Politics
The House Article | Why Hannah Spencer should come with me to Strangers’ for a drink
Hannah Spencer with Zack Polanski, March 2026 (Alamy)
3 min read
I haven’t yet got a reply, but I have invited the new Green MP, Hannah Spencer, for a post-work drink at the Strangers’ Bar in Parliament.
If she wants to help her constituents in Gorton and Denton, she’ll need allies: nothing gets turned into law with a vote of one.
By extending the invitation, I’m offering Hannah the chance to get to know some of the 645 non-Green parliamentary colleagues she just threw under the bus. After just two months in the job, she told the press that we’re dishonest, smell of alcohol and do nothing for our communities.
But fair play to Hannah. Her opinions have got the Greens plenty of news coverage ahead of the local elections. As she said in her recent interview with PoliticsJOE, “If I’m winding those people up and they’re worried – they’re linked to the establishment we think should have less power – so, if I’m doing that, I think I’m on the right track.”
The right track for Hannah appears to be demonising large groups of people to win votes. Isn’t that the ugliest section of the populist playbook? The blame-game clickbait used to distract voters from the extremist policies in the small print. For Reform UK, the scapegoat is immigrants. For the Greens, it’s the so-called ‘establishment’.
But it is a tactic that plays fast and loose with MPs’ safety. Whipping up anti-MP sentiment is dangerous. In a recent parliamentary survey, 96 per cent of current MPs said they had personally experienced one or more incidents of threatening behaviour. I’m sure Hannah is familiar with this herself.
After my recent work on the Crime and Policing Bill, I had death threats. I know my other colleagues have had too, depending on what they’re working on. And in the last 10 years, two MPs – Jo Cox and David Amess – have been murdered in hate-fuelled attacks.
So, I’d be grateful for the chance to take Hannah for a drink at the bar. (I hope they serve the WKD Blue she likes, or she can have alcohol-free drink of course.) I’ll be taking her because I want to tackle her prejudices. Rather than ‘establishment’ stooges, she’ll meet everyday people from all walks of life who, like me, are passionate about serving their communities.
Speaking for MPs from my own party so heavily criticised by Hannah, what we are is sensible, grounded politicians with the whole nation’s interests at heart. (That’s why we won the 2024 election. People didn’t vote for large groups of ‘disruptor’ politicians like Hannah.)
And I believe people want less drama, not more – they just want to get on with their lives. So, while MPs from other parties chase headlines, Labour continues to do the right thing – such as working hard with our international allies to calm tensions and bring fuel prices down at home.
The drink would be an olive branch, not a stunt. If Hannah wants to rail against power, she should first understand how change is made: through persuasion, building alliances and respecting the people voters choose – even when you disagree with them. If the Greens want to be taken seriously as lawmakers, not just hecklers, the first round is on me.
Tonia Antoniazzi is Labour MP for Gower and chair of the Beer APPG
Michael Thrasher outlines the key things to look out for in the upcoming English council elections.
In the May 2025 local elections the Conservatives collapsed in the English shires, losing councillors and council control to Reform. Now, Labour has the spotlight, facing electoral jeopardy across London and the conurbations in the Midlands and the North.
Most of the factors shaping the outcome of the 2025 elections are present for their 2026 equivalents.
Record numbers of candidates are standing. Labour and Conservatives alike will be challenged in most cases by Liberal Democrats, Reform and the Greens. The consequence of that last year was a record low figure for the average winner’s vote share – just 41%.
The voting system ensured that a party with a relatively low vote share but ahead of its rivals would reap the ‘winner’s bonus’.
This May, over 5,000 seats in 136 councils are at stake. Labour is defending more than half the seats, most of which are in urban areas. Conservatives defend more than a quarter, many of which are in the shires.
Seats being defended
| Type (N) | Con | Lab | LD | Grn | Ref | Ind/Oth | Wards | Seats |
| London (32) | 404 | 1,155 | 180 | 19 | 0 | 59 | 679 | 1,817 |
| Mets (32) | 215 | 906 | 157 | 63 | 0 | 78 | 747 | 1,419 |
| Counties (6) | 294 | 41 | 58 | 18 | 0 | 19 | 427 | 430 |
| Districts (48) | 244 | 253 | 205 | 31 | 2 | 45 | 712 | 780 |
| Unitary (18) | 205 | 202 | 84 | 11 | 0 | 65 | 386 | 567 |
| Total (136) | 1,362 | 2,557 | 684 | 142 | 2 | 266 | 2,951 | 5,013 |
Source: Rallings & Thrasher
The table uses estimated seat numbers for councils implementing new ward boundaries. It does not include casual vacancies being filled and countermanded elections.
The omens are poor for both major parties. Most seats were last fought in either 2021 or 2022. Since then, their support as measured by opinion polls has collapsed.
Recent council by-elections confirm this. Labour has been losing four in five seats it defends while the Conservatives are losing two in every three. Defeats are sometimes inflicted by parties that have not contested the seat before.
A useful way of assessing the state of the parties for any given set of local elections is the National Equivalent Vote (NEV), which estimates how the local vote might have translated nationwide.
National Equivalent Vote: 2021-2025
| Year | Con | Lab | LD | Ref | Green | Other |
| 2021 | 40 | 30 | 15 | 0 | 7 | 8 |
| 2022 | 33 | 35 | 17 | 0 | 5 | 10 |
| 2023 | 29 | 36 | 18 | 0 | 7 | 10 |
| 2024 | 27 | 34 | 16 | 1 | 9 | 13 |
| 2025 | 18 | 19 | 16 | 32 | 7 | 8 |
Source: Rallings & Thrasher, Sky News / Sunday Times
Between 2021 and 2025, Conservative support under NEV more than halved, from 40% to 18%. The party may improve this year, but its councillors elected five years ago and facing re-election are under threat.
Most of the Labour seats up in 2026 were fought four years ago when it received an estimated 35% of the national share. Current support hovers around 20%, making Labour councillors even in ‘safe’ seats vulnerable to defeat.
By contrast, Reform’s rise has been meteoric, barely registering when its few candidates attracted little support, to last year when it gained over 700 seats. There is little reason to believe that Reform will poll much worse this time around with the Green Party also on the rise.
To an extent the two main parties are protected from the full effects of voters switching allegiance in some councils because only a fraction of seats are being elected this year. Control of some councils can’t change, no matter how many seats are lost.
That still leaves all 32 London boroughs, 16 metropolitan boroughs, and other councils where the scope for change is greatest because all the seats are in play.
Labour and the Conservatives are set for both seat and council losses. Beyond that, it is hard to say which of their rivals will benefit the most and how that might impact on the political make up of these councils.
Considering the relative increases and decreases in likely support we can provide a guide for interpreting the results.
All things being considered, a good night for Labour is to limit losses to 800 seats (about a third of its total) and to lose control in only a handful of the more than sixty councils it is defending. 1,000 losses would be okay but as the number rises to 1,500 then alarm bells ring. That’s close to the percentage of seat defeats Labour endured in 2025 but the sheer size of the number involved will grab everyone’s attention. Should Labour reach 2,000 losses or more that will be the worst setback imaginable and would certainly mean the loss of councils that have had Labour-run administrations for 50 years or more.
The Conservatives too will make net losses but if these are kept within limits and occur mainly in the shires then it should be confident that most of the attention will focus on Labour’s performance instead.
Possible losses
| Labour | Conservative | |
| Good | -800 | -400 |
| Ok | -1000 | -600 |
| Bad | -1500 | -850 |
| Terrible | -2000 | -1000 |
Possible gains
| Reform | Green | LD | |
| Ok | 650 | 350 | 200 |
| Good | 950 | 400 | 250 |
| Impressive | 1600 | 450 | 300 |
| Great | 2000 | 550 | 450 |
Because Reform is taking votes off both main parties it is likely that it will gain the most seats. There are many more seats at stake than in 2025 and so 650 gains is at the low end of expectations. Passing the 1,000 mark and moving towards 1,600 gains would be an impressive achievement by any standard.
Unlike Reform, the Green Party has taken a while to build its councillor base and still only has majority control of one council. The opportunity for a sudden increase is there if it secures seats in London and the metropolitan boroughs as voters turn away from Labour.
The Liberal Democrats have fallen under the radar as focus shifts to its rivals for Labour and Conservative seats. A long-established force in local government, it must avoid at all costs the loss of any councils that it already controls, such as Hull, Tunbridge Wells and Wokingham. Its progress is likely to be incremental rather than dramatic.
By Michael Thrasher, Associate Member, Nuffield College and Honorary Professor, Exeter University.
Ahead of next week’s EU alignment Bill, Catherine Barnard and James Wolffe KC consider the key issues that could arise as part of any SPS deal agreed by the UK government on devolved governments in Scotland and Wales.
If and when a UK-EU SPS agreement is agreed, constitutional questions arise not only for the UK government (UKG) and Parliament, but also for the devolved institutions in Cardiff and Edinburgh. That is because the SPS agreement concerns areas of ‘non-reserved’ (i.e. devolved) competence where domestic policy responsibility rests with the Welsh and Scottish governments, accountable respectively to the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament.
The UK-EU Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) refers to ‘timely dynamic alignment’ with the relevant EU rules in ‘Great Britain’. However, it also requires ‘due regard’ to the UK’s ‘constitutional and parliamentary procedures’, which presumably includes the arrangements for Wales and Scotland (the MoU does not apply to Northern Ireland, where the relevant rules already apply under the Windsor Framework). What will this mean? We don’t know, but we have five questions.
First, how are the policy interests of the devolved institutions being considered in UKG’s negotiating position? International relations are reserved to the UK, so UKG is negotiating the SPS agreement for the whole of the UK. The MoU envisages limited, but tightly defined, exceptions to dynamic alignment. The devolved institutions may have an interest in the scope and content of any such exceptions. What input have they had into those discussions?
Second, assuming an SPS agreement is done, the MoU provides that the European Commission should consult ‘the Government of the United Kingdom’ at an early stage of policymaking, giving it a ‘decision-shaping’ role over EU laws to which it dynamically aligns. How will UKG, representing all parts of the UK, accommodate any distinctive devolved policy perspectives in decision shaping? There is also an important subsidiary question: how will the devolved administrations keep abreast of emerging or future EU initiatives within the agreement’s scope so that they may advance their policy position?
Third, how will the SPS agreement approach dynamic alignment? Will it be automatic, like the Gibraltar agreement (Gibraltar must follow EU rules in the areas specified or the agreement falls), semi-automatic like the Windsor Framework (NI must follow EU rules but subject to the Stormont Brake or applicability motion), or contain a ‘hurdle’, as in the Swiss case, where the measure applies in Switzerland only following a decision by a joint EU/Swiss committee. If there is to be an equivalent to the “Stormont Brake”, will the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament be able to apply it? If the Swiss model is followed, how would any devolved policy interests be considered in that decision-making process?
Fourth, how will dynamic alignment be delivered? One option would be a statutory provision like the old s.2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or the general power already available to Scottish Ministers in s.1 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. These allow relevant EU measures to be implemented by subordinate (i.e. secondary) legislation, not Acts of Parliament. If that approach is taken, it will invite questions about the mechanisms of scrutiny not only by the UK Parliament but by the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament.
Further, if dynamic alignment is delivered through subordinate legislation, how will this take account of devolution? There are competing constitutional considerations: the responsibility of the devolved governments for devolved policy, which is the central feature of devolution; and UKG’s interest in ensuring that the UK’s international obligations are fulfilled.
There might legitimately be divergent approaches to the detail of implementation in different parts of the UK. That was permissible under EU membership when directives were being implemented, and there seems no good reason why it should not also be possible (subject to UK Internal Market Act 2020 considerations) where an EU measure covered by the SPS agreement can be implemented in different ways.
There are three models. The first, consistent with the territorial allocation of policy responsibility, would give Welsh and Scottish ministers the relevant powers, with UKG implementing for England. The UK’s international position would be protected by the ‘backstop’ provisions in the devolution statutes under which UKG can prevent devolved ministers breaching the UK’s international obligations.
The second would allow either UKG or devolved ministers to exercise the relevant powers. This was the approach taken to implementing EU obligations when the UK was an EU member state. A concordat set expectations for inter-government consultation and recognised that it was for devolved ministers to decide whether to exercise their powers or to opt for GB or UK-wide regulations instead.
The third, often (if controversially) used since Brexit, would be to give UKG the relevant powers. If this option is adopted, a key issue will be the robustness of the procedural safeguards for the interests of the devolved Governments and legislatures and the integrity of the devolution settlement.
Fifth and finally, will there be any scope for different approaches to be taken to implementation of EU legislation in the different parts of the UK? There are multiple scenarios which could arise. We consider three.
What if UKG negotiates an exception to the SPS Agreement (as is envisaged by the MoU) whereby they are not required to adopt a specific EU law, but the Scottish or Welsh government wish to adopt it? That would presumably cause no difficulty under the UK-EU SPS agreement but might give rise to domestic law questions under the UK Internal Market Act 2020.
What if Scotland or Wales objects to implementing an EU rule under the SPS agreement? Unless the SPS agreement allows it (for example through an equivalent to the ‘Stormont Brake’), any decision by the devolved institutions not to align would likely be highly problematic. As with Switzerland, the EU would probably be entitled to respond, including by imposing tariffs, and it seems highly unlikely that any such response could be applied other than to GB as a whole. Domestically, such a case might prompt UKG to use its ‘backstop’ powers and would raise UK Internal Market Act considerations.
What if it is UKG which objects, and refuses to implement an EU rule under the agreement in England, while the Scottish and Welsh Governments implement it in Scotland and Wales? Not only would the EU response (e.g. tariffs) likely apply to GB as a whole, but the preference for the Scottish and Welsh Governments to implement the UK’s obligations might be undermined by the UK Internal Market Act.
No doubt the UKG and the devolved administrations are reflecting on these issues. The forthcoming EU alignment Bill, due to be announced in the King’s speech, will likely answer at least some of these questions.
By Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge and James Wolffe KC formerly Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (the elected leader of the Scottish bar) 2014-16 and Lord Advocate (the senior Scottish Law Officer) 2016-21.
Specifically, of the Single Most Toe-Curlingly, Horrifically Cretinous Thing Said In The 2026 Holyrood Election Campaign, And Possibly Any Election Ever, Prize.
We mean, wow. We could easily write a 1000-word article purely on the top 10 things that are fatuously, obviously idiotic about those three short sentences, and so could you. So imagine how embarrassed the poor Daily Record must be today.
Doubly so because in what must be the weakest and most apologetic endorsement in the history of print journalism, the Record actually backs Sarwar to come second.
To be honest, that makes about as much sense as Sarwar’s absurdly clueless claim that Glasgow football fans, if they can’t win trophies themselves, want to see the other Glasgow clubs do it instead. The Record asserts that the SNP won’t win a majority – something which is far from certain – but then raises the prospect of an SNP/Green coalition, then promptly ignores it again and suggests that Sarwar could somehow exert some influence in exactly the same way he’s utterly failed to do in much the same circumstances for the last five years.
We still haven’t quite worked out how the Record is trying to sell the status quo as some sort of “change”. Even if Sarwar took Labour from 3rd to 2nd that’d be a distinction without a difference. If the SNP and Greens can get over the 65-seat majority line, that’s what’ll happen and Sarwar, Malcolm Offord, Russell Findlay and Alex Cole-Hamilton will continue to be the complete irrelevances they’ve been since 2021, watching impotently and whining from the sidelines as the SNP ham-fistedly burn the country to the ground.
If Sarwar came second it’d mean no more than it did when Douglas Ross (remember him?) did it five years ago, and Sarwar is unlikely to have the 31 MSPs that Ross commanded. Indeed, if he has even a shred of decency lurking hidden somewhere in the depths of his two-dimensional plastic persona he’ll resign by next week if Labour have – as looks an odds-on prospect – failed to make any progress at all during his reign, and in all probability continued Labour’s unbroken streak of doing worse at every single Holyrood election since the first one.
(He’s already pulled off what looked an impossible task in underperforming Kezia Dugdale after she’d produced the most calamitous one-term collapse in the party’s post-devolution history.)
Sarwar has been an epic failure as leader by any measure. He’s done nothing to leave the party in better shape than he found it. It has absolutely no distinct policy platform, pledging only to implement SNP policies slightly better than the SNP, which is a bar so low that it only makes it more incredible that nobody believes it even after the slow-motion trainwreck of governance of the last decade.
Sarwar’s only “strategy” was to sit tight and wait for Buggins’ Turn while the SNP squandered its popularity, a plan which was scuppered by the catastrophic Starmer administration at Westminster torpedoing Labour’s reputation UK-wide and exposing Sarwar’s abject indolence in not carving even a glimmer of a separate identity for the North British branch office that might have acted as a partial firewall against the Prime Minister’s toxicity.
(His last-minute ditching of Starmer came across as the desperation it was, and he carried so little weight in Labour that everyone who was supposed to back him up deserted him at the moment of truth.)
But there it is. After backing Labour in 2024 the Record is pretty much stuck with him and has to make the best fist it can of “Vote for our guy to be top of the losers!”, and just imagine the humiliation for all concerned if he doesn’t manage to clear even that low bar and finishes behind the country’s most-disliked party and leader.
As a microcosm of this accursed election, in which voters don’t really want to vote for anyone and nobody really seems to want to win, it’s pretty on the nose.
DES MOINES, Iowa — Vice President JD Vance was greeted warmly by Republicans in Iowa on Tuesday, with would-be caucus goers and strategists optimistically curious about his potential as a 2028 presidential contender.
But first, they’re hoping he can help turn the economy around.
Vance’s fate is unavoidably linked to President Donald Trump’s. He’ll either carry the mantle of Trump’s accomplishments all the way into his own term in the White House — or be dragged down by Trump’s dismal approval ratings, which have spiraled amid an unpopular war in Iran and voters’ economic pessimism.
During Vance’s first trip as vice president to the early caucus state — where he was campaigning for Republican Rep. Zach Nunn at a rally in a manufacturing warehouse in this battleground House district — Vance’s close ties with Trump were on full display. He credited the president repeatedly for tariffs, tax cuts and agriculture industry aid. And he avoided any mention of 2028.
But his association with Trump’s agenda presents a high-risk, high-reward proposition that could make or break his political future, operatives and rallygoers said.
“That’s the risk of being part of an administration,” Iowa GOP strategist David Kochel said. “This is the Kamala Harris problem.”
Rep. Randy Feenstra, who is running for governor, said in between shaking hands with attendees that Iowans “absolutely” associate Vance with Trump and expressed confidence that the White House can deliver outcomes that benefit the state.
“We’re all in this together,” he said. “We trust Trump and the vice president and what they’re doing, and things are going to be great.”
Republicans in Iowa are loath to turn their back on Trump, the 2024 caucus winner who remains deeply popular among the base. Faded Trump-Vance campaign signs still line the rural roads around the state, and Iowa Republicans said they remained largely optimistic that Trump, with Vance by his side, can steer the economy in the right direction.
In a brief post-rally interview, Nunn said part of the benefit of the vice president’s trip was allowing Iowa Republican officials to “share what they want to see out of the next leader in 2028.”
But Americans’ patience for the administration’s economic policy to have a positive effect is wearing thin. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday found 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and 76 percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of cost of living issues. And even as Vance blamed former President Joe Biden’s administration for the teetering economy, an April POLITICO Poll found 46 percent of Americans feel Trump bears at least some responsibility for the state of the economy.
And the economic effects of Trump’s policies are particularly hard felt in Iowa’s vast agriculture industry. Trump’s tariff regime blocked off markets that had been reliable purchasers of U.S. agriculture goods, while the war in Iran has spiked the cost of diesel, which farmers depend on heavily.
Jake Chapman, a former president of the Iowa Senate who has advised multiple Republican presidential candidates in Iowa, said the conflict and the trade negotiations with other countries are top of mind for Iowa Republicans.
“A lot of people are thinking about foreign policy in particular, and how that impacts ag inputs and our agriculture economy,” he said.
In his speech, Vance acknowledged that the Trump administration hasn’t fully delivered on its economic promises. “We got a lot more work to do,” Vance told the crowd of hundreds. “We recognize that work. We’re excited about that work. That’s why you sent us to Washington, D.C.”
Still, those negative feelings towards Trump appear to be spilling over to Vance. That same poll found 48 percent of Americans disapprove of Vance — slightly worse than other senior Trump administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and fellow potential 2028 candidate Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Rubio’s ascension in the 2028 shadow primary — both in the eyes of Americans and in standing with Trump’s inner circle — further complicates Vance’s path to the nomination. Eric Branstad, the son of former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and adviser to Trump’s three presidential campaigns in Iowa, said Vance’s portfolio may not resonate with Iowans as much as Rubio’s in an administration juggling multiple high-profile foreign conflicts.
“They’ve watched the secretary of state completely perform. He’s been put in all of the tough spots, and he has overperformed,” Branstad said. “The vice president is performing great. It’s just not been as noticeable as the secretary of state.”
Vance, however, has gotten an early start on building a campaign infrastructure, should he so choose to activate it. He has been a frequent surrogate and fundraiser for the GOP’s midterm operation and has campaigned for Republicans in battleground seats around the country. On Tuesday, he voted in Ohio’s competitive 1st District GOP primary and headlined a fundraiser in Oklahoma before travelling to Iowa.
“He’s the man who’s leading the charge to win the midterms,” Nunn said during his remarks.
Even as Vance stayed focused on this year’s elections on Tuesday, some Republicans are ready to look beyond the midterms. GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Steen said on the outskirts of the rally he thinks Iowa Republicans are eager to organize around the next generation of party leadership.
“I don’t know why not just start talking about 2028,” Steen said. “We need to know who we’re going to be getting behind. And if they did that now, I don’t think it’d offend anybody. I think it’d be a great thing.”
The vice president’s office declined to comment on Vance’s thinking about a future presidential campaign.
Whether or not the vice president can carry the ideological torch for Trump’s political movement may depend on how closely Vance — or any 2028 hopeful — can align with Trump. Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann said at the rally he doesn’t believe the next Republican presidential nominee necessarily has to appeal directly to Trump’s base to be successful.
“The Republican Party is multifaceted,” Kaufmann said. “We have MAGA voters… We have Christian evangelicals, we have business, we have Libertarians. I think all of them together are going to unite around some of the basic principles that everybody shares.”
Yet being Trump’s vice president brings certain advantages with Republican voters. Even if Vance isn’t afforded the goodwill that brought the president a dominant wire-to-wire favorite in the 2024 Republican primaries, Kochel said Vance “gets one of the gold tickets” in the contest.
“[Vance] will be the front-runner going into any caucuses that we have here in Iowa,” GOP governor candidate and state Rep. Eddie Andrews said on the sidelines of Tuesday’s rally.
But Iowa caucusgoers are notoriously scrupulous when vetting future world leaders. And Nunn acknowledged that Vance will at some point need to forge his own path to leading the party.
“Nobody can walk in Donald Trump’s footsteps, because it’s Donald Trump,” Nunn said.
President Donald Trump flexed his grip on the GOP base in Indiana on Tuesday, vanquishing a majority of the Republican state senators who had dared cross him on redistricting.
It was a show of force in the year’s first major test of Trump’s power over the GOP. Trump aligned groups dumped millions against the eight GOP lawmakers who blocked his effort to gerrymander the state. And on Tuesday night, at least five lost reelection.
Trump’s loyal and energized supporters turned out to punish the incumbents, showing that his endorsement remains the gold-standard of GOP politics. That’s a bright flashing red warning to any Republicans who might be eyeing a break from Trump as he approaches the back half of his second term in office.
The victories came after a combined $13.5 million in spending poured into typically low-profile state Senate races, most of it for Trump’s candidates.
“It’s a sign that the party’s ready to follow the president on this and also turn over a new leaf, and get younger, newer leaders in the state Senate,” said David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth, which put more than $2 million in the race.
DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 35
VORNADO CHIEF SLAMS MAMDANI: Billionaire real estate magnate Steve Roth is standing strong with fellow billionaire Ken Griffin in his spat with Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Instead of being singled out and scorned in viral videos, Roth, CEO of Vornado Realty Trust, thinks the ultra-rich should be “praised and thanked,” and said calls to tax them more are akin to some racial slurs.
“I must say that I consider the phrase tax the rich — quote tax the rich — when spit out with anger and contempt by politicians both here and across the country, to be just as hateful as some disgusting racial slurs, and even the phrase ‘from the river to the sea,’” Roth said, referring to the controversial rallying cry used by pro-Palestinian activists, during a Tuesday earnings call.
Roth decried Mamdani’s social media video on the proposed pied-à-terre tax — in which the mayor used Griffin’s $238 million second-home as a backdrop — as “irresponsible and dangerous.” Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel, was offended by the video, and according to The Wall Street Journal, his chief operating officer suggested Citadel may pause its $6 billion plan to develop a Midtown office tower with Vornado and Rudin Management.
“We are all shocked that our young mayor would pull this stunt in front of Ken’s home and single him out for ridicule,” said Roth, who brought up the “blunder” unprompted before launching into a six-minute rant about the mayor.
On the planned office redevelopment at 350 Park Avenue, Roth said “it’s a good bet that we will go all in.” But he added that “this fence cannot be mended by a short, terse, insincere private apology.”
City Hall did not immediately return a request for comment. Mamdani ran on a pledge to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthiest New Yorkers, but Gov. Kathy Hochul has resisted that push — save for the pied-à-terre tax.
Griffin further blasted Mamdani at a conference Tuesday while voicing fears the video could spark political violence, noting the CEO of United Healthcare was “killed just a few blocks from my house.”
Roth on Tuesday stressed the significant contributions of the city’s wealthiest residents to its tax base and said these members of the so-called one-percent are “not enemies” and are “at the top of the great American economic pyramid for a reason.”
Roth, who donated generously to Mamdani’s opponent — former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — in last year’s election, went on to ponder: “Maybe we can draft Ken to become active and lead an effort to educate New York voters and to elect right-minded candidates.”
For now, he wants the city’s democratic socialist mayor — who, he allowed, is “young, smart and energetic” — to be friendlier to billionaires.
“What I beg my mayor to do is to begin every day being business-welcoming and business-friendly as his first priority,” Roth said. “That’s the only way to get the growth and financial wherewithal to accomplish his programs, some of which I must say are interesting and valid.” — Janaki Chadha
From the Capitol
CHECKING IN ON LAWLER LAND: The crowded and competitive Democratic primary to replace Republican Rep. Mike Lawler just got a pulse check — and the out-of-district military vet who’s wooed party insiders with her compelling biography has some ground to make up.
A new poll of likely Democratic primary voters commissioned by left-leaning underdog Effie Phillips-Staley shows Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson leading the pack with 26 percent of the vote, an 11-point lead over Cait Conley, who served in the Army for 16 years and netted 15 percent of the vote. Still, 48 percent of those polled were undecided.
The poll was shared with Playbook and first reported in left-leaning outlet Zeteo. It was conducted by the left-leaning firm Data for Progress from April 17 to 24, about a week after former Briarcliff Manor Mayor Peter Chatzky dropped out of the race. The survey has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 5 percentage points, and respondents were quizzed online and via text.
“This Democratic primary clown car keeps producing surprises, but Conley’s flameout might be the biggest yet,” Lawler’s campaign manager Ciro Riccardi said in a statement to Playbook.
But beyond NY-17, the poll also provided some interesting tea leaves for Democrats weighing where to land on one of the most contentious issues ahead of the midterms: the conflict in the Middle East. Even in this suburban, heavily-Jewish congressional district outside New York City, Israel is increasingly unpopular with Democratic voters.
The poll found 44 percent of Democratic voters sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis, with 18 percent favoring the Jewish state. Twenty-three percent of respondents sympathized with both equally and 11 percent sympathized with neither.
And if that wasn’t surprising enough, Mamdani is so far not proving to be the political pain point for swing district Democrats that Republicans had hoped. In the hills of Rockland and Westchester counties, Mamdani has an 80 percent favorability rating with Democratic voters, with just 16 percent of respondents viewing him unfavorably, per the poll.
In the survey’s initial polling question on the primary, Phillips-Staley trailed behind Conley and Davidson at 8 percent. But after respondents were flooded with messaging on her opponents, Phillips-Staley’s support jumped to 31 points, just above .
The poll also tested negative messaging on Phillips-Staley, including the fact that she apparently “owns stocks in casino companies, defense contractors, and other industries that profit off the backs of working Americans,” according to one of the messages tested in the poll. — Jason Beeferman
NOT FONDA THIS IDEA: Actress and activist Jane Fonda is weighing into the politics of the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline.
The Williams Co. project, which was boosted by the Trump administration last month during a ceremonial groundbreaking event, would deliver fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York City and Long Island. Despite rejecting water quality permits for the project in prior years, both New York and New Jersey awarded those permits last November, sparking ire from environmentalists. Advocacy groups sued both states over the about-face.
On Wednesday, the New Jersey Tidelands Resource Council will consider awarding a permit to the pipeline project. It is unclear what the project’s fate will be if the council does not approve the permit.
“You have the opportunity to exercise leadership on this issue that will resonate all over the United States,” Fonda wrote in a letter to Sherrill this week.
“If the pipeline is rejected by the Tidelands Resource Council, that rejection will be a giant victory for New Jersey’s environment and the world’s climate,” the letter later added.
A spokesperson for Sherrill declined to comment on the letter.
While Sherrill, like Hochul, supports an all-of-the-above approach to energy policy, Hochul has cited affordability concerns in her defense of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s decision to issue the water quality certification, arguing that she needs to “govern in reality” amid skyrocketing bills and the Trump administration’s antipathy to renewables.
Sherrill, while also focused on affordability, is in a tough spot as the pipeline would not deliver any energy to New Jersey. She has not weighed in on the project since taking office, but she criticized the pipeline while she was governor-elect for doing “nothing to lower electric bills for New Jersey residents.” — Mona Zhang
FROM CITY HALL
IT’S IN THE BAG: Carl Wilson was officially crowned the winner of a high-stakes City Council race today after ranked-choice tabulations put him more than 2,000 votes ahead of Lindsey Boylan, his closest competitor whose defeat is seen as a black eye for Mamdani.
Wilson’s victory was already all but certain after Election Day on April 28, as he trounced Boylan by a wide margin in early ballot returns.
But since no candidate secured a simple majority in the April 28 results, the city Board of Elections needed to run ranked-choice tallies.
Those tabulations, released by the board this afternoon, show Wilson won after three rounds of ranked choice tallying with 7,863 ballots, or 59.4 percent of the vote total.
That put him well ahead of Boylan, who netted 5,373 ballots, or 40.6 percent of the vote total, the ranked-choice tallies show. The other two candidates in the special election for the 3rd Council District, Layla Law-Gisiko and Leslie Boghosian Murphy, were eliminated in the third and second ranked-choice rounds, respectively.
“This victory belongs to all of us,” Wilson said in a statement after the release of the ranked-choice results. “From the start, this was a true grassroots effort powered by neighbors, volunteers, unions and supporters who showed up day after day. We build something real together, and these results reflect that.”
Last week’s special election was called because former Council Member Erik Bottcher, who used to count Wilson as his Council chief of staff, vacated his seat after being elected to the state Senate in February.
After initially being seen as a shoo-in for Wilson, the race was scrambled in mid-April when Mamdani endorsed Boylan, a onetime adviser to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo who became the first woman to accuse him of sexual misconduct in 2020 (Cuomo has denied the accusations). Mamdani’s move made the race the first true test of his endorsement power since his inauguration and created a proxy war between him and more moderate Democrats backing Wilson, including Council Speaker Julie Menin.
Read the story from Chris Sommerfeldt in POLITICO Pro.
ACCESS DENIED: The city’s Department of Investigation released a report today outlining several ways its oversight of the Administration for Children’s Services is stymied by both state law and a state agency, leaving the municipal watchdog unable to properly probe some of the most sensitive work done in government.
The problem is twofold.
First, a provision in state law prohibits investigators from accessing ACS records of unfounded accusations of child abuse or maltreatment. A second provision ices out the department if a case is put into a deferral program that avoids a full-blown investigation of a caretaker.
Often, that is the very information investigators need to draw a conclusion in instances where children are harmed.
“If there is a history of unfounded investigations by ACS, we’re unable to go back and look and see: Were these investigations conducted properly? Was there some misconduct? Was there a home visit that a caseworker said they did but never actually did?” DOI’s newly installed commissioner, Nadia Shihata, said in an interview. “We can’t look into it because we can’t even access the records.”
The rules can have tragic consequences: In 2025, DOI was prohibited from accessing the full case history in 17 out of 18 child deaths it was notified of. In 2024, it was denied full records in 13 out of 16 child fatalities. And the year before that, the same thing happened in 19 out of 25 cases, according to the department.
The state Office of Child and Family Services at times can present its own roadblocks. State law requires DOI to obtain authorization from that office before receiving nearly any type of record relating to children who have encountered ACS, placing a drag on inquiries. And DOI has found the state office often goes above and beyond what the statutes lay out, excessively delaying or limiting records in a way that limits DOI’s ability to investigate potential shortfalls in city service delivery.
“What we want to look into affects the most vulnerable children in the city,” said Shihata, who noted the department is supporting state legislation that would alter the rules and allow DOI more access. “It’s frustrating.”
The state countered that limitations on data sharing exist to protect the children involved but that it cooperates with DOI to the extent it can. Spokesperson Daniel Marans noted investigators are entitled to full records in criminal cases via law enforcement bodies and can obtain unredacted files with permission from the affected family.
“OCFS is deeply committed to the wellbeing of children and families and takes seriously its obligation under New York State law to protect the identities of children experiencing abuse and maltreatment or institutionalization,” Marans said in a statement. — Joe Anuta
FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
FIRST IN PLAYBOOK: Progressive organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier is homing in on Spanish-speaking voters as she vies to unseat Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat in next month’s primary.
Avila Chevalier’s campaign is going up with its first broadcast ad of the primary, backed by an initial buy of more than $165,000. The Spanish-language spot leans into an issue that Democrats have been using in primaries across the country to activate their base: Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In the spot, Avila Chevalier touts her work to release people detained by ICE, and vows to abolish the agency in Congress. She also takes a swipe at Espaillat, whom she claims aided President Donald Trump by funding ICE — a reference to votes he took in line with many other Democrats approving DHS funding.
During the latest DHS funding standoff, Espaillat was adamant about not providing funding for immigration enforcement without guardrails.
Hispanic residents make up around half of Espaillat’s district, which covers parts of Manhattan and the Bronx, according to Census data. The five-term incumbent is chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Avila Chevalier, who is backed by the city chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, is running to Espaillat’s left and looking to harness the progressive energy that got Mamdani elected last year. The mayor has not endorsed in this race. — Madison Fernandez
IN OTHER NEWS
— ‘NOT MY BOSS’: Brooklyn police captain James Wilson has been transferred following a video capturing him trashing Mamdani at the scene of anti-immigration enforcement protests. (Gothamist)
— JUDGE OF CHARACTER: The opaque, party-controlled and patronage-driven system that selects and assigns New York City judges raises concerns about accountability and persistent abuses. (Hell Gate)
— GETTING SQUEEZED: New York’s budget woes are forcing upstate cities to implement government layoffs and service cuts as officials say state and federal funding are not meeting rising costs. (Syracuse.com)
Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.
There is something slightly otherworldly about watching 30 police officers prepare to dismantle temporary plywood walls covered with the faces of young Iranian men and women protesters massacred by their own government just a few months ago.
I arrived at the memorial outside the Islamic Republic’s embassy in Knightsbridge late afternoon on Friday to find five or six large police vans emptying themselves on to the pavement opposite. A senior officer approached the 10 or so Iranian protesters to deliver the news: the memorial wall – featuring handwritten messages, posters and the carefully arranged photographs of some of the tens of thousands of people murdered by the regime whose embassy stands just yards away – was to be removed. All of it. Right now. They had had their orders.
The protesters had maintained this memorial with extraordinary care. Mahan, its principal organiser, had been at the site virtually around the clock since January – four months of continuous vigil, sleeping there, guarding it against attacks, refusing to abandon the faces of his countrymen to our country’s indifference.
One of the protesters, Mary, was already making her case to the officer in charge. She had been in ongoing discussion with someone at the council and had not yet received a formal written response. I decided to interject, for whatever it was worth – probably not much. I pointed out that whatever authority the police were acting under, the obvious question was whether there was any meaningful obstruction to the highway, and clearly there wasn’t. The combined effect of these remonstrations was eventually sufficient. After a lot of back-and-forth and a call to the superintendent who had apparently ordered the removals, the officer overseeing the operation granted the Iranians a temporary reprieve, and the police, one by one, looking rather more indifferent now, filed back into their vans.
But the following morning, the police were back. The wooden hoardings were forcibly removed. And Mahan was arrested.
This did not come from nowhere. In the brief few months the protesters have been opposite the embassy, they have come under sustained pressure – permitted hours curtailed, the structure of the protest repeatedly scrutinised, even the playing of music challenged. It is worth setting those few months against what the Metropolitan Police have tolerated for over two years on the streets of London with the pro-Palestine protests: crowds chanting ‘Globalise the Intifada’, ‘From the River to the Sea’ and ‘Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud’ (an Arabic battle cry calling for the massacre of Jews) have been allowed to march unimpeded through the capital week after week. Not to mention countless violent incidents against other members of the public and the police, too.
Counter-protesters peacefully holding signs reading ‘Hamas are terrorists’ have been repeatedly arrested and even prosecuted for breaching the peace. And in one incident, Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, was stopped by a Met police officer from crossing a public road, and told that his presence, described by an officer as being ‘quite openly Jewish’, risked being inflammatory.
That two-year tolerance has undoubtedly contributed to a very different climate in the UK, felt most acutely by Jewish and Iranian communities. Less than a week ago, an arsonist attacked the Iranian memorial wall on Limes Avenue in Golders Green – part of a wave of violence targeting Jewish and Iranian dissident sites across north London. The wall itself survived, but a wooden display case was burned and photographs were charred. Community members have since been sleeping in their cars beside it at night because, as one of them put it, they do not feel the memorial site is safe.
Two days after that, two Jewish men were subjected to a frenzied knife attack on Golders Green Road. They were stabbed repeatedly in the street, and were lucky to escape with their lives, in what was declared a terrorist incident and suspected attempted murder. The government has since raised the national terrorism threat level to critical. On Thursday, prime minister Keir Starmer stood up and promised more muscular action against the pro-Palestine protests.
On Friday evening, one day after Starmer’s announcement, that muscularity found its first expression outside the Iranian embassy – not against those chanting for the killing of Jews, but against Iranians protesting the horrors of the Islamic Republic, the very regime that funds, arms and promulgates the extremism Starmer had just pledged to face down. The Met cleared away a memorial maintained by a handful of grieving diaspora Iranians, while the embassy of the regime that killed their relatives continues to operate freely on British soil. That embassy represents a government that funds proxy militias across the Middle East, that supplies the drones used to kill Ukrainians, that rapes female prisoners before executing them, and that British counter-terrorism investigators strongly suspect of orchestrating the very arson campaign currently terrorising north London.
This is what muscular action looks like in practice. This is what the police consider their most pressing priority in the wake of Golders Green and the prime minister’s words.
The Iranian diaspora occupies a stunningly awkward position in the official British imagination. For a constellation of reasons, they are just not the right kind of oppressed and their oppressors still aren’t quite the right kind of oppressors. We seem to have far more to say about Trump than about a regime that massacres thousands of its own citizens and hangs children from cranes. When Iranians march through central London carrying pictures of blinded and executed girls, they receive a fraction of the media coverage granted to other causes. When their memorials are attacked, the news cycle barely registers it. And when police arrive to enforce what arsonists had attempted in Golders Green just days before, there is no outcry from the organisations that have spent years insisting the right to protest is non-negotiable.
And look what was torn down. Pictures of victims of the Iranian regime. Of Mahsa Amini, 22 years old, killed for not covering her hair. Of Sarina Esmailzadeh, 16, beaten to death at a protest. Of the thousands imprisoned in 2019, hundreds of whom were subsequently executed. The wall was a very dignified act of witness – the kind of thing a civilised society ought to protect.
Since the Islamic Republic began massacring its own people, the Iranian community here has been asking a simple question: whose side are you on? The answer from the British state was writ large in the hoardings taken down on Saturday and the young man led away in handcuffs.
Max Sadie is a photographer who has been documenting the Iranian diaspora and its protest movement in London.
spiked is funded by readers like you. Only 0.1% of regular readers currently support us. If just 1% did, we could grow our team and step up the fight for free speech and democracy.
Become a spiked supporter and enjoy unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content and exclusive events – while helping to keep independent journalism alive.
Two things can be true at once. One, that those regular, relentless ‘pro-Palestine’ demos that pose as rallies for peace are hotbeds of Jew hate. Two, that banning the so-called hate marches would do nothing to solve Britain’s anti-Semitism crisis.
The question of what to do about the hate marches has inevitably resurfaced in the wake of the Golders Green atrocity in which two Jewish men were stabbed in a suspected terror attack. Although this was merely one incident in a sustained campaign of terror that has been waged against Britain’s tiny Jewish community since 7 October 2023, pretending there is no problem is no longer sustainable.
Keir Starmer, who once accused critics of the marches of ‘sowing hatred and mistrust’, said last weekend that there may be ‘instances’ where it is appropriate to prevent Palestine marches from taking place. ‘Tougher action’ would also need to be taken, the UK prime minister said, against chants such as ‘globalise the intifada’. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, meanwhile, has called for a ‘moratorium’ on the demos, which she says are ‘used as a cover to promote violence and hatred against Jews’.
At this stage, to pretend that these protests and the movement behind them are totally unproblematic is to engage in wilful blindness. This is a movement that embraces chants calling for ‘intifada’ (referencing violent terror attacks against Israeli Jews) and the erasure of the world’s only Jewish state (‘from the river to the sea’). The Arabic war chant ‘Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud!’, threatening the slaughter of Jews, is also a staple on these so-called peace marches. On every demo of a certain size, you will see placards proudly displaying overt anti-Semitism, usually branding ‘the Zionist entity’ as demonic, its leaders as the puppeteers of world affairs, and Jews as bloodthirsty baby-killers.
What’s more, the right to protest is not absolute. Not every restriction placed on a protest is an attack on free expression. Central London would struggle to function if police were not able to impose some conditions on the location, frequency and duration of demos, and to ensure protests are not used as thinly veiled forms of intimidation. Nor should the ‘right to protest’ be extended to otherwise illegal activity, whether that’s blocking roads, or engaging in vandalism or violence.
Even with those caveats, though, it is always better to err on the side of free expression – to allow people to express views that society finds offensive or objectionable. Hateful, bigoted and even fascistic speech should not be silenced by the state, either by bans on certain protests or by making arrests for hate speech. Whenever the authorities are empowered to police ‘hate’, there is no telling what it could soon become illegal to say or protest against. In a nation where over 30 people are already arrested every day for ‘grossly offensive’ speech online, the police hardly need any more encouragement to limit people’s expression.
It’s not as if the British authorities aren’t already cracking down on some pro-Palestine protesters. Take the Labour government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group, which makes it illegal to say, ‘I support Palestine Action’. There is no doubt that Palestine Action is a genuinely menacing outfit. Four of its activists were found guilty today of criminal damage, one of grievous bodily harm for shattering a police officer’s spine with a sledgehammer. But we must make a sharp distinction between words and violence. And even the threat of arrest and prosecution under the Terrorism Act has not deterred pro-Palestine types from declaring their support for Palestine Action. At least 2,400 arrests had been made as of November 2025 following Palestine Action’s proscription, the main achievement of which has been to make martyrs out of scumbags.
We should, of course, note the outrageous double standards of those who only ever pipe up about free expression when it involves the right to yell for intifada. Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who cheered the state’s persecution of comedy writer Graham Linehan, has accused Starmer of threatening ‘authoritarian restrictions’ on protest. But the flaming hypocrisy of the anti-Israel zealots does not invalidate their right to speak their minds, no matter how hideous the content.
The only way to challenge bigotry is by confronting it head on, by exposing it to sunlight, by defeating it politically. A moratorium on the hate marches may seem like a quick, easy fix, but it doesn’t begin to scratch the sides of the hatred that is now festering in our midst.
The task of challenging the new anti-Semitism is far, far too important to be left to a police crackdown.
Fraser Myers is deputy editor at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Follow him on X: @FraserMyers.
Politics
The House | The Supported Housing Act is welcome progress, but the government must go further
4 min read
We must not let what could be a landmark piece of legislation be a missed opportunity.
Last month, I spoke at the launch of Emmaus UK’s Rebuilding Lives report – peer-led research carried out with, and by, people who have experienced homelessness and now live in supported housing. Their testimony was powerful and timely: this is a high-stakes moment for supported housing, and one we must get right.
Supported housing is perhaps easy to overlook until you hear about its impact from the people who know best. At the launch, I heard directly from residents about what it means to them: a stable base from which to rebuild, a sense of purpose, community, and belonging. One resident described how the work opportunities and activities at their Emmaus community had transformed their mental health in ways that simply having a roof over their head never could. That is what good supported housing does. It helps people to heal, recover, and rebuild their lives.
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act is introducing the most significant reform to this sector in a generation – new national standards, a licensing regime, and changes to Housing Benefit. At the same time, rough sleeping is at record levels, one in three supported housing providers closed schemes last year due to funding pressures, and thousands of people are trapped in temporary accommodation with nowhere suitable to move on to.
This is a critical moment for supported housing that has the potential to safeguard the delivery of quality provision for generations to come – but only if we can get implementation right.
There has been welcome progress. The government has just published its long-awaited consultation response on implementing the Act, which shows that some genuinely important concerns have been listened to.
The scheme definition has been amended so that dispersed housing providers won’t face a separate licence application for each postal address. The list of exemptions for providers already regulated elsewhere has been expanded. Local authorities have lost the ability to impose discretionary licensing conditions, preventing a damaging postcode lottery of requirements. And the ‘local need’ standard has been clarified to exclude local connection tests – which, as the Rebuilding Lives report highlights, can actively block access to support for people who need it most.
However, some notable gaps remain, and if left unaddressed, they risk turning a landmark piece of legislation into a missed opportunity. Residents and providers are both clear that good quality supported housing is about much more than just a roof over someone’s head. Yet the national standards still do not fully reflect what drives recovery: purposeful activity, community, and flexibility of stay.
The two-year intended duration for transitional accommodation risks being read as a fixed ceiling rather than a guide. There is still no standardised methodology for local needs assessments, or a nationally set licence fee rate for providers to pay. And cost-cutting motivations could still permeate local licensing decisions, particularly with local authorities facing a continued subsidy loss when reclaiming Housing Benefit from national government for supported housing providers who are non-registered. These areas need addressing to achieve a fair, consistent, and person-centred system.
Another glaring omission is funding. With many supported housing providers already under financial pressure, layering new compliance burdens on a sector with no transitional support is a serious risk. Providers may be forced to divert resources away from frontline support simply to evidence that they are delivering frontline support.
On resident protection, the government has confirmed a three-month improvement period before licence refusal. This is welcome, but only half the six months organisations, including Emmaus UK, called for. Guidance will be issued on re-housing residents where schemes close, but guidance alone does not guarantee outcomes. For people who have experienced homelessness, the statutory rehousing duty may not apply. Without robust safeguards, licence refusal could lead to homelessness, which would be a tragic unintended consequence of the Act.
And none of this works without affordable homes for residents to move on to after supported housing: an average gap of £200 a month between local housing allowance and median private rents traps people in supported housing long after they are ready to leave, while we urgently need to work toward 90,000 social homes built per year.
The message from residents and providers is clear: we know what good quality supported housing looks like. The government has the foundations in place – now it needs to go further.
Paula Barker is the Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree and Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ending Homelessness
6 Powerful Techniques to Make Money | Learn How to Earn Without Investment
Expert issues verdict on hantavirus spreading after three deaths on cruise
Aussie dollar, shares soar on Iran peace deal hopes
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
-
Business7 days agoTesla Officially Registers Elon Musk’s Stock: What Investors Need to Know
-
NewsBeat3 days agoChannel 5 – All Creatures Great and Small series 7 new post
-
Entertainment6 days agoInsider Claims Reason Behind Key & Peele Split
-
Tech5 days agoTrump’s 25% EU auto tariff breaches Turnberry Agreement that also covers semiconductors and digital trade
-
Sports5 days agoPaul Scholes issues Marcus Rashford reality check as agreement emerges over Man United star
-
Entertainment5 days agoMet Gala 2026 Rumored Guest List Is Turning Heads
-
Entertainment6 days agoCelebrities Who Are Attending the 2026 Met Gala Event
-
Business6 days agoStrait of Hormuz Remains Heavily Restricted on April 29 Amid Iran Conflict
-
Business5 days ago
Strait of Hormuz Blockade Persists Amid US-Iran Standoff, Sending Oil Prices Soaring
-
Sports4 days agoDavid Benavidez responds to team Canelo saying the fight will never happen
-
Crypto World7 days agoMeta (META) starts stablecoin payout to creators in Circle’s USDC on Polygon, Solana via Stripe
-
Tech7 days agoTexas Instruments made a new flagship graphing calculator: the TI-84 Evo
-
Entertainment5 days ago
New on Prime Video in May 2026 — Full List of Movies and Shows
-
Sports4 days agoCavaliers vs. Raptors Game 6 live score, updates, highlights from 2026 NBA playoffs first-round series
-
Sports6 days agoSaudi Arabia set to withdraw LIV Golf funding after 2026 season, per reports
-
Tech6 days agoMark Zuckerberg Says Meta Is Working On AI Agents For Personal And Business Use
-
Entertainment4 days agoKylie Jenner Hit With Second Lawsuit From Ex-Housekeeper
-
Sports4 days agoPlane crash in Wimberley, Texas kills 5 pickleball players at tournament
-
Sports4 days agoIPL 2026: ‘Love you darling’- Hardik Pandya’s reaction to MS Dhoni steals the show |Watch | Cricket News
-
Crypto World4 days agoSam Altman ChatGPT AI Predicts the Price of XRP, Bitcoin and Ethereum By the End of May 2026
You must be logged in to post a comment Login