’s novel Patronage, which was published the year before, in 1814.

“Austen also learned from their style, including the comic vignettes of Burney, the weighted gestures of Inchbald, and the skilful free indirect discourse of Edgeworth.”

Advertisement

Which lesser-known authors should I read next if I loved Jane Austen?

Romney’s personal favourite is Maria Edgeworth.

“Outside of Pride and Prejudice (which is essentially a perfect book), I would place many of Edgeworth’s novels peer-to-peer with Austen’s: Belinda, Ennui, Harrington, and Helen all hold up and are fantastic reads today,” she told us.

But she also loved said that Ann Radcliffe’s gothic novel The Mysteries of Udolpho, which Catherine Moreland loved in Northanger Abbey, “was one of the most thrilling reading experiences I’ve had in the past decade”.

Advertisement

Lastly, “Elizabeth Inchbald’s comedic timing in the dialogue of her novel A Simple Story (1791) had me laughing out loud. I had to resist the impulse to live-post her mic-drop lines of repartee on social media while reading it.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Sarah Ingham: The lessons of Suez paint an unexpected political picture

Published

on

Sarah Ingham: The lessons of Suez paint an unexpected political picture

Dr Sarah Ingham is the author of The Military Covenant: its impact on civil-military relations in Britain.

A narrow waterway in the Middle East. Vital for global trade, especially for transporting oil, it is threatened with closure.  A global power needs to take military action to reassert control, with Israel playing a key role … Not Iran 2026, but Suez 1956.

The Suez Crisis of 70 years ago humiliated Britain.

The post-Second World War comfort blanket of great power status was ripped away. The recent global hegemon with the largest Empire in history, the country finally realised it had been usurped by the United States.

Advertisement

Linking the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal cuts through Egypt. Like the Strait of Hormuz, it is a major strategic artery. Until July 1956, the Suez Canal Company, backed by the French and British governments, ran the waterway. Then Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s charismatic leader, nationalised it and took control of the Canal.

Denouncing Nasser as a “Muslim Mussolini”, Prime Minister Anthony Eden was determined to take it back and overthrow the Egyptian leader. British tonnage accounted for 28 per cent of the traffic using the waterway: two-thirds of oils imports came via it. He declared: “The industrial life of Western Europe literally depends upon the continuing free navigation of the Canal.

While military plans were drawn up in mid-August, nothing was done until early November. Newsreels of British warships sailing for the eastern Mediterranean and the call-up of 20,000 reservists escalated the sense of crisis. Weeks, then months, passed. The military plan to re-take the Canal was constantly revised and public backing waned.  In contrast, across the Arab world, there was huge support for Nasser.

Meanwhile, it was business-as-usual for the Canal under new Egyptian management.  An enterprising MP Frank Bowles visited twice, stating in October he  found “no difficulty at all about transit north or south.

Advertisement

The British case for taking military action against Egypt became increasingly flimsy.

It would be neither legal nor legitimate. It went ahead anyway, but only after a pretext for intervention was secretly cooked up between the governments of Britain, France and Israel. This involved Israeli forces invading Egypt on 29 October, with the other two nations stepping in to “separate the belligerents”. Even 70 years on, the chicanery defies belief.

Operation Musketeer can be judged a military success. It was also, however, a political disaster.

Fearing the intervention would lead to closer alignment between Egypt and other Arab nations with Moscow, the Eisenhower administration in Washington led international condemnation. In the UN General Assembly, nation after nation demanded a ceasefire.

Advertisement

The US used Britain’s financial weakness as leverage.  The British asked for a loan – or rather, yet another post-1945 bail-out – which Washington refused until a ceasefire was agreed. The US also threatened to sell its sterling reserves, offering the unpalatable prospect of the pound devaluing and possible bankruptcy.

Operation Musketeer had provoked what it had intended to avert: the closure of the Canal. Soldiers returned home to a country polarised by Suez, with petrol rationing and, in January 1957, PM Eden’s resignation.

Britain’s prestige was irrevocably harmed. Suez 1956 highlighted that the country was a second rank power and that any future British military operation would need US support. Iran 2026 reflects Britain’s strategic incoherence and weakness in defence capability.

One lesson was learned by Musketeer’s commander, General Sir Charles Keightley: “World public opinion is a most important weapon of war.” It is doubtful that the Trump administration considered this ahead of Operation Epic Fury.

Advertisement

If Labour believes that opposing controversial military action brings political success at home, Suez is a warning. By rights, the Conservatives should have been punished for the botched misadventure, but in the 1959 General Election, Eden’s successor Harold Macmillan won with a landslide majority.

Is the Starmer government betting that American forces get bested by Iran, ensuring the Trump administration is forced into a Suez-like humiliating retreat? It is the only explanation for its strategic shortsightedness in jeopardising Britain’s “Rolls Royce of allies” status.

The UK is arguably more dependent on Washington today than it was 70 years ago. Back then, Britain’s defence sector was credible: Armed Forces’ strength was 804,000 personnel in 1955. Since then, like NATO’s other European members, we have mostly outsourced defence to the Pentagon.

The US was Britain’s largest export market in 2024, accounting for £210 billion, or 22 per cent of exports. American LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) was perhaps 15 per cent of this country’s total gas supply last year. Opponents of Epic Fury could always boycott US firms, such as Google and Meta.

Advertisement

Despite the PM’s overwrought claims, the US did not expect the UK to “join the war”, merely give permission to use two air bases. Washington had leverage in 1956, it has leverage today.

While Britain has let down allies across the Gulf who have been loyal customers of UK defence companies, France has sent its Forces to the region, as President Macron showcases French defence capability on X.

Just like Suez, seven decades later Iran is revealing the reality of Britain’s place in the world.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump always lets his friends and allies down, and has now doomed himself

Published

on

Trump always lets his friends and allies down, and has now doomed himself

“You always knew precisely where you stood with him because he always let you down.” Friends and allies of Donald Trump have ample cause to echo David Niven’s remark about Errol Flynn.

By far the most important of those friends and allies are the American people. They have twice elected Trump their President. To his supporters he offered an irresistible chance to humiliate the condescending liberals who neither knew nor cared what unfashionable Americans thought.

Trump also appealed to the isolationism which has always been a powerful current in American opinion, often the dominant one, expressed not only by the refusal of the American people to go to war in 1914 and 1939, but by no less a figure than George Washington in his tremendous Farewell Address in 1796:

“Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?”

Advertisement

Trump promised to put America First, never to sacrifice American lives and treasure in foreign wars, and in a primary debate in 2016 described George W Bush’s Iraq War as “a big fat mistake”.

By attacking Iran, Trump has broken this promise and betrayed his supporters. As the conservative American commentator Christopher Caldwell observes in a piece for The Spectator,

“The attack on Iran is so wildly inconsistent with the wishes of his own base, so diametrically opposed to their reading of the national interest, that it is likely to mark the end of Trumpism as a project.”

The price of petrol has shot up, bringing the war to the attention of American voters every time they fill up their cars, and this sharp rise in the cost of living is something the President cannot justify to them.

Advertisement

Nor can he justify the war to the wider world. No clear war aims were worked out before embarking on this adventure, so no clear war aims can now be stated, especially as the war itself is full of complications which an informed observer might have foreseen, but which were not dreamed of in Mar-a-Lago.

Were the claim by some that he acted at the behest of the Israelis true, this would in no way exculpate him. The responsibility for American involvement plainly rests with the President. The buck stops with Trump.

The President attempts to distract us from questions about morality and responsibility by playing to his undoubted strengths as a reality TV performer.

To go on winning at that tawdry game you have to go on being more disgusting than the other performers, again and again outdoing them in bad taste, and you also need at frequent intervals to change the subject, or the viewers will get bored and switch over to another channel.

Advertisement

Trump needs to find a quick end to the war or else American voters will switch over, and at the mid-term elections in November will turn him into the lamest of lame ducks.

The Iranian regime knows this, and can play for time.

Nobody can be certain how the war will end. How delighted one would be if the present regime in Tehran were to be overthrown and replaced with a constitutional monarchy which is on good terms with its neighbours.

But even Trump holds back from promising such a happy outcome. Much more likely, at the best, is an unhappy deal which restores freedom of navigation in the Gulf, gets a certain amount of oil and gas flowing once more through the Strait of Hormuz, but leaves open the danger of further disruption.

Advertisement

Freedom of navigation is and always has been in Britain’s interest, and we ought to be willing to play a full, long-term part in restoring and maintaining it in the Gulf.

We need to remember that Trump is not eternal, and that our policy should not be distorted by vain attempts to conciliate him. Channel 4 has just broadcast a three-part series, The Tony Blair Story, which recounted that Prime Minister’s energetic and in the short term triumphant campaign after the attack on the World Trade Center on 11th September 2001 to get closer than any other foreign leader to President George W Bush.

From that flowed Blair’s decision to deploy British troops alongside the Americans in the invasion of Iraq, followed by the discovery that no plans had been drawn up for the country once Saddam Hussein had been overthrown.

The Channel 4 programmes show a vulnerable old man who longs to convince us that a quarter of a century ago he did the right thing, but instead demonstrates that an air of moral seriousness, though much less vulgar than Trump’s antics, does not necessarily lead to wise decisions.

Advertisement

Sir Keir Starmer began by getting on surprisingly well with Trump, and hoped to follow up this success by sending Peter Mandelson to Washington.

It is curious to reflect that this manoeuvre may instead precipitate Starmer’s downfall.

Nor is his relationship with Trump as good as it was. The President now says, “Keir was willing to send two aircraft carriers after we’ve won,” and adds, “Unfortunately Keir is not Winston Churchill.”

Which prompts the thought that Trump is not Franklin D Roosevelt.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

11 Of The Best Black Clothes And Accessories For Spring/Summer

Published

on

11 Of The Best Black Clothes And Accessories For Spring/Summer

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.

Ageing emos, soft or hard goth girlies, and overall edgy, elegant divas will know that committing to a majority black aesthetic isn’t for the weak.

It’s all well and good in the wintertime, when the sun barely shines. But when the temperature starts to rise? Suddenly your dark, heat-radiating wardrobe begins to feel like a death trap.

And that’s to say nothing of the playful and refreshing springtime vibes you might want to get in on after a long, bleak winter.

Advertisement

If you’re feeling a bit stuck with your transitional weather wardrobe, but don’t want to leave your love of black garments behind, here’s a list of the best buys for staying cool (get it?) now that spring has sprung.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Jokes About Pearl Harbour With Japanese PM Present

Published

on

Trump Jokes About Pearl Harbour With Japanese PM Present

Donald Trump made a shocking joke during an Oval Office meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi that prompted his guest to stiffen in her seat as she glanced around the room.

The two leaders met on Thursday as Trump’s war in Iran continues to strain the global economy. Trump took the majority of questions from reporters before asking for one more from one of the “beautiful” Japanese correspondents.

He called on a man, who apparently seemed confused.

“He doesn’t think he’s beautiful,” Trump joked.

Advertisement

After the reporter asked Trump why he did not tell allies in Europe and Asia about his plan to attack Iran, saying it confused the Japanese people, Trump replied that he needed to count on the element of surprise.

“For one thing, you don’t want to signal too much, you know? When we went in, we went in very hard, and we didn’t tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise,” he said.

Then he went for another joke: “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? OK? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbour? OK? Right?”

Takaichi, who speaks some English but was using an interpreter at times, straightened in her seat and tilted her head slightly to glance at her aides upon mention of Pearl Harbour.

Advertisement

“Hmm,” said the prime minister, who was born two decades after Imperial Japan’s surprise attack on the US naval base in Hawaii.

Trump administration officials seated to the president’s left chuckled before silence gripped the room.

“No, you believe in surprise, I think much more so than us,” Trump went on.

“And we had a surprise,” he said. “We did.”

Advertisement

Thursday’s meeting marked Takaichi’s first visit to the White House since taking office last October.

Toward the beginning of the session, she heaped praise on her American counterpart, saying, “I firmly believe it is only you, Donald, who can achieve peace across the world.”

Despite Trump’s urging, Japan has not committed to sending its naval ships to escort commercial vessels traversing the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively shut down through threats to attack any ship that attempts a crossing.

Earlier this month, Takaichi pledged to have “candid talks” with Trump when they met.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Greens are the very antithesis of populism

Published

on

The Greens are the very antithesis of populism

Since the Green Party’s win in the Gorton and Denton by-election last month, the mainstream media have been hailing it as a left-wing ‘populist’ movement that can challenge the right-wing populists of Reform UK. In the excited words of Politico, the Greens ‘played Reform at its own game – and won’.

The Financial Times seemed similarly enamoured. One of its op-eds claimed that leader Zack Polanski had turned the Greens from a cuddly environmental campaign group ‘into a combative left-wing populist political vehicle that advocates for working people against the ultra-wealthy’. Even right-wing commentators have acceded to the characterisation of the Greens as left-wing populists.

The presentation of the Greens as a populist alternative to Reform, indeed as counter-populist movement, has been months in the making. Last September, The Times painted Polanski as a proponent of ‘left-wing populism’ who ‘hopes to hypnotise the electorate with his own brand of Faragism’. The following month, a commentator on UnHerd talked up the rise of the Greens’ counter-populism, as ‘the backlash to the backlash’ against the political establishment. 

Advertisement

The argument commentators and politicos have been advancing over several months is simple enough. They claim that the Greens are peddling a populist politics to rival the appeal of Reform. They believe that Polanski’s counter-populists can beat conservative populists at their own game – that the Greens can neutralise Reform’s appeal

But there’s one big problem with all this. The Greens are anything but populist. Indeed, the very fact that significant parts of the mainstream media are so keen on the Greens is a sign of their elite appeal.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

The programme and behaviour of the Greens show that they are best characterised as a radical centrist formation. Under Polanski, a former Lib Dem activist, the Greens have shown they have virtually no non-negotiable principles. During the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, they conspicuously avoided campaigning around the party’s long-held concerns about the environment. Even the party’s current embrace of ‘anti-austerity’ politics was pushed into the background. Instead, they focussed on identity politics, mobilising Muslim voters by playing the Islamic sectarian card.

This identitarian obsession is telling. One of the defining features of populists, whether of the left or right, is that they claim to speak for and represent the people – for all citizens of the nation. The Greens did not do that in Gorton and Denton. They opted to engage with one section of the community, even publishing election literature in languages that the vast majority of British people do not understand. Similarly, Green activists waved the flags of Palestine and Pakistan, rather than the flags of Britain or England. This was tribal politics – it was the very antithesis of populism.

Advertisement

This is hardly a surprise. Today’s Green Party is profoundly hostile towards a key element of any populist politics – namely, democratic citizenship. Its vision of a ‘world without borders’ negates the very idea of being a citizen of a national polity. Hence, it would happily extend voting rights to all migrants with visas, grant them access to the benefits system, and allow them to bring family members to join them.

In effect, the Greens would denude citizenship of its meaning. Voting, having been a privilege confined to citizens, would be extended to just about anyone entering the UK. And the social contract between citizens and the state, underwritten by access to social services and benefits, would be torn apart.

Historically, left-wing populists took defending citizenship rights very seriously. In the 19th century, the American People’s Party, one of the first radical populist movements, was committed to protecting the people from the ruling class’s attempts to lower living standards through the importing of cheap labour. Its platform called for a shorter working week, restrictions on immigration and public ownership of railways and communication lines.

Advertisement

Populists proper take the nation and national borders very seriously, because it is only within such boundaries that democracy can flourish. Popular sovereignty is intimately linked with the sovereignty of a nation. A people, a demos, can only exist within the confines of a clearly demarcated community.

But the Greens regard such a bounded community with contempt. They prefer a politics that privileges divisive ethnic affiliations over national citizenship.

Far from being a people’s party, the achingly middle-class Greens are the party of Britain’s cultural elites. They share the same worldview, the same luxury beliefs, the same obsessions. They are the party of identity politics, gender ideology and pseudo-bohemian lifestyles – hence the commitment to legalising hard drugs.

Advertisement

The Greens’ commitment to erase national borders and national citizenship put them firmly at odds with the British people and their interests.

Frank Furedi is the executive director of the think-tank, MCC-Brussels.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump’s ‘Four-To-Five Week’ Iran ‘Excursion’ Now Appears Open-Ended

Published

on

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine speak to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington on March 19.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has refused to provide a time frame for ending Donald Trump’s war against Iran, which the former Fox News host earlier this month said could be over by Saturday.

Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that while the United States’ largest war in two decades was “on track,” it would end only when Trump wanted it to end and that he could not set a date.

“It will be at the president’s choosing ultimately where we say, hey, we’ve achieved what we need to on behalf of the American people to ensure our security. So no, no time set on that, but we’re very much on track,” he said.

At a White House photo opportunity a few hours later with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Trump was not asked about the duration of the Iran war but claimed, yet again, that it was going better than planned. “I would say we are substantially ahead of schedule,” he said.

Advertisement

Trump at the outset of the attacks said the war was “projected” to last four to five weeks but that the United States had the “capability” to continue waging it for far longer.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine speak to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington on March 19.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine speak to members of the media during a press briefing at the Pentagon in Washington on March 19.

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

On March 4, four days after the air assault began, Hegseth said the war could end even sooner. “You know, you can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three. Ultimately, we set the pace and the tempo,” he said in a briefing.

The three-week time frame would run through Friday, with week four starting in the overnight hours Saturday. There is no indication, however, that the US will end the attacks and withdraw the ships, planes and personnel deployed to the Middle East for what Trump calls “an excursion” in the near future.

Hegseth on Thursday confirmed that the White House will be seeking a large supplemental appropriations package to pay for the war, which officials have estimated is costing as much as $2 billion a day.

Advertisement

“As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move. Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys. So we’re going back to Congress and folks there to ― to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is ― everything’s refilled and not just refilled, but above and beyond,” Hegseth said.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025