Politics
Parents Share ‘Just Wait Until’ Stories To Give Hope To Those With Young Kids
While there are plenty of magical moments associated with raising young children – from the first time they say mama or dada, to taking their first steps, and telling you they love you – let’s be real: it’s no walk in the park.
There’s a good reason some parents liken it to being in the trenches. There are times when it’s mundane or difficult to stay afloat – especially in the depths of sleep deprivation, relationship struggles, or physical or mental illness.
You are trying to keep little kids alive, while also raising them to be happy, healthy and not left with any kind of trauma. You also might be trying to hold down a job (or five), pay the bills, and keep on top of the endless list of life admin that comes with running a household. It’s really no wonder some of us are out here forgetting to drink water.
You don’t want to wish it away, but equally it’d be nice to know it does, in fact, get a bit easier. Or at the very least there are moments on the horizon that make those tougher days where you just want to go and cry in a corner worth it.
Recently, paediatrician Dr Lauren Hughes took to Threads and asked parents of older kids to share some of their best “just wait until” stories.
Kicking things off, she said: “Just wait until you can colour with your kids with the GOOD markers because you no longer worry about them eating the tips or scribbling on the wall.”
Here’s what other parents had to say in response…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Keir Starmer is set to see off a Tory bid to have him investigated by a Commons committee over his handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal.
The prime minister is accused of misleading parliament by claiming that “due process” was followed in the shamed former Labour peer’s appointment as the UK’s ambassador to Washington.
It emerged two weeks ago that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had in fact recommended Mandelson not be given clearance to take up the role.
He was eventually cleared for so-called “developed vetting” by Sir Olly Robbins, who was the top civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time.
Starmer controversially sacked Robbins for not telling him about the UKSV findings.
In a bombshell committee appearance last week , Robbins said there was “constant pressure” from No.10 for Mandelson’s appointment to be approved – a claim denied by Starmer at prime minister’s questions the following day.
On Tuesday, MPs will debate and vote on an attempt by the Conservatives for Starmer to be referred to parliament’s Privileges Committee over the row.
However, Labour MPs have been told by the party’s whips that they must vote against the move, meaning it is all-but certain to fail, given the party’s huge Commons majority.
A government minister told HuffPost UK: “We needn’t whip heavily. The Parliamentary Labour Party is pretty united on this. It will be a damp squib.”
Starmer told a meeting of the PLP on Monday evening that the vote was “a political stunt” by the Tories just over a week out from the May 7 elections in England, Scotland and Wales.
He said: “Tomorrow is pure politics and we need to stand together against it.”
In a plea for Labour MPs’ support, the PM described the allegations that he misled parliament as “totally baseless” and “absolutely ridiculous”.
“It’s important to see the bigger picture here,” he said. “They want to stop this Labour government. And we know why.
“Because we are the first government for generations to take key parts of the public realm back into public ownership. They don’t like that, but we’re doing it.
“The first government for generations to give rights and power to workers, to renters, to the less fortunate. The first government for generations prepared to stand against wealth interests, to raise money and put that into public services and fighting child poverty. They don’t like it, they said they’d reverse it.
“We have a mandate to do all of those things. And they are not going to stop us.”
He added: “When we stick together and fight together we are so much stronger.”
Meanwhile, the PM’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, will on Tuesday give evidence on the Mandelson affair to parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sir Olly Robbins’ predecessor as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Philip Barton, will also be quizzed by the committee about Mandelson’s appointment.
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.
America is being “humiliated” by Iran over negotiations to end the war in the country, Germany’s chancellor has declared.
Friedrich Merz said he “can’t tell what strategic exit the Americans are pursuing” exactly two months after the conflict began.
A ceasefire is currently in place, but there is little prospect of an imminent peace deal being reached.
Meanwhile, the key waterway the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, while the US is blockading Iran’s ports.
Donald Trump last week called off planned peace talks which had been due to be held between American and Iranian officials in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, insisting they were a waste of time.
Posting on Truth Social, he said: “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call.”
But Merz said: “At the moment I can’t tell what strategic exit the Americans are pursuing, especially since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skilfully, or perhaps very skilfully refusing to negotiate, and are letting the Americans travel to Islamabad only to send them back home empty-handed.
“An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so called Revolutionary Guards.”
Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s highly-respected chief international correspondent, has said any peace deal “will take a long time” to be reached because “neither side wants to back down”.
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.
Britain has been in the grip of a housing crisis for over a decade at least. During that time, the cost of a flat or a house has continued to rise while wages have fallen in real terms. The result has been increasing rates of homelessness and housing poverty. In the words of a previous piece I wrote for spiked, the housing crisis is shredding the social contract.
The stakes are incredibly high for working-class people on low incomes and in insecure work. Too many people today are worried about just surviving in ways not seen since before the Second World War. I know families who are eating from food banks so that they have enough money to pay the rent.
As it stands, people’s only hope for affordable housing is social housing, of which there is a severe shortage. Houses have not been built at the rate we need for years. To compound the shortfall, over two million council houses have been sold off since Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy policy was introduced in 1980. Over 40 per cent of those former council houses are now in the hands of private landlords, who are renting them out at the market rate.
A combination of a lack of new homes being built and a rising population, thanks largely to immigration, has meant that social-housing eligibility is increasingly restricted to the most vulnerable and those whom the local authority has a legal duty to house. Even with these restrictions in place, the social-housing waiting list stands at over 1.3million households, many of whom will have to wait years for a home.
Keen to reduce their individual waiting lists, local councils have sought a bureaucratic fix. They have been changing their social-housing eligibility criteria, from setting new income thresholds to raising the age at which children of the same sex are entitled to separate bedrooms. In Mansfield and Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, two economically deprived areas blighted by low-paying work, any single person or a couple whose annual earnings are over £25,000 (or £34,000 for a family) or with £6,000 or more in savings, will no longer be eligible for social housing. Instead, they will need to find private rented accommodation, which in Nottinghamshire can be twice the cost of a council house.
Mass council-house building programmes were undertaken during and especially after the Second World War. Their purpose was to ensure that working-class people had access to safe, secure, good-quality and affordable housing. There was another wave of social-housing construction in the 1960s, when decrepit and unsafe housing, mostly owned by private ‘slum landlords’, was pulled down and replaced by council estates. When these estates were originally built, the houses were modern. They had indoor bathrooms, hot water heating systems and gardens. There have been many books published and films and documentaries made about this remarkable time – a time when working-class people were afforded the dignity of clean and modern homes, from Sheffield’s Park Hill to Thamesmead in south London through to St Ann’s and the Clifton Estate in Nottingham.
Postwar council housing was a source of pride for working-class people and for the country overall. Estates had housing officers who would inspect gardens and give warnings to anyone keeping an untidy home.
This is a far cry from council estates today. They are now places where only the poorest live, and where accommodation is limited to either those with social problems or, as in Mansfield and Ashfield, those who don’t work.
This is a far cry from the council estate on which I grew up in Nottinghamshire. Both of my parents worked, as did everyone else’s parents on my estate. We didn’t have much, but we had the security that a permanent home can give you.
It’s a very different landscape today. Local authorities and governments of all colours have ruined Britain’s social housing. They have turned estates into hopeless places, and left millions at the mercy of private landlords. The policy must change. We need to build far more safe and secure housing. And it needs to be made available not just to the unemployed, but to those who earn a living, too.
The failure to provide plentiful, quality and affordable housing for working people remains a damning indictment of the British state.
Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic.
On Sunday 26 April, the Green Party’s Hannah Spencer complained that MPs stank of booze in parliament. This served as a reminder for many of us that MPs are provided with subsidised alcohol at work. For belligerent MPs and journalists, however, Spencer’s comments served as a rallying call to defend their god-given right to drink at work:
A choice for Labour MPs before a big set of elections to go out campaigning on:
"MPs should be able to drink alcohol before voting because they work long days."
They're really revealing themselves, aren't they? Time to replace Labour.https://t.co/0qbagSvIYp https://t.co/lIxtYGEYvo
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 26, 2026
Binge Britain (for MPs in parliament, anyway)
This is what Spencer had to say on the matter:
"You can smell the alcohol when people are in between votes."
Green MP Hannah Spencer tells us what Westminster is REALLY like.
The full interview is live on YouTube, and as a podcast here: https://t.co/s4mKAc0xku pic.twitter.com/RcikszDxwQ
— PoliticsJOE (@PoliticsJOE_UK) April 26, 2026
For reference, the parliamentary estate has more bars than some town centres:
Back in 2022 Sophy Ridge reported that there are 6 bars in the Commons and the Lords and 30 in the parliamentary estate!pic.twitter.com/XQ8Ja498WP
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 26, 2026
Booze is also subsidised, as a 2023 petition on 38 degrees highlighted:
Did you know, alcohol for MPs and Lords is subsidised in the Houses of Parliament by taxpayers money. Last year, almost £500,000 was spent on drinks for those working in the parliamentary estate including 46,562 pints of beer and 2,800 bottles of bubbly.
Apparently expecting MPs on £98k salary to stay sober while making huge decisions for the country is now controversial. https://t.co/6lCSiYKh2q
— Jonny Mao (@JonnyMao__) April 26, 2026
While Spencer was talking specifically about MPs drinking at night between votes, it’s important to note these bars don’t magically disappear during the day. If your place of work had a bar with cheap booze, wouldn’t you feel like drinking was essentially encouraged?
Labour MPs together
Getting to the backlash, here’s what Labour MP Luke Charters had to say:
Breaking news: MPs are human and sometimes have a drink.
Classic clickbait farming
MPs work long days for constituents, and yes, sometimes share a drink in the evening with colleagues.
Last week I was scandalously spotted with… an alcohol-free pint or two between votes
But sure, let’s talk about that instead of the Greens’ wacky policies.
Trying to distract us, maybe?
There’s so much to get to here.
- The issue isn’t that they “sometimes have a drink”; the issue is they often have several drinks – something most humans don’t do.
- If he was drinking “alcohol-free” booze, she wasn’t talking about him, and maybe he should pipe down?
- The mention of alcohol-free booze suggests he felt pressured pile on Spencer, but he didn’t want it to look like he’s an alcoholic.
- What would the Greens be distracting from, exactly? The fact that they’re beating Labour in the polls, or the fact that Labour is about to get annihilated in the local elections?
Median estimate via @Moreincommon_, April '26 pic.twitter.com/OFxPMxmoUV
— Stats for Lefties
Projected net changes for local elections:
Ref +1,437
Grn +926
Lib +327
Con -627
Lab -1,738
(@LeftieStats) April 21, 2026
Honestly, it seems like Labour needs a distraction more than anyone, and the backlash to Spencer is it.
Can't get my head around this, I worked in Tesco, Manufacturing, the Health Service & Construction- guess what? We all worked long hours, mostly on low pay and we had considerable levels of pressure. MPs drinking during work in Parliament? The place we make laws for all the other… https://t.co/XIeYDRYcqY
— Sorcha Eastwood MP (@SorchaEastwood) April 26, 2026
Providing further evidence that Labour MPs felt pressured to pile on, this post from Natalie Fleet barely even makes sense:
Working in a palace is mad. It’s part of job I struggle most with.
Smell of fags&beer at 10pm are one of things that make it seem tiny bit normal
I say that as someone who’s never smoked & got sober to become an MP!
If I ever feel comfortable there, it’s time to leave…
What does this even mean?
I bet they think tweeting that drinking at work makes them sound connected to normal people. Not realising that most regular people know if they were to drink at work it would finish them in the job or end up badly otherwise so wouldn’t dream of it.
— Matthew Fulton (@kingbowski) April 27, 2026
The crack
Many like Nigel Farage made the following point:
The Greens are happy to legalise heroin and crack, but now we learn they think an afternoon pint is a step too far. Make it make sense.
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) April 26, 2026
This is actually pretty straightforward, so we can “make it make sense”.
The Green Party has discussed plans to legalise drugs, with various measures put in place to allow for people to take drugs as safely as possible. This would be an alternative to the status quo, in which drugs are easy to get hold of and serve as a tremendous source of income for criminal enterprise.
Should the Greens legalise drugs, that would not enforce a situation in which it’s legal to shoot up at work. In fact, for most people in the UK, it’s not even okay to drink at work.
This is the point she was making, Nigel.
Does it “make sense”, yet?
And of course Farage misrepresents what Hannah is saying.
"An afternoon pint" is different to drinking on a work day and then going to vote on decisions for millions of people.
I'd explain this to him but he's been running away from a debate with me for months and months! https://t.co/2hQyixRz1a
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 26, 2026
On it
Other furious politicians included Tory MP Ben-Obese-Jecty:
Hannah Spencer hasn’t spoken in Parliament once since her maiden speech six weeks ago.
A woman who claimed she’d already done more than some MPs will do in a year. She has no idea what “Westminster is really like”, she’s a NPC.
Meanwhile the Green Party want to legalise drugs. https://t.co/KTfiYgAnXM
— Ben Obese-Jecty MP (@BenObeseJecty) April 26, 2026
Because drugs *not* being legal really works in stopping drug abuse, right? Clown https://t.co/ahRlsX0ruA pic.twitter.com/a3Oo5hxXTy
— Mrs Gee
(@earthygirl011) April 26, 2026
The angry backlash from MPs shows why it’s essential to have more people like Spencer in politics. She’ll keep calling things out which seem obvious to the rest of us, and establishment MPs will keep showing their arses in their response.
Featured image via House of Commons
By Willem Moore
Today, I witnessed six activists appear in Westminster Magistrates’ Court following a series of arrests last Friday, related to direct action against an Elbit Systems drones factory in Leicester.
The factory is responsible for manufacturing key parts for UAV Tactical Systems, which make up 85% of all drones and land-based military equipment used in the ongoing assault on innocent people in Palestine.
Judge grants extra time request
At the start of the first hearing, we listened as lawyers requested additional time to consult with the activists. They contended that they weren’t given enough. The judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing for 2 pm.
We returned to the hearing and the activists entered the courtroom, seemingly calm and composed. Everyone walked in smiling, as loved ones took up seats in the public gallery.
‘Not guilty’ pleas
The six activists, all of whom are members of ‘People Against Genocide,’ pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all charges, which included criminal damage and burglary. A separate allegation was made against Pete Jones, who is accused of driving a van into the factory gates to gain access.
Elbit Systems has reportedly stated that the damage caused amounts to over GBP 250,000, at minimum, although this has yet to be publicly confirmed.
At the start, a representative attempted to convince the courts that the activists should not be granted bail, arguing that their past activism and social media posts indicated they might attempt similar actions again.
Judge Snow listened as each lawyer presented their arguments, including points on the activists’ personal circumstances, their community involvement, and caregiving responsibilities. The court also discussed the conditions for granting bail.
Four out of six activists granted bail
Judge Snow then granted bail to four of the six activists—Rhae Rivers, Hal Hockney, Megan Kennard, and Pete Jones—under strict conditions, which included wearing a tag and staying at least 200 meters away from any Elbit Systems factory or premises.
Unfortunately, he denied bail to the other two activists due to other circumstances and cases that we are not permitted to report on at the time of writing.
BREAKING: Four of the six action takers which occupied the roof and abseiled into Elbit's weapons factory in Leicester, have been released.
Two of them were remanded to prison, due to other outstanding charges. They shut Elbit down and halted the production of Israeli drones. pic.twitter.com/4PC6wASqrj
— The Aftershock (@The_Aftershock_) April 27, 2026
As the hearing concluded, the gallery erupted in cheers, celebrating their immense pride in the activists. Some supporters shed tears as they stood by their loved ones in the gallery.
After leaving the court, speeches were made urging continued direct action. The pressure on these systems cannot die down, and everyone must keep fighting to support those who cannot.
The next court date is set for 15th may 2026.
Featured image via Sip the System
Keir Starmer – a.k.a. Mr Transparency – has a new plan to ensure the UK enjoys a healthy and vibrant democracy:
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 26, 2026
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
While this plan could save Starmer from having to face an investigation, it certainly won’t make him look more honest in the eyes of the public.
Misleading, Starmer? Surely not?
In a piece titled “Keir Starmer plots escape from sleaze inquiry“, the Times have reported:
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the Commons, is expected to allow a debate and a vote on Tuesday on whether to refer Starmer to the privileges committee over claims he misled the Commons.
The Tories and other opposition parties have accused Starmer of misleading MPs by claiming that “due process” was followed in the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US and there was “no pressure whatsoever”.
It’s important to understand that critics originally accused Starmer of misleading parliament because he said Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting. We’d later learn Mandelson hadn’t passed vetting, with the PM claiming he didn’t know about this due to a series of complicated and hard-to-believe factors.
In the process of defending himself, Starmer would once again mislead parliament – this time by claiming there was no pressure put on civil servants. Starmer has since said there was pressure, but it was a different sort of pressure to the one everyone assumed he meant, so that’s all fine, actually:
Starmer: "There is a separate pressure which is: was there a pressure on him, essentially, to disregard the security vetting element and give clearance? [Robbins] was really clear in his mind that wasn’t pressure that was put on him"
Story: https://t.co/Uil0plUvfp — Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 25, 2026
Absurd
Back to the Times, they noted:
Downing Street had hoped that the Speaker would deny any request for a debate and vote on the question of his honesty. The Times has been told that Hoyle is likely to grant the request because the procedural bar for doing so is “relatively low”. Parliamentary rules state that complaints must not be “frivolous”.
At this point, most people can agree it’s not “frivolous”. The lies and cock ups are piling up, and if Labour aren’t going to give Starmer the boot, they at least need to get to the bottom of what the hell is going on with him.
The Times added:
Boris Johnson, the former Tory prime minister, was left with no choice but to wave through his referral to the privileges committee over the Downing Street parties scandal because of anger on his own benches. It ended Johnson’s career in frontline politics. Any attempt by Starmer to compel Labour MPs to shut down scrutiny of his conduct could risk a backlash.
This is what the now-PM was saying when Johnson was facing his own transparency scandal:
Since the Tories have failed to act in the national interest, Labour will.
We've put down a vote of no confidence in this discredited Prime Minister and his government. The Tories can’t let him cling on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
It would be intolerable for the country.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 12, 2022
It’s true that public care less about these sorts of scandals than they do about matters which directly affect them. The problem for Starmer is the public think he’s doing a dreadful job on those issues too.
Indefensible
Starmer’s minions were out and about defending their boss this morning. You’ll notice the minister doing the rounds wasn’t one of the big hitters:
Govt minister Emma Reynolds starts by saying its been categorically proven that Keir Starmer did not mislead parliament
Sophy Ridge points out: "He seemed to say Mandelson cleared all vetting when he didn't" "Well he didn't know.."
So he inadvertently mislead parliament then. pic.twitter.com/r7qu5BCONj
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 27, 2026
As we’ve covered, there are reports that the Cabinet are discussing plans to oust the PM, so it’s predictable that none of the most significant ministers are defending him.
The Mail’s Dan Hodges responded to Reynold’s appearance as follows:
Whether Starmer deliberately misled parliament over his claim Mandelson had been vetted is debatable. But that’s not the relevant offence. The clear offence is deliberately lying about whether pressure was brought to bear on civil servants, and misrepresenting Robbins testimony. And Emma Reynolds knows that.
Starmer is also being scrutinised over his handling of US spy firm Palantir. As we reported, the PM continued the trend of holding secret meetings with the firm established by the Tories:
Starmer has continued this pattern of secret meetings. A February 2025 Washington meeting between Starmer, Peter Mandelson, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp has no notes and preceded the £240 million December 2025 contract between the Ministry of Defence and Palantir.
Additionally:
Also central to this picture is Mandelson, whose lobbying firm Global Counsel worked for Palantir. It was Mandelson who introduced Starmer to Palantir CEO Alex Karp at that February 2025 Washington meeting, the one with no notes that preceded the £241 million MOD contract.
Hodges also referenced Starmer’s Palantir problem:
So here's an example. The Palintir lie. Darren Jones spent yesterday saying "it wasn't a meeting". Starmer is on the record last Monday saying "it was a routine meeting". Starmer's team in opposition would have shredded Boris on that. From the Tories? Tumbleweed.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) April 27, 2026
Once again, Starmer’s defence is that we can’t judge him on the things he says – only by the secret meanings his words have – meanings he doesn’t make clear until everyone gets upset with him.
Mr Transparency Starmer
The sleaze and lies are a problem for the PM because he promised the exact opposite in his pitch to become PM:
Keir Starmer promised a “transparency revolution” when he became Prime Minister. Instead we have the opposite. We have a government of cover ups, injunctions, broken promises, lies & blame shifting. This is the main reason why Labour are tanking in the polls. The trust has gone.
— James Melville
(@JamesMelville) April 27, 2026
Starmer might be able to cling on for a bit longer, but he’s clearly not the man in charge at this point.
Featured image via UK Parliament
By Willem Moore
Drax promotes itself as a sustainable energy company, yet they remain the UK’s biggest carbon polluter. The company stands accused of poisoning the Southern US communities where they source the majority of their wood pellet fuel. Apparently reluctant to be confronted with campaigners and US community representatives, Drax’s board will not appear in person at their upcoming annual meeting.
Greenwashing & environmental racism
Drax’s business model relies on sourcing wood from forests all over the world, turning it into pellets. These pellets are then shipped to the UK and burned in its Yorkshire power station. Is this clean, sustainable or renewable energy? Absolutely not. But by claiming that it is, Drax has enjoyed billions in financial support from the UK government. Last year alone, they received a record £999 million in these subsidies, which are funded by the UK public via our energy bills.
According to their own reports, burning wood pellets at Drax power station releases 14,000,000 tonnes of CO2 each year – that’s more than the UK’s six largest gas power stations combined. But both Drax and the UK government use an unscientific, repeatedly debunked idea to claim these emissions don’t count towards their climate impact. Unfortunately for Drax, and for all of us alive on this planet, their creative carbon accounting won’t fool the atmosphere.
The problems with Drax’s operation start long before the pellets are burned in the UK. Drax have been repeatedly exposed for making misleading sustainability claims about the wood they source. They also routinely violate air quality laws in the areas surrounding their US pellet mills.
These mills are often built in low-income, majority-Black communities, such as Gloster, Mississippi. Residents there have organised to sue Drax, reporting devastating health impacts as a direct result of the company’s pellet production.
Katherine Egland is an NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) director who has witnessed the “misery” caused in places like Gloster, carried out in the name of supposedly green energy for the UK. Speaking about the public funding that continues to flow to Drax, Egland told an Unearthed investigation in 2022:
My message to the UK government is that you are subsidising environmental racism.
Avoiding accountability
It’s no surprise that Drax’s annual shareholder meetings (AGMs) have been the target of protests. They are picketed by various environmental and social justice campaign groups. At the past three AGMs, protestors from ‘Axe Drax’ have interrupted the opening speeches, leading to activists being promptly, sometimes forcibly, removed by security guards.
Perhaps even more uncomfortable for the board than these disruptive protests has been the presence of Egland and Gloster community member Dr Krystal Martin. They travel to the meeting from Mississippi each year to represent the concerns of the people living – or attempting to live – in the pellet mill’s shadow. But last year, Martin says they were “not allowed to speak” after the board abandoned the meeting early. Egland and Martin see this decision as part of a pattern of:
intentional and deliberate attempts to silence our voices.
In their announcement of this year’s AGM, Drax’s chairperson explained that the board would not be attending in person. They stated:
we are evolving our AGM format in the interests of the safety and security of attendees and participants.
To the communities forced to breathe toxic air around Drax’s plants, the suggestion that nonviolent protests have made the meeting unsafe for executives must be especially galling. In a letter to CEO Will Gardiner, requesting an explanation for his decision not to attend the London AGM, Egland writes:
If Drax has nothing to hide, why not face us directly?
Merry Dickinson from the Stop Burning Trees Coalition has her suspicions as to why. She says:
From their lying executives down to their deadly business practices in the US and Canada, Drax is a disaster. Drax knows this, and that’s why they’re once again running from the truth. It’s nothing short of pathetic.
Intimidation tactics
Meanwhile, in the days leading up to the AGM, young people supposedly associated with Axe Drax have had North Yorkshire Police knock on their doors for a ‘friendly chat’. According to the activists, they were asked whether they plan to attend the upcoming meeting or intend to organise against it.
This is not the first time the police have pre-emptively intervened on Drax’s behalf. Over 1000 police officers were reportedly involved in a £3 million operation that shut down a peaceful protest camp before it could happen. Following the arrest of 22 activists, the case against those charged was thrown out in September due to lack of evidence.
Featured image via Kirk Pritchard
By Abi Perrin
DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 27
FREE KICKS: After days of headlines about exorbitant costs to get to the World Cup, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday unveiled a series of free watch parties in each borough.
The public events are a sign that the Democrats, who appeared together at Staten Island University Hospital Community Park, are trying to make the tournament affordable for fans who can’t afford to watch in person.
“Every fan should be able to watch the greatest tournament on earth without dipping into their savings,” said Mamdani, who attended the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
Several of the events, dotted around the city, will have daily programming, even when matches aren’t being played.
Hochul has worried the high fares New Jersey Transit is charging to get fans to matches at MetLife Stadium will throw “cold water” on the tournament. She said that while MetLife will only fit 80,000 people, “this moment belongs to millions of New Yorkers.”
“If you can’t get to the World Cup, the World Cup is coming to you,” she said.
The announcement comes amid heightened security concerns because of several overlapping events, including a naval review President Donald Trump is likely to attend on July 4.
At the press conference, Mamdani used a question about security concerns to denounce this weekend’s attempted attack at the White House Correspondents Dinner, saying there’s “no room for this kind of political violence.”
“What we saw at the press correspondents dinner is one part of a very troubling reality across this country, which is how political violence has become part of our politics,” he said. “It is something that we are taking into consideration whenever we are planning anything in our city.”
The World Cup events took years of planning. Hochul has also announced other events upstate. And New Jersey is rolling out events in each of its 21 counties.
Mamdani teased further events in the city, including Department of Transportation “watch parties,” despite a moratorium on certain public events in parks that came at the request of the NYPD amid staffing concerns. — Ry Rivard
From the Capitol
PIED-À-PUSH: Hochul adopted some populist rhetoric with a video released today pitching her pied-à-terre tax plan as one that impacts “billionaires and oligarchs.”
The language is striking for a governor who has opposed broader tax hikes like raising rates on income for rich New Yorkers and large corporations.
Yet Hochul is contending with sustained left-flank pressure to raise those taxes in the state budget, which is now nearly a month late.
The governor’s proposal, which would apply an annual surcharge on non-primary New York City residences worth $5 million and more, is expected to generate some $500 million. The money would help close a $5.4 billion city budget gap.
In her explainer video, Hochul asserts the surcharge would affect investors who “are not paying some of the same taxes as the people who live here year round.” It’s worth noting, though, that these owners are paying city property taxes.
Business leaders, including the Real Estate Board of New York and the Partnership for New York City, are concerned that the tax would hinder investment in the city. — Nick Reisman
SEE MY VEST: State Capitol security personnel have started wearing tactical vests — a move the State Police said was done as “a proactive safety measure.”
State Police spokesperson Beau Duffy told Playbook on Monday that the introduction of ballistic vest carriers, which are designed to hold armor plates, at the Capitol complex isn’t connected to a specific incident or threat.
The change comes as the state Capitol and surrounding state office buildings have tightened security in recent months, which includes a visible State Police presence at entrances. — Nick Reisman
PAY DELAY PERK: A new bill would let state legislators stop paying their personal utility bills whenever there’s a late budget.
The measure from Assemblymember Larinda Hooks would allow state workers and “elected officials” whose checks are delayed due to a delinquent spending plan to immediately stop paying their utility and internet bills. Under the legislation, they would not have to resume payments until two months after the budget is passed.
Practically every state employee has been paid since lawmakers missed the March 31 budget deadline — that’s why members have passed seven budget extenders.
The one exception? State legislators, who are statutorily barred from collecting checks until the oft-tardy spending plan is finalized.
“It’s clear who the main beneficiaries of this bill are,” Assembly Minority Leader Ed Ra said. “There hasn’t been a situation in recent memory where state employees had paychecks withheld as a result of a late budget.”
Hooks’ office did not return a request for comment.
Senate Finance Chair Tom O’Mara characterized the bill as “one of the most ridiculous ideas I’ve ever heard.”
“These legislators that are worried about not paying their utility bill while the budget’s late should be worried about lowering peoples’ utility bills,” O’Mara said. “Everything we do around here makes them more expensive.” — Bill Mahoney
DOH STEPS UP: As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scales back its testing for pathogens, the state Department of Health said today it’s stepping in to fill the gap. The state’s Wadsworth Center will take on testing paused by the CDC, a role it’s already been filling for 23 states that lack the resources to test pathogens.
The state lab announced that it’s now working with the CDC on testing for viruses such as influenza, pox and rabies. The Health Department noted that a pause in testing by the CDC has created a public health risk across the country, particularly for states that don’t have the necessary resources for robust testing. The CDC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The New York State Department of Health’s Wadsworth Center stands at the forefront of innovation, protecting the health of New Yorkers and communities far beyond the State’s borders,” State Health Commissioner James McDonald said in a statement. “Under the leadership of Governor Hochul, New York State continues to lead in disease surveillance – work that is critical to responding effectively to public health threats.”
Read more here in POLITICO Pro from Katelyn Cordero.
FROM CITY HALL
BREAKING RANKS: A key member of the City Council Progressive Caucus has quietly resigned from the bloc, a departure that comes amid a wider rift between the chamber’s lefties and Council Speaker Julie Menin.
Council Member Nantasha Williams, who serves as the body’s deputy speaker and is part of Menin’s leadership team, stepped down from the Progressive Caucus last week, a spokesperson told Playbook. The spokesperson suggested serving on the caucus is incompatible with Williams’ leadership responsibilities, given she has “shifted to supporting priorities across the full Council alongside the speaker.”
In a statement, Williams confirmed she left “to focus on my broader leadership role in the Council.” Despite departing, she said she remains committed to the “values” of the caucus.
“I look forward to continuing to partner with colleagues to advance shared priorities for New Yorkers,” said Williams, who has served as deputy speaker since Menin tapped her for the post in January.
Council Members Sandy Nurse and Tiffany Cabán, the Progressive Caucus’ co-chairs, lauded Williams for her “years of service within our caucus.”
“Her decision to step back due to the new structural expectations that come alongside her role within Council leadership is not an easy one, but it is understandable,” they said. “We will continue to advocate for budget justice and the protection of civil liberties, which are our shared priorities. We hope to do so in continued partnership with our deputy speaker.”
Williams’ exit leaves the Progressive Caucus with 23 members, most of whom are aligned with Mamdani. That puts the caucus just shy of a majority in the 51-member Council.
Menin, a more moderate Democrat, has increasingly embraced her role as a foil to Mamdani, clashing with him over how to address the city’s budget deficit and other policy matters.
Given their alignment with Mamdani, Progressive Caucus members have also had more frequent clashes lately with Menin.
A recent example: Last week, Progressive Caucus leaders praised Mamdani for vetoing a bill that would permit the NYPD to set up buffer zones outside educational facilities during protests.
By contrast, Menin, a key supporter of the bill, condemned the veto and signaled she might try to whip votes to override Mamdani to force the legislation into law. Despite still being a Progressive Caucus member at the time, Williams voted for the school buffer zone bill when it first passed the Council in late March.
In an X post on Friday, Cabán, the caucus co-chair, encouraged her colleagues to vote against any override attempt by Menin.
“I trust that my colleagues will sustain this veto so that we can protect our civil liberties and work together to address the root causes of hate violence,” Cabán wrote. Menin would almost certainly need the support of a handful of Progressive Caucus members to pull off a successful override of the mayor’s veto of the protest-related bill. — Chris Sommerfeldt
SUCCESS HEADS TO SUNSHINE STATE: New York City’s largest charter network announced Monday that it will open five elementary schools in Miami next year, marking its first expansion outside of New York.
Success Academy will co-locate with five schools across Miami-Dade County, specifically Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High School, Homestead Senior High School, Miami Jackson Senior High School, North Miami Senior High School and Westland Hialeah Senior High School.
The schools are slated to open during the 2027-28 school year, serving 1,500 students in kindergarten through first grade, according to a Success spokesperson. They will add an additional grade each year.
“Success Academy is excited to bring our proven, high-quality educational model to Miami’s families,” Eva Moskowitz, Success founder and CEO, said in a statement. “We look forward to serving these communities, partnering with parents and delivering on the promise of an exceptional education for every child.” — Madina Touré
IN OTHER NEWS
— ALL BETS ARE OFF: Attorney General Letitia James sued cryptocurrency exchanges that allow users to trade, joining the fight over federal and state regulations for prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket. (Gothamist)
— THAT’S NOT FAIR: The Montgomery County fair promoted a post by Republican congressional candidate Anthony Constantino, whose company has sponsored the fair, urging people to sign nominating petitions to get him on the ballot. (Times Union)
— ON SECOND THOUGHT: New York City’s public school system announced it was pulling controversial plans to open an AI-focused high school and to relocate three middle schools following community backlash. (POLITICO Pro)
Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.
Lord Robertson — former NATO chief and Blair-era defence minister — is supporting the “need” for welfare cuts to boost defence spending, according to legacy media.
This has been happening for three consecutive weeks, and throughout that time legacy media have ignored Robertson’s long-standing affiliation with ‘defence’ firms and global oil giants.
You can read our coverage here and here. For three weeks straight the Canary has been filling in the blanks left by the chummy old boys’ club of the British press — serving in the interests of politics and big industry.
We’re a bit tired of it, but let’s go again…
Tight budgets and looming threats?
Lord Robertson appeared in front of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on 27 April. The committee was talking about ‘societal resilience’.
ITV published a piece on the evening of 27 April. The article quoted Robertson saying:
It would be horrible to think it would take an actual crisis, an actual attack on the United Kingdom before we woke up to the kind of threats that are facing us.
The problem is how to pay for it when budgets are so tight, and the public expects a certain level of spending on other priorities. This is the ‘guns versus butter’ argument, and Robertson is scathing about it.
The peer said:
There will be no butter if we don’t have guns. If you’ve got a war, it costs a lot of money. We finished paying for the Second World War in 2016.
You know that’s a war that we won… so it’s a much more expensive proposition than deterrence is.
And he told the panel:
It may well be that other things are preoccupying the mind of the prime minister and the secretary of state for defence, and that is postponing it, but it’s regrettable nonetheless.
If you read this piece as an interested citizen you might think Robertson is a well-meaning expert sharing his professional opinion. Maybe that is what he is doing… But if the author cited Robertson’s decades-long paid role at a major US defence consultancy, that might change how you looked at his comments, right?
Exactly.
Vested interests in war
Back in April, the Canary dug into the corporate ties of several key figures advocating for welfare cuts to fund war — Robertson included. At the time, Lord Robertson said:
There is a corrosive complacency today in Britain’s political leadership. Lip service is paid to the risks, the threats, the bright red signals of danger – but even a promised national conversation about defence can’t be started.
His arms industry links went unmentioned…
Then on the week of 23 April, the Guardian cited new comments from Robertson — without mentioning his arms trade links. That time had Robertson used a think-tank event to argue for:
lifting defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 in line with a NATO target.
On 27 April, ITV did the same…
For the record (again), the Cohen Group defence consultancy website describes Robertson’s role with them as a senior counsellor. He’s been there since 2004…
The Cohen Group even brag on their website about brokering big deals between a US war firm and an unnamed European country:
A leading US-based global aerospace and defense firm approached The Cohen Group (TCG) for assistance in competing for a multi-billion contract in Europe.
But there is more…
Remunerated by arm firms
Robertson’s registered interests as a peer indicate he has had “remunerated employment” with — and has reportedly been paid by — various unnamed firms. This includes his role as a:
Senior Adviser on geo-political and geo-strategic issues to 5654 & Company (consultancy founded to help companies act to earn reputation) (suspended 16 July 2024).
The Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists says ‘5654 & Co’ worked with arms firms Raytheon and Melrose PLC between January and March 2023.
The register also says Robertson has “shareholdings” with Weir Group PLC – an engineering firm with major global mining interests in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe. Robertson is also reportedly an advisor to British Petroleum (BP).
We don’t know if this is an editorial failure or an example of vested interests shaping coverage. We hope in good faith it is the former. Nevertheless, important public interest details keep being left out of major stories.
We reckon if a wealthy politician with arms links is lobbying for the less well-off to pay for weapons, that should be reported. But that’s just us…
Feature image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
On Monday 27 April, the former Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls interviewed Green Party leader Zack Polanski. The reason a former shadow chancellor conducted this interview is because the UK has a revolving door between establishment politics and the establishment media.
As Polanski is one of few politicians who will point this out, the appearance ended up being pretty embarrassing for Balls:
So #GMB spent their entire interview with @ZackPolanski asking him about policies that aren't Green party policy & aren't in the manifesto for Mays elections, along with a story from the scum about Zack before he was a politician
Zack: "This is why people hate the media" — Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 27, 2026
pic.twitter.com/nuphPCF8fY
Balls up thanks to Polanski
As Saul Staniforth noted, Ed Balls was particularly hung up on policies which aren’t Green Party policies. In one clip, a smirking Balls said:
It looks like you’re doing a bit of a Nigel Farage here, Mr. Polanski. Last year, Reform did very well in the Runcorn-Helsby by-election and then started ditching their tax policies. You did very well in the Gorton and Denton by-election a couple of months ago, and now you are telling us you’re going to be ditching some of your longstanding Green policies.
Polanski responded:
We’re not actually ditching any policies – the story isn’t true.
If it’s not true, how does he explain Balls’s self-assured smirk?
Polanski continued:
Our members vote on our policies and then we decide the manifesto that we put towards the public.
Clutching several sheets of A4 paper, Balls hit back:
So you told Politico that you were looking to revise… your party’s democratise [sic] and at times chaotic and unwieldy system which lets members set the policy agenda. So I assume you wanted to do that in order that you could change the policy.
Polanski explained:
No, I don’t want to change the policies. I want a more democratic system because Green Party members decide Green Party policy. And at the moment we have 226,000 members and it’s growing. And so we need to look at more agile systems.
Balls later said:
A Green Party official says right now it’s like we’ve got a list of policies for the Daily Mail to ring us up about.
Balls was smirking again. Because he’s a Labour guy, he probably doesn’t understand that a left-wing politician is able to hold positions which are at odds with the right-wing gutter press.
The Green Party leader responded:
I don’t care what the Daily Mail ringers up about I want to challenge more millionaires and billionaires in this country so of course the Daily Mail won’t like that
Labour’s man
In another section, Polanski highlighted that Balls is a beneficiary of the revolving door:
Well done to @ZackPolanski for calling out the fact he was being interviewed by a former Lab minister & husband of the current foreign secretary!
Since the start of this year #GMB is produced by @itvnews. How can they think this is tenable?
Oh & Ed took it in good grace (not) pic.twitter.com/SJgDBAzkif
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 27, 2026
Polanski said:
Do you know what I’m enjoying? The fact that a Labour politician who’s married to a senior Labour minister is allowed to ask questions of a leader of the Green Party. This is not our manifesto and what you’re doing is an entire stitch up, and people will see it for this.
Balls’s wife is Yvette Cooper, by the way – the current foreign secretary. We assume she didn’t take his name because she didn’t want to be called ‘Yvette Balls’. Honestly, he probably should have taken her name.
Mr Balls responded by dramatically asking:
Are you accusing me of being a Labour politician?
He also said:
Yeah. Look, unfortunately, Mr. Polanski, I lost my seat in 2015 and I’ve not been a Labour politician for 10 years.
Balls clearly thought this was very clever, but it won’t wash with anyone who has more than two brain cells.
It’s ok for a tv presenter to support one or another political party, although in Balls’ case the links are particularly deep.
What’s not ok is being totally unable to cope with that being pointed out, losing your cool entirely, & claiming it somehow isn’t true?! — Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) April 27, 2026
https://t.co/LSktRPb6Ng
People do hate the media
Balls was once a Labour politician who sat as an MP; now he’s a Labour politician who sits as a daytime TV host. In both situations, he used his position to pursue political aims. That’s literally what he was doing in his interview with Polanski.
This everyday dishonesty is why people hate politicians and media figures, and as someone who’s functionally both, Balls deserves a double dollop of your disrespect – as Polanski showed.
Featured image via GMB
By Willem Moore
Brent at $100? Hormuz Risk, AI rally and a fragile US market: Andrew Freris flags two-year energy shock cycle
Anthropic’s Pre-IPO Valuation Hits $1 Trillion on Jupiter
Star Trek’s Cheapest Episode Accidentally Required Expensive Special Effects
Manchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Tech13 hours agoRegister Renaming | Hackaday
-
Crypto World2 days agoHyperliquid $HYPE Rally Builds Momentum as AI Sector Enters Prove-It Phase
-
Politics5 days agoMaking troops accountable for war crimes threatens US alliance, ex-SAS colonel warns
-
Politics5 days agoDisabled people challenge government SEND proposals over segregation concerns
-
Business4 days agoPatterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (PTEN) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
-
Business6 days agoRolls-Royce Voted UK’s Most Iconic Trade Mark as IPO Register Hits 150
-
Crypto World7 days agoFive Value Stocks with Recovery Potential in 2026: PayPal (PYPL), Nike (NKE), and More
-
Sports2 days agoIPL 2026: Ruturaj Gaikwad registers slowest fifty of the season, enters all-time unwanted list | Cricket News
-
Politics6 days agoStarmer handler McSweeney to be dragged from shadows by Foreign Affairs Committee
-
Politics6 days agoZack Polanski responds to home secretary’s taser threat
-
Politics9 hours agoDrax board avoid their own AGM, accused of greenwashing & environmental racism
-
Politics6 days ago
Wings Over Scotland | How To Get Away With Crimes
-
Crypto World6 days agoNew York sues Coinbase, Gemini over prediction market offerings
-
Entertainment7 days ago
Sydney Sweeney cameo cut from “The Devil Wears Prada 2”, source explains why (exclusive)
-
Crypto World6 days agoCrypto’s great hope in Senate’s Clarity Act still has a path to survive tight calendar
-
Business6 days agoHCL Tech share price tank over 9% after weak Q4. JPMorgan, HSBC & 3 others cut target price
-
Fashion7 days agoKilkenny Design New Beauty Arrivals for Spring 2026
-
Politics5 days ago‘Iran is still a nuclear threat’
-
Sports5 days agoTim Bradley names the current best in the world: “Better than Inoue and Usyk”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login