Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Irish defence minister confirms plans to scrap Irish neutrality

Published

on

Irish defence minister confirms plans to scrap Irish neutrality

Irish Minister for Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Trade Helen McEntee has confirmed the government will push ahead with plans to scrap Ireland’s long-cherished position of neutrality. The stance has been far from perfectly adhered to, as Ireland has over the years allowed frequent use of its airports for US warplanes, including those assisting so-called ‘Israel’s’ genocide in Palestine.

Nonetheless, the country has avoided involving its troops in any large-scale conflicts for more than a century. It also has unusually low defence spending in comparison to other European nations. McEntee and her government seem determined to change that, however.

On The Anton Savage Show, host Emmet Oliver egged on the push for greater militarisation:

We’ve had a lot of people have been saying for many years: “Why should we give a veto to China and Russia over any military intervention that we get involved in as a sovereign nation?”

Popular ‘Triple Lock’ prevents Irish involvement in war

There’s nothing like a hard-hitting first question that mirrors the exact opinion of the guest. This is symptomatic of general mainstream media support for a march to increased militarisation in Ireland. The question refers to the fact that Ireland can only deploy troops overseas in a number greater than 12 if all three of the following approve it:

Advertisement

– The Irish government

– The Dáil

– The UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly

This is known as the ‘Triple Lock’, in reference to the capacity for any of these bodies to veto Irish troop deployment abroad. As every permanent member (China, France, Russia, UK, USA) of the Security Council can veto any significant decision the Council takes, that enables any one of those nations to block use of Irish forces overseas.

Advertisement

Naturally in agreement with the stenographer she was speaking to, McEntee pledged to kick off the march to likely NATO slavery ASAP:

…I want to get this legislation moved as quickly as possible. I’m hoping to have it published by Easter. And I hope to have it enacted throughout this year.

The legislation referred to is the Defence Amendment Bill which the Irish government has again been pushing forward this week. It would remove the requirement for UN approval, and allow deployment of up to 50 soldiers abroad without Dáil consent.

Lebanon has been used as the sympathetic case for a peacekeeping deployment of Irish forces, who have been present in the country since 1978. The government has been desperately trying to find an angle to push the new measures through, given strong public support for continued neutrality. With high Irish pro-Palestine sentiment, the idea of local soldiers being present to help ward off further brutal assault by Israeli Occupation Forces is obviously an appealing cause.

However, it’s difficult to see how much difference a small UN force can currently make against a nuclear-armed brute prepared to break all international law.

Advertisement

Neutrality end likely means NATO alignment

The more likely result of changes to the law is closer alignment to the self-destructing NATO, ‘led’ by an erratic fascist currently killing his own citizens. As Workers’ Party representative for Meath East Gerry Rooney outlined:

The removal of the UN element of the Triple Lock is blatantly designed to allow the government to align even more closely with NATO. They have made it clear that, even if outright membership isn’t a runner just yet, they will seek to cosy up as close as they can.

Our neutrality is suffering the fate of a frog in warm water being slowly but surely brought to a boil.

He continued:

A government that, for 20 years, has been unwilling to spend €5 million or €10 million a year to pay a living wage to our soldiers, and is unable to put even two of Naval Service’s eight ships to sea, now claims to care deeply about defence and security.

What they really appear to care about is pacifying their superiors in Brussels and Washington, and lining the pockets of international arms companies.

Advertisement

As discussed previously in The Canary, there are companies eyeing a potential bonanza from Ireland ramping up its defence spending. There’s also a push from other NATO members for this increase, given Ireland hosts a great deal of crucial infrastructure for the digital economy, mainly that of US tech giants. That’s money that could otherwise be spent on actually useful stuff, like housing, health care and education.

The spectre of Russia and China controlling Irish armed forces through Security Council veto is the fear typically raised by the media. However, with the Triple Lock scrapped, Ireland is far more likely to be at the beck and call of the US. Control from Washington should be of more concern than from anywhere else, given its genocidal policies and obviously heightened warmongering.

This vassal status was confirmed by McEntee’s response to a question about the upcoming visit of the Irish government to the White House in March. There they will once again embarrass themselves prostrating before Emperor Trump. Asked by Oliver if Irish representatives would challenge Trump on recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violence, McEntee dodged the question:

…I’ve no doubt [the Taoiseach’s agenda] could be set in the coming weeks. And there are opportunities both publicly but also in private for the Taoiseach to have a conversation with the president on many different issues.

As previously respected non-aligned nations like Finland and Sweden abandon that stance to join the NATO war machine, the world is rapidly losing potential peacemakers. Ireland seems keen to accelerate that process, and sidle up to a volatile alliance making the world less safe.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Nick Robinson Denounces Minister Over Mandelson Scandal

Published

on

Nick Robinson Denounces Minister Over Mandelson Scandal

Nick Robinson monstered a cabinet minister over the Peter Mandelson scandal in an extraordinary live radio clash.

The veteran Today programme presenter told Scottish secretary Douglas Alexander it was “frankly preposterous” to claim Keir Starmer knew nothing about the shamed former peer’s business and personal links before making his the UK’s ambassador to Washington.

Mandelson was sacked after just six months in the role after the full extent of his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was revealed.

It emerged last week that he was also failed security vetting, allegedly over his lobbying company’s links to China, but was still cleared to take up the job.

Advertisement

The prime minister is facing calls to resign over the scandal and will face MPs in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon to explain himself.

On the Today programme, Alexander insisted the PM had done nothing wrong and had in fact been let down by civil servants.

But Robinson told him: “What more did you need to know? We know that Peter Mandelson had business links with China, we know that he had business links with Russia, we know that he had personal links with Jeffrey Epstein.

“And not only do we know it, the prime minister knew it, because we know as a matter of record that Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, said ‘this appointment process is weirdly rushed’.

Advertisement

“So why did the prime minister appoint someone without waiting for the vetting?”

Alexander insisted “information was withheld from the prime minister and from other ministers” during the vetting process.

Robinson told him: “To come on the radio and claim that there was any surprise that Peter Mandelson had any links to Jeffrey Epstein, links to China, links to Russia … it is frankly preposterous.”

But the minister said: “The deep vetting process is undertaken specifically to look at information that was not in the public domain.

Advertisement

“If this process really matters, then I think your listeners will reasonably think why wasn’t the outcome of that deep vetting shared with ministers making their decisions?”

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Bayern Munich continue their dominance of the Bundesliga, claiming their 35th title

Published

on

Bayern Munich

Bayern Munich

Bayern Munich have clinched the German football league title for the 35th time in their history, with four matches remaining in the season, following a 4-2 home victory over Stuttgart on Sunday 19 April at the Allianz Arena in Matchday 30, thus rounding off a perfect week both domestically and in Europe.

Bayern Munich: winners again

The Bavarian side, who are still in contention for the domestic treble of the league, cup and Champions League, had previously reached the semi-finals of the continental competition after knocking out Real Madrid, thus continuing their strong season on all fronts, whilst also edging closer to the domestic cup final, where they will face Bayer Leverkusen.

With this triumph, Bayern continues its dominance of German football, as this title marks their 13th in the last 14 Bundesliga seasons, with Bayer Leverkusen having broken this run only in the 2023–2024 season.

The team have taken their tally to 79 points at the top of the table, 15 points clear of second-placed Borussia Dortmund, who stumbled to a 2-1 defeat against Hoffenheim in the same round.

Advertisement

Bayern now face a series of crucial fixtures, taking on Bayer Leverkusen in the Cup semi-final next Wednesday, then Mainz in the league on Saturday, before travelling to France to face Paris Saint-Germain in the first leg of the Champions League semi-final on 28 April, with the return leg scheduled for 6 May.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

9 Signs Your Relationship Isn’t Worth Fighting For

Published

on

Sometimes love really isn't enough. And not every relationship is worth saving.

No one said relationships were easy ― even the strongest couples will inevitably hit a few bumps in the road. But your partner shouldn’t be a constant source of stress, hurt feelings or resentment.

So how do you know if your relationship has hit the point of no return? Automatic dealbreakers like abusive behaviour aside, many issues can be worked through with time, commitment and help from a therapist.

But if you’ve tried and tried and things still don’t improve, or if your partner is simply unwilling to do the work, it could be time to move on.

Sometimes love really isn't enough. And not every relationship is worth saving.

stock-eye via Getty Images

Sometimes love really isn’t enough. And not every relationship is worth saving.

We asked experts to share the signs that a relationship may no longer be worth fighting for. (Note that the advice below is meant to serve as general suggestions. The circumstances of each relationship are different; there’s no one-size-fits-all approach.)

Advertisement

1. You’re being abused — physically or emotionally.

“If your spouse pushes, shoves, grabs or hits you for any reason, it’s not worth trying to change them. If this is happening on any level, get out NOW. Are they gaslighting you or being emotionally abusive? If your partner tells you that you are imagining any type of abusive behavior or that you are just ‘too sensitive,’ get out. You deserve to be treated with respect. It’s not worth fighting about.” ― Tammy Nelson, a sex therapist in New Haven, Connecticut, and author of The New Monogamy: Redefining Your Relationship After Infidelity

2. You feel like you’re the only one fighting for the relationship.

“I actually don’t think it’s a good idea to be in a relationship if you feel like you are always fighting to remain in it. However, sometimes it does make sense to try very hard for a period of time to get through a rough patch and move on. If you’re always the one putting in effort and your partner shows minimal effort, that is a sign that it’s not worth fighting for. If you are embarrassed to tell people about the amount of effort you have to put into the relationship to keep it going, that is a sign that you may have exceeded an appropriate amount of effort.” ― Marie Land, a psychologist in Washington, D.C.

Advertisement

3. Your partner refuses to seek help for personal issues or problems within the relationship.

“It takes much caring and courage to be vulnerable enough to reach out for help. We all need it sometimes. If you’re consistently feeling miserable in the relationship and your partner is unwilling to accept help, whether it’s couples counseling or addressing an addiction that is damaging the relationship, it may be time to consider leaving.” ― John Amodeo, marriage and family therapist in San Francisco and author of Dancing with Fire: A Mindful Way to Loving Relationships

4. You can’t stand kissing your partner.

“Yes, this feeling can come and go. Sometimes you like to kiss, other times you don’t even want your partner’s face anywhere near yours. But if your mouth is telling you that you really cannot stand to kiss your partner anymore and that feeling doesn’t change over time, it might be over.” ― Nelson

Advertisement

5. Your close friends have serious doubts about the relationship.

“Who is the person that sees your relationship most clearly? The research shows that your friends actually have more insight into the state of the relationship than you do, particularly female best friends. If they’re starting to express concerns, it can reveal underlying issues that you may not be aware of yourself.” ― Gary Lewandowski, professor of psychology at Monmouth University in New Jersey and co-creator of ScienceOfRelationships.com

6. Your partner isn’t reliable.

“I’ve been married 30 years, and here is why I have fought for my marriage during challenging times: My husband is trustworthy and reliable. A reason to leave is when the trust is irrevocably broken — by lies about money spent, adultery or repeated emotional and physical abuse. You deserve someone you can unfailingly count on. To me, reliability is the sexiest quality you can hope for — a quality that is essential in an intimate partnership, as we live in a shaky and inconsistent world.” ― Iris Krasnow, author of Surrendering to Marriage and The Secret Lives of Wives

Advertisement

7. You or your partner has had multiple affairs.

“Are you using infidelity as a ‘can opener’? Be fair. End your relationship now. Don’t make your partner responsible for your ambivalence.” ― Nelson

8. You’ve stopped making progress in other areas of your life because of the relationship.

“If your relationship has taken up so much emotional energy and attention that it has prevented you from moving forward with other goals such as a career, family and friendships, that’s a sign that your relationship may not be worth fighting for. Some sacrifice is fine but the cost should be minimal and not impact your progress in other areas for an extended period of time.” ― Land

Advertisement

9. Your partner routinely dismisses your concerns.

“It’s not an encouraging sign if your partner is unwilling or unable to hear your feelings, your hurt and pain and take it to heart. If your feelings and needs (for respect, kindness, communication) are coldly and consistently dismissed, if stonewalling and defensiveness are creating an impenetrable barrier, it may leave you feeling lonely, angry, or depressed, and maybe hopeless about the relationship.”Amodeo

The original version of this story was published on HuffPost at an earlier date.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Olivia Colman’s Heartstopper Character Recast With Anna Maxwell Martin Taking Over

Published

on

Joe Locke and Kit Connor share a kiss as Charlie and Nick in Heartstopper

Olivia Colman’s character in Heartstopper will be played by a different actor in the show’s upcoming film.

The Oscar winner received widespread praise for her portrayal of Nick’s mum, Sarah Nelson, in the first two seasons of the Netflix teen drama.

However, in its third iteration, Olivia was unable to appear, with Hayley Atwell instead appearing as Nick’s aunt, who served a maternal role in his life for these episodes.

Over the weekend, it was confirmed that in the forthcoming movie Heartstopper Forever, the character of Sarah has been completely recast due to Olivia’s unavailability.

Advertisement

In her absence, the role will now be played by Line Of Duty and Motherland star Anna Maxwell Martin.

Heartstopper creator Alice Oseman told Netflix’s Tudum: “When beginning to work on the Heartstopper Forever screenplay, I knew how important it was that Sarah, Nick’s mum, appeared in the story.

“Since season one, we have seen how close Nick is with his mum; she’s one of the few people he can turn to in moments of crisis. While in season three, we were able to tweak the story to avoid any appearance of Sarah, it felt nonsensical for her to be absent from this final chapter, given some of the emotional struggles Nick faces.”

They continued: “Sadly, Olivia Colman was not able to join us for the film, so we made the very difficult decision to recast the role, rather than exclude the character. We are deeply grateful for Olivia’s beautiful performance as Sarah in seasons one and two of Heartstopper, through such iconic moments as Nick coming out as bisexual, and we know that her performance will live on in the hearts of every Heartstopper fan.

Advertisement

“We are overjoyed to welcome the incredible Anna Maxwell Martin into the role of Sarah for Heartstopper Forever. Anna perfectly embodies Sarah’s gentle, down-to-earth energy, and it was magical to witness her scenes with Kit Connor during the film shoot. I can’t wait for Heartstopper fans to experience her interpretation of Sarah Nelson.”

Joe Locke and Kit Connor share a kiss as Charlie and Nick in Heartstopper
Joe Locke and Kit Connor share a kiss as Charlie and Nick in Heartstopper

Heartstopper Forever will premiere on Netflix later this year, and serve as the final outing for Nick and Charlie, played by Kit Connor and Joe Locke.

As well as the usual returning cast members, including Yasmin Finney and Will Gao, it’s been confirmed that Bafta winner Derek Jacobi will also be playing a new character in the film.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Adam Thomas Addresses David Haye I’m A Celebrity South Africa Row

Published

on

David Haye

I’m A Celebrity campmate Adam Thomas has spoken out about feeling “pushed to my limits” by co-star David Haye during their stint on the reality show’s All Stars special.

Adam and David were among the famous faces who took part in the second season of I’m A Celebrity: South Africa, which was filmed last year and is currently airing on ITV1.

Over the course of the series, the retired pro boxer has generated a whole lot of controversy for his overzealous approach to the game, his treatment of his fellow contestants and his comments about his girlfriend, Sian Osborne.

In the most recent instalment on Friday night, viewers saw David lambasting Adam for sitting out a Bushtucker Trial on medical grounds, after a flare-up of his psoriatic arthritis.

Advertisement

During the episode, David branded Adam “useless”, claiming that as a “grown-arse man” he should have taken part in the challenge.

The pair then clashed again when Adam sneaking chocolate into the camp for the team to share resulted in them losing out on food later on, which David had earned during that day’s trial.

Adam then offered to have less of the rations than his campmates, which David branded a “hollow gesture”.

On Sunday, the Emmerdale star posted a picture of himself in the I’m A Celebrity: South Africa camp, admitting that the “picture breaks my heart, as I know on the inside what I was dealing with”.

Advertisement

“Truth be told, I thought it was all my fault,” he said. “I now know that’s not the reality…”

David Haye

Adam wrote: “My time in I’m a Celebrity South Africa was one of the toughest things I’ve ever been through, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Watching it back hasn’t been easy at all.

“There were moments I felt pushed to my absolute limit, and if I’m honest, times I didn’t even recognise myself. Living with arthritis is something I don’t really talk about, as much as I should do… but in there it really took its toll.

“My biggest fight was pretending to put on a brave face and trying to hide the pain! That can be exhausting within itself. There were days my body just didn’t want to keep going, but I did. I won’t sit here and say I handled everything perfectly, because I didn’t.

“I wish I spoke up for myself sooner. I wish I stood my ground instead of trying to keep the peace, but I’ve learned that being kind doesn’t mean being weak, and sometimes it takes going through tough moments to find your voice.”

Advertisement

He continued: “Since coming out, I’ve taken time to process everything, and I’m in a much better place now. I let go of the anger, had the conversations I needed to have, and chose peace.

“What I’m most proud of, is at times like this I wanted to walk, I wanted to quit but I didn’t. Even when I wanted to walk away, even when it felt like too much, I never give up! and that means everything to me.”

Adam added: “He broke me in there, he pushed me to my limits, and I’ve told David this and he’s apologised and that’s that! I’ve moved on now, am not one to hold a grudge.

“But thank you for all your lovely messages and all the kind words. We all face people and situations that try to break us, but sometimes those moments are what rebuild you stronger than ever. Be kind.”

Advertisement

Even hosts Ant and Dec have spoken out about David’s conduct on the current series of I’m A Celebrity: South Africa, suggesting that his conduct has “crossed the line from banter”.

Because the All Star run was pre-recorded, I’m A Celebrity viewers won’t have any say in who stays and goes until the live final, when fans will be able to crown their champion via public vote.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

The case for a UK-EU resilience partnership

Published

on

The case for a UK-EU resilience partnership

Jannike Wachowiak makes the case for a UK-EU resilience partnership as a way to both help the two sides be better prepared and able to respond to certain crises and to provide much needed impetus to the UK-EU reset. 

The first post-Brexit UK-EU summit, held in 2025, provided a roadmap of measures intended to soften the edges of the Brexit deal negotiated by Boris Johnson. The second is pencilled in for the summer, and its primary function is clear: to get ongoing talks on agrifood-trade, emission trading and a youth experience scheme over the line. Yet a summit that merely deals with outstanding business is one that is not doing its job. As well as closing negotiations already underway, it is important, not least to maintain a sense of momentum about the UK-EU ‘reset’, to lock the two sides into a continuing process.

Absent new ideas, it will be hard to avoid the impression that the reset is beginning to run out of steam. Various ideas have been suggested – ranging from the UK joining Creative Europe to a UK-EU Industrial Cooperation Council – that would build on the Common Understanding without crossing red lines.

Another idea that would fit the bill, and which has received precious little attention, is the possibility of forming a UK-EU ‘resilience partnership’ to ensure both sides are better prepared and able to respond to certain crises.

Advertisement

Pandemics, wars and climate emergencies like floods, wildfires and severe storms are increasingly common, and cannot be contained in one country. These externalities create precisely the kind of rationale that underpins cooperation among neighbours. What is more, the effects of these crises are increasingly visible to citizens. In 2025, Portugal and Spain experienced the worst wildfires since records began, and across England 6.3 million properties are based in areas at risk of flooding. And most of us have first-hand experience of a global pandemic. This should make crisis preparedness and response an uncontroversial area for cooperation.

And there is a global dimension to this. The Trump administration is pulling the US out of the multilateral global health and climate security systems, with significant cuts to domestic and international crisis prevention programmes. On the day of his inauguration, President Trump ordered the US’ withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and a year later he announced the US would withdraw from another 66 international organisations, treaties and agencies, many of which are climate-related. This creates a clear need for Europeans to fill the vacuum bilaterally and globally.

Part of the response could be a ‘Resilience Partnership’ to enhance collective resilience and preparedness. This could have several components. The two sides might want to set up a dedicated ‘Health and Climate Security Dialogue ‘to both share information and explore how to build on existing cooperation, including the UK’s association to the EU’s Critical Medicines Alliances and medical research and innovation under the Horizon Programme.

The UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership from May 2025 encourages closer cooperation in these areas, but without going into specifics. The EU and Canada are already a step ahead, with a dedicated ‘Health Dialogue’ set up in 2021, and the promise of a ‘Climate Security Dialogue’ to share climate data and analysis. Given the global dimension, there could be an incentive to create links between the EU’s various dialogues with like-minded partners.

Advertisement

A dedicated EU-UK dialogue could be a launching pad for more formalised ties. For instance to consider whether to include the UK in the activities of the European Climate and Health Observatory. The observatory was set up in 2021, is managed by the Commission and European Environment Agency, and supports 38 members and cooperating countries in preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change on human health.

Another possibility would be UK association to the EU Civil Protection Programme. This helps to mobilise resources (like response teams and equipment) and knowledge to support countries affected by war and natural disasters. The largest operation to date has been in support of Ukraine, and the mechanism has also recently been used to coordinate consular support for citizens stranded in the Middle East.

The UK used to be an active and reliable member of the Civil Protection Programme and contributed to 14 emergency operations between 2014 and 2020. Post-Brexit, it could seek association. The programme is open to non-EU member states and includes ten participating countries ranging from Moldova to Norway to Ukraine.

Exploring a ‘Resilience Partnership’ along those lines would an easy win. It would give renewed impetus to the bilateral relationship and make it clear that the reset is ongoing. For the UK, it fits into the government’s preference for incremental progress and does not cross its red lines. For the EU, ‘resilience’ is one of four areas which it wants to see strengthened in its relations vis-à-vis the UK (as outlined in the Commission’s 2024-2029 political guidelines).

Advertisement

For both sides, it would be a pragmatic step forward which could be easily sold to the public. Last but not least, it would further build trust and provide a sense of solidarity which could help pave the ground for other steps further down the line.

By Jannike Wachowiak, Research Associate, UK in a Changing Europe.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Prime Minister Keir Starmer Faces Make Or Break Commons Test

Published

on

Prime Minister Keir Starmer Faces Make Or Break Commons Test

Keir Starmer will battle to save his job as he faces MPs amid calls for him to resign over the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal.

A Labour peer is among those demanding the prime minister quit after it was revealed the shamed former US ambassador failed security vetting before taking up the plumb diplomatic role.

Starmer said he was “furious” that he was not told that Olly Robbins, the top civil servant in the Foreign Office, had ultimately cleared Mandelson to carry out the job.

The PM only found out last Tuesday – and Robbins was sacked on Thursday night.

Advertisement

Starmer has been accused of lying to parliament and the public for previously stating that all of the appropriate vetting processes had been followed before Mandelson was appointed.

He will make a Commons statement on Monday before facing questions from MPs about what he knew and when.

Supporters of Olly Robbins have insisted he was legally precluded from telling the PM that Mandelson had failed the security vetting, but that has been denied by Downing Street.

“No law stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK Security Vetting recommendations, while rightly protecting detailed sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgements on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament,” the government said.

Advertisement

Scottish secretary Douglas Alexander told Sky News: “There are rightfully and reasonably important questions that need to be answered today. Keir Starmer’s going to set out all the facts. The right place for those questions to be answered are at the despatch box in the House of Commons.

“But we saw the leader of the opposition, as recently as Friday, claiming that the prime minister lied.

“That central contention that he wilfully and intentionally misled parliament and the public now relies, given what has emerged since then, relies on what would need to be a growing conspiracy, not just of every minister involved in this process, but of a growing list of civil servants.

“These judgments matter, and in that sense people need to reach a judgment in the round. The right place to do that’s in the House of Commons this afternoon, and the prime minister will set out his case.”

Advertisement

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Louis Tomlinson Unfollows Zayn Malik On Instagram Amid Altercation Reports

Published

on

Zayn Malik and Louis Tomlinson began shooting their documentary last year

Louis Tomlinson appears to have severed ties with his former One Direction bandmate Zayn Malik amid reports of a physical altercation between the two of them.

In October last year, it was reported that Louis and Zayn – whose tumultuous relationship is well-documented – were planning on putting their differences aside and filming a new three-part travelogue series for Netflix, which would see them travelling across America together while trying to mend their friendship.

However, over the weekend, The Sun reported that Netflix had “axed” the series after Zayn allegedly punched Louis during a heated row.

Zayn Malik and Louis Tomlinson began shooting their documentary last year
Zayn Malik and Louis Tomlinson began shooting their documentary last year

The tabloid claimed that the punch came after Zayn made a comment about Louis’ late mum, Johannah Deakin, who died of leukaemia in December 2016.

Louis previously disclosed that it had been among his mum’s dying wishes for him to reconcile with Zayn, with whom he’d been close during their time in One Direction, but fell out when the Pillowtalk singer quit the band at the height of their fame.

Advertisement

HuffPost UK has contacted reps for Louis, Zayn and Netflix for comment.

While neither party has commented publicly on the reports yet, fans have spotted that Louis has now unfollowed Zayn on Instagram, as have his sisters.

Director Nicola B Marsh also reshared a photo of The Sun’s front page about the alleged altercation on her Instagram story, commenting: “There goes the last year of work.”

An official press release for the documentary claimed that it would have seen Louis and Zayn taking part in a road trip of “reconnection, exploration and a lot of laughter”, with Variety reporting that it would feature “intimate conversations about life, love, loss and fatherhood”.

Advertisement

Louis and Zayn were bandmates for around five years, being put into a boyband with Harry Styles, Niall Horan and the late Liam Payne after auditioning for the talent show The X Factor as solo performers.

Zayn left 1D in 2015, after which the band remained together as a four-piece for one final album, before going their separate ways the following year.

Before filming got underway on their travel series, Louis and Zayn had last been seen together at the funeral of Liam Payne in 2024.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | Wes Streeting made 63 promises. With 2,000 lives at stake each year, why is there still no plan?

Published

on

Wes Streeting made 63 promises. With 2,000 lives at stake each year, why is there still no plan?
Wes Streeting made 63 promises. With 2,000 lives at stake each year, why is there still no plan?

Professor Neil Gittoes, Chair of the Board of Trustees



Professor Neil Gittoes, Chair of the Board of Trustees
| Royal Osteoporosis Society

Advertisement

Ministers have committed 63 times to rolling out early diagnosis services for osteoporosis. Nearly two years on, there is still no delivery plan, no milestones and no sign of rollout, while 2,000 people die each year

Two years ago, the Health Secretary promised people with osteoporosis life-saving early diagnosis clinics. He has repeated that promise 63 times – yet nothing has changed. And for every year that ministers delay, another 2,000 people die needlessly.

People with osteoporosis have been overlooked for decades, driven by the mistaken belief that broken bones are a normal part of ageing rather than a treatable medical condition. This cruel disease silently weakens bones until they can break from coughs, sneezes or even a hug. For someone with osteoporosis, a fall from standing height can be enough to break a hip. Half of women over 50 will experience fractures due to the condition, alongside one in five men.

Advertisement

I meet grandmothers terrified to lift a newborn baby for fear their bones could shatter, and women in early menopause who are told by GPs they have the bones of an 80-year-old.

Yet help exists. Safe, effective treatments costing as little as £1 a week can restore independence and save lives. So why are millions still missing out?

The answer is a brutal postcode lottery. Half of NHS Trusts still lack Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) – specialist clinics that identify patients and get them onto treatment before it’s too late. Without them, the consequences are devastating. A broken hip is often a death sentence – killing over a quarter of patients within a year.  

Advertisement

During the 2024 general election campaign, this community was given hope for the first time. All three main parties proposed a national rollout of FLS clinics to every area by 2030. Since then, Reform and the Greens have added their support, too.

Wes Streeting went furthest: he promised that a plan for national rollout would be one of his first acts in government. But two years on, no plan has been delivered. And we’ve seen no new clinics at all.

Around 60 NHS Trusts in England still lack Fracture Liaison Services. A national rollout takes time and requires steady progress year by year. Ministers would have needed to deliver FLS to around 24 Trusts by now to stay on track for full rollout by 2030. Instead, delivery stands at zero.

In opposition, Wes Streeting described delays to these clinics as a “betrayal of patients.” With nearly two years now passed, we’ve had more delay under this government than the last.

Advertisement

And delay costs lives. Around 2,000 people die each year following hip fractures that these clinics prevent. In the time since this promise was made, 4,000 lives have been lost waiting for rollout.

Meanwhile, the NHS has spent £150m treating avoidable fractures since the election – far more than it would have cost to put these preventative clinics in place. This isn’t just a missed opportunity. It’s a failure that is harming patients right now.

We should be making progress. More than 60 countries already are. New Zealand has just rolled out these services to cover 99 per cent of its population, while Japan has quadrupled FLS in three years. In Wales, ministers made FLS a national priority and mandated that, within five years, each service should develop the bandwidth to treat every citizen aged over 50 in their area.

By 2030, therefore, it will be markedly safer to grow old in Wales than in England. There is no excuse for England falling so far behind.

Advertisement

Ministers point to a very small investment in bone scanners, made to honour a separate (very welcome) election promise. But a scan without treatment saves no one. Without assessment and follow-up through Fracture Liaison Services, patients remain at high risk of another fracture.

Worse still, uncertainty from Whitehall is pushing fracture prevention locally into reverse. Some areas have paused their own plans, expecting a national rollout that has yet to materialise.

Ultimately, the question is about political will. Ministers have made the commitment. They’ve repeated it 63 times. They know it will save lives and money. Why won’t they deliver it? People with osteoporosis have waited long enough. After decades of neglect, they were promised change.

If the promise is broken, it will deepen the sense that their lives simply don’t matter.

Advertisement

We stand ready to work with the government to achieve the outcome they promised. We won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If a credible plan is published, we’ll get behind it and help ministers get those clinics set up.

But progress starts with a plan.  

During the election, people with osteoporosis were promised change. Two years on, they’re still waiting. So I ask the Health Secretary Wes Streeting directly: will you now publish the plan for the life-saving bone clinics you promised?

 For more information, visit theros.org.uk/StillNoPlan

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Helen Whately: The Welfare bill is more than twice what we spend on our own defence – that can’t go on

Published

on

Helen Whately is the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.

That statement last week might have escaped notice — but for the fact that it was made by Lord George Robertson: former Labour Defence Secretary, Labour Peer, and Labour-appointed author of the Government’s Strategic Defence Review.

Lord Robertson is not someone you’d expect to cause trouble for our beleaguered Prime Minister. But like many of us, he has run out of patience. And as former Secretary General of NATO, he knows the consequences more than most.

Advertisement

Britain’s welfare spending is now undermining our ability to defend ourselves.

The state exists first and foremost to keep us safe, yet we spend only 2.4 per cent of GDP on defence. As NATO members we have pledged to reach 5% by 2035 — a level we have surpassed not on defence, but on working-age welfare. Annual working-age welfare spending is now £140bn and rising, against a mere £50bn on defence.

The comments below will say “it happened under your watch” — and indeed it did. Under Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May, because the decline in defence spending goes back to the end of the Cold War. Only when Russia invaded Ukraine did our defence spending – under Boris – seriously step up.

Meanwhile, welfare has kept growing. Working-age welfare went from 2–3 per cent of GDP in the early 1980s to 6 per cent after the 2008 crash. We brought it back to 4.5 per cent pre-Covid; it has since risen to 5.3 per cent.

Advertisement

The nature of welfare has also changed.

When the modern welfare state was built after WWII, support was limited and often short-term — unemployment cover for those who’d paid National Insurance, or temporary sickness relief. Old age benefits were drawn on by fewer people, for less time. Means-tested benefits were a last resort and stigmatised.

Now, the fastest-growing part of the welfare bill is health and disability. More people are assessed as unable to work and go onto benefits; few ever come off them. The welfare state is no longer a stopgap or safety net. For a growing number of people, it is a permanent alternative to work.

Part of the problem is structural. Most public spending is controlled through departmental budgets, with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries forced to balance priorities and operate within limits. Welfare is demand-led: eligibility is set, and anyone who qualifies gets it. As caseloads grow, spending rises automatically. There’s no pressure to keep to a budget, but infinite jeopardy for any Secretary of State who dares make savings.

Advertisement

Add shifting social attitudes. Claiming benefits used to carry a sense of shame. More common now is entitlement — ‘it’s my right’ — without any commensurate responsibility. Meanwhile, working families are going without holidays, deferring purchases, furnishing their homes from charity shops, all the while paying taxes to fund others to have things they cannot afford.

We’ve reached a tipping point. As one constituent wrote to me recently: “You work so hard — and for what?

Unless something changes, the UK will spend £650 billion on working-age welfare by the end of the decade, against less than £300 billion on defence.

The war in the Middle East has left us exposed. “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe” — Lord Robertson again.

Advertisement

We have to grip welfare spending so we can invest in defence. That’s clear to me. But to Labour?

Labour MPs have been celebrating the lifting of the two-child benefit cap at a cost of over £3 billion a year. The prospect of weaker-than-ever Starmer persuading his backbenchers to vote for welfare cuts in the months ahead is laughable.

Except this is no laughing matter. The security of our country is at stake.

Serious times need serious leadership. We cannot keep spending more on Welfare, funding millions to stay at home with anxiety and ADHD, while starving Defence.

Advertisement

As Kemi Badenoch has said, whether we like it or not, we are in this war. We must tell the truth. We live in a world that has become more dangerous- and we must change our priorities.

I have already identified £23 billion of welfare savings: restricting benefits to foreigners, stopping sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD, reforming Motability, returning to face-to-face assessments. I am not stopping there.

A country where those who can work do work will be a stronger country. We have drifted from a culture of “I can because I must” to a culture of “I can’t” — stripping people of agency and turning them into victims. It is time to turn that around. To invest in the defence of the realm over the benefit state. We can, because we must.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025