Friday Caption Contest (Andy Binman Edition)

Source link

Source link

On 9 July, social security and disability minister Stephen Timms published his interim report on the state of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) system. The initial findings were damning, recognising that the payments were vitally necessary for disabled recipients, but ultimately “not fit for purpose”.

In large part, this failing was due to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)-managed assessment system. Participants branded those assessments as “dehumanising”, “soul destroying”, and “degrading”. The review also highlighted pressing concerns regarding:

whether the functional assessment and descriptors fully reflect real-life impacts, particularly for fluctuating, multiple, and less visible conditions, as well as about the consistency and transparency of decision-making and the role of supporting evidence.

PIP was never fit for purpose

The government first introduced PIP back in 2013, to help disabled and D/deaf people cope with the extra costs of living with disability. It replaced the previous Disability Living Allowance (DLA) scheme, and was intended to consider a broader range of impairments.

The review began back in July 2025, as the Canary’s Rachel Charlton-Dailey explained:

The Timms review was launched after the Labour government failed to cut PIP last summer. Thanks to a massive push back from disabled people and a Labour rebellion, the DWP had to take PIP cuts out of the welfare cuts bill. However, as a last ditch attempt to still get some cuts through and not look like a total failure, the minister for disabled people announced that there would be a consultation on PIP if MPs voted for the bill.

The review’s foreword, penned by its steering group, stated that:

We know this Review begins from a difficult place. We recognise there is a lack of trust in government amongst many disabled people. We also recognise that D/deaf and disabled people and those with long-term conditions face pressures from across wider society, whether that is being the centre of unfair public debate, struggling to access the services they need, or living with uncertainty about what support is available.

If this Review’s findings are to be accepted by disabled people and non-disabled people alike, the Review must be clear about what it has heard, honest about what remains unresolved, and serious about how disabled people’s experience shapes the work. That is why co-production is central to this Review.

Limited response time for PIP

However, there were major issues regarding this ‘co-production’ from the get-go. Back on 19 March, the DWP finally launched its call for evidence on PIP. The Canary’s Hannah Sharland explained:

The first thing that immediately stands out is that the call for evidence runs for only 10 weeks. Technically, since this isn’t a consultation, that’s not unlawful – unlike the previous Conservative government’s 8-week Work Capability Assessment (WCA) consultation.

Even so, ordinarily, the government will host these in line with its 12-week requirement around consultations. […]

Advertisement

Of course, it speaks volumes that the DWP is giving disabled people – some of whom will need more time to engage – even less time than the standard amount to do so.

However, in spite of these necessary limitations, the review received some 38,713 responses. The participants included D/deaf and disabled people themselves, along with advocacy organisations, clinicians and leading academics. The Canary will look more closely at these responses in the next section of our coverage, here.

The changing disability landscape

The report, when published in full later in the Autumn, will form the first comprehensive review of PIP since it was introduced 13 years ago. Since then, the landscape of disability in the UK has changed greatly, as the interim report explained:

Around 10 million working-age people report living with a disability – equivalent to 24% of the working-age population, compared with under 17% in 2013/14. There have been greater increases in the prevalence of disability among young people and a rise in mental health conditions. The Review must consider how PIP can remain sustainable within fixed financial limits and support future generations.

Two things are important here: that mention of “fixed financial limits”, and the changing makeup of disabilities. In particular, the latter was related to the disabling impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing levels of chronic illness, and pressures on the NHS itself.

Penny-pinching

The Timms Report’s terms of reference set out the aim to ensure that PIP can “be there to support future generations” whilst also sticking to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) “projections for future spending on PIP.”

The report itself stated that PIP spending is expected to rise from £15bn in 2020 to £41bn in 2031. However, it also emphasised that:

This has occurred alongside a reduction in expenditure on other working-age welfare benefits, when measured in percentage of GDP terms.

This linked to a 2025 Financial Times article, which held that the projected total for all welfare payments is around 11% percent of national yearly income. It noted that this was lower than the same figure during Cameron’s term as prime minister.

This focus on penny-pinching will always be a major problem, as Sharland previously explained:

Ensuring PIP is more accessible and inclusive won’t make the department savings. So whatever evidence disabled people provide, a fit-for-purpose disability benefit system won’t be the outcome.

As we react to the interim Timms Report, and await the finished version later in the year, cost-cutting cannot be the focus.

Even from these initial findings it’s clear that PIP isn’t fit for purpose. That purpose is vital and necessary for the benefit’s recipients, and it won’t be fixed by DWP bean-counting.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Looks like we turned that round pretty fast, gang. Six weeks ago:

And today:

Amazing what a draft document and a KC opinion can do, eh? A casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that the SNP was absolutely cold-sweat desperate to avoid a civil case that would set a powerful precedent for a legal prosecution.

On that front, incidentally, things are getting interesting. Alert readers will recall that last month we received this email from Police Scotland, intriguingly noting that they had “been advised” that they’d already investigated John Swinney’s admission that the SNP had stolen all the referendum-campaign fundraiser money.

Advertisement

One such alert reader swiftly dropped them an FOI request asking who’d advised them, and got a curious answer a couple of weeks later.

So that’s a novel use of language: “we have been advised” means “we neither sought nor received advice”. Naturally, our reader sought a little more clarity.

This morning they received this response:

So to strip it down to the basics: the curt reply last month to our question about why the original crime investigated in Operation Branchform – the SNP stealing donors’ money, not Peter Murrell stealing the money the SNP had stolen – had not been resolved or resulted in any prosecutions was complete cobblers written by someone who didn’t know what they were talking about.

Advertisement

That’s not OUR interpretation, that’s literally what Police Scotland have just said. When we queried that reply, we got a further response saying “Hmm, please give us a bit more time”.

That was almost a month ago now. (12 June to be precise.) And we did tell them to feel free to have a proper think before answering this time, so that’s fine.

But it’s really not a very complicated question. The “factual matrix”, to use the legal term, is undisputed.

As one of Scotland’s leading KCs agrees.

Advertisement

(Widely reported in today’s papers.)

The SNP’s dramatic and sudden U-turn on the question of refunds is undoubtedly the smart move. Paying back the stolen money to anyone who asks may be an effective move in shutting down a civil case (although that would depend on whether they also offered interest and compensation, as raised by Roddy Dunlop).

But it also acts as a(nother) tacit admission that a crime has been committed, because why else would you be paying people back when you’d previously said you wouldn’t because their money was being used for what they’d donated it for?

And that, readers, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor, bats the hot potato right back into Police Scotland and the Crown Office’s court.

Advertisement

If a crime on such a large scale has been committed – the exact same crime Peter Murrell just got five years and three months in prison for, over a substantially smaller sum – and nobody disputes any of the material facts of the case (which they don’t), then why did a five-year investigation decide not to prosecute anyone for it?

The police and Crown Office, having previously tried to dismissively fob us off with two sentences, and then trying to blame each other, now keep telling us to wait while they come up with a proper answer.

We’ve waited a month so far, and we’ll keep on waiting, because we’ve got nothin’ but time. But lads, when the answer arrives it really better be a good one.

Source link

Reform is in disarray over Nigel Farage’s already-backfiring resignation gamble, so much that even hard-right media can’t hide it. In fact, some are even joining in the mockery.

Reactionary horror Julia Hartley-Brewer, for example. Reform’s awful spokeswoman Laila Cunningham was having an even worse day than usual yesterday (9 July 2026). She even tried to contend that being a privately-educated banker — as Farage is — didn’t make you part of the establishment.

No defence for Reform

But Hartley-Brewer mercilessly dismantled Cunningham on Talk TV, exposing the party’s utter lack of preparation and credibility on – for example – defence:

REFORM IN FULL SHAMBLES EVEN TALKTV CAN’T HIDE IT!

Julia Hartley-Brewer destroys Laila Cunningham live:

Advertisement

“You guys are NOT ready for a general election. What’s your defence policy?”

Laila: “…I’m not going to go through the defence policy right now.”

After her Jeremy Vine…

— King (@King0243_PJC) July 9, 2026

Farage has made himself and his party a laughing stock. So much so that Reform has abandoned its campaign in the Manchester mayoral election and is begging its supporters to dash to Clacton. All because Farage is now terrified of losing the by-election to comedy candidate Count Binface.

Social media readers weren’t exactly sympathetic, quickly coining a new nickname for the serial non-declarer of donations:

pic.twitter.com/qghvw1P8o6

— Antony Alexander (@aja1979) July 10, 2026

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

From 48, we’re down to eight. The quarter-finals arrive with four ties that feel evenly matched, each carrying its own storyline. Here’s the clean, accurate, team-by-team guide to France vs Morocco, Spain vs Belgium, Norway vs England and Argentina vs Switzerland.

France’s route to the quarter-finals

France breezed through a brutal group containing Senegal, Morocco and Norway, winning all three. A 3-0 dismissal of Sweden in the round of 32 reinforced their status, though the last‑16 win over Paraguay was hard work due to them being the worst team to play a World Cup match.

Best player so far: Kylian Mbappe has parked a turbulent Real Madrid season and lit up this World Cup with eight goals. He now has 20 in 20 World Cup games, pushing towards the all‑time record. He’s the only hope to defeat the FIFA and VARrgentina clique

Gem to watch: Manu Kone has started three of France’s last four matches, including the Paraguay win. The Roma midfielder has been one of the breakout performers: strong, composed under pressure, and able to carry the ball into difficult areas.

Strength: That front four. Mbappe, Michael Olise and Ousmane Dembele are all in top form, with Desire Doue and Bradley Barcola competing for the final slot. It’s a fluid, well‑balanced attack.

Weakness: France’s forward line is vulnerable to setbacks. Olise and Barcola are one booking away from missing a semi-final. Losing either would force a rethink in the forward line.

Morocco’s route to the quarter-finals

Semi-finalists in 2022, Morocco have backed it up. They drew with Brazil, won their other group games, edged the Netherlands on penalties in the round of 32 and produced their best all‑round display in a routine win over co-hosts Canada.

Best player so far: Achraf Hakimi, fresh off back‑to‑back Champions League titles with PSG, remains the standout. His attacking threat from right-back disrupts defensive structures and forces constant adjustments.

Gem to watch: Ayyoub Bouaddi, formerly a France U21 international, has emerged as a key midfield presence at just 18. Calm, technically sharp and tactically mature.

Strength: Morocco share goals and assists across the squad. Six different scorers in their first five games, with Ismael Saibari, Azzedine Ounahi, Diaz and Bilal El Khannouss offering high‑level experience. Chemsdine Talbi and Soufiane Rahimi add danger off the bench.

Weakness: Durability in big moments. Injuries derailed their last World Cup run, and top scorer Saibari went off injured after 20 minutes in their most recent match. His availability is uncertain.

Spain’s route to the quarter-finals

Spain opened with a flat 0-0 against Cape Verde but recovered to beat Saudi Arabia and Uruguay. They then produced a statement 3-0 win over Austria before Mikel Merino’s late goal beat Portugal.

Best player so far: Mikel Oyarzabal has four goals, but Pau Cubarsi has been the defensive anchor. The 19‑year‑old Barcelona centre-back has formed a reliable partnership with Aymeric Laporte and helped Spain keep a perfect defensive record.

Gem to watch: Lamine Yamal has worked back to sharpness after a thigh injury. He’s scored once and completed his first full 90 minutes against Portugal. More is expected.

Strength: Spain’s defence has been their biggest strength. They haven’t conceded, have the lowest xG against (1.49), and have faced only five shots on target.

Weakness: Spain’s lack of cutting edge is still a concern. Cape Verde showed how to frustrate them. Spain have underperformed their xG and have the lowest conversion rate among the quarter-finalists.

Belgium’s route to the quarter-finals

Belgium drew with Egypt and Iran before hammering New Zealand 5-1. They then staged a dramatic comeback against Senegal, scoring twice in the final minutes and winning in extra time. A 4-1 win over the USA followed.

Best player so far: Leandro Trossard has been Belgium’s standout. Two goals, two assists, and the most chances created of any player at the tournament. Romelu Lukaku and Youri Tielemans have contributed, but Trossard has led.

Gem to watch: Charles De Ketelaere strengthened his case for a starting role with two goals and an assist against the USA. At 6ft 4in, left‑footed and strong aerially, he offers a different threat to Lukaku.

Strength: Belgium’s press. They’ve had 15 shots from high turnovers — almost double the next best — and scored four goals from them, the most of any team.

Weakness: Kevin De Bruyne and Jeremy Doku have not hit form. De Bruyne was an unused substitute against the USA; Doku has no goal involvements. Two major players have yet to influence the tournament.

Norway’s route to the quarter-finals

Norway have been the surprise entertainers. Wins over Iraq and Senegal secured early progression, allowing rotation against France. Victories over Ivory Coast and Brazil have taken them to their first World Cup quarter-final. Their ‘Row’ celebration has become a global talking point.

Best player so far: Erling Haaland has seven goals in four games. He can look anonymous for long stretches but then delivers decisive moments. If given space, he punishes teams.

Gem to watch: Antonio Nusa, 21, looks like a future star. His curling opener against Ivory Coast announced him fully. A tricky winger who can go both ways, he’s the exact threat England must plan for.

Strength: Norway respond well to breaks in play. They’ve scored three goals in the 10 minutes after hydration or half-time pauses. Manager Stale Solbakken uses those moments effectively.

Weakness: Defensive fragility leaves Norway exposed. Only four teams have conceded more xG. Goalkeeper Orjan Nyland was player of the match against Brazil for keeping the score down.

England’s route to the quarter-finals

England beat Croatia, drew with Ghana, then relied on Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham to push past Panama, DR Congo and Mexico. None of the wins were dominant, but beating co-hosts Mexico at the Azteca has lifted confidence.

Best player so far: Kane and Bellingham share top billing. Kane has 73 goals for club and country this season; Bellingham has provided drive and bite. England join France as the only teams with two players on four or more goals.

Gem to watch: Bukayo Saka isn’t an under‑the‑radar player, but his tournament has been quietly effective — three assists in 192 minutes. One more breaks the England record for most assists at a World Cup.

Strength: Thomas Tuchel’s in‑game changes have been excellent. He shifted momentum against Croatia, used Anthony Gordon well against DR Congo, and made every major call correctly against Mexico.

Weakness: Right-back is England’s biggest vulnerability. Reece James is injured, Jarell Quansah suspended, Djed Spence carrying a fitness issue and suspect defensively. England are now facing elite opposition; that flank is a concern.

VARgentina’s route to the quarter-finals

Argentina won all three group games (Algeria, Austria, Jordan) alongside VAR. Their knockout matches were tougher — Cape Verde pushed them to extra time, and Egypt led before another VAR disaster class sent Egypt home.

Strength: Argentina don’t panic as they know, FIFA and VAR will come to their rescue

Weakness: They’re cheats.

Switzerland’s route to the quarter-finals

Switzerland topped Group B (Canada, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Qatar), beat Algeria comfortably and edged Colombia on penalties to reach their first quarter-final since 1954.

Best player so far: Johan Manzambi has three goals and two assists. If fit to return after missing the Colombia match, his box‑to‑box energy is vital.

Gem to watch: Dan Ndoye stretches defences with pace and direct dribbling. He scored against Algeria and has produced the most shots. His ability to exploit space on the counter could matter.

Strength: Switzerland draw fouls. Only Morocco and England have drawn more. Ten opposition bookings have led to two penalties and constant defensive hesitation.

Weakness: They created just 0.39 xG against Colombia, largely due to missing Ruben Vargas and Manzambi. Without their best attackers, their threat drops.

Featured image courtesy of Al Jazeera

By Faz Ali

Source link

Source link

The war on Iran was brought to a provisional close this month when Donald Trump finally signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the Palace of Versailles, on the sidelines of the G7. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the same document electronically from Tehran.

The president has presented the deal as a win – in the narrow sense that he has stopped an active war spilling into global catastrophe and reopened a global oil chokepoint. Nevertheless, the terms of the deal tell a story at odds with the triumphalist narrative, since almost every substantive concession in the fourteen-point framework favours Iran.

A defeat in Tehran

The distance between the war’s stated aims and its settlement is the measure of the retreat. At the outset, the objective was the dismantling of Iran’s audacious nuclear programme, and at one point, the elimination of its ballistic-missile capacity altogether.

The MoU secured neither. Iran reaffirms only that it will not develop nuclear weapons – a pledge it has given before – with the fate of its enriched-uranium stockpile left to a mechanism still to be agreed. The ballistic missile programme is absent from the treaty entirely. Trump ironically conceded that it was acceptable for Iran to keep them, and that it would be unfair to strip a country of its basic defences.

In exchange for such absent concessions, the US undertakes to lift sanctions, release frozen Iranian assets, and contribute to the reconstruction plan worth at least $300bn for the country it had been bombing since February.

A separate clause commits both sides to respect their mutual sovereignty and refrain from interference in domestic affairs – a quiet abandonment of the regime-change ambition, which began the war. At the G7, Trump insisted he had never cared for regime change, while claiming the war achieved it anyway. The contradiction captures the difficulty of selling a blunder as victory.

Israel and the Strait of Hormuz

Israel poses a larger problem. It is signatory to nothing and regards the provisions pertaining to Lebanon as non-binding. It has gone on striking and advancing in the south throughout the week the deal was signed, and its attack on the Lebanese capital on the day of the MoU prompted Iranian negotiators to abandon further talks.

The Strait of Hormuz oversees another unresolved dispute. Toll-free passage is assured for sixty days only, after which Iran intends to charge a fee for ships passing through. This goes against Washington’s insistence that the waterway remain permanently open and free.

On almost every count, though, Iran has come out ahead. It keeps its nuclear programme, missiles, government, and gets its sanctions lifted. Frozen funds will be returned and they will receive $300bn to rebuild. A country initially threatened with unconditional surrender has conceded almost nothing, and the superpower that made such demands is now paying to repair the damage it caused.

Iran entered this war with very little, and yet it has left with everything it could have wished for.

The win in Havana

If the failure of American military objectives in Iran lends a glum prospect for the projection of American power abroad, the same week nonetheless furnished the US with a measure of consolation in the form of an unexpected concession from one of its longstanding enemies.

On 18 June, the day after the Versailles signing, Cuba’s National Assembly unanimously approved a package of 176 economic reforms. Altogether, they amount to the most significant programme of economic liberalisation reforms since the revolution in 1959.

The reforms:

• abolish the requirement that foreign investors operate through state partners;
• sanction the establishment of large private firms;
• permit domestic and foreign capital to acquire equity in state-owned enterprises; and
• open the way to private real-estate development.

They also begin the gradual withdrawal of the libreta, the system of subsidised rationing, through which the state has guaranteed basic goods at controlled prices. Rations have failed to meet caloric requirements for over 30 years.

Following the removal of Cuba’s principal regional ally in Venezuela, the US has enforced a stringent oil blockade on the island. It has reduced the economy to near collapse, with power cuts extending beyond 20 hours a day and acute shortages of food, fuel, water and medicine.

Addressing the National Assembly, President Díaz-Canel stressed that the reforms bore no relation to negotiations with the US and were intended to preserve Cuban socialism. He presented them, in the vein of China and Vietnam, as a development internal to the socialist project.

Whether the reforms will achieve their immediate purpose remains doubtful. The reforms are unlikely to yield significant economic benefits as long as American sanctions remain in force. Investors who transact with Cuba continue to incur penalties within the United States financial system, irrespective of what the government elects to permit.

Moreover, the international conditions that facilitated, in part, the success of China’s opening in the 1990s are absent in the case of Cuba. It is seeking to open an ageing and disintegrating economy onto a global market already strained by inflation, war and volatility.

One method, two theatres

Taken together, the two events of the week describe not isolated events but a single method operating through two theatres.

In Iran, the application of overwhelming force failed the extract the capitulation Trump intended.

In Cuba, its deliberate strangulation at the behest of the economic blockade achieved the ideological surrender of a state the US had sought to break for 60 years.

What this ultimately shows is the shape of a power in decline. An empire still capable of dictating terms seldom finds itself purchasing its exit from a war it began, nor reduced to celebrating, as triumph, the economic capitulation of an island of 11 million people brought to its knees by the withholding of fuel.

The retreat from Iran is the more honest indicator. It demonstrates the limits of a military supremacy that can raze a country’s infrastructure. Yet the US cannot translate that destruction into a stated political objective.

With American attention no longer fixed on Iran, the more pressing question is where the US will turn to next.

Featured image via Daniel Torok / White House / ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters

By Rares Cocilnau

Source link

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

Before you get any ideas, sofa beds have come a long way from the days of yonder.

While they used to be uncomfortable, tricky to pull out (and put back together) and leave you sinking near the floor half way through the night, today there is a plethora of options to keep you snoozing all night long.

Advertisement

Somehow, the sofa bed technology has advanced tenfold over the last decade, meaning all you have to do is move a few cushions or click something into place to give your guests (or your half sozzled self) space to slumber.

If you’re looking for an extra mattress to complete your space, there is a sofa bed out there for everyone.

And (shocker) they actually look stylish, too. To help you on your decorating journey, we’ve rounded up the best sofa beds to buy in 2026, from futons, to single sofa beds, corner sofa beds, and even four-seaters.

The best sofa beds in 2026

Advertisement

Best for small spaces

Often you’ll find sofa beds that are either easy to set up, or look good. Not Swyft’s, because this bed is a dream to unfurl from its sitting place, and looks as stylish as can be when folded into a sofa. To avoid that uncomfortable slanted sensation when you’re lying on it, the back of the sofa folds inwards to make it level, and there are two simple metal legs to keep it propped up all night long.

Dimensions: 158 x 87 x 95cm

Best single sofa bed

Not inviting couples to come and stay with you? Fair, neither am I. Seriously, though, if all your visitors call for is a single bed, this one from Dunelm is the ideal addition to your living room. Not only is that candy stripe sweet as can be, but the bed itself is like sleeping on a marshmallow, according to reviews. If you’re not sure about the print, you can even order a fabric sample to make sure it’s right in your space before committing.

Dimensions: 90 x 116 x 94cm.

Advertisement

If this isn’t the jazziest sofa bed you’ve ever seen, I don’t know what is. Should you be the type to consider leopard print a neutral, you’ll barely notice this velvet sofa bed in your lounge. It folds out completely flat, so you can add whatever toppers, duvets, and cushions you want atop it. I’m also a huge fan of the hot pink variant – sexy.

Dimensions: 144 x 89 x 80cm.

Best click clack sofa bed

Salagadoola mechicka boola clickety clackety boo. Sorry, that was just some Fairy Godmother roll play, because that’s exactly how setting up this sofa bed feels. The back panel clicks (as the name suggests) down to make a double bed, and you don’t even have to worry about extra legs or any of that malarkey. It also comes in cream, green, orange, and white, if this brown shade isn’t your vibe.

Dimensions: 201 x 86 x 79cm.

Best four seat sofa bed

For those using their sofa bed as their actual sofa, you might want to size up so you have plenty of room for when guests come over. This corner sofa has enough space to seat four, and the seats simply slide forward to when you’re ready to slumber. The cushions are also home to a storage compartment, so you need only reach a few inches to get a mattress and pillows. Easy as.

Advertisement

Dimensions: 248 x 145 x 79cm.

Best futon sofa bed

Yes, this sofa bed will be sweet for sleeping, but think of the myriad other activities you can get done on here: reading a book, meditating, even watching a little telly while being close to the floor. It’s the simple pleasures, really.

Dimensions: 60 x 73 x 78cm.

Best brown sofa bed

If you’re not planning on having guests over often, this sofa bed will transform your sitting room or bedroom into the most cosy comfy reading nook you’ve ever seen. It’s quite low down as a sofa bed, so maybe not ideal for older guests, but as a sofa the soft rusty velvet is reminiscent of the sleekest of libraries. So all you’ll have to do is add bookshelves.

Advertisement

Dimensions: 80 x 136 x 88cm.

Best corner sofa

I have it on good authority (from our head of content, Dayna McAlpine, no less) that Swyft makes the best sofa beds around. This one will slot easily into your corner, and I will be forever daydreaming of the naps you could take on the L portion of it alone – forget about folding it out. If you do choose to do so, the shorter section pulls out as it is to transform into a double bed. It even features lumbar cushions for added support against your back. How kind.

Dimensions: 217 x 90 x 142cm.

Best three seat sofa bed

Ah, IKEA. Its flat packs might be the start of any good domestic, but you have to give it to them: they make a damn fine product. This tidy pink sofa doesn’t require any irritating folding away, but merely asks that you slip its seat pads forward to make it into a double bed. Like the previous option, it also has storage, which means you’ll be able to skip the awkward rummage through the linen drawer to find the right sheets.

Advertisement

Dimensions: 232 x 89 x 46cm.

Best beige sofa bed

If you’re not in the market to add more clutter to your space, this elegant beige sofa is just the minimalist addition you’re looking for. As well as being gentle on the old blinkers, it’s also easy to set up, with some reviewers claiming it took them a mere five minutes to assemble the whole thing after it arrived. It’s also got plenty of support beneath the bed, so there’ll be no click clacking as your guests stir in the night.

Dimensions: 193 x 77 x 50cm.

Best fold up sofa bed

If your guests don’t mind sleeping on the floor, this sofa bed unsuspectingly unravels into a double mattress that extends along the floor. When folded up, it makes a chic and comfortable sofa, too. Ideal for anyone who’s not planning on regular guests.

Advertisement

Dimensions: 180 x 100 x 70cm.

Best linen sofa bed

In the heat, it’s impossible to think about sitting on any upholstery that isn’t easy breezy. This sofa bed from Rowan and Wren is covered in lightweight plaster pink linen covers, which are easily removed to be cleaned. Plus, the mattress on this is unlike any other sofa bed: loaded with 690 springs, for a sleep that’s as good as being in your own bed (if not better).

Dimensions: 180 x 82 x 96cm.

Best day sofa bed

You hardly want to be fiddling around with pulling mattresses out when it’s nap o’clock. It’s game time. All you have to do with this sweet little sofa/ day bed hybrid is pull those cushions off, and you’re going to go, thanks to the corner that doubles as a headboard.

Advertisement

Dimensions: 206 x 87 x 87cm.

Best grey sofa bed

Honestly, I can’t stop raving about the different fold out mechanisms on these sofa beds, but there must have been a crazy sofa bed revolution in the last few years because they never used to be this efficient! This one from Dreams unfurls into a bed via the back cushions, which as one reviewer puts it, means you “pay for the ease, stay for the comfort”.

Dimensions: 204 x 100 x 85cm.

Source link

“Wait, why weren’t we invited? There are a thousand people there!” I asked my husband Garret, a well-known music producer in LA.

I scrolled on Instagram as we talked, watching the celebrities roll into Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s wedding at Madison Square Garden.

“I got a text but I thought it was spam,” he told me, sounding defensive.

“WHAT!?” I asked in total disbelief.

Advertisement

I could feel my heart pulsing in my fingertips as I continued to scroll through the barrage of wedding-related posts popping up online.

“Yeah – remember I told you I got a text from her manager? But I didn’t respond to it. It didn’t sound like him.”

“It was probably an assistant!” I scolded him, my frustration growing by the second.

“Oh,” Garret said, seemingly apologetic.

Advertisement

We’ve been married for 32 years and have lived in the same house all of that time, but apparently we occupy two different worlds.

As a psychotherapist with over a decade of experience in marriage and family therapy, I’ve seen my fair share of women who say their husbands don’t understand them. At that moment, I could relate on an entirely new level.

“So let me get this straight: You mean to tell me that we were invited… and you didn’t click on the invite?” I asked.

“Yeah,” he shrugged. “I guess I thought someone was trying to hack my address book or something.”

Advertisement

Reeling in frustration, I left the room. My jaw was clenched tight, so I purposefully took a deep breath and let it out slowly.

I thought back to 2012, when my husband worked with Swift on her album, Red. She came to our remote music studio in Topanga, California, and sang The Last Time with Gary Lightbody. My husband said she was the driving force in the room.

Afterward, she had dinner with our family. She was a warm and confident young woman – and a true storyteller. She charmed all of us with her wit and grace.

I walked back into the room, intent on hearing my husband out, but I wasn’t really listening.

Advertisement

“But it’s Taylor Swift!” was all I could manage to say.

“I know,” he said, “but why would you even want to go?”

Because it’s fun and romantic, I thought.

When everything feels so nightmarish and hopeless in America right now, it seems like many of us are looking for something sweet like a fairytale wedding to cheer us up – or at the very least, distract us for a moment.

Advertisement

I’ve never considered myself a die-hard Swiftie, but as a therapist, I understand the impact of young women hearing their experiences play out in her songs.

Taylor sings about love and heartbreak – something most of us can relate to at some point in our lives – but she also sings about things many women often keep hidden (and are encouraged to keep hidden): jealousy, anxiety, body issues, relationship problems, overthinking, and being self-critical.

She is vulnerable and willing to expose pieces of herself that aren’t always pretty. She says things that so many of us have thought but never said out loud.

She’s a complicated icon who has challenged homophobia, donated millions to charities and challenged right-wing politicians. At the same time, she’s been critiqued for her shrewd capitalism, private jet usage and “white victimhood”. And, at the end of the day, she was putting on a spectacle that felt dreamy and optimistic.

Advertisement

“I wanted to go because it would give me a bit of hope,” I told Garret.

“Hope for love! Hope for some good in the world! I don’t know… maybe hope in America at a dark time? And I obviously would have loved to hear the musical guests. I mean… Stevie Nicks was supposed to play!”

Courtesy of Melissa Garner Lee

He didn’t say anything for a minute, and then he seemed to realise what had really happened: he’d disappointed me. Not on purpose, of course, but the disappointment was still very real.

We were both quiet for a moment.

Advertisement

“Sorry hon… I’m sorry,” he said, adding, “It’s really hot out there – it would’ve been hot.”

I felt myself starting to lose my mind again.

We were invited to the wedding of the decade and we didn’t go because it might be too hot? We didn’t even RSVP “no”. How rude is that? (Sorry Taylor and Travis!)

I couldn’t help but think about how it sometimes seems women carry the emotional baggage in our culture and men often focus more on function.

Advertisement

Research from the University of Texas showed that women are often centred on building bonds, while men are typically concentrated on fixing problems. So, what do I see in this case that he doesn’t? A need at this time in our collective consciousness to concentrate on love (building bonds), milestone stories and hope in this country – a current desert of levity.

So there we were on a hot, smoggy day in LA at an impasse. An hour later Garret brought home my favourite dinner, gave me a hug and kissed me.

And just like that, we were back in our usual flow – together. Julie and John Gottman, world-renowned researchers and psychologists, would call this a repair attempt – a small gesture to de-escalate tension and get back to a strong bond.

As we sat down at the kitchen table to eat, he said, “Sorry again.”

Advertisement

“No worries, honey,” I said.

Our marriage has never been perfect and sometimes we’re surprised that it’s still going. We struggled last year after we became empty nesters and moved from the countryside to the city. It was a tough transition for both of us.

I was recovering from a brain tumour and he was working on the longest and hardest project in his life. We were both on edge. There were many conflicts and late-night arguments about our future, but we always end up in repair.

Thankfully, repair is the heart of our partnership.

Advertisement

After I cooled down, I thought about how our lives are currently filled with much bigger things to worry about than Taylor Swift’s wedding. My mom had just passed. Garret is dealing with an ageing father in Ireland. We’re contemplating another move. And, of course, it feels like the entire world has come undone.

Every day some new terrible thing is happening somewhere. So despite my disappointment and frustration, I forgave him.

A missed wedding will not be what breaks us. We’re stronger than that.

Still, it would’ve been fun to see her dress.

Advertisement

Melissa Garner Lee is a writer and licensed marriage and family therapist based in Los Angeles, California. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, HuffPost, USNews and Newsweek. She is currently working on her first novel, “The Gleaner.” Find more from her on Instagram @themindfulheartla and Substack @slouchingliterary.

Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.

Source link