On Wednesday 13 May, the front page of the Telegraph declared the following:

Streeting to confront Starmer

Health Secretary will confront PM over plan ‘to get us out of this mess’ as four ministers resign and list of rebel MPs grows
@Tony_Diver
https://t.co/FluHOSiL2j@Telegraph #frontpagestoday #UK pic.twitter.com/N1SbQV6rlS

— 𝙵𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚝 𝙿𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜 𝚃𝚘𝚍𝚊𝚢 (@ukpapers) May 13, 2026

Streeting has now arrived at Downing Street to confront Starmer.

Streeting has also left Downing Street.

In total, he was there for just sixteen minutes.

16-minute showdown

The following is a video of Streeting arriving at Downing Street:

WATCH: Wes Streeting arrives in No 10 for his meeting with Keir Starmer on the PM’s future pic.twitter.com/0RUv5OagHQ

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) May 13, 2026

And this is him leaving:

NEW: Wes Streeting leaves Downing Street after just *16 minutes* with PM.
pic.twitter.com/JqgMp5L0ZJ

— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) May 13, 2026

As reported by the Telegraph:

Mr Streeting will ask Sir Keir how he plans to resolve the “turbulence” around his leadership and get Labour out of a “mess”, after the party lost more than 1,000 seats and the control of several English councils to Reform UK.

The fact that Streeting was only there for 16 minutes suggests one of two possible outcomes:

• Starmer has devised a plan so cunningly simple it took mere minutes to assure Streeting all is well.
• Starmer refused to say much of anything.

There’s good reason to think it’s the latter. As Politics UK reported on 12 May:

UPDATE: It's understood Starmer told Cabinet Ministers to raise any concerns with him privately rather than during the meeting

However, it's claimed he then refused to meet them individually

Wes Streeting was among the last to leave No 10 well after other Cabinet members

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) May 12, 2026

Advertisement

Following the Streeting showdown, the Times’ Steven Swinford wrote:

The briefings about the Streeting and Starmer meeting being ‘just two blokes having a coffee’ this morning are bizarre

He added:

We know the meeting lasted just *16* minutes. That is barely enough time for a proper cup of coffee

All of this points in one direction. It certainly doesn’t point to a convivial cup of coffee

Advertisement

We’ll see how things pan out – Team Streeting is going to ground today – but the whole thing is a tinderbox

Streeting is supposedly not going to mount a challenge to Starmer today because the King’s Speech is happening, as Dan Hodges reported:

Where we are:

* Wes Streeting will make no move today because of King’s Speech

Advertisement

* I’m told at least 3 cabinet ministers attempted to speak to Keir Starmer after cabinet, but were rebuffed

* MPs amazed at the bullish messages coming from No.10. “They’re goading the PLP” one says

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 13, 2026

The questions is whether he’ll ever launch a challenge, with his support allegedly having evaporated:

BREAKING: An ally of Wes Streeting – who came out publicly to call for Starmer to go – says Streeting has “blown it.” They say he has lost support today from MPs who might have backed him and that they now don’t think he has the numbers to get on the ballot. https://t.co/PSx2ent1AQ

— Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) May 12, 2026

Given that Streeting is a much-hated privatisation fetishist with ties to Peter Mandelson, it’s unclear why he thinks anyone should see him as an alternative to Starmer.

Dwindling support

Starmer does have some supporters left. As Skwawkbox reported on 12 May, however, he has fewer than he claims. Specifically, three of the MPs who supposedly signed a letter of support for the PM claim not to have signed it:

Surprised to see my name on this list when I haven’t either signed any letter supporting the PM or called for the PM to go??

Not very courteous of colleagues to put names down without their approval https://t.co/2TofoVdfKb

Advertisement

— Rupa Huq MP (@RupaHuq) May 12, 2026

In terms of those opposing the PM, James Wright wrote on 12 May:

The Tribune Group of more than 100 Labour MPs have called for the prime minister to steer the party back to the left. Meanwhile, 81 MPs have demanded he stand down after Labour came third in the local elections when it comes to national vote share.

The number of MPs calling for Starmer to go has grown since then too:

"Something has got to give."

With over 90 MPs calling for Keir Starmer to resign, the prime minister is "still dug in", says Times Radio presenter John Pienaar. pic.twitter.com/oEdWYOqOXz

— Times Radio (@TimesRadio) May 12, 2026

What happens next?

Starmer is stubbornly ignoring the fact that he’s lost the faith of the British public and his own party. Quite how long he can get away with this for we don’t know, but it’s longer than 16 minutes.

Featured image via The Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

King Charles has laid out the government’s plans for the next parliamentary session in a significant moment within the Westminster’s calendar.

The occasion is laden with pomp and pageantry but it has political weight, too, especially as Keir Starmer’s government is facing a moment of jeopardy.

Here’s what you need to know.

What Is The King’s Speech?

Advertisement

The King’s Speech marks the State Opening of the second session of parliament after Labour’s victory in 2024.

Parliamentary sessions divide up each parliament and the government tends to announce a new one roughly every two years.

It’s a formal occasion which gives the government a chance to reset its priorities.

As the head of state, the monarch reads out the government’s agenda in the House of Lords.

Advertisement

He has no say in its contents but his role is symbolic of the sovereign’s position in the constitution.

No substantive parliamentary business can take place in the House of Commons or Lords until after the speech.

MPs will then start a debate the speech’s contents following comments from the leader of the opposition, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.

The Lords also hold a general, short conversation about the contents of the King’s Speech though they usually do not vote on the contents.

Advertisement

The debate tends to last over several sitting days and each day focuses on a theme before the MPs vote on its contents.

It is possible for the speech to be amended, though that is quite unusual.

It would be deeply embarrassing if MPs were to vote it down, implying the Commons no longer has confidence in the government,

The last time that happened was in 1924, when Stanley Baldwin’s minority government was defeated and he had to resign as prime minister.

Advertisement

What Was In The Speech?

The King said the government would tackle antisemitism, raise living standards and improve trade relations in the next parliamentary session.

Improving trade relations is “vital”, the King said, and ministers will introduce legislation to take advantage of new opportunities – including a bill to strengthen ties with the EU.

The government will also protect “the energy, defence and economic security” of the UK for “the long-term” amid the ongoing conflict in Middle East and Ukraine war.

Advertisement

Bills to back British businesses – including help to tackle late payments and reduce the “burden of unnecessary regulation” – are also scheduled for this parliamentary session.

Ministers will “defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference under our common flag”, too.

The government will encourage airport expansion, hasten road building, and deliver a “fair deal” for the north of England through the Northern Powerhouse Rail, while also safeguarding domestic production of steel.

The government vowed to continue investing in apprenticeships as well and will push ahead with its controversial plans to launch digital ID plans.

Advertisement

After the scandal around ex-Labour peer Peter Mandelson and his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the government plans to bring forward a “duty of candour” for public servants – and make it possible to strip Lords of their peerages.

Remediation for people living with unsafe cladding will also be sped up.

On the international stage, foreign policy will be based on “calm assessment of national interest” and offering “unflinching support for Ukraine”.

The government also promised to uphold its “unbreakable commitment” to Nato.

Advertisement

Ministers will invest in social housing and reform leaseholds, along with laws to tackle state threats, extreme violence and cyber attacks.

Charles said clean energy will be scaled up amid a “new era of British nuclear energy generation” in a bid to shore up UK’s energy security.

The King said the UK will be a “leading advocate” on social justice issues, too, including climate change and the rights of women and girls.

Why Is This A Particularly Tense Moment For The Government?

Starmer’s premiership is hanging by a thread following Labour’s catastrophic losses in last week’s elections in England, Wales and Scotland.

Advertisement

Buckingham Palace allegedly double-checked with Downing Street officials that the speech is still going ahead this week as the government looked like it was about to fall on Tuesday.

More than 80 Labour MPs called for the PM to resign amid mounting fury over the government’s direction.

Four ministers and four ministerial aides have also quit and urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure from No.10.

But the prime minister is holding firm, insisting he will not walk away from government.

Advertisement

None of his cabinet ministers have yet resigned meaning the government can limp on, despite the mass discontent.

All eyes are on health secretary Wes Streeting, who has aspirations to be the next PM but is yet to directly challenge the PM.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

This week, former Reform UK deputy leader, Ben Habib, accused Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson of colluding to rig the 2019 election.

Big allegations here https://t.co/0GXwyEIg9y

— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) May 12, 2026

As we’ll get into, the accusation he made isn’t quite the one which is being shared above. Habib still made a very serious allegation, however, so it’s unsurprising that Nigel Farage has now responded.

Farage election scandal: Who and what is involved?

We assume that readers are familiar with Nigel Farage and former prime minister, Boris Johnson. You may be less familiar with the donor Christopher Harborne and the accuser, Ben Habib.

Harborne recently attracted attention because we learned he gave Farage a £5 million ‘gift’ before the 2024 general election. This proved controversial because Farage didn’t declare the gift.

He’s very rattled about this and rightly so. It’s a scandal. https://t.co/5kd4PXuz7G

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) May 9, 2026

This is what the Canary reported on 6 March:

Back in May, Farage told the Las Vegas Bitcoin Conference that his party would launch a “crypto revolution”. On the same day, Reform announced that it would start accepting donations in crypto.

Then, in the very next financial quarter, Harborne’s major £9 million donation to Reform rolled in on 1 August. It was the largest ever gift from a private individual to a political party.

Advertisement

At the time, the Canary highlighted that Harborne also donated millions to the Brexit Party in 2019, as well as to the Conservatives between 2001 and 2022. While Harborne is British, he’s now based in Thailand.

Meanwhile, Habib left Reform UK to establish Advance UK. He’s stated that his problem with Reform was Farage and how he runs the party.

Advance UK is a democratic movement. Members endorse our mission, not the other way around. No censorship. No cronyism. Just serious, open politics. pic.twitter.com/lItBkNsKBz

— Ben Habib (@BackBrexitBen) August 9, 2025

Advertisement

Habib: ‘This is the first time I’ve said this’

In the video at the top, Habib says:

I have never said this publicly before, but now that we’ve discovered this is the first time I’ve said this, Paul, but now that we’ve discovered five million quid went to Farage in 2024, I am obliged to disclose the million quid which I believe went to Farage in late 2022 as well. And that smacks to me of a deal.

The 2019 general election was sewn up between Nigel Farage, Christopher Harborne and Boris Johnson. And it was a monetary deal. That’s how I see it.

Habib also said:

Now, Harborne had always told me that he wanted Brexit, he believed in Brexit, and it was an admirable thing that the Brexit Party was doing to fight for Brexit, and that’s why he donated, I think he donated £14 million in total to the Brexit Party. Without Christopher Harborne, there was no Brexit Party.

But you’ll also remember, and viewers will remember, that suddenly, in the general election of 2019, Farage stood down 317 Brexit Party candidates against the Tory party across the country. Every single Tory MP had no Brexit Party opposition. He killed the Brexit Party’s prospects in that general election and he ensured a Boris Johnson government in one move like that.

And the argument that Farage made in 2019 was, if I don’t do that, we might get Corbyn, there’ll be a second referendum, and we might lose Brexit. And I bought that argument. But that argument failed to hold water when Farage refused to bring pressure on Boris Johnson to get a proper Brexit.

He just left the battlefield at that point. We all knew the withdrawal agreement was crap. We all knew that Boris Johnson was hopeless at the whole thing. And Farage swanned off.

The financial details

People have suggested Habib claimed Harborne paid Farage and Johnson £1 million apiece to rig the election. This presumably must mean the 2019 election as it was the only election in which Farage and Johnson opposed one another as leaders of political parties. This is somewhat at odds with the allegations Habib made in the clip, which is that Harborne:

• Paid Farage £1m in 2022
• Paid Johnson in £1m in 2023
• Had a “monetary deal” in 2019 to ‘sew up’ the election

In other words, be careful when repeating Habib’s allegations to avoid inviting legal action yourself. Either way, Habib has indeed suggested money changed hands to influence the outcome of the 2019 election. He just hasn’t attached a figure to it.

Regardless of the specifics, Farage had responded:

My lawyers have formally written to Ben Habib.

They demanded an immediate apology and public retraction for the baseless allegations he made today.

I do not take legal action often. But I will not accept slander & politically motivated smears after winning a national election.

In the video at the top, Habib was confident Farage wouldn’t take legal action.

He said:

Now, I have said a number of things just now to you, Paul, which would end with me being, which should end with me being on the end of legal action from Christopher Harborne and Nigel Farage, if what I’ve said is wrong. They will not sue me because what I’m telling you is the truth.

We’re now waiting to see if Farage follows through or it all gets quietly dropped.

Big money

Even if Habib’s 2019 election claims don’t bear out, we know a foreign-based crypto-billionaire has donated millions to Farage and his political parties. People are free to believe that he’s doing so out of the goodness of his heart, but we’re not convinced anyone with that much money has that much heart.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

This wasn’t just an election. It was a verdict.

The dust has perfectly settled on last week’s local elections, and what a glorious, blood-soaked carnival of neoliberal failure it was.

Labour eviscerated

The Labour Party, under the watchful, slightly constipated gaze of Keir Starmer, has been eviscerated.

More than 1,400 councillors are gone and control of dozens of councils evaporated like the morning mist over a fracked countryside.

In the north, heartlands that once beat with the red pulse of organised labour turned to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in numbers that should terrify every suit in Westminster.

The Greens picked up hundreds of seats too, because when your government offers nothing but warm words and cold cuts to the working class, people will grasp at any alternative.

I won’t pretend the Greens are the pure saviours of the left, though their gains are a bright spot. But at least they are offering something closer to genuine alternatives in places like Lewisham and Hackney.

All branding, no kick

So, let’s start with the man at the top. Keir Starmer, the once-great socialist hope who turned out to be the political equivalent of decaffeinated coffee – all of the branding but none of the kick.

The red wall was supposed to be rebuilt, brick by brick, with hope and public investment. Instead, we’ve had two years of Starmerism, which is no more than a beige ideology that blends Tory austerity with a smug human rights lawyer’s lecture on fiscal responsibility.

Labour were hammered because NHS waiting lists are still a national disgrace. The housing crisis is worsening and wages stagnate while fat cat energy bosses laugh all the way to their offshore accounts.

And don’t get me started on the deeply flawed migration policy that somehow manages to be both inhumane enough to alienate the left and ineffective enough to hand Reform UK a stick to poke them with.

And what of Keir Starmer’s response to the epic battering?

He “took responsibility” in that trademarked way of his – the one where he sounds like a headmaster explaining why the school trip was cancelled due to fiscal restraints.

More managerial piffle

There has been no resignation. No leadership contest, yet. Just more of the same managerial piffle about delivering change, as if the electorate didn’t notice that his idea of change is rebranding the same old capitulation to markets, donors, and focus groups.

The man ran on a platform of not being the Tories, and then governed like their ever-so-slightly more competent cousin who still sends Christmas cards to the CBI.

Here was a party that purged its left-wing with the ruthless efficiency of a Stalinist show trial, only to discover that, without actual socialism, they had nothing to offer the people who clean their offices, drive their Ubers, and staff their hospitals.

The purge of the Corbynites was supposed to make Labour electable. Turns out it made them forgettable. Working-class voters didn’t abandon Labour because it was too left-wing; they abandoned Labour because it abandoned them.

Peacocking Farage

Meanwhile, in comes Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, strutting like a peacock that’s just discovered TikTok.

Farage’s merry band of racist populists gained over 1,400 seats themselves, snatching councils from Labour in places like Barnsley, Bradford, and Sunderland.

Be in no doubt, Reform is not the answer. They’re the question, asked in the most obnoxious accent possible. Their politics is a toxic cocktail of anti-immigrant scapegoating, culture-war drivel, and promises to cut taxes for the rich while magically fixing public services.

Farage offers the political version of those miracle weight-loss pills. Swallow this, blame the foreigners and the tofu-eating wokesters, and everything will be fine.

It won’t work. It never does.

Rage channelled into nativism

Not all Reform voters in these elections were secret fascists cackling over a pint. Many were angry, decent people watching their communities crumble under decades of neglect – first New Labour’s warmongering and PFI scams, then Tory austerity, then Starmer’s continuation of the same failed ideological vandalism.

Reform channels that rage into nativism because it’s easier than admitting the real enemy is a capitalist system. Isn’t it funny how they continuously rail against “elites” while their financial backers include the same hedge-fund types and offshore interests who’ve been hoovering up wealth for generations? Perhaps you’re not supposed to notice?

To Reform voters, just in case you stumble upon this. Your anger is entirely valid, but your diagnosis is absolutely wrong. Blaming the brown person down the road won’t nationalise the railways, build council houses or bring down energy bills.

The new Reform councillors will now have to do the unglamorous work of fixing potholes and arguing over bin collections – tasks that don’t lend themselves to viral rants about “the blob”.

Seriously, I cannot wait for the first Reform-run council to discover that stopping the boats doesn’t magically repair the roof of the local leisure centre.

A brutal mirror

The local election results are a brutal mirror. Starmer’s Labour looked into it and saw a party that had become indistinguishable from the establishment it once opposed.

Reform looked and saw an opportunity to surf the wave of discontent without offering structural change.

Both are symptoms of the same disease – a broken economic system that concentrates power and wealth while preaching meritocracy and resilience to those left behind.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachael Swindon

Source link

The Premier League’s ongoing battle with players grappling at set pieces took centre stage again after West Ham’s 95th minute equaliser against Arsenal was ruled out following a lengthy VAR review.

The referee association, Professional Game Match Officials (PGMOL), has since doubled down on its stance, with chief refereeing officer Howard Webb insisting officials will “be vigilant” after what was described as a “clear and obvious” foul on Arsenal goalkeeper David Raya.

Callum Wilson thought he had rescued a point for West Ham, only for referee Chris Kavanagh to overturn the goal after being sent to the pitchside monitor.

The process took four minutes and 17 seconds, a delay that left West Ham frustrated and preparing to contact the PGMOL for clarification.

Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville even labelled the controversy one of the biggest calls in VAR history in the Premier League.

West Ham: why the goal was disallowed

VAR looked through multiple potential fouls. And, the audio released on Match Officials Mic’d Up revealed how many incidents VAR Darren England and assistant VAR Akil Howson had to assess.

They examined: Pablo’s contact on Raya, Leandro Trossard’s actions, and Declan Rices’s grappling with Konstantinos Mavropanos

The decisive moment came early. When Kavanagh reached the monitor, he immediately identified the key offence, saying:

I can see the clear holding on him (Raya) across.

On Trossard’s involvement he added:

I don’t think there’s much in that at all, I’m happy with that. That’s nothing.

VAR England agreed that the foul on Raya occurred first and was most significant:

The foul happens on the goalkeeper before.

Webb’s assessment

Webb himself said:

Is it a foul on the goalkeeper? Categorically, yes.

He continued:

We’ve said all season, including in pre-season briefings with the players, that if a goalkeeper is impeded by an opponent grabbing or holding their arms and therefore they can’t do their job, they’ll be penalised.

We’re not just talking about contact with goalkeepers, we’re talking about a specific type of contact when the goalkeeper’s arms or hands are being interfered with, stopping them from doing their job.

Webb also said that the footage clearly showed Pablo’s arm across Raya’s neck and arm:

It stops him from doing something pretty routine of catching the ball as he can’t put his arms up and we’ve said all season we’ll penalise that.

Webb reiterated that it has been a season long crackdown and defended the time it took to get to the decision:

We have to get it right. In this really important situation, we did.

The decision to disallow the goal scored by West Ham, denying them a vital point in their current relegation battle against Tottenham. Yet it also handed Arsenal a vital victory in the title race against Manchester City.

While Webb insists the officials reached the correct conclusion, the length of the review and the number of incidents involved mean the debate will continue.

What is clear is that the PGMOL intends to stay firm. Goalkeeper interference of this kind will continue to be punished and the officials, Webb says will “be vigilant”. However, these comments are unlikely to quash growing ire over the role of VAR in modern football, to say nothing of West Ham’s intent to complain over the incident.

Featured image via the Canary

By Faz Ali

Source link

The South Carolina Senate just made it harder for the state to redraw its congressional map, resisting pressure from President Donald Trump.

Lawmakers on Tuesday failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to approve a measure that would have allowed them to take up a vote on redistricting even after the legislative session ends later this week. Five Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against the proposal.

Republican Gov. Henry McMaster could still call a special session, though his office has so far dismissed that idea.

The Tuesday vote doesn’t mark a definitive end for redistricting efforts in the Palmetto State. But it does make it less likely that Trump will get his wish of eliminating the state’s sole Democratic district — represented by the powerful Rep. Jim Clyburn — by this year’s midterm elections.

“The South Carolina State Senate has a big vote tomorrow on Redistricting. I’m watching closely,” Trump wrote on social media Monday evening.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told reporters in Columbia last week that he would oppose any effort to redraw the state’s congressional maps. His resistance drew the attention of Republicans in Washington, including Trump who called the senator at least twice to encourage him to take up the redistricting effort.

Massey still voted against the measure. In an impassioned speech prior to Tuesday’s vote, he acknowledged that his decision will likely draw the ire of national Republicans: “I understand that there are likely consequences for me personally standing here right now and taking the position that I’m in. … My conscience is clear on this one, y’all.”

He took a swipe at national Republicans for failing to deliver much with the majority they currently have. And he warned that if Republicans were to draw out Democrats entirely from the state’s congressional delegation, South Carolina risks losing influence the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.

Given Tuesday’s vote, any further attempts to change the map will likely be met with similar resistance. Under sustained pressure from national Republicans, McMaster could still change tack and choose to call a special session to move forward with a redraw.

It’s not the first time Trump has been met with resistance from within the GOP on redistricting. Republicans in Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky and New Hampshire resisted calls from Trump and his political team to redraw House lines last year — though several state lawmakers in the Hoosier State paid for that decision in this month’s primaries.

Still, other southern states seemed poised to take up redraws after several court rulings gave Republicans an overall edge in the redistricting fight. The Supreme Court gave Alabama the go-ahead on Monday to erase a Black district, and Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said in an interview last week that he has the authority to call a special session on redistricting.

Source link

(Dorota Szymczyk/Alamy)

4 min read24 min

AI has the potential to enrich children’s lives, helping them learn in new ways, express their creativity and connect with others across the world.

Advertisement

But on the other side of the ledger, it is already exposing them to dangerous risks and serious harms that are evolving faster than our ability to fully understand them.

That’s why the new measures in the Crime and Policing Act that passed in Parliament last month are so significant – both for what they do and don’t deliver for young people. Making it illegal to possess, create or distribute AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material is a vital step forward. Likewise, it’s positive to see government tackling AI ‘manuals’, which instruct offenders on how to use this technology to exploit and abuse children.

This is progress. But it is nowhere near enough. Because AI is not only dangerous when it crosses into criminality – it is also reshaping children’s everyday online lives in ways that are less visible but equally harmful.

Advertisement

We are seeing AI amplify damaging content, distort self image and trap young people in echo chambers. And online abuse has become more scalable and more personal, with AI-generated harassment, impersonation and manipulated images making harm feel more intense and harder to escape.

We hear about this directly when children reach out to our Childline service. One 17-year-old girl said she uses AI to count her calories, to ensure she “stays in a certain bracket”.

And sometimes the harm comes from AI chatbots that simply don’t understand the reality of a child’s life. One boy, aged 16, told Childline: “You have to walk on eggshells around my dad or he’ll snap. Usually, it’s shouting and kicking me. I’m actually scared when I know he’s picking me up from school. I asked AI for advice, and it said, don’t provoke him, ignore it, don’t react – if I stay calm, dad will stay calm. I don’t think I provoke him, sometimes it’s just because he’s got me alone and knows no one else will find out.”

Advertisement

This response is dangerous and wrong. No child should ever be told to manage or minimise an adult’s abusive behaviour. An AI chatbot should be directing a child in distress towards safe, confidential support, to services like Childline, not telling them to stay calm so their abuser stays calm.

I asked AI for advice, and it said, don’t provoke him, ignore it, don’t react – if I stay calm, dad will stay calm

The government deserves credit for tackling the most extreme abuses. But if we want the UK to be the safest place in the world to grow up online, we cannot regulate AI only at the point where it becomes criminal.

Advertisement

For years, the tech giants driving this revolution have behaved as though children’s safety is someone else’s problem. They push out powerful AI systems at breakneck speed, fully aware of the risks, and then hide behind disclaimers when those risks materialise.

These companies have the resources, the expertise and the foresight to build safeguards in from the start, yet time and again they choose not to. It is indefensible that some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet continue to treat children as acceptable collateral in their race to dominate the AI market. That negligence should no longer be tolerated.

Last month, Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, met with our Voice of Online Youth at Wilton Park. They spoke candidly about what AI means for their friendships, mental health and overall safety. AI is already influencing their lives, and they want a say in how it is governed.

The Crime and Policing Act is an important start. Now the government must match that ambition with a regulatory framework that protects children from the full spectrum of AI-driven harm and makes sure that these services are appropriate.

Advertisement

Because AI will define the next generation’s childhood, and it is our responsibility to ensure it does not also become a tool to exploit their vulnerabilities. 

Chris Sherwood is the CEO of NSPCC

Source link

The Starmer regime will sentence four anti-genocide activists as terrorists, despite a rigged court convicting them only of criminal damage.

A jury refused to convict the Filton 24 members in February, but the government — determined to pursue Starmer’s Israel-driven war on UK rights — pushed for a retrial.

At the second trial, the judge banned lawyers from informing the jury of their legal right to acquit according to conscience.

Two of the six accused were acquitted anyway, but four were convicted of criminal damage.

The judge also ordered that jurors could not be informed of his plan to sentence them as terrorists.

Now, with the trial over, that restriction has ended and the Canary is free to report on it.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Canary (@thecanaryuk)

Supporters are being asked to attend Woolwich Crown Court on 12 June.

The judge also tried to prosecute Rajiv Menon, one of the lawyers representing the activists, for telling jurors about their legal right:

BREAKING — The Court of Appeal has ruled that Mr Justice Johnson had no jurisdiction to refer Palestine Action barrister Rajiv Menon KC for contempt of court proceedings.

These proceedings were brought against Menon after he reminded a jury earlier this year of its absolute… pic.twitter.com/TlwnOEzYFV

— Declassified UK (@declassifiedUK) May 12, 2026

He also ordered a reporting ban so that the media were forbidden even to mention the contempt charge until now.

However, the Appeals Court has rejected the attempt to prosecute Menon, ruling that the judge had no jurisdiction to refer him for contempt of court for lawful speech.

Several people were also arrested for holding signs outside the court that informed jurors about the right to acquit, known as ‘jury equity’.

The Met Police and the government ignored a judge’s ruling from 2024 regarding prosecuting trial protesters. It concluded that informing jurors of their lawful entitlement could not possibly be perverting the course of justice.

The Starmer regime’s voraciousness for unjust prosecutions to cover his own and Israel’s crimes knows no bounds.

Featured image via Filtonactivists.com

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Italy is an old owl. And this owl, once queen of the night, finds it increasingly difficult to spread its wings. Its skeleton stiffens, its joints creak, and the gaze that once swept across the horizon now looks ever more downwards, towards the water’s surface. For many Italians, this metaphor speaks directly to the country’s present reality: a nation increasingly defined by declining birth rates and an ever-ageing population.

In 2025, Italy recorded 355,000 births compared with 652,000 deaths. This is not a balanced figure, but a net loss of almost 300,000 people in a year. In fact, it represents the lowest figure on record since 1861… An era predating Italian unification in much of its modern form.

At the same time, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made the birth rate an obsession. She has repeatedly promised to place families and natality at the centre of public policy, yet existing measures remain fragmented and insufficient to address the structural causes behind Italy’s demographic decline, from precarious employment and stagnant wages to soaring housing costs, limited childcare services, and restrictive immigration policies.

A snapshot of decline

The region of Molise is a snapshot of what Italy will look like in the coming years. Here, there are 123,000 pensioners, whilst the number of people in employment stands at just 103,000.

The town of Sant’Elena Sannita, in Upper Molise, represents the most extreme case: over the past 80 years, its population has collapsed from 3,000 inhabitants to fewer than 300.

In 2024, fourteen municipalities recorded not a single birth; there were nine in the province of Campobasso and five in the province of Isernia. Small villages with only a few hundred residents are now facing administrative extinction.

At the same time, Molise possesses a unique historical identity, shaped by longstanding ties with the Balkans and the presence of a Croatian minority. This cultural and economic bridge remains largely underused, despite immigration continuing to dominate political debate and challenge Giorgia Meloni’s government. Yet these opportunities remain untapped. This situation is not limited to the South of the country: similar trends are already being observed in Liguria and Umbria.

Don’t blame the young

Young men and women cannot be blamed if they prefer to emigrate and not have children in Italy. Daniele Vignoli notes that, in 2008, the fertility rate had reached 1.5 children per woman – the highest level since the 1980s. This marked what was described as “a new spring of fertility in Italy” – something that, today, many Italians can hardly even imagine.

One only needs to look at the data to understand how striking it is that, less than two decades ago, the figures were moving in a completely different direction. The fertility rate has plummeted to 1.14 children per woman. To put this into context: the figure of 2.1 is considered the ‘replacement rate’ necessary to maintain a stable population without immigration. Italy is not merely below this threshold; it is dramatically far from it.

Anti-immigration + low birthrate = crisis

Germany, Spain, Portugal, and other European countries are following similar trajectories. Italy, however, reached the crisis point first. Every year, the numbers drop another notch. Giorgia Meloni speaks of immigration as a threat to Italian families, claiming it is a catalyst for their dissolution. But immigration could be the revitalising force that this society is unable to generate on its own.

Every year, the numbers drop another notch, and then another, towards the abyss. Reopening and providing structural funding for schools, making serious investments in the healthcare system, and creating decent living conditions, including affordable housing, fair wages, and genuine residence permits for immigrant residents, should be seen as essential countermeasures to avoid ending up with an increasingly ageing population.

The government frames immigration as a threat to social cohesion. But this is where the cognitive disconnect lies: a society that fails to produce its own citizens cannot afford the luxury of rejecting those who could revitalise it. Fewer births yesterday mean fewer parents today, fewer births tomorrow, and even fewer the day after. A United Nations report predicts that Italy will lose five million inhabitants over the next 25 years, down from 59 million.

The owl may yet awaken. Concrete actions are needed: real infrastructure in small towns, open schools, functioning healthcare, affordable housing. Italy needs policies that treat immigration not as an invasion, but as a transfusion of new blood.

Featured image via Lonely Planet

By Tommaso Zerbi

Source link

Pete Buttigieg is picking sides in a heated Senate Democratic primary in the state that cemented his national political profile.

Buttigieg, who won the Iowa Democratic caucuses in 2020, is backing state Rep. Josh Turek — a move that shows his willingness to wade into contested primaries ahead of another possible presidential campaign.

The endorsement comes shortly after Buttigieg’s former 2020 rival, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, visited earlier this week to campaign for Turek’s opponent, state Sen. Zach Wahls.

“We made history in Iowa in 2020 because our campaign went everywhere,” Buttigieg said in a statement shared first with POLITICO. “We connected with people in rural towns and the largest cities, focused on the issues that affect everyday life, and brought Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans into the fold. Josh Turek has taken that same proven approach to his campaign, and that’s why I know he will be successful. I believe Iowa can make history again in 2026 by sending Josh to the U.S. Senate.”

Buttigieg’s decision to pick sides in the once-early nominating state is a reversal for him. In March, he told POLITICO it was “not in my plans” when asked whether he would endorse in sharply contested primaries in his adopted home state of Michigan or in Iowa. And while it could help elevate Turek — and potentially give Buttigieg a valuable ally if he runs in 2028 — it carries some risk of alienating Wahls’ supporters in the hard-fought contest.

It’s not a shock, however. Turek’s campaign in Iowa marks something of a reunion for Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign operation: his former national press secretary Chris Meagher is a Turek adviser, while Buttigieg’s former senior adviser Lis Smith and former aide Matt Corridoni are both advisers to The Bench, a new political group that’s been choosing sides in other Democratic primaries.

It’s not clear whether Iowa will have anywhere near the outsized role it historically held in the Democratic nomination process next time around. A calamitous caucus-night vote count and app breakdown played a role in Democrats bumping Iowa from the front of the primary line in 2024. Iowa Democrats are trying to get back in the first four states, along with a bevy of other states. Democrats are expected to choose their nominating order later this year.

Buttigieg joins Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire in Turek’s corner — as well as former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the last Democrat to represent the state in the Senate.

“I am deeply honored to have Pete’s support in this race,” Turek said in a statement. “His unique ability to connect with Iowans who feel forgotten and left behind is exactly why he won the caucuses in 2020, and it’s that same approach that will help us win Senator Harkin’s seat back.”

Source link