Israeli police have arrested 10 suspects in the occupied West Bank following attacks by Jewish settlers over the weekend in which a US journalist and European diplomats were among those injured.

Masked settlers beat Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine as she covered an olive harvest in the Palestinian village of Abu Falah. The following day, settlers attacked diplomats from Belgium, France and Poland, as well as representatives of the Catholic Church, in the Palestinian Christian village of Taybeh.

Why is the harvest so significant for Palestinians?

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, between 80,000 and 100,000 Palestinian families depend on the olive sector for at least part of their income. Every autumn, thousands of families harvest olives that have sustained communities for generations. To many olive-growing communities, the harvest represents not just livelihoods, but cultural identity, family heritage and attachment to the land.

The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture estimates that olive oil production will reach approximately 21,000 tonnes this year, around a quarter of which would be surplus to domestic need and could be exported, said Palestinian News Network. But that yield is reliant on farmers being able to access and harvest their groves.

Settler attacks during this year’s olive harvest season have already surpassed the total for 2025. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has documented 199 olive-harvest-related settler attacks in the West Bank this season. These incidents resulted in one death, 124 injuries and damage to more than 2,500 trees and saplings.

Why is the season vulnerable to violence?

These attacks in the West Bank “are not new”, said Al Jazeera. Every year, “Israeli settlers and hardline groups use the olive harvest period to assert control over valuable agricultural lands”, including by “stealing crops, or building illegal settlement outposts and roads on private Palestinian property”.

This annual ritual of “assaulting farmers, burning or uprooting trees and stealing crops”, is “making it increasingly dangerous for Palestinians to reach and remain on their own land”, Ahmed Najar, a Palestinian political analyst and playwright, told the outlet.

The attacks are also designed to “deter international campaigners from accompanying Palestinian farmers, standing with them against settler violence and documenting the atrocities being committed”, he said. “The objective is not only to dispossess Palestinians, but to ensure that their dispossession happens without witnesses.”

What is being done?

The EU has condemned Israeli settler attacks, with a spokesperson for its diplomatic service saying it expects “full accountability as well as effective measures to prevent continued acts of violence and violent harassment against Palestinians, including during the ongoing olive harvest season”.

The Israeli military has condemned Saturday’s attack on the EU diplomats and said it has opened an investigation into the incident. However, “despite the international condemnation”, the office of Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has “questioned the video evidence and testimony” from what it calls “alleged” attacks, said the BBC.

The government is going to announce more “everyday fixes” to ease financial pressures for Britons and show that it can “rectify some of life’s little nuisances without needing to bust the budget”, said Politico.

Andy Burnham promised in his first cabinet meeting that there are “things that can be done, big and small” to help with the cost of living. He is now “lining up” more “feel-good announcements”, including today’s “crackdown on public transport ‘headphone dodgers’”.

What policies has the government announced?

Burnham has been busy making minor policy tweaks since he came into power. In July, he removed VAT from electricity bills and capped single bus fares across England at £2 from January. A month later, he announced restrictions on high-street vape and betting shops, revoking the Gambling Act’s “aim to permit” rule to make it easier for councils to refuse them.

Since then, Burnham’s team have brought forward a ban on auto-renewed subscriptions, planned to tackle misleading sale prices from retailers, and are introducing price displays for fuel on Google Maps.

New rules have also been introduced for air travel. In a post on X, Burnham announced airlines will be required to seat children under 14 next to an accompanying adult without any additional charge. Passengers will also be able to fix any name errors on their booking for free. To reduce the “stress” of flying, the government will make it easier for airlines to ban “disruptive” flyers flagged by other carriers.

Today, under a new “share the carriage, not the noise” campaign, the government announced that councils will be able to issue £100 fixed penalties to bus passengers if they play loud music, litter or vape while travelling. “Headphone dodgers” who refuse to turn down the volume on trains face penalties of up to £1,000.

Will the measures be effective?

With the Budget nine days away, the prime minister wants to “assure weary voters that the government has their backs” without making “too much of a dent in the chancellor’s spreadsheet”, said Politico.

This Budget will already be “difficult”, said The Guardian. Inflation and “soaring” borrowing costs, exacerbated by the Iran war among other factors, have “blown a £12 billion hole in the public finances”, which could force John Healey to consider tax rises and “spending cuts to fund plans to ease the cost of living”.

Some government special advisers “admitted they had some qualms about the drumbeat of small interventions”, with one unnamed source telling The Guardian “we risk looking twee”. The smaller fixes “might not, on their own, amount to very much”, said the paper, but Downing Street hopes that added together they can “make a difference and show the government is trying”.

Could more be in the pipeline?

Consumer campaigner Martin Lewis has launched the apolitical Small Ideas Initiative, designed to fix “life potholes” by informing government policy. Lewis has invested £175,000 of his own money in the project, and will ask the public for “simple, inexpensive and broadly uncontroversial changes that could make Britain work a little better”, said The Times.

With the help of the public and a “broad political panel”, he will present a shortlist of ideas to the government and local authorities, and campaign to get the proposals adopted.

The consensus is that Israel’s forthcoming election is one of the most consequential in the country’s 78-year history, and a defining moment for its political identity. It is the first since the 7 October attacks three years ago; and the first time voters have had a chance to pass judgement on the government’s failure to prevent that catastrophe, and on Israel’s prosecution of its subsequent wars on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

It could herald a reset in relations between Israel and its international allies, many of whom have been critical of Benjamin Netanyahu’s hardline government, particularly over Gaza. Above all, the election could herald the political demise of Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving PM, who has led the nation for all but 18 months since 2009.

What is the current make-up of Israel’s parliament?

The ruling party needs a majority of at least 61 seats out of 120 in the Knesset. Because of its proportional representation system – voters cast one vote for a national party-list – even the largest parties rarely win more than 35 seats, and Israel has always had coalition governments. At present, Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud has 32 seats. To govern, it relies on two ultra-orthodox Haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism (with 18 seats together), the ultra-nationalist Religious Zionist and Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) parties (with 13 seats between them), and the centre-right New Hope party (with four seats).

The government is widely regarded as the most extreme Israel has ever had. The main opposition bloc – ranging from the remnants of the once-mighty Labor Party to secular, liberal Yesh Atid to the centre-right Yisrael Beiteinu – has more than 40 seats, but has refused to govern with Netanyahu since 2019, partly because he was the defendant in three corruption cases. Hadash-Ta’al and Ra’am, representing the 20% of Israel’s population that is Arab, have ten seats.

And how likely is Netanyahu to lose?

The emergence of Gadi Eisenkot, a former general, and his newly formed centre-right Yashar party, has consolidated the anti-Netanyahu opposition. He is seen as the PM’s principal rival, and could replace him. However, according to most opinion polls, the election is too close to call. The Economist’s poll tracker suggests that Likud and Yashar are neck-and-neck, on 22 seats each; that Netanyahu’s coalition will fall short of the 61 seats needed for a majority; but that Eisenkot’s coalition is likely to fall short too.

What are Eisenkot’s credentials?

A former IDF chief of staff, Eisenkot served in Netanyahu’s war cabinet until June 2024, when he resigned with a scathing criticism of the PM’s revanchist strategy in Gaza. He launched his party, Yashar (meaning “straight” or “honest”) just over a year later; since then, it has steadily risen in the polls. Although without Netanyahu’s charisma, Eisenkot, the son of Jewish immigrants from Morocco, is widely regarded by voters as a man of integrity. His son, Gal Meir, was killed in Gaza in December 2023, during an operation to recover the bodies of two Israeli hostages.

Netanyahu’s allies have sought, somewhat unconvincingly, to cast him as too left-wing and squeamish to protect Israel’s security. In fact, as a general, he pioneered Israel’s “Dahiya doctrine”, named after Hezbollah’s stronghold in south Beirut, which calls for the overwhelming use of force against civilian infrastructure in areas from which attacks are launched; he also categorically opposes the creation of a Palestinian state.

Are there other contenders?

Conceivably, there is Naftali Bennett, who served as PM in 2021-22 but could not keep his diverse coalition together. Another right-winger, and a former Netanyahu aide, he has merged his party with that of the centrist Yair Lapid, another former PM, under the banner “Yachad” (“Together”); but their party lags well behind leaders Yashar and Likud in the polls. Bennett also rejects a two-state solution. Lapid accepts it in theory, but thinks that it is not realistic for the foreseeable future.

How about the Arab parties?

They are on course to win at least ten seats in the Knesset. However, Eisenkot has ruled out a coalition with the Arab parties, only one of which (the conservative-Islamist Ra’am) has ever agreed to join an Israeli government (briefly in 2021). Their very participation has been the subject of controversy: on 2 October, Israel’s supreme court overturned a ban on them running in the contest at all. The ban had been imposed by the central elections committee, a political body dominated by Netanyahu allies, on the basis that the parties supported armed struggle against Israel.

So what would the opposition do differently?

In many respects, not much: the Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal has described Israeli politics as “50 shades of right-wing”. However, an Eisenkot coalition would establish a commission of inquiry into the 7 October attacks. It would seek to end the exemption of Haredi men from military service, an agreement dating back to 1948 that has become very controversial. It would roll back many of the judicial reforms introduced by Netanyahu, designed to give more control over the judiciary. It would also crack down on violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank – though it would retain settlements authorised in Israeli law. And it would try to reset troubled relations with Israel’s allies.

And if Netanyahu wins again?

It would mean more of the same. Many liberal Israelis fear that a new Netanyahu coalition, again likely backed by the far-right, would take the state in an increasingly autocratic direction: comparisons to Hungary and Turkey are often made. For the first time in Israeli history, emigration has begun to outpace immigration: in the period 2023–26, more than 200,000 Israelis left the country.

Most people think of testosterone as “the defining male hormone”, said biochemist Daniel Kelly on The Conversation. But women also produce it and levels decline with age.

Women have long used testosterone therapy to improve libido and energy. Now, many are turning to it to manage other menopause-related symptoms, such as brain fog and mood swings.

But concerns are growing that the hormone treatment’s surge in popularity on social media is fuelling demand that vastly outstrips evidence for its long-term safety and efficacy.

How widespread is this new use?

Only four countries – Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the UK – have authorised a testosterone cream for women, but mostly only to treat low libido. The UK approved the female-formulated testosterone cream AndroFeme in 2025, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) still needs to appraise it for cost effectiveness; it isn’t yet available on the NHS.

Still, there has been a “very sharp increase” in testosterone referrals to the NHS in Wales for post-menopausal women, a consultant told the BBC. Women there are “posing as men” to buy products from online pharmacies because of difficulties getting NHS prescriptions, she said. In England, NHS prescriptions for testosterone gel to women rose roughly tenfold between 2015 and 2022, said The Pharmaceutical Journal.

The issue is “receiving attention from regulators”, said Kelly on The Conversation. In September, the US Food and Drug Administration held a landmark public workshop on testosterone therapy, “examining evidence gaps and the need for future drug development”.

Does it work?

Most studies have focused on testosterone’s effect on low libido. But preliminary evidence indicates it could help with “a wide range of menopause symptoms, from mood changes to muscle loss”, said New Scientist.

A study published last year involving 510 women at a specialist menopause clinic in the UK found that, after four months on testosterone gel, there were improvements in mood, cognitive symptoms and libido. These findings “do not prove that the testosterone treatment caused these changes”, said Kelly. Testosterone is usually prescribed alongside oestrogen and sometimes progesterone in standard hormone replacement therapy. A study in Wales is currently trying to discover if “anecdotal reports of improved cognition and energy could be scientifically backed”, said the BBC.

More than 30 trials studying testosterone use for various health conditions in women are under way or planned in the US, said Reuters. “We do not have any evidence in women that it will improve muscle mass or bone density or mood or well-being or really any other metric,” said Stephanie Faubion, director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health and medical director of The ​Menopause Society. “What testosterone is being touted for in the lay public and on social media is not really what we have data for.”

Placebo-controlled trials have also not conclusively proven that testosterone alleviates brain fog, mood, bone density or fatigue, endocrinology professor Susan Davis told LiveScience.

What are the concerns?

Most testosterone treatments are not formulated and dosed for female patients. So in the UK, a “workaround” has been to measure out a tenth of a sachet of men’s testosterone gel by eye, said Kelly. That’s “a less precise way to deliver a hormone for which the therapeutic dose is so small”. Too much testosterone can increase the likelihood of unwanted side effects, such as voice deepening or rapid growth of facial and body hair.

“When you persistently have very high testosterone levels, you can get undesirable permanent side effects,” menopause specialist Michelle Olver told the BBC. “Nobody wants to have baldness, deepening of the voice or enlargement of the clitoris.”

The potential impacts of extra testosterone on cardiovascular health and breast cancer risk are “poorly understood”, said LiveScience. There is little evidence or data on the long-term safety for women. Yet online, they are “being bombarded with a tsunami of information providing them with the most sky-high expectations imaginable”, said gynaecology professor Nanette Santoro.

Speculation is rife about how Chancellor John Healey will attempt to balance the books in his first Autumn Budget.

Healey will deliver the Budget on 28 October and with Labour pledging not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance and to keep the triple lock until April 2030, “targeted measures” on wealth, investments, pensions and property are “the most likely revenue-raising options”, said Rathbones.

The Treasury is facing pressures of “rocketing government borrowing”, said The Sun, driving fears of “painful tax hikes”.

1. Don’t act too early

Nothing has been confirmed, but there are rumours of changes to capital gains tax rates and pensions tax.

The “general consensus”, said Saga, is that it is unwise to make decisions based on “Budget rumour and speculation”.

It is worth reviewing transactions that are “already in the pipeline” and reassessing your tax position “if changes are ultimately announced in the Budget”.

There is an “annual rumour”, said Trustnet, that the amount that can be taken tax-free from a pension at retirement will be cut. But “acting early has risks” as reinvesting a withdrawn lump sum can breach HMRC’s recycling rules and lead to penalties.

2. Make use of existing tax allowances

We already know that the cash ISA allowance is being reduced to £12,000 for under-65s from April 2027.

ISAs remain one of the “most valuable tax shelters”, said Hargreaves Lansdown, so it is worth making use of the current full £20,000 allowance.

Married couples and civil partners have “additional flexibility” as they can move assets to each other without any tax liability and can “maximise two sets of tax-free allowances” including on capital gains tax exemptions.

3. Boost your pension contributions

A “limited number of taxes” could rise in the Budget, said The i Paper, due to manifesto pledges on income tax, VAT and national insurance, plus Prime Minister Andy Burnham has “ruled out” changes to stamp duty and council tax.

But income tax thresholds remain frozen and the chancellor could even reduce these for additional rate taxpayers. The impact of frozen thresholds could “continue to hit hard”, said FT Adviser.

It is therefore “worth seeing” if higher earners can increase their pension contributions to help “cut their income tax bill”.

4. Focus on what you can control

There is plenty of speculation about what will be announced in the Budget, said Coutts, but while “headlines come and go, your financial goals are likely to be longer term”.

Focusing on objectives is important, and it is also worth reviewing finances to “highlight opportunities that already exist, rather than speculating on changes that may never happen”.

5. Plan for what you know

There are changes announced in the previous Budget that you can prepare for such as the reduced cash ISA allowance from April 2027 and the inclusion of pensions for inheritance tax calculations.

These are changes “we already know about”, said The i Paper, so it is something “that people can plan for”.

This week’s deadly attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Saudi Arabia’s airports and energy facilities have renewed focus on the Iran-backed militia’s growing strength, as well as its potential to disrupt global oil supplies.

Saudi Arabia has now launched “a major offensive” to support the Yemeni government forces who are trying to drive the militia out of the territory they’ve gained over the past 12 years, said CNN. But the rebels “have so far held their ground”.

How did they gain power?

Formally named Ansar Allah (“helpers of God”), the Houthis emerged in the 1990s as an armed political and religious group championing Yemen’s Zaidi Shia minority. Initially fighting for more autonomy in their northern homeland, they took a lead role in mass anti-government protests when civil war broke out in 2014. They captured the capital, Sanaa, and forced the internationally-recognised government to retreat to Aden in the south.

In 2015, Saudi Arabia intervened in the civil war, insisting that Iran was supporting the Houthis, and led a nine-country coalition in a years-long effort to restore the Yemeni government. The coalition’s bombing campaign led to “one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises” and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, said The New York Times. But the Houthis survived, “cementing their power” over northern and central Yemen.

A UN-brokered truce in 2022 led to peace talks but these broke down after Israel launched its campaign against Iran-backed Hamas in Gaza.

How have they grown so powerful?

A 2024 report to the UN Security Council concluded that support and training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps had helped the Houthis transform from “a localised armed group” to “a powerful military organisation”. Their forces had grown to an estimated 350,000 fighters – up from just 30,000 in 2015. The Houthis had also been forcibly recruiting large numbers of children and Ethiopian migrants, using them as human shields, spies and for dangerous mine-planting.

While Iran is believed still to supply expertise, as well as “cutting-edge components like guidance systems”, the Houthis can now “manufacture much of their weaponry domestically”, said The Associated Press. They have “little aerial and naval power” but have been “increasingly turning to drones”, said Middle East Eye. These are very effective against pro-government forces, which lack “effective air defences”, global security consultant Wolf-Christian Paes told the news organisation.

How much of Yemen is under Houthi control?

The Houthis control between a quarter and a third of Yemen, but that portion is home to around three-quarters of the population. The militia “rules over its impoverished territory with an iron fist”, said The New York Times. The Houthis are the de-factor regime in northern and western Yemen, while the Yemeni government “controls much of the rest of the country”, said Al Jazeera. The Houthis have recently grown more powerful, “consolidating control over major cities and pushing to seize others”, said CNN. In September, they seized control of key locations along the Red Sea coast, giving them leverage over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which is vital to global shipping.

“Half of the story is Iranian support,” international affairs professor and Yemen specialist Thomas Juneau told AP. The other half is “the weakness of their adversaries”. The anti-Houthi forces are “deeply divided” in the loyalty either to Saudi-backed government troops or to UAE-supported southern separatists, while Yemen’s recognised government remains “fragmented”, disunited and corrupt. The Houthis “have systematically been able to exploit that”.

“Netanyahu knew” – that was the verdict of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz as it reported allegations that Benjamin Netanyahu was warned about the 7 October attacks.

A string of claims that Arab officials warned the longtime Israeli PM that a violent attack was coming have put him on the defensive less than 30 days before the nation’s crucial elections. Netanyahu has said the reports are an “absolute lie” and threatened to sue the paper.

What are the claims?

The claims “began to trickle out” last month in a book by two Israeli journalists called “Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment”, said The Washington Post. It details an encrypted call reportedly made by the Emirati president, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, also known as MBZ, less than two weeks before 7 October 2023, to warn Netanyahu about a planned attack. Netanyahu did not pass on the warnings to his security aides, according to the authors, Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval.

The PM was also warned of an impending attack by Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, according to The Wall Street Journal. Kamel allegedly phoned Netanyahu just days before 7 October, adding to warnings from the previous month, when he is said to have flown to Israel to inform security officials in person that Hamas was planning a major assault, claimed the paper.

“We know that Egypt’s chief of intelligence flew to Israel on 26 September and warned Israel of a… Hamas attack,” Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera. “We also know that similar messages came from MBZ.”

How might they affect the election?

According to polling, events surrounding the attacks and “questions over responsibility for security failures that preceded them” are “important issues” for voters in the parliamentary elections to be held later this month, said the outlet.

But the polls have “held relatively steady in recent weeks”, said The Washington Post. Jonathan Rynhold, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University, Tel Aviv, said Netanyahu’s loyal base and Israel’s mainly right-leaning electorate may not move their votes to the “centrist bloc led by Eisenkot without a ‘clear smoking gun’”.

Naftali Bennett, the leader of the Beyachad (Together) alliance, said that if the allegations were proven true, Netanyahu “cannot continue to serve in his position for another minute”, while the former military chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, who leads Netanyahu’s Likud party in the polls by the “slenderest of margins”, said, “Netanyahu received dozens of warnings for 7 October and ignored them all. He is unfit.”

Many of Netanyahu’s electoral rivals, including Eisenkot, have promised to immediately establish an independent commission of inquiry if elected.

What does Netanyahu say?

Netanyahu has strongly denied ever receiving any warning of an attack. The Israeli PM said the report that he was warned by bin Zayed was an “absolute lie” and denied he even spoke to the Emirati leader at that time.

The Israeli PM has tried to “shift the blame” for not being warned of the attack to the former head of Israel’s internal security service, Ronen Bar, said Al Jazeera. Bar announced last month that he would sue the prime minister, a “longtime political nemesis”, for defamation over the claims.

We may be about to call time on the leap second, which for decades has kept Coordinated Universal Time (the global standard underpinning timekeeping systems) in sync with the Earth's daily rotation.

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures is convening its governing body for its General Conference in Versailles this week, as it does every four to six years. The timekeepers had already voted in 2022 to phase out the leap second by 2035. “But now there is a spanner – or spinner – in the works,” said the Financial Times. Earth has been rotating unusually rapidly for a decade, meaning that before 2035, there’s a chance we’d need the first-ever negative leap second – in other words, deleting a second. Scientists say this unprecedented step could “create mayhem in the digital time-stamped continuum”. The guardians of time are therefore considering an urgent draft resolution to fast-track the phase-out of the leap second.

How do we measure time?

“For millennia, a day has been defined as one full rotation of the Earth,” said physics and astronomy professor Vahe Peroomian on The Conversation. Ancient Egyptians were the first known civilisation to divide day and night into twelve parts each, establishing the 24-hour day.

Dividing hours into 60 minutes, and minutes into 60 seconds, harks back to ancient Mesopotamian numerical systems, which were based on the concept of 60. Greek astronomers like Claudius Ptolemy adopted the system while measuring the motions of planets, dividing degrees into 60 units. These subdivisions were adopted worldwide for timekeeping, dividing each hour into 60 minutes, and a minute into 60 seconds.

But it took many centuries before devices, such as 17th-century pendulum clocks and 20th-century quartz watches, “became accurate enough” to measure seconds, said BBC Future.

What’s the problem with astronomical timekeeping?

The speed of the Earth’s rotation can fluctuate, so defining a second as a fraction of a solar day is imprecise. In 1967, the General Conference on Weights and Measures adopted a new definition of a second based on the cesium-133 atom, which oscillates at “a remarkably steady rate”, said Peroomian. One second was defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations. Atomic clocks use cesium-133 to give us Coordinated Universal Time (UTC): the super-precise global standard used by telecoms, computer networks, international businesses and power grids.

So what are leap seconds?

Atomic clocks run at a fixed rate but – apart from right now – Earth’s rotation has been gradually slowing, primarily due to the Moon’s gravitational pull. To keep UTC in sync with Earth’s rotations, timekeepers invented “the leap second” in 1972. This “interloper” allows the two systems of time – astronomical and UTC – to “run in parallel”, said the Financial Times. Once the lag reaches a certain point, a leap second is inserted to “yank them back in alignment”. At irregular intervals, 27 leap seconds have been added to global clocks since 1972 – the last in 2016.

Why are they being phased out?

Leap seconds have become “increasingly difficult to deal with in the computer age”, said ABC News. They can disrupt computer operating systems, which assume a day is always 86,400 seconds long, resulting in glitches and outages. But the prospect of the first negative leap second poses an even greater risk. “Many computer programmes assume all leap seconds are positive”, Setnam Shemar, the UK’s principal timekeeping scientist, told the FT. Removing a second could “result in a major technology failure in telecommunications or electricity grid networks or satellite navigation systems”.

This week, the world’s timekeepers will vote on introducing a “leap hour” instead. This could take “a millennium or more” to accumulate and, by then, life may be so different, there may be no need to adjust the lag at all. All this change “would be a practical win for tech overlords, digital gatekeepers and official clock-watchers” but it could be “something of a cultural loss for our stargazing species, detaching human timekeeping from its ancient, astronomical roots”.

The UK government’s “one in, one out” deal with France, which was supposed to help deter small boat arrivals, has been scrapped, turning the spotlight back on the contentious issue.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the pilot scheme had “not been without its challenges” and admitted the “numbers are still relatively small”. About “1,500 people have been removed to France since the scheme began just over a year ago”, said the BBC. Mahmood estimated the deal had cost about £56,000 for every person sent back to France. “More than 40,000” migrants arrived in Britain in small boats while the deal was in place, said The Guardian.

As of early October, 19,451 people have been recorded crossing the Channel to the UK in small boats this year, 43% fewer than this time last year, but the arrivals remain a hot political topic.

What happens when they arrive?

Entering the UK without a visa or valid entry clearance is an offence under British law, carrying a potential prison sentence.

People who arrive in the UK on small boats without prior clearance are intercepted, detained for processing, and then usually enter the asylum system.

Initially, Border Force personnel or the coastguard picks up the boats at sea or meets them when they land on UK shores.

Where are they taken?

Officials take all arrivals by coach to a processing centre, the main one being the former military base at Manston in Kent. There they undergo a temperature check and are searched. Photographs and fingerprints are taken for basic identity checks.

Some are granted immigration bail. They are released and transferred to short-term Home Office accommodation, but those thought to pose a significant risk of harm, or who did not claim asylum, may be transferred to an immigration removal centre. Around 4% of all arrivals between 2018 and 2025 were returned to another country, according to the Migration Observatory.

New arrivals are placed in what the Home Office calls “initial accommodation”. Then they are moved to longer term “dispersal accommodation” – flats or houses of multiple occupation, often in areas such as the North West of England, where housing is cheaper – until an asylum decision has been made. But when this is not available, “contingency accommodation” is used, which is generally hotels.

Children who arrive in Dover on small boats without any family members are known as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. They are initially given temporary homes in reception and safe care centres by Kent County Council, as that is the county they have arrived in. The National Transfer Scheme was introduced in 2016 to encourage all local authorities across the UK to care for UASCs.

What rules apply?

When asylum seekers have been processed, if they are judged to be “destitute”, as most are, they are eligible for accommodation and subsistence while their claims are being assessed. They cannot choose where they live and they must sleep at their designated accommodation every night.

Most are not allowed to work. While their claims are being evaluated they are given a modest weekly allowance – around £49 a week if their accommodation is self-catered or £9.95 if meals are provided. Most temporary migrants are not eligible for mainstream welfare benefits.

At present, England’s adult care system is “one of the most threadbare in the developed world”, according to Thea Stein of the Nuffield Trust, which has analysed the arrangements of 11 comparable nations and regions. England is an “outlier” in that eligibility for any public funding at all is strictly means-tested.

The most generous system is in Denmark, where the state pays 100% of care costs, with no means test. Those in residential care do get billed for bed and board, but means-tested housing benefit is available.

Australia has a similar system, also funded by general taxation. In most cases, bed and board have to be paid for, but there are a series of daily spending caps on different elements, such as food and hotel costs.

Japan, with the oldest population in the world, introduced a tax on all over-40s in 2000, ring-fenced for care. Everyone who needs it is given a monthly care allowance. They contribute 10%-30% of costs, depending on income; total contributions are capped.

A similar insurance system operates in Germany, but with no cap. Individuals usually pay half of costs. Unusually, adult children can (in rare cases) be liable to pay for parents’ care if the parents run out of money.

The social care system is fragmented, severely underfunded, and creates stark disparities – particularly in England.

Adult social care covers a large range of services given to the frail and disabled, with the two main categories being long-term support for working-age adults with disabilities, and care for older people, which cost roughly similar amounts. In England in 2024-25, total spending in the area rose to £34.5 billion, a 4% real-terms increase on the year before. Growing costs are driven in part by a fast-ageing society. In 1972 there were around 7.5 million people aged 65 or over in the UK, about 13% of the population. In 2022, there were around 12.7 million (or 19%).

Publicly funded social care is provided by local authorities, and mainly outsourced to private providers. Growing expenditure puts local authorities under severe strain; adult social care now accounts for around 20% of English local authorities’ total spending. In addition, the system is seen as unfair and dysfunctional, placing a heavy burden on the NHS and on carers, paid and unpaid.

Why is the system thought to be unfair?

While “healthcare needs” – cancer, say – are theoretically met in full by the NHS, those with “social care needs” – trouble with eating, washing, mobility etc. – who have even fairly modest means have to pay for care themselves (although the dividing line between the two categories is often unclear). With health, the costs are shared across society; with care, the unlucky ones can face catastrophically large bills. The Department of Health and Social Care estimates that around a third of all over-65s in England need social care of some kind, and that about one in seven individuals over the age of 65 will face lifetime care costs exceeding £100,000.

How exactly does the system work?

First, the local council will conduct a needs assessment. Then there is a means test. In England and Northern Ireland, in most cases only people with assets worth less than £23,250 get any state support (income such as pensions is included in the calculation). Below that, there is a sliding scale: those with £14,250 or less receive full funding. The value of a home is ignored for at-home care but usually included if the person has to move into residential care, unless a spouse continues living there.

Care at home costs perhaps £20-£35 per hour, though the fees can be much higher. Residential care, for self-funders, costs on average £1,460 per week for the basics, according to healthcare data provider LaingBuisson. In many parts of the country it is higher than that.

In Wales, weekly care payments are capped, and the residential care thresholds are higher. In Scotland the system is more generous still: personal care at home is free for those who need it. Residential care is means-tested, though both the upper threshold (£36,750) and lower one (£22,750) are higher, and care costs, as opposed to accommodation and food costs, are met by the local authority.

What is Andy Burnham’s plan?

The PM said in his conference speech last week that Labour would create a “National Care Service” for England, along NHS lines: free at the point of use, funded from general taxation, “where everyone contributes and everyone is covered”.

The service will not be created until the next parliament, and the full plan won’t even be unveiled until Louise Casey has published her report next year, but we know it will follow the Scottish approach: offering free personal care at home, with those in residential care paying for “bed and board” costs only. Though much more generous – and more expensive – than the English system, this could still leave people very exposed to high costs. Average costs for bed and board alone often reach £1,300 a week.

How could such people be protected?

That would require either a full, wall-to-wall National Care Service, with residential care free at the point of use and funded by tax (which Burnham has not proposed); or a payment cap. This is a financial limit on how much an individual has to pay for their own personal care over their lifetime. The Dilnot Commission in 2011 suggested that no one should have to contribute more than £35,000 (over £50,000 in today’s money) towards care over their lifetime, nor more than £10,000 per year for bed and board.

How much would all this cost?

It’s hard to say. In 2023, the Health Foundation estimated that a comprehensive NHS-style system for England would cost an extra £18.5 billion per year; while a Scotland-style system would cost £7.5 billion; and a cap on care costs, £4 billion. Burnham announced that the pension triple lock would be replaced after the next election. But the authoritative Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that this would not meet the costs of social care. Labour argues that there would be some savings from a decent care system: it would take pressure off the NHS, freeing up perhaps £2 billion a year in the long term, according to the King’s Fund think-tank. But it added that such figures should be treated with caution.

Why hasn’t it been fixed before?

Many governments have tried: there have been three major commissions and dozens of official inquiries since 1997. But politically, it is very difficult, partly because the costs of the current system only fall on a small number of people, so it is not widely regarded as an important issue, while the solutions are unpopular.

In 2010, Burnham, then the health secretary, outlined plans for a National Care Service funded from a £20,000 levy on estates at death. This was branded a “death tax”, and Labour lost the election. At the 2017 election, Theresa May’s Conservative manifesto proposed raising the means-testing threshold from £23,250 to £100,000, but recovering more costs from estates. This “dementia tax”, as it was dubbed, contributed to May’s disastrous campaign. Burnham aims to get “cross-party consensus”.

The execution by firing squad of former US Army major Nidal Hasan will be livestreamed for the public to watch, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said.

This will make it the first public execution in the US since 1936, and the prospect has already been described as “medieval”.

Who is he and what did he do?

Hasan, a former US Army psychiatrist from Virginia, fatally shot 13 unarmed US soldiers at Fort Hood in November 2009, injuring another 32. The attack took place in a crowded medical building where soldiers were waiting for check-ups and vaccines. It was the deadliest ever non-combat attack on an American military base.

He admitted in court that he was the gunman, and said that he believed he was protecting Muslims and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He apologised for “any mistakes” but was convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder.

Why is it being livestreamed?

Hegseth signalled that the execution would be livestreamed as a deterrent for the sort of crime Hasan committed. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” he said.

The US government is sending “a very clear message”, said Sky News US correspondent David Blevins. Deborah Denno, a death penalty expert and law professor at Fordham University, New York, told The Associated Press that livestreaming an execution could make the process “much more transparent”, and inform the public about all that capital punishment entails. Those are benefits that she said would be useful at a time when Christa Pike’s botched execution has raised fresh questions about the manner by which criminals are put to death.

What’s the reaction been?

The Republican senator Thom Tillis said the plan is “beyond disgusting”. Chris Murphy, a Democrat senator, told CNN that public executions are “medieval” and mimic Islamic State killings. “That’s what America has become? That’s pretty extraordinary.”

Livestreaming “will not educate”, it will “terrorise”, and is “beneath the dignity that we owe to anyone”, even those who commit a “horrific” crime such as Hasan’s, Austin Sarat, a legal expert in the death penalty at Amherst College, Massachusetts, told The iPaper.

The decision to livestream the execution is “unprecedented in the modern era” and “on uncertain legal terrain”, John Mills, a lawyer who works with inmates sentenced to death, told the BBC.

The livestream may face a legal challenge because federal regulations forbid the “visual or audio recording” of an execution without a specific judicial order.

When the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature was revealed today, “all eyes in the literary world” were firmly fixed on Stockholm, said Deutsche Welle.

But the announcement of 76-year-old Canadian poet and essayist Anne Carson as this year’s laureate marked the end of a lengthy, secretive selection process that began more than a year ago. And the world’s most prestigious literary award has, according to Euronews, “generated more controversies” than any of the other Nobel Prizes.

Who chooses the Nobel Prize laureates in literature?

Awards are chosen by the Swedish Academy, founded in 1786 by King Gustav III. The 18 members, known as “De Aderton” (The Eighteen), are currently made up of “distinguished Swedish writers, linguists, literary scholars, historians, and a prominent jurist”, according to the Nobel Prize website. They have tenure for life.

How do nominations work?

In September last year, the Academy’s “Nobel Committee” sent out hundreds of invitation forms to individuals and organisations eligible to submit nominations. These include literature and linguistics professors at universities, previous Nobel laureates in literature, and the heads of writers’ associations in various countries. The committee can also add names, such as past laureates. The list “can reach 200 names per year”, Gisele Sapiro, research director and Nobel Prize expert, told DW.

Those who don’t receive an invitation but are still qualified to submit nominations can do so – but no one can nominate themselves. That said, “there’s a tradition of writers lobbying for the prize by giving talks in Gothenburg or Stockholm and then flirting with Academy members over drinks”, said the Financial Times.

The Committee screens submissions after the January deadline and, over the next few months, “whittles down the nominations” to five candidates. The 18 then read and assess the work over the summer, confer in September, and vote in early October. The winner must receive more than half the votes. He or she takes home 12 million Swedish kronor (about £910,000), as well as a “lifetime of laurels”, said LitHub. But the public – and nominees – don’t learn which authors made the shortlist until 50 years later. Some authors are considered year after year, but never win.

What are they looking for?

In his will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the prize should go to the writer of the “most outstanding work in an idealistic direction”. The Academy “spent decades puzzling over what ‘ideal’ meant”, said the FT, before “quietly dropping the criterion”.

Last year, the prize went to Hungarian modernist László Krasznahorkai, for his “compelling and visionary oeuvre that in the midst of apocalyptic terror reaffirms the power of art”. The prize is given to a writer’s body of work, rather than one book.

According to Sapiro, the Academy is looking for ambitious, influential literature that has spawned a new literary movement. The work must also be “universal, being able to transcend its own culture”, she told DW. Translations are key: most laureates are translated into English, French and German – “these three languages are the most important”. It’s also a “major advantage” if nominees have already won other prestigious literary awards, she said, such as the International Man Booker Prize.

So far, only 33 out of 122 laureates have come from outside Europe. Only about 15% of winners have been women, but since 2018, the prize has alternated between a man and a woman. Genre doesn’t seem to matter: in 2016, Bob Dylan won the prize for his song lyrics.

Why is it so controversial?

Possibly the most controversial winner was Peter Handke in 2019. The Austrian writer was a “known denier of the Bosnian genocide”, as well as a “close supporter” of former Serbian president Slobodan Milošević, said Euronews. Hundreds protested, and several countries either condemned the award or boycotted the ceremony. Even Bob Dylan’s fans were “baffled” by his selection.

“The prize is ritually mocked,” said the FT’s Simon Kuper. Because achievement in literature is more subjective than in the sciences, the decision “reliably angers critics”. There is also a “comic discrepancy between the weight of the prize and the parochialism of the judges”. Some of the 18 are “obscure even in Sweden”. They have also awarded eight Nobels to Sweden: more than Asia, Africa or Latin America have each received.

But the prize still “shapes the global canon – even if the globe can push back”. Dylan’s award may have been “ridiculed”, but it “sparked a global debate on what constitutes literature”. The prize can also “turbocharge sales”, which benefits small presses that publish literature in translation. It also gets authors’ names trending on social media, far beyond their countries. In a world where reading is “in decline”, the prize matters more than ever.

Increasing numbers of workers are opting out of their workplace pensions to save money, but there are risks to be aware of.

All employees are automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes if they are over the age of 22. But a “growing number” of Gen Z and millennials are choosing to opt out, “due to cost-of-living pressures”, said BBC News.

However, the over-60s are “consistently the highest rate of any age group” opting out, said Fidelity International, but this “may not be the right decision and could cost them dearly”.

Why people are opting out of workplace pensions

Saving for retirement is, of course, sensible but with a “cost-of-living crunch and compressed real wage growth ”younger workers are “prioritising having money in their pockets now”, said Investors’ Chronicle.

Some over-60s may also feel they have enough for retirement or have a health issue that reduces life expectancy, said Fidelity, so their priorities “may understandably change”.

How to opt out of your pension scheme

If you wish to opt out of your pension scheme, your employer will tell you the scheme you are enrolled in. To leave, you will need to contact the provider directly.

Businesses “must not actively encourage their staff to opt out”, said the Pensions Regulator, so it must be your own decision.

You can opt out within a month of being added to your employer’s scheme, and you will get back any contributions. Once you have been enrolled for a month, any contributions will usually stay in your pension fund until you retire.

Other options include reducing the level of your contributions, although there is a minimum of 5% of pay for employees and 3% for employers.

The benefits of opting out

The “main benefit” of opting out, said Legal & General, is getting your hands on extra cash. This can be useful if you have “new financial commitments, or changed your spending priorities”.

But while it can seem an “easy way” to pocket more money each month, said TPT Retirement Solutions, it can have a “surprisingly large impact” on the plans you have for your golden years.

The drawbacks of opting out

Opting out of a workplace pension is like giving up “free money”, said Armstrong Watson, as you lose employer contributions and government tax relief.

It is easy to underestimate the impact of “even a few years of missing pension contributions” though, said The Times, especially when you are young.

Your retirement is more likely to be comfortable “if you can save over the longest time possible”, said MoneyHelper.

You will miss out on potential investment growth if you opt out from your pension, which can slow down your savings, said Legal & General, which means “you might end up having to fill the gap by working for longer, later on in life”.

Opting out isn’t a “one-time decision” though, said LV, and you can usually rejoin your company’s workplace scheme. But this can be a “lengthy process” so you will miss out on any benefits and investment growth in the meantime.

Donald Trump has said the US is looking “very strongly” at a suspected case of plague after the death of a researcher at a remote Siberian lab.

Darya Shipilova, 28, who worked at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East, died on 2 October two days after falling ill following reported exposure to pneumonic plague bacteria. Russia’s public health agency, Rospotrebnadzor, said that her diagnosis was “pneumonia of unknown aetiology”, meaning they cannot confirm what caused it or where it came from.

“I don’t think it’s cause for alarm, but it is cause for focus”, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters yesterday.

What do we know so far?

It is still unclear exactly how Shipilova became unwell. Local media outlet Lyudi Baikala suggested she may have been infected after accidentally breaking a test tube containing pneumonic plague bacteria on 25 September, although this has not been confirmed by Russian authorities. Rospotrebnadzor has said that expanded tests of samples from the patient had found no microorganisms associated with her work. Other reports suggest she contracted the disease on a field trip to a region where plague occurs naturally among wild rodents.

The uncertainty has been compounded by conflicting messages from local politicians and relative silence from Moscow. Alexey Tsydenov, governor of the neighbouring Buryatia region, initially wrote on social media that she had died of plague, before editing his post to add the qualifier “possibly”.

While Rospotrebnadzor has described the “sanitary and epidemiological” situation in the area as stable, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported on Monday that several hospitals in Irkutsk had been placed under quarantine. Lyudi Baikala has reported that nearly 200 contacts of Shipilova have been placed under observation.

How dangerous is pneumonic plague?

Plague is caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, and pneumonic plague is the most virulent form of the disease, with an incubation period as short as 24 hours. The World Health Organization has said pneumonic plague is especially contagious because it “can trigger severe epidemics through person-to-person transmission via respiratory particles”.

Symptoms include severe respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and coughing, often with blood-tainted mucus. Common antibiotics can effectively combat the disease provided they are administered early enough. If left untreated, it can prove fatal within 18 to 24 hours.

This makes any outbreak “potentially very dangerous”, said The Times, but “it is important to distinguish the severity of the disease for an individual person, especially if untreated, from its ability to spread quickly”.

Could it be related to biological warfare?

Some US politicians have suggested the incident could be connected to military research into biological warfare. “I remember hearing from anti-Ukraine voices about their so-called bio labs,” Republican congressman Don Bacon, a senior member of the House armed services committee, wrote on social media. “But in reality it is Russia with the bio labs.”

Dr Ashish Jha, the White House Covid-19 response coordinator from 2022 to 2023, told NBC News that if this is an isolated case and no one else dies “it will probably end there”, adding that if there were “biological weapons programmes in these labs, that would be much more concerning to me,” and that “much more” information and transparency was needed from Russian authorities.

Simon Clarke, an associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that it was “possible” that the lab in question might have been studying the pathogen’s potential as a bio-weapon. “Because this is Russia people’s thoughts are running to that”, he said, but added that medical research was still the “more likely” explanation.

“Authorities seek to drive us out of our places of study through budget cuts, the closure of places, dilapidated buildings, selection, or repression, let’s not let them: let’s block and retake the universities and high schools!”, wrote the Student Union and the High School Trade Union in a statement last week.

What started as a “spontaneous blockade” of a high school in a Paris suburb in mid-September, has now led to the closure of up to 500 schools across the country, said Le Monde. Since protests began, more than 5,000 people have been arrested, “85% of them minors”, said the same paper, with the education minister confirming that 24 schools had either been “burned or ransacked”, and millions of euros of damage caused.

Ever since the student demonstrations of May 1968 and, more recently, the gilets jaunes protests in 2018, “every government has run scared of angry French youth”, said Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield on the BBC. With no sign of slowing down, and presidential elections coming up, the protests will “send shivers” down the French government’s spine.

Why has this happened?

A major cause of the protest has been a lack of central government funding for the education system. On Thursday, French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu outlined a modest 1.7% rise in education spending to €65.53 billion (£55.7 billion) in a draft of the 2027 budget, said The Telegraph. However, this is below the rate of inflation, and excludes teacher pensions. Traditionally, education has been the “largest item in the French budget”, but this year, debt-servicing costs are expected to reach €74.5 billion (£63.1 billion), according to the draft.

Another “main complaint” is a shortage of teachers and support staff in schools, said Time Magazine. In the year 2024/25, nearly 10% of teaching hours in public secondary education went untaught, according to data from the education ministry. The majority of that (7.5%) was due to a failure to find substitute teachers, and 2.3% because of complete school closures.

Students have had to navigate “overcrowded classes of up to 40 children in crumbling buildings”, said The Guardian. “Ceilings partially collapsing during class, leaks, cockroaches and buildings in disrepair” are fairly common experiences.

Many have also found the online system designed for university applications – “Parcoursup”, the equivalent of UCAS – “opaque and difficult”, and in urgent need of reform. Discontent this year has also been exacerbated by “unbearable temperatures in classrooms during heatwaves in May and June”.

How has the government responded?

The government has “strongly condemned the violence and responded forcefully”, said The New York Times. On Friday, France’s justice minister Gérald Darmanin said on X that he would pursue a “firm” criminal response, and hold parents of minors civilly liable “wherever possible”.

But the government has also tried to “placate” the rapidly spreading protests, and has “acknowledged some of the students’ grievances”, said the NYT. Education minister Édouard Geffray announced on Thursday that the government would scrap plans to increase some higher education registration fees, an idea floated just hours before in the proposed 2027 budget. Ahead of meeting unions for talks on Friday, Geffray said he would introduce a new platform, where students could voice their thoughts for education reform, which would then be included in a “national report”, said Time.

Geffray also told broadcaster France 2 on Thursday evening that the protests, which were “legitimate at the outset”, had been “taken hostage by ultra-left groups”, said Le Monde. Lecornu’s team had directly blamed La France Insoumise (France Unbowed, or LFI) and “its ultra-left proxies” for the violence. LFI, led by presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has strongly denied the claim, though supported the students’ right to protest. However, party member and mayor of Paris suburb Saint-Denis, Bally Bagayoko, had said that “violence can sometimes be legitimate”.

What could be the effect of the protests?

Talks between student representatives and Geffray “failed to produce the concrete measures they were seeking”, said The Wall Street Journal. Student unions have called for a third day of nationwide protest on Tuesday, joined by several teachers’ unions. The General Confederation of Labour, one of France’s largest unions, also “threw its support behind the demonstrations, raising the prospect of the unrest broadening beyond schools and universities”.

We cannot forget that French presidential elections are “only months away”, said the BBC. These protests, like many youth movements, are “unpredictable and shapeless”, and have “no clear structure” that would allow for negotiation. Because of this, they will have Emmanuel Macron in “cold sweats”.

One person who stands to gain is Mélenchon, who “stands a good chance of making it to the second round of the presidential elections”. Polls show he has “massive” support – around 40% – among 18- to 24-year-olds. He still lies behind Marine Le Pen in popularity, but given the current unrest, France is in “unstable territory”, and the “young people’s protests of recent days will indeed have been a harbinger” for the election’s results.

The government spent £329.1 billion on benefits in the financial year 2025-26 – equivalent to 10.7% of GDP, and about £4,700 per person in Britain. It amounts to roughly a quarter of all government spending, and dwarfs the totals spent on the NHS (about £257 billion), education (about £126 billion) and defence (about £62 billion).

The welfare bill increased by about £18.8 billion in the last financial year; by 2030-31, it is expected to rise to £408.6 billion. This projected increase is fuelling calls from across the political spectrum to rein in welfare spending, particularly on disability and incapacity benefits; many also argue that increases in pension spending are unsustainable.

Who actually receives this money?

More than 24 million people claimed some form of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefit in August last year. Of these, 13.4 million were pensioners: of the entire welfare budget, about 55% goes to pensioners.

The state pension cost an estimated £146 billion in 2025-26; and another £31 billion or so went on pension credit, housing benefit for pensioners, the winter fuel allowance, and so on. In total, the UK spent £145 billion on benefits for working-age people and children – including incapacity and disability benefits (£77 billion); housing benefit (£37 billion); and child benefit (£13 billion).

Last August, about ten million recipients were of working age; and 860,000 were children receiving disability living allowance. Around a third of working-age benefit claimants are in employment of some kind (for example, low-paid workers get in-work top-up via universal credit). The latest figures show 1.6 million people who are fit for work are claiming an unemployment benefit; the cost, spread across different benefits, is some £1.4 billion.

Why is the bill rising?

In no small part, because of pensions. Since the “triple lock” was introduced by the coalition government in 2011, pensions have been guaranteed to increase by whichever is highest: inflation, average wage growth or 2.5%. This has led to sharp rises in the state pension in recent years, when inflation and wage growth have run high (pensions rose by 10.1% in 2023, 8.5% in 2024, 4.1% in 2025, and 4.8% in 2026).

But pensions are by no means the only factor. Benefits are also rising because more people are claiming disability and incapacity benefits. In 2010, Britain spent about £45 billion on such benefits; by 2025, this had risen to £77 billion.

Which benefits are these?

By the middle of this year, more than 4.5 million people in England and Wales were claiming at least one of an overlapping patchwork of incapacity and disability benefits, up from fewer than three million in 2020.

The fastest growing is the Personal Independence Payment (Pip): cash payments to cover the extra costs of being disabled – a payment that has gradually replaced the older Disability Living Allowance and Incapacity Benefit. By July, 4.1 million people were claiming a Pip in England and Wales, up 7% from last year’s 3.83 million; in 2019 there were two million. More than two million now receive health-related benefits under a separate universal credit regime.

So are people getting sicker?

Some experts point to worsening public health since the 2008 financial crisis, citing factors such as growing obesity, long hospital waiting times, the cost-of-living crisis and other social causes. But critics of the system argue that the rise in disability and incapacity claimants owes more to broadening definitions of disability – and especially to an increase in people claiming benefits for mental health conditions. In 2002, 25% of disability benefit recipients claimed primarily for a mental health condition (or a learning or neurodevelopmental condition); by 2025, this had risen to 45%. About one in seven working-age Britons now report having a long-term mental or behavioural disorder (up 50% in a decade).

How can this be explained?

Again, by most measures there has in fact been a recent increase in mental ill-health in Britain, particularly since the pandemic. Most European countries have seen similar trends; but most have not seen this translate into higher health benefit claims. Another possible explanation is the collapse in face-to-face assessments for Pip claims (down from 80% pre-pandemic to less than 15% in July 2026), which may make it harder to weed out bogus claimants – some of whom are coached by AI bots or so-called “sickfluencers” on social media. A further explanation may lie in the design of the welfare system itself, which encourages people to seek generous long-term sickness benefits.

How so?

If you’re unemployed, you don’t get much from the state. Unemployment benefit under universal credit is £339 per month if you’re under 25, £425 if you’re over 25. Add in housing benefit, and it reaches around £12,000 per year. However, if you have a long-term disability or a health condition, you get extra payments (at least £217 a month more). If you are categorised in the higher form of sickness benefits, the overall figure rises to over £17,000, according to Centre for Social Justice figures. Add in Pip, and it reaches an average of £24,000, just below the full-time minimum wage. Add in child benefit for one child, and you are paid over £27,000 – closer to the national average wage.

Obviously, the system gives powerful incentives for people to claim sickness, physical or mental; and, unlike with unemployment benefit, it brings with it little or no pressure to seek a job. There are currently around 1,000 new Pip claims submitted every day in the UK; about 34% are successful.

Is the welfare bill sustainable?

It is often said to be “spiralling”, but the overall bill has remained pretty stable as a proportion of the UK’s national income. Welfare spending amounted to just under 11% of GDP in the last financial year – up from 10.4% in 1996-97, but lower than the peak of 12.4% in 2009-10. In fact, total non-pensioner benefits have hovered between 4% and 5% for more than 40 years.

International comparisons are difficult, but the UK’s welfare bill is by most measures right in the middle of the OECD developed nations – it spends far less as a share of GDP than, say, France or Italy, and far more than the US or South Korea. Despite recent increases, the state pension is relatively ungenerous, though Britons do have good private pensions.

Spending on disability and incapacity benefits is growing fast: it is set to hit 2.1% of GDP in 2028 (almost double the share two decades earlier). The Timms Review into the Pip system is due soon; but an interim report has already deemed it “unfit for purpose”. Welfare Minister Pat McFadden said this week that Labour would make benefits reform a “moral crusade”.

However, reform is difficult: it is perceived as an attack on society’s most vulnerable. When Keir Starmer tried to tighten the assessment criteria for Pip, with a bill in June 2025 designed to save £5 billion per year, a threatened rebellion by 126 Labour MPs forced him to back down.

Energy prices are expected to rise sharply in January, with a typical UK annual bill forecast to jump by 16% – amounting to £276 – impacting millions of households at the coldest time of the year.

Successive UK governments have launched a series of schemes to support bill payers in recent years, and now Andy Burnham is under pressure to go further still. The prime minister and Chancellor John Healey must come up with a fresh package of measures to curb rising energy costs, an anonymous Labour MP told The Guardian. “Without it, the vibes will end.”

Here are some of the options at the PM’s disposal – although all come with a cost.

GB Grid

Burnham is proposing a publicly owned body that would bring electricity distribution under greater public control and ownership. The government-backed GB Grid would work with the private sector and power networks to increase competition, drive down costs and speed up delivery of much-needed new infrastructure.

However, its £4 billion funding represents “a fraction of the £70 billion investment expected over the next five years” by the networks themselves, so its “level of ‘control’ is likely to be limited, too”, said The Guardian.

More direct financial support

Another option is for the government to target direct financial support at households struggling the most by expanding or temporarily increasing schemes such as the Warm Home Discount. Around 5.5 million low-income households benefited from the scheme last year.

But “virtually everybody agrees it is inadequate for the bills on the way”, said Nils Pratley in The Guardian. Existing help “misses swathes of households who would fall within a better definition of ‘vulnerable’”, including those with “high energy needs for health reasons”.

Industry body Energy UK told the BBC that on top of those receiving the Warm Home Discount, another 2.5 million customers need help with high bills linked to a medical condition or energy-inefficient home.

Cut taxes

The government has already removed VAT from domestic electricity bills between October and March. This will save households “an average of £45 per year” and offer them some “breathing space”, said the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Further tax cuts could further reduce energy bills, but the Treasury would have to find the money to pay for these from elsewhere.

Use less energy

The government could increase schemes offering improved insulation, heat efficiency and the replacement of old heating systems. Unlike a blanket subsidy, the benefit can continue after wholesale prices fall, reducing household energy bills over the longer term. The government’s £15 billion Warm Homes Plan has already set out to upgrade up to five million homes by 2030.

These are potentially more durable approaches than repeated emergency payments, although, once again, funding would need to be found from elsewhere.

An energy guarantee

An affordable energy guarantee would provide a portion of cheaper energy to all households. It would be designed to cover a typical household’s basic energy use, with higher levels of usage being charged at the market rate.

The UK government’s Energy Price Guarantee capped typical household energy bills at £2,500 a year starting in October 2022, but this ended in 2023.

The New Economics Foundation think tank is among a group of campaigners urging the government to bring in a national energy guarantee.

The government has unveiled a new housing support scheme to boost the property market.

Your First Home aims to “combat malaise” among housebuilders, said The Times, and “get young people on the housing ladder”.

Similar to later versions of the popular but now defunct Help to Buy scheme, it will only be available to first-time buyers.

But the “devil will be in the detail” that is coming in next month’s Budget, said Property Week, especially to “avoid claims of unfairness” for those who have already put money aside in the government’s Lifetime Isa.

What does Your First Home involve?

Under the Your First Home scheme first-time buyers will be able to purchase a new-build property with a 2.5% deposit backed by a 20% government equity loan, which could “save hundreds of pounds per month compared to a 95% mortgage”, said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The deposit “eliminates one of the biggest challenges facing would-be homeowners”, said The Guardian, as many first-time buyers can find it hard to save while also covering other costs such as rent, household bills and, in some cases, childcare.

How will it work?

Full details will be revealed in the Budget, but the government has said first-time buyers will be able to purchase a new-build with a low deposit and an equity loan from developers signed up to the scheme.

The government-backed equity loan will be interest-free at the start and with a 2.5% deposit, the upfront costs “should work out considerably cheaper” than a larger loan-to-value mortgage, said The Sun. There will be a local property price cap and a household income cap “to stop wealthier buyers taking advantage of the scheme”.

The terms haven’t been confirmed, but the equity loan will be repayable, “meaning further costs down the line”, said The Independent.

There has been some criticism of the scheme, though. Will Bainbridge, founder of property investment firm Hawthorn Capital, told Money Age it is “irresponsible policymaking dressed up as aspiration”.

He cited the government’s own evaluation of Help to Buy, which estimated that new-build homes attracted a 5.5% premium, with properties purchased through the scheme carrying a further 0.9% over comparable new-builds.

Your First Home vs. Help to Buy

Commentators are describing Your First Home as a revived version of Help to Buy.

Later versions of Help to Buy had “a lot of similarities” to what we know so far about Your First Home, said The Guardian, including an equity loan, new-builds and price caps.

But the “ongoing row” about soaring student loan debts means there will be extra pressure to be “very clear” about how the equity loan interest will work.

Savers can also put up to £4,000 per year in a Lifetime Isa each year to save towards a property deposit, backed by a 25% government bonus.

Any scheme that "penalises those savers”, said Property Week, “would risk widespread criticism”.

Argentina is subjecting the Falklands to “economic warfare”, the leader of the British overseas territory’s government has said.

As the country ramps up political pressure on its claim of sovereignty over the territory, restrictions are making life more difficult for the residents of the remote Atlantic islands, Andrea Clausen told the Financial Times. And at the centre of the power struggle with Britain is the Falklands’ first oil project: Sea Lion, a joint UK-Israeli venture.

What is life like on the islands?

The Falklands are home to about 3,500 people, most of whom live in the capital, Stanley, with the remainder spread across the sprawling archipelago roughly half the size of Wales. “People are always amazed by the scale when they visit,” one resident told the Metro.

Leaving the islands “isn’t simple – or cheap”. There are two 18-hour direct flights a week to the UK, on a military plane, or one commercial flight a week to Chile. A monthly flight from a small city in southern Argentina is considered a domestic flight by Buenos Aires, although not by the Falklands’ authorities.

Because of the limited connections, imported goods can cost more than double their price in the UK. There’s currently only one shipping link, to Uruguay, which sometimes leads to shortages of cheese and other food staples, said the FT. Most international suppliers “refuse to serve Falklands’ businesses” out of fear of angering Argentina. Officials are preparing a second shipping link to Chile, scheduled to open between November and December. But some islanders worry that Buenos Aires “could try to disrupt those efforts”.

What resources do the Falklands have?

There is a “huge capital programme” underway to boost the islands’ infrastructure, said resident Traighana Smith in The Independent, including a new power station and port, and “a hydrocarbon industry is also on the horizon”.

There are “vast energy reserves” just 136 miles north of the islands, said The Telegraph. Surveys suggest the Sea Lion oilfield contains up to 1.7 billion barrels of oil: “larger than anything remaining in British North Sea waters”.

Two oil companies, Britain’s Rockhopper Exploration and Israel’s Navitas Petroleum, are due to begin a joint project extracting from the oilfield within two years. The $2.2 billion venture, the Falklands’ first commercial oil project, aims to produce 50,000 barrels per day. It could be “economically transformative for the islands”, said the FT. It could “triple GDP” and reduce dependence on the inconsistent fishing industry.

“We never want to rely on handouts from the UK,” said Stirling Harcus, a director at the islands’ Chamber of Commerce. “We’re already a growing self-sufficient economy, but oil would supercharge that process.”

What is Argentina doing?

At the start of September, President Javier Milei announced restrictions on companies involved in oil extraction, along with additional military funding. His new sanctions regime “appears to target both oil and fishing”, said the FT, which is responsible for more than half of the islands’ GDP.

And on Monday, Milei warned that his government would request an emergency order to stop development of the Sea Lion oilfield if drilling is not halted within two weeks. If the “illegitimate exploitation” does not stop, his statement said, Argentina will ask the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a Hamburg-based maritime court, to order a temporary halt to the project. Argentinian officials argue the project is “an inflection point”, said the FT, because it violates a UN resolution banning “unilateral” changes to the status quo on the islands.

“Time will tell” if Milei follows through on his threats, said Smith in The Independent. But in the meantime, the Falklands will “continue to grow its industries and care for its people”.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has confirmed a new “safe and legal” route to Britain for groups including Palestinian refugees, and women and girls from Afghanistan.

As she announced the re-opening of the UK Resettlement Scheme, two years after it was effectively suspended, Mahmood also signalled that she was prepared to water down some of her more stringent planned migration reforms in response to a Labour backlash. She told the Labour party conference the government was seeking “a position that balances fairness for those who came here legally, and fairness to British citizens across this country”.

What are the current legal routes?

“Safe and legal routes” are “authorised immigration arrangements” which allow a person to “move to another country for humanitarian reasons”, said a House of Commons Library briefing. In the UK, those consist of the UK Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship and the Mandate Scheme, all of which cater for vulnerable refugees referred by the United Nations Refugee Agency. In 2024, the UK Resettlement Scheme closed to new referrals, effectively shutting it off as a legal route.

The Mandate Scheme resettles refugees who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. Community Sponsorship allows groups of local citizens, charities, and faith organisations to directly welcome, house, and support resettled refugee families. These schemes have been “operating at very limited capacity in recent years”, said the briefing.

Over the past five years, the UK has created specific “humanitarian pathways” for people from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Since 2020, these bespoke schemes account for the vast majority of those who have arrived in the UK through safe and legal routes. Almost half of the 575,000 arrivals have been Ukrainians, followed by Hong Kong citizens (186,000). Another 62,000 people came to the UK through the refugee family reunion route, and 38,000 came through three resettlement schemes for Afghan citizens who had assisted British forces.

What is the new legal migration route?

Under the reopened resettlement scheme, the government expects about one in four arrivals to be Afghan women and girls or Palestinian refugees. A Home Office briefing says admissions will initially be capped and are expected to “number in the hundreds at first, but this will grow into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall”.

Those eligible will be identified in partnership with the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Refugee Assistance Project. All candidates will undergo security and criminality checks before they travel to the UK.

New arrivals will be placed on a five-year path to permanent settlement in the UK. “This is, by design, more generous than those who arrive by small boat or other illegal means”, the Home Office said, and intended to “disincentivise illegal routes”.

Mahmood had announced plans to increase the timeline for permanent residence for legal migrants from five years to up to 15 years. The changes would apply retrospectively to migrants who arrived in Britain after 2021. But she has now signalled a rethink after Angela Rayner and up to 100 Labour MPs petitioned Mahmood to exclude around 185,000 foreign-born care workers from the stricter rules.

Will the new scheme be effective?

“The government deserves credit for creating new safe and legal routes that will help refugees reach the UK without risking their lives”, Jon Featonby, chief policy analyst at the Refugee Council, told The Guardian. Such routes are “essential to undermining people-smugglers’ business model, but they only work if they operate at scale”, which means “thousands of places, not hundreds”.

However, said the newspaper, the scheme “is likely to attract criticism from the right, especially as women and girls and people with disabilities are the most likely to be dependent on the welfare state”.

Owners of high-value homes will be hit with a new mansion tax from April 2028 but there are already fears that it could affect more homeowners than expected.

The High Value Council Tax Surcharge, to give it its official name, was presented by former chancellor Rachel Reeves in her 2025 Autumn Budget as a way to “make the council tax system fairer”, said MoneyWeek.

The Treasury says that under the current system, the average band D charge for a typical family home across England is £2,280. That is £250 more per year than for a £10 million property in Mayfair, based on the band H charge in the City of Westminster. The government says that “this surcharge will change that”. Here is what you need to know.

What is the mansion tax?

The levy targets wealth “tied up in property”, while positioning it as “a tool to support public finances”, said property specialists Benham & Reeves.

Under the proposals, properties worth above £2 million will be placed into bands based on their value. Owners of homes worth between £2 million and £2.5 million will pay £2,500 extra council tax per year, rising to £3,500 for homes worth between £2.5 million and £3.5 million, and it will be £5,000 for homes worth £3.5 million to £5 million. Properties worth more than £5 million will incur a charge of £7,500. Charges will increase in line with the consumer prices index inflation rate each year from 2029-30.

How will homes be valued?

Over the next two years, the Valuation Office, an executive agency of HM Revenue & Customs, will be conducting a “targeted valuation exercise” to identify the properties that will be affected, said MoneyWeek. It will use professional valuers and industry-standard automated valuation models to assess sales data and property attributes such as the size, sale price and age of properties.

Information gaps may “pose a problem”, said Transparency International; the price paid for properties is in many cases “incomplete or missing” and in some cases it may be unclear who owns the property.

Homeowners who disagree with the valuation may face a “long and expensive appeals process”, said north London estate agency Maunder Taylor. The Treasury has also indicated there may be exemptions, such as for individuals who bought or inherited their home but who now have a lower income.

How many people will have to pay it?

The high threshold to be eligible for mansion tax means the “vast majority” of homeowners and buyers “won’t be impacted”, said law firm Setfords. Estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggest around 165,000 households will be impacted under the current scope.

But there have been reports that the tax threshold could be lowered to £1.5 million. This would affect another 160,000 homes, said Tax Policy Associates. Such a “controversial move” would “hammer” swathes of homeowners in the capital, said London’s The Standard. The Telegraph estimates that lowering the threshhold would make one in four homes in the capital eligible for mansion tax.

How will it tax impact the housing market?

Properties in London and the South East of England will “bear most of the brunt” of the mansion tax, said the HomeOwners Alliance. It is “unlikely to have a marked impact” on the overall property market, said financial advisers CMS Wealth, but it could push down prices around the mansion tax thresholds. Those looking to avoid the tax may think about downsizing, although stamp duty costs “may make this option prohibitive”.

The three-and-a-half-year inquiry into alleged war crimes carried out by members of the SAS in Afghanistan will be further delayed after the Ministry of Defence produced nearly 100 million new files as evidence.

The MoD has apologised to the inquiry’s chair, Lord Justice Charles Haddon-Cave, for “delays in failing to explain why it unexpectedly revealed a further 97 million new documents”, said BFBS Forces News. The government department did later concede that only “around 1,200 might be relevant”.

But Haddon-Cave said the “somewhat casual way” the inquiry was informed about the documents “did not give cause for confidence”.

With mounting costs and the latest delays, the outcome of the inquiry could still be years away. A spokesperson for the MoD said the government is “fully committed to the Afghanistan inquiry”.

What has the inquiry heard so far?

The inquiry was launched in 2023 after claims that British special forces personnel had “executed captives in Afghanistan and destroyed evidence of wrongdoing”, said The Telegraph. The allegations were that “80 or more unarmed Afghans, including children and detainees, were executed by soldiers” between 2010 and 2013. It is expected that around 150 SAS soldiers who served in Afghanistan will be called to give evidence.

Several senior UK military personnel have told the inquiry that the SAS “carried out extra judicial killings of Afghan civilians”, said the BBC. Concerns were also raised about the secrecy measures used by the SAS and that previous investigations into the allegations had “ended prematurely”.

At closed hearings reported in January last year, several senior officers spoke of their fears “that the regiment, fresh from aggressive, high-tempo operations in Iraq, was being driven by kill counts”, said the BBC. One told the inquiry that the SAS had a “golden pass allowing them to get away with murder”. In emails seen by the inquiry, the officer said the presentation of operational killings in official reports was “quite incredible”, and described the SAS and murder as “regular bedfellows”.

Why has it been delayed?

Proceedings were already behind schedule. Haddon-Cave said an interim report would be published within 18 months (at the end of 2024), but lawyers had accepted publishing in 2028 would be more likely.

Now, more than 97 million files relating to the period 2010-2013, which had previously been discounted by the MoD as being outside the scope of the investigation, have been brought to Haddon-Cave’s attention. This discovery is “troubling and regrettable, and if not rapidly addressed and managed has the capacity to delay the important work of this inquiry”, he said.

Speaking for the Afghan families, Edward Craven KC told the inquiry that due to the number of files to trawl through, “there may be a tension between the imperative of thoroughness and the imperative of timeliness”.

What has the reaction been?

Former SAS personnel have argued that the inquiry is a “witch hunt”, said The Telegraph. Ed Butler, who was an SAS brigadier in Afghanistan, said soldiers had been pursued “through the prism of human rights laws, as opposed to the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement from the Geneva Convention”, which is “totally inappropriate”.

Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, a former sergeant-major in the SAS, told The Times that the unit’s “principles form the backdrop of every special forces unit in the Western world”.

The inquiry, which has yet to publish any findings, has already racked up costs of £58 million in the three years from its launch to March 2026, according to a Freedom of Information request by the BBC. The MoD revealed that 74 of its staff were currently spending “more than 50% of their time” working on the inquiry.

But public inquiries are “rarely quick or cheap”, said the BBC. For example, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which found that the killing of 13 protesters in Northern Ireland by British soldiers in 1972 was “unjustified”, took “12 years to complete and cost more than £190 million”.

The building projects envisaged by the tech industry are on a truly staggering scale. In 2025, Morgan Stanley estimated that $2.9 trillion would be spent on AI data centres worldwide between that year and 2028; McKinsey projects $5.2 trillion spending on AI by 2030. Specialised “hyperscale” data centres are already springing up across the developed world.

As little as a year ago, many politicians were keen to attract such large investments. But in the US, public opinion has swung sharply against data centres. A recent Gallup poll suggests that they’re now facing more opposition than nuclear power stations: seven in ten Americans don’t want them in their area. Scepticism is rising in Britain, too.

Aren’t they everywhere already?

Regular data centres – warehouses where racks of computers store emails and photos, stream media, process credit card transactions and generally keep the internet running – have been a standard sight on the peripheries of large towns since the 1990s. Nearly a quarter of the world’s internet traffic reportedly passes through northern Virginia; London is largely served by two hubs in the Docklands and Slough.

There are more than 520 data centres in the UK – but some 100 more are planned, the majority designed to handle AI workloads, as use by business and consumers surges. Google’s new centre in Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, sits on a 33-acre site. A £10 billion AI facility on the 130-acre site of a former power station is being built in Blyth, Northumberland. These are dwarfed by some in the US. Meta’s Hyperion centre in Louisiana, for example, will cover 4,000 acres, and is expected to use at least twice as much electricity as the entire city of New Orleans.

Why do people object to them?

The US seems to be experiencing a wide, bipartisan “AI revolt”, based on a series of linked factors. People don’t want huge, ugly, ominously humming industrial infrastructure in their backyard. They object to the massive water and electricity consumption (which, in some cases, has led to higher utility bills), and to the pollution: most rely on diesel back-up generators.

Opposition is fed by a deep distrust of corporate power, embodied by tech billionaires, and by a sense that ordinary people will gain little from AI; industry leaders tend to reinforce this message, often saying that their tech will lead to massive job losses and, quite possibly, the extinction of humanity. Once their construction is complete, data centres also provide surprisingly few jobs.

Why are they so big?

AI depends as much on brute-force computing power – raw “compute”, as it’s known – as it does on clever software. Massive groups of specialised computer chips must sit very close together to work at top speed. They use “parallel processing”: speeding things up by tackling lots of small mathematical tasks simultaneously, rather than one by one. Every metre between two chips adds a nanosecond to the processing time, so the idea is to pack as many as possible closely together. The chips are power-hungry (a ChatGPT AI query consumes about ten times as much energy as a normal Google search) and also generate a lot of heat, which requires cooling systems.

How much water do they use?

UN researchers report that data centres used around 4.5 trillion litres last year – enough to meet the basic needs of some 600 million people – and they expect that figure to double. In Britain, clear figures are hard to come by: data centres are not required to report how much water they use. But consumption varies widely, depending on design. Older centres use evaporative cooling systems. In Slough, one data centre has an abstraction licence for 1.7 million litres of water a day. A US expert has likened such facilities to “a giant soda straw sucking water” out of a basin.

Newer centres tend to have closed-loop cooling systems, recycling the same water, so their consumption is relatively negligible; or air-cooling systems, like Google’s in Waltham Cross, which use even less. A recent study found that data centres account for just 0.2% of all non-household drinking-water consumption in England.

What about energy?

That is a more intractable problem. AI computing, and its cooling systems, are unavoidably energy-intensive. According to UN figures, data centres across the world used more electricity than France did last year; and they’re projected to use more than Japan by 2030, with AI accounting for more than a third of that.

Some of the biggest companies are trying to limit their carbon output: Microsoft and Google are investing in nuclear power, and hyperscale projects are gravitating to cold, clean energy-heavy countries such as Finland. The UK’s National Energy System Operator estimated that data centres consumed 5.0 TWh of electricity in 2023 – equivalent to 2% of the total, or that of 1.8 million households. Today, the figure is 6%, and rising fast.

Where is all this leading?

Data centres are a campaign issue in November’s US midterm elections. Even Republican Texas has called a moratorium on new facilities; Donald Trump, however, has told Americans they’ll end up “backwards and poor”, and let China win the AI race, if they don’t accept data centres.

In the UK, there have been protests against new centres from Leeds to Devon to Slough. But the Government, aiming to create growth and make Britain an AI power with a “sovereign AI ecosystem”, is actively pushing the development of data centres, in particular in “AI growth zones” such as Culham in Oxfordshire, Teesside and South Wales. It treats centres as “critical national infrastructure”, allowing local planners to be overruled. As for the economic effects of the vast AI investment boom now contorting the global economy, they have yet to be discerned.

Britain is on course for a hung parliament with no party securing an overall majority in the next general election, according to a YouGov MRP poll that predicts how constituencies would vote.

Labour would be the biggest party with 241 seats, 85 short of an outright majority; the Conservatives would be on 130, trailed by Reform on 123. With the Liberal Democrats at 71 and the Green Party on nine, it is likely to mean a scramble to form a coalition.

Benjamin Disraeli famously said in 1852, “England does not love coalitions”, but the country may have to put any deep-seated scepticism to one side in the near future. Here are some of the most likely coalitions.

Labour-Liberal Democrat

According to the YouGov results, a Labour and Lib Dem combination would still not be enough to reach the 326-seat bar for a majority in the House of Commons.

Andy Burnham has not commented directly on the prospect of a future coalition, but Ed Davey, when approached, did not rule it out completely. Asked if he would form a coalition with Labour, the Lib Dem leader said he did not deal in “hypotheticals”. Insiders in the PM's team told The Times that Burnham’s support of electoral reform, a long-held Lib Dem cause, could provide the perfect olive branch to Davey’s party.

A Labour-Lib Dem coalition was widely expected following the 2010 general election, but its prospects were felled by a series of issues, including a lack of faith in the then Labour leader Gordon Brown.

Conservative-Liberal Democrat

Unlike his neutral response to a Lab-Lib coalition, Davey has dismissed suggestions his party could do a deal with the Conservatives. “We’ve got a moral responsibility to stop Nigel Farage – and indeed stop Kemi Badenoch giving the keys to No. 10 to Nigel Farage – I think there could be that sort of coalition on the right and we've got to stop that,” he told the BBC.

“Mention of a coalition often sparks fear into the heart of a Lib Dem because of how the last one ended,” said Politico. In 2010, the parties formed the UK’s first coalition government since 1945. The cabinet was made up of 16 Conservatives and five from Nick Clegg's party. But after five years as junior partner, the Lib Dems crashed from 57 Westminster seats to just eight in the next election.

Conservative-Reform

Reform’s projected total of 123 seats is a dramatic reversal for the party, which was forecast to win 311 last September. At the end of last year, Farage said the Conservatives would be finished. He denied he would form an electoral pact after the Financial Times reported he told donors he thought an agreement was inevitable. “I would never do a deal with a party that I do not trust,” he said. “No deals, just a reverse takeover.”

Kemi Badenoch has rejected calls to “unite the right” and ruled out entering a coalition with Reform. Speaking to GB News, she said “problematic people” have joined Farage’s party, adding: “How can we join with them?”

Even if the two right-wing leaders changed their minds, a Tory-Reform pact would manage only 253 MPs according to the poll – 73 short of the 326 majority line.

“If uniting the right has never been more important since we entered the era of five-party politics, it has also never been more difficult,” said Lord Ashcroft, a right-wing political donor and pollster. An electoral alliance between Reform and the Conservatives “would be doomed to fail, and the Conservatives have much more to lose from trying”.

Progressive alliance (Lab-Lib-Green-SNP)

If Labour were to team up with the Lib Dems and the Greens, which would amount to 321 seats, Burnham would still need backing from others to get over the line.

With the nationalist parties, the SNP or Plaid Cymru, in the mix, then a range of “coalition of the left” options are open to build a majority, Patrick English, YouGov elections chief, said in The Times.

“Nobody goes into politics, whatever party, to close a school,” said Una O’Halloran, leader of Islington council.

“There’s a generation that are not going to be having children, or maybe just having one child, and that’s really sad. You need children in the city.”

The number of pupils in the capital is falling, as birth rates decline, and costs for housing and childcare services increase. But as London’s population continues to rise, experts fear an unbalanced and unsustainable future for the city.

How bad is it?

Due to falling numbers, more than 90 schools have either closed or merged over the past five years, said a new report by London Councils. And the problem is “intensifying”. In Hackney, primary school numbers are down 15% since the pandemic, and projected to dip another 14% between 2024-25 and 2029-30. Islington is set for the “sharpest decline in the country” at 22%.

In the past five years across the UK, nine of the 10 fastest-shrinking local authorities for primary school children were in London, according to The Education Policy Institute. Eight were in inner London.

It is not just primary schools. Secondary school numbers, which have been “rising until 2026, will start to fall next year”, said Chris Smyth in the Financial Times.

But London’s population is rising, according to London Assembly Economy, Culture and Skills Committee (LAECSC) data, quoted in Bloomberg. In the decade up to 2023, the population increased by more than 500,000, yet the number of residents under 10 fell by 99,100.

And since 2018, 100 of London’s 2,500 schools – 4% – have closed, mostly in inner London. If this trend continues, the report warned, the capital could become a “childless city”.

Why is this happening?

Many experts think unaffordable housing and childcare are the principal causes of this decline. LAECSC data showed that the typical London home costs 11.1 times the average salary, compared with 7.7 times across England. Rents are also “60% higher than for England as a whole”, and nursery costs for a child under two in inner London are “34% higher than the English average”.

The birth rate in London also “continues its steady downward march”, said The Telegraph, revealing “an ageing city at the sharp end of Britain’s baby bust”. Many fertility rates in London hovered just above 1.0 births per woman in 2024, where 2.1 is needed to maintain a population. Some experts believe that “big jumps” in the minimum wage and National Insurance have left the childcare sector “reeling”, squeezing resources for parents and prospective parents.

Is London alone?

London’s falling numbers are “mirrored across cities in Europe and the US”, said Hugo Cox in the Financial Times. Primary school enrolment in Paris has “fallen by a quarter” in the last 10 years, while the same group in New York fell almost 20% in the decade to autumn 2024. In Barcelona, preschool entry – “the main entry point into the school system” – was 16% lower in 2024 than in 2016.

As in London, much of the decline is blamed on falling birth rates and rising housing costs. Also, in these cities a “growing use of homes for short-term rentals and housebuilding strategies geared away from families are fanning the demographic imbalance”. In other words, families are being forced out for financial reasons.

But these “divergent lines are not inevitable”. In Vienna, authorities provide family-sized homes, often through “large-scale subsidised or municipal housing”. Copenhagen, aided by high immigration, also implements “strong childcare and parental leave policies”. Both cities “buck the trend of falling child numbers”.

What will the consequences be?

“Change can create uncertainty and anxiety for children, families and staff,” said the foreword of the London Councils report. “While changes to school organisation are often discussed in terms of pupil numbers and finances, their human impact is equally important.” Closures can create a “genuine sense of loss, reflecting the deep connections between schools and the communities they serve”.

Councils are still hedging their bets, said Smyth in the FT. They are holding onto empty buildings in case of a revival. Hackney “planned for a pupil boom more than a decade ago”, only to be met with a decline. “It does not want to make the opposite mistake now.”

The Trump administration notified Congress this week of plans to admit up to 17,500 refugees into the United States during the coming fiscal year. Notably, the vast majority of those refugees will be white South Africans, for whom this White House and President Donald Trump have become reliable international patrons.

By focusing almost exclusively on Afrikaners, the white South African ethnic group responsible for that country’s former system of apartheid, Trump and his allies have dramatically reshaped the U.S. refugee program as a whole. And this change, critics argue, is at the material expense of other at-risk communities worldwide.

How has Trump helped resettle white South Africans?

The White House has predominantly portrayed Afrikaners seeking to resettle in the U.S. as “victims of racial oppression in postapartheid South Africa,” said CBS News. The group faces “seizure of agricultural property without compensation,” laws designed to “dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education and business,” and “hateful rhetoric fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored minorities,” said the State Department in its notification to Congress, per the outlet. The South African government has “consistently denied” persecuting the primarily Dutch-descended community.

Resettling the thousands of South African refugees is “expected to cost approximately $500 million,” said CNN. The push comes after Trump “increased the refugee cap for South Africans” in May, more than doubling it “from a limit of 7,500.” The U.S. refugee resettlement program had “historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support” for welcoming “tens of thousands of refugees from countries around the world to new lives in America,” said The Associated Press. “Instead,” Trump has “transformed it into a vehicle to resettle white South Africans" in the U.S.

Why are critics concerned?

By focusing solely on South Africa at the expense of other refugee communities, the Trump administration is “stranding people fleeing persecution without the safety they’ve been promised after years of waiting,” said the immigration advocacy group HIAS in a statement. The White House is “diminishing and distorting” the U.S.' refugee programs “in service of its political whims,” said Naomi Steinberg, the HIAS vice president of refugee and immigration policy and advocacy, in the same release.

After Trump “slashed the number of refugees approved every year” during his first term, said the AP, the Biden administration “built the system back up.” Then Trump “immediately” suspended it when he returned to office, “stranding people around the world who had been slated to come to the U.S.”

A refugee program that “centers one group and sidelines all others” is an “abdication of our global ⁠humanitarian leadership ​and an abandonment of thousands of vulnerable ​families,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, the president and CEO of refugee advocacy group Global Refuge, in a statement.

What else has Trump done for white South Africans?

One week before notifying Congress of its new, almost exclusively Afrikaner refugee resettlement plan, the Trump administration announced it would “revoke U.S. visas or reject visa applications” from foreign nationals “responsible for discrimination against whites and other minority groups in South Africa,” said the AP. Trump had cited disparate instances of violence and various discrete local policies as “evidence of a larger antiwhite stance” in the country. In addition to encouraging Afrikaner resettlement in the United States, Trump last year “froze most foreign assistance to South Africa,” said Al Jazeera.

The prime minister announced military support to Saudi Arabia in a bid to avoid further disruption to global energy supplies, which could have a knock-on effect on the cost of living at home.

He made the decision ahead of his first meeting with Donald Trump in New York, as a statement from the Ministry of Defence said an RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft is to be deployed to bolster Saudi “defensive activity in support of the legitimate government of Yemen”.

Why is the UK getting involved?

The conflict between Iranian-backed Houthis and Yemen’s Saudi-backed government has reignited in recent weeks, with the rebels aiming missile and drone attacks at Saudi Arabia itself, including on the capital Riyadh over the weekend. Having seized the strategically vital port city of Mokha in Yemen earlier this month, they have also declared a blockade on Saudi shipping in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, through which around 12% of global trade passes.

Last week The Associated Press reported that Saudi was running low on missile interceptors and had “turned to regional and Western allies for assistance”. With the US’ missile stockpile depleted by its war against Iran, France, Britain, Pakistan and Egypt were asked to step in with air-defence assistance to help defend against missile attacks by the Houthis and other Iran-backed groups.

UK Defence Minister Luke Pollard told Sky News that the UK was stepping up “for national security reasons in support of our own national security”, but Andy Burnham alluded to another reason closer to home.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait has been used increasingly as an alternative route for oil exports, bypassing disruption in the ⁠Strait of Hormuz. Any blockade would drive up global energy prices even further.

“On cost-of-living pressures and acting to secure the interests of Britain and the wider region … we need to keep those pathways open,” said the PM.

Could the UK get dragged into a wider conflict?

The use of the RAF Voyager, normally based in Cyprus, is expected to start within days and will be time-limited. The initial agreement is believed to be for a matter of weeks, but Burnham said it will be kept under review.

It is understood to be focused on defensive capabilities, “but could include shooting down drones, which is considered a defensive measure”, said The Independent.

The support builds on the UK’s existing military contribution to Saudi Arabia’s air defence, including the deployment of air defence equipment and UK personnel helping to protect against missile and drone attacks.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Burnham chose to focus less on ongoing tensions in the Middle East and instead target Russian disinformation and the threat posed by AI.

On the Iran war he told reporters, “the message is that we want to see an end to the conflict as quickly as possible and we stand ready to play our part”.

After years of reports about artificial intelligence potentially being incorporated into air traffic control systems, the prospect is finally becoming a reality. The FAA is rolling out an AI tool that’s already being used in control towers at major airports. But while the federal government is lauding the new AI program, many aviation experts are wary of letting the technology take off.

What is the FAA’s new technology?

This AI tool is a software called the Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes and Trajectories (SMART). It “centralizes 200 data streams — including weather patterns, flight paths, traffic flow and controller staffing metrics — into one platform,” the FAA said in a press release. An AI engine analyzes the data to “provide a comprehensive visualization of where planes are going, how much traffic the system can handle and where congestion or weather could cause challenges.”

While the thought of AI-powered air traffic control may conjure images of computers telling airplanes when to take off and land, this is not the case — at least for now. The SMART system “will not replace human operators or direct any changes to flight routes but merely offer recommendations that controllers can choose to heed or ignore,” said The New York Times. SMART is headquartered at the FAA’s Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Virginia, where officials will “disseminate the AI recommendations to controllers at the regional towers and other air traffic facilities.”

SMART is the brainchild of the AI firm Air Space Intelligence, which earned an $875 million contract from the government to develop the system. For now, the rollout is “limited to the Washington region, affecting three airports: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Dulles International Airport and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport,” said the Times, though officials expect its implementation at other airports in the future. When fully integrated nationwide, officials believe SMART will “act as something like the brains of the nation’s air traffic control system,” said The Wall Street Journal.

Why are some experts worried?

Even though SMART won’t be directly controlling airplanes, many in the aviation industry are still skeptical about its widespread use. There are remaining questions about “where the system would get its data,” and “controllers must be able to veto its recommendations,” S. Todd Yeary, a former air traffic controller, told NewsNation. One of his biggest worries is that AI has a tendency to hallucinate false information, and since air traffic control information is always changing, any “data fed into a system cannot be assumed to remain reliable.” For example, a pilot “requesting VFR flight following service” — meaning he or she is flying using visual references around them, as opposed to navigational instruments — would “not appear in airline schedules, so the on-duty controller must be able to step in.”

The airlines themselves have expressed similar safety concerns. There were originally “weeks of industry confusion over the FAA’s vague description of its much-hyped plans” for SMART, said Politico, which only eased when the agency said it “would use the tool in just a limited way at first.”

A major concern for the airlines was “how extensively the AI would be integrated into day-to-day air traffic management,” said Politico. Even after some meetings with the FAA, airlines are reportedly still nervous that SMART could “inject chaos by prompting increases in flight cancellations and reschedulings in the name of preventing aviation bottlenecks and avoiding weather-related delays.” While this “could become a costly headache for both airlines and passengers,” no airline officials have “alleged that the system would compromise safety.”

A US federal appeals court has ruled Donald Trump’s policy of deporting migrants to so-called third countries is unlawful, setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court.

The case has become “a key test of what due-process protections the government must provide before removing people to countries with which they have no connection”, said Reuters. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the verdict shows such protections “cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings”.

How many people have been deported, and to where?

Since Trump returned to office in late January 2025, more than 25,000 migrants, refugees and asylum seekers have been deported to third countries where they often have no ties. The Deportation Project, led by a collection of media organisations, has identified 35 countries where the US has secured agreements to receive third-country deportees. The majority of those deported so far – around 20,000 – were transported to Mexico, while others have been flown to Latin America, Africa, central Asia and the Caribbean.

Often done “under a cloak of secrecy” these have become a “core part of the Trump administration’s repressive migration policy”, said France 24. “At the beginning of the administration, they were really overt about the fact they’re carrying out these flights,” said Savi Arvey, director of Policy, Refugee & Immigrant Rights at the NGO Human Rights First. “But over the past year, the government has been very opaque about these third-country transfers.”

Why are people being sent to third countries?

Third-country deportations represent a solution to cases where deportees’ home countries either refuse to accept them or in which doing so would violate US law, under which “it is illegal to send people back to countries where they are likely to be persecuted”, said The Guardian. Many of those deported to third countries had previously been granted a “withholding of removal” in recognition of the danger they could face if returned to their home countries. However, third countries often go on to deport the arrivals to “the very place they fled”.

The US Department of Homeland Security says third-country deportations are part of a wider strategy that prioritises the swift removal of criminals. The agency said there were serious violent and sexual offenders among the more than 330 deportees sent to third counties in Africa. However, “many of them had already served their sentences”, said Politico, while “others had merely violated immigration regulations or had unsuccessfully applied for asylum”.

What is the future of third-country deportations?

On Friday, a three-judge appeals court panel unanimously agreed with a March 2025 ruling that the Trump administration’s third-country removals policy failed to give people enough notice of the decision to deport them, or the chance to legally contest their removal.

The government has 90 days to appeal, which would send the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In the meantime, “the third-country deportation policy continues,” James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, said in a statement.

According to internal government records reviewed by The Washington Post, at least $410 million has been pledged towards securing more migration deals with third countries. The policy “marks an extraordinary break in US foreign policy, inverting the nation’s long-standing commitment to resettling refugees in need into an intensive focus on expelling them from the country”.

As the United States struggles to extricate itself from the Iran war, longtime regional ally Saudi Arabia is facing a growing Iranian threat of its own. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, long considered proxies of the Iranian regime, have successfully launched a series of military offensives, including the recent capture of the port city of Mokha and the destruction of an overland pipeline. These are key fuel nodes for the Red Sea, made all the more vital as Iran throttles traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

The result is a “nightmare scenario for Saudi Arabia” that has “sent jitters through global markets,” said The Associated Press. With fighting between the Saudi-backed government and Iranian-backed rebel forces spreading, Yemen has become a stand-in for larger forces scrambling to capitalize on a new paradigm in the Middle East.

Why are Saudi officials worried?

Saudi Arabia is “becoming a focal point for the Middle East crisis,” as it “contends with a multifront campaign being waged by Iran and its Axis of Resistance allies,” said Newsweek. Houthi forces have “stepped up cross-border attacks” against Iran while “simultaneously gaining ground” against Saudi-backed government forces “in some of the most intensive clashes since an April 2022 ceasefire halted Yemen’s civil war.”

At the same time, the Saudi’s “most essential ally, the United States,” has been “unpredictable and sometimes unreliable” under this administration, said the AP. The White House “seems reluctant to widen an already unpopular and stalemated Mideast war ahead of congressional elections.”

“For a decade,” the Saudi attitude toward Yemen has “rested on the assumption” that “patiently and strategically” applying time, money and force would “eventually produce enough leverage to subdue the Houthis,” said Responsible Statecraft. “Or at least force them into a settlement on Riyadh’s terms.” For the past several weeks, that “assumption has been tested more severely than at any point since 2015,” as Houthi forces press toward the city of Marib, which is the “last major stronghold of forces loyal to the internationally recognized government of Yemen.” And as “Iran-aligned groups” such as the Houthis “increase pressure” on Saudi Arabia, “diplomacy” between the Gulf States and Iran has “hit its own wall.”

What’s at risk for the kingdom?

Attacks by Houthi forces have “already caused a plunge in Saudi oil exports to Asia” from “around 3.4 million barrels a day in June to 128,000 in August,” said the AP. As the group tightens its grip on the Red Sea’s Bab al-Mandab Strait, Houthi figures have “assured U.S. officials” that the group has “no intention of attacking U.S. shipping in the Red Sea,” said Al Jazeera. Instead, any restrictions would “apply only to vessels linked to Saudi Arabia.”

Israel has “reportedly offered to intervene in Yemen on Saudi Arabia’s behalf,” said Al Jazeera. But kingdom officials may be “wary of being seen to rely on Israeli military support” for fear it could “damage Riyadh’s standing and legitimacy throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.”

Where is Iran in all this?

The Houthis are “agents and proxies of the Iranians,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reporters earlier this month, per Off the Press. Iran “arms, trains and coordinates with the Houthis” in a relationship that “indeed deserves scrutiny,” said The National Interest. But the group has “independent origins, an autonomous decision-making structure, its own revenue base and a track record of acting against Tehran’s preferences when its own interests demand it.”

Ansar Allah is an “independent Yemeni actor” that “makes its own decisions,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei on X, using the Houthis’ official group name. It “takes orders from no one and acts as nobody’s proxy.”

The group is “first and foremost” a Yemeni movement “whose fight has always been about power inside Yemen,” said The Conversation. But “Yemeni security sources” have claimed senior Iranian commander Abdul Reza Shahla’i was “on the ground overseeing part of the latest operation in September.” Moreover, there is also a risk that seizing another fuel “choke point” to target Saudi shipping “makes the Houthis look, to much of the world and no small part of Yemen, like Tehran’s instrument,” no matter what their “own objectives actually are.”

Where is China in all this?

Neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia seems “eager to send their forces to die en masse,” said Annelle Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft's Middle East program, to Newsweek. Both countries “prefer to rely on superior air power,” which has “proven repeatedly inadequate as a means of holding territory in Yemen and elsewhere.”

Riyadh has instead “turned to China for help” following recent Houthi victories, said Reuters. Accordingly, Beijing has “privately asked Tehran to help rein in Yemen’s Houthis,” going “further” in its private call for restraint and diplomacy than in China’s “public statements.”

Saudi Arabia could also “seek a diplomatic solution with either the Houthis or their patrons in Tehran,” said the AP. But the Houthis have “demanded the lifting of a Saudi-led blockade,” which would allow them to “grow much stronger over the long term.” Iran similarly has “little interest in stabilizing the region without securing major U.S. concessions.”

The family of Nicholas Brandram, the man suspected of being the so-called “Putney pusher”, have accused Scotland Yard of lying about the case and trying to “rewrite history” after his death. Last week, police and paramedics were called to an address in Chiswick, London, where Brandram was found dead.

He had been arrested in June on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm by pushing a woman into the path of a bus in 2017. He “took his own life after months of immense pressure” caused by the Metropolitan Police investigation, said relatives.

What happened on Putney Bridge?

At around 7.40am on 5 May 2017, a man jogging along the pavement on Putney Bridge in southwest London appeared to veer towards a woman coming in the opposite direction and push her head first onto the road, directly into the path of an oncoming bus. The bus driver, Olivier Salbris, managed to swerve around her just in time. If I hadn’t, I “would have smashed her head,” he told The Times. About 15 minutes later, according to the police, the jogger came back the other way across the bridge. The woman, who had sustained minor injuries in her fall, tried to speak to him, but he ignored her.

Three months later, the police released dramatic CCTV footage of the incident, generating headlines around the world.

What happened with the investigation?

In the months that followed, detectives interviewed 50 men and arrested three suspects. All three were released without charge, however, and the Met closed its investigation in 2018.

The unsolved case continued to loom large in the popular imagination. In 2021, Sonya Kelly wrote “Once Upon a Bridge”, a 90‑minute play inspired by the incident, in which the jogger was depicted as a financial analyst. Police said they hoped the play might encourage people with information to come forward.

Earlier this year, nine years after the attack, detectives arrested Brandram. Officers searching his west London home after his arrest found small quantities of Class A and Class B drugs, which he was additionally arrested on suspicion of possessing.

Who was Nicholas Brandam?

At the time of his arrest, 44-year-old Brandram was a senior manager for HSBC’s private banking service, a role from which he was then suspended. Before entering a career in finance, he had spent eight years in the British Army, and was a decorated captain, who had served in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan. It has been widely reported that he was the grandson of Princess Katherine of Greece, and the godson of the late Prince Phillip.

In 2013, Brandram had pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention after knocking over a female cyclist on Hyde Park Corner when he was riding a Harley-Davidson. He had driven off without leaving his details or checking whether she was injured; he told the court he didn’t know he had hit her.

After his arrest this summer, Brandram was initially released on bail. But, earlier this month, the Met announced that he had been released under investigation without any conditions, “suggesting that the case was not progressing with any urgency”, said The Telegraph. He was never charged or tried.

What do his family say?

Brandram’s family insist he was not the Putney pusher, and say the Met Police’s failure to clear his name was “a source of profound grief and anger for our family”. “There was no forensic evidence linking Nick” to the crime, “no evidence placing him on Putney Bridge at that time, and no credible evidence that he was the man shown in the footage. In fact, the evidence proved the opposite,” they said in a statement.

His sisters told The Times that he had a tattoo on his forearm and a withered calf, “neither of which were visible on video or images issued by police”. They also claim there is evidence showing he sent an email from his office in Bond Street at around the time of the incident.

Relatives said that a Met Police detective recently told Brandram’s legal team that there was only one “final” avenue left to be resolved. Brandram’s sisters and mother believe this was the outcome of a DNA test, which they insist would have definitively cleared his name.

A spokesperson for the Independent Office for Police Conduct confirmed that it had received “a mandatory referral” from the Met Police after Brandram’s death. The Met say the investigation into the Putney pusher is still ongoing.

Clarification

An earlier version of this article referred to a report that a relative of Nicholas Brandram’s former wife had contacted the police. We would like to make clear that the article was not intended to suggest, and should not be read as suggesting, that Sophie Brandram or any relative of hers contacted the police in relation to Mr Brandram. The reference has been removed.

Currently, in much of England outside major cities, county councils provide one set of services, and district and borough councils another. County councils cover education, transport and roads, town planning, fire and public safety, social care, and services such as libraries; while district and borough councils, covering smaller geographical areas within the counties, look after more locally focused services such as rubbish collection and recycling, council tax collections, council housing and planning.

The government’s plan, known as local government reorganisation (LGR), was to replace this two-tier system with “unitary authorities”, bringing all responsibilities together into one body, by early 2028.

In five authorities – Surrey, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk – this process was launched in 2025. In one of the last announcements of Keir Starmer’s government, Steve Reed, the then-secretary of state for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), said 14 other councils would also be reorganised.

Why were they being merged?

The two-tier system, which dates back to the 1970s, was brought in to ensure a balance of central services designed to cover a large geographical area, and local responsiveness on smaller-scale matters. But according to Reed, setting out these plans in December 2024, the system leads to “outdated and misaligned structures that slow down delivery, fragmenting public services, hampering housebuilding and slowing down important decision making”.

Unitary authorities already cover much of England. In 1986, 32 London boroughs and 36 other metropolitan districts became unitary authorities. Since the mid-1990s, 62 other unitary authorities have been created, most recently North Yorkshire, Somerset and Cumbria; over 65% of England’s population already lives in one. The hope was that consolidation would produce major savings, reducing management, back-office operations and other kinds of duplication – and that it would help give more efficient services to residents.

So what happened?

LGR has triggered fierce resistance across England. Essex County Council, now led by Reform UK, challenged the government’s proposals in court; Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire were following suit. There were objections from Devon to Rutland. Last Monday, the new MHCLG minister, Angela Rayner, officially announced the withdrawal of all LGR proposals for Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire. A further 14 council reorganisations were paused pending a “rapid review”. The only LGR process now going ahead is Surrey.

Why were the plans opposed?

Many council leaders were furious that central government was choosing to “rearrange the deckchairs”, when they are already facing so many challenges: debt, social care, special educational needs, housebuilding.

The proposed reorganisations were often highly complex. For Essex, the plan was to turn one county council, 12 low-tier councils and two existing unitary councils into five streamlined unitaries by 2028. This would have greatly reduced the number of councillors (from about 700 to perhaps 430), a deliberate policy to reduce costs. The plans, complained Peter Harris, Reform leader of Essex County Council, are “ill-thought, expensive, purely ideological in nature and seek to create further democratic distance between the people of Essex and their elected local politicians”.

What other objections were there?

In some cases, the issue was whether the new authority would be financially viable: the proposed East Norfolk Council would have been one of Britain’s poorest. In Devon, the plan was to merge eight existing second-tier authorities and one county council into four unitary authorities: three based on Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and one covering the very large, impoverished “rural rump”, with a vast road network.

The residents of Rutland, England’s smallest county, home to 41,000 East Midlanders, objected that their small unitary authority was to be subsumed into a bigger unitary in neighbouring Leicestershire. The county’s MP, Tory Alicia Kearns, said Rutlanders would “have our identity stripped from us”. Several historic UK cities were also cited as being at risk of being legally demoted to “towns”: Canterbury City Council was to be absorbed into East Kent Authority, perhaps losing its city status.

Is there still a case for going through with LGR?

Yes. North Yorkshire Council, for instance, is an advocate for the process. It has achieved £68 million in recurring annual savings, since it merged seven district councils and one county council into one in 2023 – by removing duplicated senior executives, using smarter central procurement, pruning unneeded offices, and so on.

But the overall financial benefits and costs of LGR are disputed. A PwC report commissioned by the County Councils Network found, in 2020, that savings of £2.9 billion could be made. But this is contested: the BBC found that the government had failed to do “its own analysis of the costs”. The transition itself would be costly: the PwC report found that it could cost £850 million. Norfolk County Council said it would cost it £96 million.

What’s happening now?

It’s unclear whether this is just a pause, or the end of the LGR process. Rayner said: “In light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself firstly that the right process is in place, that it is robust, and of course complies with the law.” She added that she wanted to be sure it met “the priorities of a new administration”. There was satisfaction in local authorities, but also anger. “The most ambitious change to local government in a generation now looks in danger of becoming a colossal white elephant – a huge drain on time, resources and goodwill,” said the Local Government Intelligence Unit, a think-tank.

The UK collectively donates an estimated 350,000 tons of clothes each year to our 9,900 charity shops, but the future of the sector seems in doubt as “more and more” of the outlets are closing.

Oxfam is considering shutting 100 of its 500 UK retail stores just months after the British Heart Foundation announced plans to close 150 of its 640 shops.

How do charity shops work?

When one of Britain’s earliest recorded charity shops was opened in Edinburgh in 1937, there were “queues outside” and “police on hand to manage restive shoppers”, said The Guardian.

By the 1960s, charity shops were becoming more familiar sights, and in recent years shopping for second-hand goods has lost its stigma and become recognised as a sustainable alternative to fast-fashion and throwaway culture.

The UK’s charity shops are staffed by about 223,000 volunteers and 24,900 paid employees. Together, they made more than £300 million in 2024-25. Charity shops don’t have to pay business rates, although they’re “still hit by increases in national insurance and wage bills”.

Why the decline?

Those running charity shops agree that “the glut of fast fashion” has led to a drop in the number of good-quality items being donated, said The Guardian.

“Charity shops in Britain are overwhelmed with stuff,” said Tansy Hoskins, author of “Charity Shop World: An Investigation into Community, Consumption and Waste”, in The Telegraph. The problem is they are “desperate to get rid of most of the old clothes they are given”, with most of them sold off to recycling companies in “ragbags”. The average price paid to charities for a kilo of worn clothes has “dropped from 45p to 15p” over the past decade.

Charity shops are also competing with second-hand online retailers like Vinted and eBay, which are increasingly also a resource for the charities themselves. “We need to put the higher value items that we do get on eBay to make the most money for the charity that we can,” said one charity shop manager on Reddit.

The picture is not entirely bleak. The rise of resellers who visit charity shops to buy stock to sell on themselves for profit creates a “virtuous circle”, providing the shops with “significant income”, said The Guardian, while also increasing interest in thrifting.

What’s the reaction been?

“I’m struggling to shed a single tear,” said Simon Heptinstall in The Spectator. Charity shops’ exemption from business rates has given them a “ridiculous near monopoly” on high streets, helping to push out “butchers, bakers and normal clothes shops”. Thanks to “an army” of “unpaid volunteers” and prices worthy of a “Bond Street boutique”, they rake in vast profits to support their own “sprawling corporate infrastructure”; they are no longer a community asset but an “optimised extraction racket”.

Robin Osterley, outgoing chief executive of the Charity Retail Association, has rejected suggestions that the sector is in crisis. Acknowledging that charity shops are facing challenges “maintaining their profitability in the face of some really significant rising costs”, he told Civil Society in May that I don’t “have any concerns about the future of shops”. I also “think some of the trends we’ve been seeing towards higher standards and towards larger shops in particular will continue”. He also flagged the potential of AI to “identify, describe and list donations”.

“The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.”

This was US air force secretary Troy Meink confirming for the first time at a conference in Maryland this week that such weapons exist. Meink said the US was “ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist”.

It has been an “open secret” that the US, Russia and China are developing space weapons, but to say it officially is “extraordinary”, said The Guardian. Over time, the “cooperation” of the post-Cold War era has “gradually become a potential battlefield”, and announcements such as this threaten to “accelerate a risky arms race”.

What are the weapons?

Meink declined to give any details on the capabilities of the weapons, only that they were “important from a deterrence perspective”.

There is a “broad range of possibilities” for what they could be, Clayton Swope, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told CNN. There could be “satellites capable of jamming enemy communications” or weapons that could “target and destroy ground-based equipment”. In the extreme, there might also be anti-satellite weapons that could “seek out and physically destroy” enemy satellites in orbit.

In its “war-fighting framework”, the US Space Force has acknowledged that threats of orbital strikes on the country can include “both kinetic – or physically destructive – weapons and non-kinetic ones”, said the Financial Times, implying weapons would need to be capable of nullifying them.

What is the US space strategy?

Donald Trump established the US Space Force in 2019, making it the first new branch of the US military in more than 70 years.

Under the control of the Department of the Air Force, its primary goal is “bolstering the nation’s defence capabilities” and maintaining satellites for communication and surveillance, said CNN. But last year, Trump issued an executive order underlining the USSF’s “role in not only defending assets, but also as an attacking force”, said the BBC.

Russia and China are perceived to be the main threats to US national security. The USSF claims that China already “operates space and counterspace capabilities”, while Russia “views space as a war-fighting domain and believes space supremacy will be a decisive factor in future conflicts”.

Next year, the department is “slated to have a budget of $71.3 billion”, said The Times. New space weapons form a part of the wider “Golden Dome” missile defence shield, protecting the US from foreign attack. Trump has “championed” the “$185 billion” programme, which “would potentially involve deploying interceptors to space”.

How have others reacted?

Dmitry Peskov, spokesperson for the Kremlin, told reporters that Russia believed “space must be free of any weapon” and called for “the complete demilitarisation” of space.

China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun has urged the US to “stop expanding military build-up in outer space, and uphold global strategic stability with concrete actions”. The country “stands for peaceful use of outer space and keeping it safe” and “opposes any arms race in outer space or any attempt to weaponise it and turn it into a war zone”.

Chinese military analyst Song Zhongping told the state-owned Global Times that “if the US continues down this path, other countries may be forced to respond”.

Could this development spread?

In theory, weapons in space are banned. Following Starfish Prime – the “largest nuclear test in outer space” – in 1962, nations signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which “banned weapons of mass destruction in orbit”, said The Telegraph.

But while it bans the use or testing of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit, “it does not prohibit the use of conventional weapons in space or the use of ground-based weapons against assets in space”, said CNN. This leaves “room for interpretation”.

And the “emerging space weapons race is not limited to the US, Russia and China”, said Al Jazeera. India has already demonstrated “anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons” capability and is “developing technologies that could allow spacecraft to operate alongside other satellites”. France has reportedly begun developing similar “co-orbital capabilities”, and the UK has “conducted on-orbit cooperative operations” in conjunction with the US.

The Secure World Foundation found that while the threats from Iran and Israel are “less visible”, they are relying on “jamming and spoofing satellite-based services” and “electronic-warfare capabilities” respectively to advance their space security. North Korea is also “racing to develop more sophisticated space-based tech”.

“There is only one reason that young people come into the city wearing balaclavas, and that is to conceal their identity to commit crime and intimidate members of the public,” said Nottinghamshire Police superintendent Chris Pearson earlier this month. “Not any longer. Your time is up.”

The city has become one of the first in the country to enact a ban on balaclavas, as part of a wider initiative, dubbed “Operation Reclaim”, to tackle youth anti-social behaviour across Nottingham.

Following masked anti-migrant protests on the south coast, other areas of the UK are looking to follow Nottingham’s lead, although opinion is divided on the extent and effectiveness of bans on face coverings.

Why is the balaclava so controversial?

Popularised by US drill rappers “wearing head coverings and ski-masks in videos”, the balaclava has become something of a transatlantic “urban fashion trend”, said The Telegraph. Ironically, the garment “is now marketed by British leisurewear outlets on the very high streets blighted by ‘ballie’ crime”.

The balaclava has traditionally been used by both “far-right” and “left-wing agitators” to conceal identities during protests, said James Hanson on LBC. But it is also a common accessory for street crime and anti-social behaviour, such as shoplifting sprees by “groups of balaclava-wearing youths”. “If you’re popping into Sainsbury’s in a balaclava, you’re hardly there to top up your Nectar points”.

The controversy over face coverings resurfaced following anti-migrant protests in Dover and Portsmouth earlier this month, in which balaclava-clad men blocked roads to try to prevent the movement of newly arrived migrants.

How will the ban work?

From today, Nottinghamshire police and council officers will be permitted to ask people to remove face coverings if they “reasonably believe” they are worn to conceal their identity, or to commit crime or anti-social behaviour. Those who refuse can be given a £70 on-the-spot fine and face referral to the Immediate Justice Programme, a scheme requiring community work including “litter picking or graffiti removal in the city centre”, said Nottinghamshire Police. If the individual is prosecuted, courts are able to impose a maximum fine of £1,000. Repeat offenders may also be issued with a criminal behaviour order, “which could ban them from the city centre indefinitely”.

Those wearing face coverings for religious, health, medical or work reasons or another legitimate purpose will not be affected by the ban.

The ban has been introduced following a public consultation in which more than 90% of 2,200 respondents supported police action. Authorities had identified around 180 city centre incidents involving face coverings or balaclavas between June 2025 and June 2026.

Are bans likely to spread?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has told police chiefs in a private meeting that she expects them to “make full use of their powers to stop protesters wearing face coverings”, said The Independent. Current legislation already allows senior police officers to “declare a protest area where concealing one’s identity would be an offence”, but this power was not used during the Dover protests.

Other councils in the UK will be “carefully watching Nottingham’s progress”, said The Telegraph. A few areas have already adopted similar measures. In 2024, Wolverhampton City Council introduced powers allowing police to request the removal of face coverings worn with no reasonable purpose. The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham introduced a similar policy in February this year, joined by Woking in July. “Even in leafy Cambridge”, an e-petition is calling for a Nottingham-style ban on balaclavas.

Preliminary results from Sweden’s general election suggest a narrow three-seat lead for the centre-left opposition over the right-wing ruling bloc that had promised ministerial seats to the far-right.

The election is being fought on multiple fronts. Current prime minister and leader of the centre-right Moderate party, Ulf Kristersson, has been fighting for re-election on a platform of cutting asylum numbers and reducing gang shootings, while Magdalena Andersson, leader of the centre-left Social Democrats, has been focusing on the economy, the welfare state and suppressing the country’s growing far-right faction.

Like many nations across Europe, Sweden “has been subject to increased fragmentation” in its politics, said the Financial Times. The closeness of the votes so far herald “weeks of uncertainty” and protracted coalition talks. And the final result, and the fate of the far-right, will be closely watched elsewhere in Europe, where similar nationalist movements are gaining ground.

How does the Swedish electoral system work?

There are currently eight political parties in Sweden, and they are fighting this election in two major blocs: the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals on the right, and the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party on the left.

Sweden uses a “mandate distribution” voting system, a type of proportional representation. To get “mandates”, or seats, in the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, a party must pass the minimum threshold of 4% of the vote. After that, roughly speaking, a party that gets, say, 20% of the vote will get 20% of the seats.

This means that “coalitions are the norm”, said Politico. And in those coalition-building efforts, “Sweden’s smaller parties often have outsized influence”. With the “razor-thin victory margin” currently projected for the left, “that will be true again this time”.

Why has this election been so tight?

Party campaigns this year were “unusually heated and polarised”, said The Guardian. There have been months of “personal attacks between leaders, accusations of misinformation and Maga-inspired ads”.

The friction between the two main blocs has been growing since the right-wing coalition “broke a long-standing taboo” by partnering with the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration party with “neo-Nazi roots”. Kristersson has promised members of the party cabinet positions, should the right-wing bloc be re-elected.

With a campaign slogan of “Make Sweden Sweden again” – clearly aligning itself with Donald Trump’s Maga movement – the Sweden Democrats’ policies include banning headscarves and expanding a “repatriation grant” worth SKr350,000 (£27,000) to immigrants who have already become Swedish citizens. They have run bus advertisements, saying “Do you miss Mogadishu? The repatriation grant will help you get ​home”. One of their MPs “recently called for Muslims to simply ‘stop being Muslims’”, said The Economist, and their leader, Jimmie Åkesson, casting his vote in an immigrant neighbourhood in northern Stockholm announced that “Sweden shouldn’t look like this”.

Why does it matter?

The shifts in the balance of power triggered by this election will not only affect government decisions on taxation, welfare, health, education and crime but also “shape decisions affecting communities with limited influence over Stockholm politics” said The European Times. These include disputes over industrial development on Indigenous land, most prominently near Kiruna, which could impact the remaining Sámi reindeer-migration corridor.

This election has broader implications across the continent, too. If European centrists were hoping to take lessons from Sweden on how to beat the populist right, these “confusing” results make things “far from clear”, said The Economist. Although Sweden Democrats have suffered their first decline in support since their founding, they won’t be “too unhappy”. The party that was previously ostracised has now “attained mainstream acceptance that was once unthinkable”.

What will happen next?

It’s unlikely a final election result will be announced until Wednesday or Thursday. “Hundreds of thousands of overseas votes and late ballots” are still to be counted, said the Financial Times. Overseas votes in particular “typically skew conservative, so the final result is still considered too close to call” by some experts.

Once all the votes are in, “there is likely to be intense wooing of the smaller parties in the middle of the political spectrum”. And these talks are “likely to be protracted”. Both Kristersson and Andersson have “hinted that they might try to form centrist coalitions”.

Former cricket star and Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan now lives in a 6ft-by-8ft prison cell in the Adiala prison in Rawalpindi, Pakistan’s fourth-largest city. According to his family, his conditions are dire: Khan, 73, prime minister from 2018 to 2022, has been placed in indefinite solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and is given dirty water to drink. He has lost 85% of his eyesight and his health is failing.

In a recent interview, his sons Kasim and Sulaiman, who are British citizens, accused Pakistan’s authorities of “trying to kill” their father. Pakistani officials reacted with fury; it briefly appeared that they might order a Test match against England to be abandoned. Pakistan’s government issued a statement claiming, against all the evidence, that Khan is actually being held in a seven-cell compound with home-cooked food, a TV and regular visits.

Why is the case so sensitive?

Because Khan is, to many, a national hero, and probably Pakistan’s most popular politician. Born to an affluent Pashtun family in Lahore, Khan graduated from Keble College, Oxford, in 1975, and captained Pakistan’s cricket team to World Cup victory in 1992; in Britain, he is still best known as a sportsman and a playboy, who later married Jemima Goldsmith.

But in Pakistan he became a prominent philanthropist, and then a very successful – and very divisive – populist politician. In 1996, he founded the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Pakistan Movement for Justice, or PTI) party, railing against the corruption he views as endemic among the two political dynasties that have dominated Pakistani politics, the Bhutto and Sharif families. His supporters cast him as a brave challenger to a venal establishment, who fought for years to fix a broken system; his critics say he is irresponsible and has polarised Pakistani politics, by casting all opponents as crooks.

What did he do in office?

Khan became PM by a slim majority, after winning the backing of Pakistan’s military – which has intermittently ruled the country and still wields great power – in a contest marred by allegations of vote-rigging and intimidation. In power, Khan proved erratic, and his record was at best mixed. He promised to end corruption within 90 days; but according to Transparency International, it actually worsened.

Pakistan’s economic woes continued on his watch: in 2019, he was forced to negotiate a $6 billion bailout from the IMF. Although he expanded the provision of healthcare, pledges to build an “Islamic welfare state” went unfulfilled. And his independent foreign policy (he was seen as pro-Taliban, and had close links to China and Russia) was criticised in the West. Meanwhile, he worked with Pakistan’s generals to control the media and crack down on opponents, some of whom were jailed.

How did he lose power?

In April 2022, having apparently fallen out with key figures in the military, he became the first Pakistani PM to be ousted in a parliamentary confidence vote. Khan claimed that the US and Pakistan’s military had conspired to remove him, and launched street protests. Within days, news outlets in Pakistan began following an army diktat to stop referring to him by name (instead calling him “the founding chairman of the PTI”).

In November 2022, he was shot in the leg at a rally, which he also blamed on the military. The new government, meanwhile, sought to bury Khan in dozens of legal cases; in May 2023, he was arrested by paramilitaries who smashed through the windows of Islamabad’s high court, where he was appearing on corruption charges. Fresh protests erupted. Although initially bailed, Khan has been in jail since that August.

What is he accused of?

Khan has faced charges in more than 100 cases, including bribery, corruption and the leaking of state secrets. He is now serving a 14-year sentence following a corruption conviction in which prosecutors alleged that he and his third wife, Bushra Bibi received land worth up to $25 million through a charitable trust, as a bribe from a real-estate tycoon. All Khan’s other convictions have been overturned or suspended; few were of exceptional gravity by the standards of Pakistani politics.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights have criticised Khan’s incarceration; and, in July 2024, a UN working group said that his detention had “no legal basis” and was part of a “campaign of repression” against him and the PTI.

How has Khan responded?

In October 2022, Pakistan’s Election Commission disqualified him from running for political office for five years. The PTI has also been prevented from using its cricket bat symbol on ballot papers – a setback in a country with low literacy rates. But Khan has been undeterred. He continues to protest his innocence from jail, attracting widespread support. Using AI-generated audio clips and images, he held virtual online rallies in the run-up to the February 2024 general election, in which candidates backed by his PTI party won an unexpected victory. However, it fell short of an outright majority, and has sat in opposition since; Shehbaz Sharif of the PML(N) took over as PM, at the helm of an eight-party coalition.

Could he be released?

For the moment, his prospects appear bleak. Pakistan’s supreme court ruled in August that Khan should be transferred to hospital to undergo medical checks; instead, he was taken to a government facility for cursory checks, and was then sent straight back to 23-hour isolation. Given that some 48 Pakistani political leaders have been assassinated or executed, some observers fear the government plans to keep Khan in prison until he dies. Western governments, meanwhile, have remained largely silent about his treatment – apparently wary of angering a strategically important nuclear power.

A “deportation war” being waged by Sweden is “tearing British families apart”, said The Telegraph.

Criticism is mounting over the country’s contentious approach to Britons who chose to make Sweden their home before Brexit.

Why are British people being deported?

The problem has been “rumbling” since Brexit, said the broadsheet. When the UK left the European Union in 2020, British citizens stopped being EU citizens, which meant they no longer had automatic right of residence status in Sweden.

A transitional period, when British citizens could apply for residence status under the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU, ended on 31 December 2021.

By 2024, there were 14,233 applications for post-Brexit residency, including from family members joining British citizens after the deadline. Just under 4,000 were rejected, a refusal rate three times higher than any other EU state and considerably higher than the bloc’s average of between 3% and 4%, according to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

According to data from the European Commission, between 2021 and 2025, 2,490 UK nationals were ordered to leave Sweden – almost a third of the total of more than 7,500 UK nationals ordered to leave the 27 EU Member States during that period. The Migrationsverket, the Swedish government agency, said that 458 British citizens have been deported or forcibly removed since Brexit.

Who has been deported?

The rejections include some “disturbing cases of vulnerable Britons” who were told to leave either because they missed the application deadline or, in other cases, where the deadline was met, but other necessary documentation or conditions were ruled missing or unmet.

Some Britons have been “told to go” after living in the country for more than 25 years, and even “vulnerable elderly people with dementia” have been affected, said The Guardian. One 34-year-old man was deported even though he had been in Sweden since he was 10 years old. This separated him from his wife in Gothenburg, who said Brexit had “crushed families”.

A 78-year-old British widow, Joyce Thomas, had been told to remove herself from Sweden before 9 September. “I don’t take anything from this country,” she told the newspaper. “I am self-sufficient, I put money in this country, have no criminal record.” She has since won a temporary reprieve pending an appeal by her lawyer, but “her plight remains the same with the threat of a deportation merely in abeyance”, said The Guardian.

Horace Mason, 74, who has lived in Sweden for 25 years, has dementia and receives full-time care, but he’s “been given 10 days to leave” after losing a post-Brexit migration court case, said The Telegraph. According to reports, he applied in time, but Swedish authorities say he did not supply documentation confirming he met requirements to stay.

Nigel Davies, 64, had lived in Sweden for 17 years before he was taken to a deportation centre last July and driven to the airport at 4am. He wasn’t allowed to tell his teenage children what was happening, even though they were alone because his wife had died from cancer. His “only crime” was that his application to remain in Sweden was six days late.

What’s behind this?

A broader political backdrop is at play: Sweden’s current government has adopted a significantly tougher immigration policy, after Ulf Kristersson, the prime minister, said: “improving re-migration is high on my government’s agenda”.

The Sweden Democrats, a far-right party that’s “outside the government but backs it in parliament”, is exerting more influence on the scene, said Reuters. Once the country was known for its welcome to migrants, but there’s now an “insularity and “anti-British feeling”, Davies told The Telegraph.

A Foreign Office spokesperson told The Telegraph that the government “regularly raise concerns regarding Sweden’s protection of citizens’ rights” with Swedish authorities and the European Commission.

Meanwhile, the “young, the old, vulnerable people, the wealthy” will continue to be the “target of harsh and often aggressive immigration policies”, said Swedish journalist Martin Gelin in The Guardian, and, although the country goes to the polls this weekend, “it will take more than one election to get the old, tolerant Sweden back”.

From lower bills to better weather, many people are looking beyond the UK and choosing to retire abroad, but there are risks to look out for.

The number of Britons looking to retire abroad is “rapidly growing”, said Sky News, but there are hurdles before they can fulfil their dream of a life “in the sun”, especially since Brexit.

Due to a range of factors there is a “massive gap”, said Aegon, between the life people imagine in retirement and where they eventually choose to live.

Why are people retiring abroad?

An estimated 200,000 to 250,000 British retirees currently live overseas, said PensionBee, with many possibly swayed by “warmer weather, a change of lifestyle or a more affordable way of living”.

In some cases, older people are looking further afield in places such as Thailand for care homes, due to “higher standards and lower costs”, said The Times.

Popular places to retire to

France, Spain and Australia have historically been “prime candidates” for expat Brits to retire to, said Hoxton Wealth, but a “new roster of destinations” is becoming more popular due to cost of living rises, visa rule changes post-Brexit and changing tax landscapes.

Cyprus is popular among retirees, said MoneyWeek, due to the lack of inheritance or wealth taxes in place, “as well as its climate and outdoor lifestyle”, plus English is widely spoken across the country. The Republic of Ireland is also popular as “under the Common Travel Area (CTA), UK citizens have the right to live, work and retire” there without the need for a visa and there’s no formal application process for residency, “unlike a host of other EU countries post-Brexit”.

Malta and Portugal also rank high among retirees, added the financial website, thanks to their proximity to the UK as well as “balmy climates, access to healthcare and low crime levels.”

What to consider when retiring abroad

One of the biggest factors to consider when retiring abroad is your state pension.

Expats are denied the “triple lock uplift” on state pensions, said The Telegraph, if they live in around 100 countries including much of the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

This means state pension payments are frozen at the rate first received and the financial impact can be “increasingly severe”, said Rathbones, meaning people miss out on around £77,000 over 20 years.

Depending on where you take money from, you need to consider “inevitable fluctuations” in exchange rates, said Experts for Expats, as you need to be sure your income will continue to support you, even if your disposable income drops. The “default position”, may be to sell your home and move abroad, but consider whether you may decide to return to the UK and how hard and expensive it may be to get back onto the property ladder.

It is worth testing out an area first either by renting or just having a holiday, said Aegon, and working out what stage of retirement it is best for. This way you can find out what daily life actually feels like “before you redesign it entirely”.

Andy Burnham will give England’s mayors the power to introduce an uncapped tourist tax. This will be set as a percentage cost of accommodation – rather than a flat fee – at the discretion of regional leaders. Housing Minister Angela Rayner chaired a virtual meeting at No. 10 North today to discuss the tax.

The plans were initially announced under Keir Starmer’s government at the last Budget and outlined in the King’s Speech in May. In his first speech as prime minister, Burnham committed to starting the scheme towards the end of the 2027-28 financial year.

This tax could “raise hundreds of millions of pounds” for local public services, said The Guardian. But it could also be a “blow for the hospitality industry”, already “squeezed by tax rises and extra employment costs”.

Where would the money go?

A tourist tax would allow mayors to “prop up crumbling local authority finances and invest cash back into the area”, said The Telegraph.

Local authorities are already facing a financial “crisis”, with a “record 35 councils now relying on £1.5 billion of emergency government financial support to balance their books”. This would also allow the 14 regional mayors in England a new “revenue-raising stream”, especially when they are unable to raise council tax bills, which is still a council-level decision.

This is part of Burnham’s “wider devolution agenda”, said The Times. He has also been a long-standing supporter of overnight levies, implementing a “city visitor charge” in April 2023 while he was mayor of Greater Manchester. It consisted of a £1 per room per night fee, which was designed to “pay for measures aimed at attracting more visitors”.

Does this happen elsewhere?

A tourist tax, or overnight levy, already exists in some parts of the UK. After Holyrood passed a law permitting the levies in 2024, Edinburgh introduced a 5% overnight rate this summer, capped at five nights. Glasgow also has a 5% rate, while Aberdeen’s is 7%. However, these rates are at the discretion of local authorities, with no central cap.

In Wales, a capped levy of £1.30 per person per night will be introduced in April 2027. This is reduced to 75p for hostels and campsites. The cities of Manchester and Liverpool also have voluntary schemes, of a £1 and £2 per room per night charge.

Across the world, major cities such as New York, Amsterdam and Rome all employ variations of a tourist tax. Berlin also applies a 7.5% tax on accommodation costs, while Paris has a tax based on the type of accommodation. For an overnight stay in a two-star hotel, for example, there is a €3.25 (£2.86) charge, and for a four-star hotel the rate is €8.45 (£7.43). Lisbon, however, levies a flat rate of €4.00 (£3.52), up to a maximum of seven nights.

How will it affect the hospitality industry?

Implementing these taxes is “not going to be painless”, Allen Simpson, chief executive of UKHospitality, told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme. He claimed it would add roughly £100 to £120 to the average cost of a family holiday, and feared that by devolving only one tax-raising power, mayors would “pull that lever until it snaps”.

Simpson’s trade body also claimed the move would cost 33,000 jobs and cause a £2.2 billion hit to the UK’s GDP. Other global destinations with a cap on their tourist charges have much lower VAT rates than the UK.

New Conservative shadow chancellor Andrew Griffith said that an uncapped tourist tax would be “hugely limiting for the chances of the young people who might otherwise be employed in tourism and hospitality”. It would also be “utterly wrong” to use the funds for “propping up dodgy town hall finances on the back of even higher youth unemployment”.

However, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan welcomed the proposal, arguing that a “well-designed, modest” overnight visitor charge would “raise and invest funding locally”.

While glucagon-like peptide-1s have been widely celebrated for transforming weight loss, some who attempt to use the medications find themselves in a less-studied patient category called nonresponders. This minority of people haven’t experienced any significant change in weight even after adjusting their dose or switching brands.

What are the influencing factors?

Between “9% and a third of participants” in clinical trials for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs lose less than 5% of their body weight after months of use, which is the threshold associated with health improvements, said The Guardian. Now, researchers are “trying to work out why” the drugs are ineffective for nonresponders — a discovery that could help doctors “tailor the use of the drugs, maximize cost-effectiveness and reduce side effects.”

The drug’s lack of efficacy cannot be blamed on patients, said Alexander Miras, an obesity expert at Ulster University, to The Guardian. If the drug does not “reduce hunger and food intake for someone,” it is “just not going to work.”

For now, the “short answer” to why some people don’t respond is that “we don’t really know,” said Miras. Research suggests that factors such as “motivation, intelligence, education and socioeconomics” are not predictors of how patients would “respond to GLP-1 medications.”

Other characteristics such as age, sex and whether or not someone has Type 2 diabetes do appear to have an effect. Studies have also suggested “ancestry might have an impact,” with the medications “most effective in people of European ancestry and least effective in people of African American ancestry,” said The Guardian.

Some may be jumping the gun, however. Many people labeled as nonresponders simply “do not take the medication correctly” or “discontinue treatment before adequate therapeutic effect can be achieved,” said Kingston University biologists Nadine Wehida and Ahmed Elbediwy at The Conversation. Studies show up to 20% to 60% of people “stop treatment within the first year” amid “widespread use of the drug in doses below the recommended amounts.”

Is there hope for nonresponders?

There is “no reliable way” to predict what group one will fall into when trying GLP-1s, said Stanford Medicine News Center. The good news is “you don’t have to wait long to find out.” In general, higher doses produce better results, so doctors “typically start patients low and increase gradually, watching for side effects.”

If the dose is not associated with any weight loss, “waiting three months on the same dose is not going to give you more answers,” said Stanford Medicine endocrinologist Sun Kim to the department’s News Center. You should “increase the dose and reassess.” Whether or not it’s working tends to become clear within the first few weeks.

Certain medical factors such as “thyroid disorders” can “disrupt metabolism,” said Yale Medicine. People with “impaired glucose regulation,” including those with diabetes, therefore tend to “lose less weight on these medications.” A less common underlying condition could also be playing a role.

Sometimes, “despite doing everything right,” a patient “just doesn’t respond the way we would hope,” said Avlin Imaeda, a Yale Medicine gastroenterologist. And this phenomenon isn’t “unique to weight-loss medications,” said Yale Medicine. Some patients may not react to “certain blood-pressure drugs, antidepressants or cancer therapies.” Biology is complex, and treatment responses can vary widely.

For those hoping for something to look forward to, a “series of promising new drugs are in development,” said The Guardian. In the meantime, for nonresponders still struggling to lose weight, “weight-loss surgery may be the only option left.”

GLP-1-based drugs not working does not “predict a lack of response to [bariatric] surgery,” said Miras. In the end, it’s “not your fault,” and it’s not the drug’s fault either. “This is purely luck.”

Hundreds of arrests across dozens of countries have been linked to “The Com”, an online community of predominantly young men who carry out acts of violence termed nihilistic extremism.

“It’s violence for the sake of violence,” EU counter-terrorism coordinator Bartjan Wegter told the Associated Press in an interview ahead of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. Unlike Islamic jihadism, “there’s not a direct link with ideology”.

What is ‘nihilistic terrorism’?

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the leading UK-based think tank dedicated to combating extremism, defines nihilistic terrorism as “violent acts lacking an ideological motivation and driven by a misanthropic world-view”.

Communities such as The Com form a “decentralised web of chats, forums and channels characterised by support for violence” but “with no specific political, ideological or religious goal”, although some factions have adopted extreme right-wing beliefs. The tactics and resultant harms of nihilistic extremists “often mirror those of ideologically motivated extremist networks”, with “some overlap between the two phenomena’s digital ecosystems, activities and cultural references”.

But this is “violence as a means of asserting oneself”, said the EU’s Wegter. It’s “a means of gaining status in those online communities”.

How do these networks recruit and operate?

Short for “The Community”, The Com is a broad online ecosystem that encourages and engages in cybercrime, extortion and violence.

Largely made up of young, male native English-language speakers, members range from “11-year-olds trying to hack Minecraft to people in their mid-20s targeting vulnerable kids online,” Aiden Sinnott, principal threat researcher at cybersecurity firm Sophos, told The Guardian.

Communicating via encrypted platforms such as Discord and Telegram, the networks serve as a pipeline where “older members of The Com contact kids and try to get them to commit increasingly sophisticated acts of criminality”.

Activities are split into three subsets. Hacker Com includes groups such as Scattered Spider, linked to last year’s massive data breaches of retailers Marks & Spencer and the Co-op. In Real Life Com phones in fake bomb threats to schools and offers violence-as-a-service contracts, and is associated with a spate of random stabbings over the last year. Lastly, Extortion Com coerces young people into sharing or live-streaming acts of self-harm, sexually explicit behaviour or even suicide.

One of the most notorious networks within Extortion Com is 764. Founded by Texas teenager Bradley Cadenhead, who is currently serving an 80-year sentence in the US for possessing child sexual abuse material, the network now has victims and perpetrators in dozens of countries.

The UK’s National Crime Agency has said reports of Com networks increased six-fold in the UK from 2022 to 2024, and researchers at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center in the US have identified at least 295 arrests across 33 countries linked to The Com.

What is being done to tackle them?

These attacks are tough to prevent or track because the perpetrators are young individuals without a criminal record, usually, “who don’t leave any footprints other than online perhaps, but then it’s often behind encrypted walls and communities,” Wegter told AP News.

Over the summer, Europol ran a campaign to target nihilistic violent extremist content online. Investigators from nine countries participated in “Referral Action Days” to disrupt the online ecosystem, limit propaganda dissemination, and find new investigative leads, including identifying around 4,340 web addresses linked to The Com.

The campaign also aimed to enhance “platforms’ response to and awareness of terrorist content online produced and disseminated by The Com groups”, said the agency.

Ukraine has spent years using its drone arsenal to great effect, both in its wartime front with Russian forces and in penetrating deep into Russian territory for daring aerial attacks on fuel and commercial infrastructure. Now, Ukraine has a new target: Russian airports and Moscow’s commercial air travel industry.

“Every airline that uses Russian airspace, every insurer and everyone who still uses Russia’s key airports” should know “Russian airspace is becoming completely unsafe,” said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a statement last week. Although Ukrainian drones have filled Russia’s skies before, Zelenskyy’s implied threat to commercial air routes suggests the war for aerial supremacy in the region has taken a new and potentially even more dangerous turn.

Why focus on commercial air travel?

Zelenskyy’s warning comes as part of Ukraine’s “effort to disrupt Russia’s economy” and “pressure Moscow to end the war,” said The Wall Street Journal. Ukraine has “vowed to avoid targeting airliners and civilian deaths.” Instead, it intends to “scale up so-called Operation Carpet,” which circulates drones “near Russian airports, forcing air-traffic control to pause takeoffs and landings.”

The strategy is “no longer simply a repetition of isolated, sporadic emergency alerts” that have shuttered Russian airways in the past, said Serhiy Bratchuk, a spokesman for the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Southern Command, to the Journal. Ukraine intends to “transition to constant pressure aimed at paralyzing civilian air traffic” for eastern Russia.

The problem for Russia is “not that Ukraine has to shoot down an airliner,” said industry news site Live and Let’s Fly. “Quite the opposite.” Ukrainian drones merely need to “create enough uncertainty” for authorities to close airports or until “airlines or insurers decide the risk is no longer worthwhile.” The tactic is a “useful tool of war.”

Trying to shutter an airport permanently “would be difficult,” as a “sustained attack would become predictable and easier for air-defense systems to halt,” said The Guardian. But “periodic closures of Russian airports on a semi-regular basis” are achievable by “relying on an element of surprise,” said Royal United Services Institute aviation analyst Justin Bronk to the outlet.

Ukraine has also “urged the U.N.’s aviation agency” to “ask its members ‌to fully ban operations in Russian airspace,” said Reuters. The International Civil Aviation Organization itself has observed “heightened risks of civil aircraft being targeted or caught in crossfire,” said the group in a statement this week. Though the airline industry can “reroute flights and maintain operations during conflicts,” that type of “operational ​flexibility does not address the ​fundamental security threat.”

What are Russia’s options?

Russian President Vladimir Putin “vowed that Russia would keep pummeling Ukraine” at a press conference last week where he “dismissed” Zelenskyy’s threat to Russian airspace, said The Washington Post. “If this has been voiced, it amounts to nothing less than a call for state terrorism,” said Putin. “And I would point out that they are asking us to resume negotiations and requesting face-to-face meetings. One does not negotiate with terrorists.”

Although Ukraine’s airspace has been closed to commercial travel for several years, Russia has “refused to close the country’s airspace for civil aviation, despite the escalating war,” said the Journal. While American and European operators have pulled back from Russian sorties, their absence “has proven a boon” to operators from Asia and the Middle East, thereby “offsetting the risk of operating in skies regularly penetrated by Ukrainian drones.”

Russia’s military is “focusing on striking manufacturing and storage sites around Kyiv and energy and port operations in Odessa,” said former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryen on Substack. While it is “uncertain whether Zelenskyy’s warning will change the current pattern of attacks and retaliations,” it is also “hard to see” how Ukraine can “keep launching hundreds of drones (sometimes as many as a thousand)” nightly into Russia. It could simply be, said Bryen, that Zelenskyy is “saying more than he can do.”

Artificial intelligence could cause a global economic downturn, the Bank of England’s governor has warned.

Andrew Bailey is the latest in a “throng of figures” to highlight the risks posed by the most advanced versions of AI technology, said The Guardian.

What did he say?

Bailey said “frontier” AI models were “showing increasingly sophisticated autonomy and problem-solving abilities, as well as threat capabilities”.

In a two-page letter sent to international finance ministers and central bank governors, Bailey said the advanced models risk destabilising the “highly interconnected” global financial system through cyber-disruption that “can spread across jurisdictions”.

The central bank officially raised concerns about AI in July, listing the threats of a potential stock market bubble, worsened cybersecurity vulnerabilities and AI companies’ increasingly complex and opaque debt.

How would AI cause a bubble?

The inflated valuations of companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Nvidia have led to warnings that the companies are in a stock market “bubble”. This is a “significant run-up in stock prices without a corresponding increase in the value of the businesses they represent”, said The Motley Fool.

Usually, this is driven by “highly optimistic market behaviour”, said Investopedia. Then, when investors’ confidence starts to wane as they realise their hopes are not panning out, they all begin to sell off, sending stock prices tumbling and causing an abrupt contraction in the market.

The “core problem” in the markets is always debt, said Andrew Neill in the Daily Mail. But suddenly there’s “a big new kid on the block in the credit markets” in the form of America’s AI “hyperscalers”, which are “investing several trillion dollars to roll out their transformative technology” on “borrowed money”.

They’re borrowing from private credit markets, an “expensive, unregulated, opaque source of debt”. This means “voracious governments” are competing with the AI giants for credit, “pushing up the cost of borrowing”. But if AI share prices “came tumbling down” they’d bring the “whole stock-market caboodle with them” because the “continuing surge” in share prices is “overwhelmingly AI-driven”.

So what can be done?

Bailey said the sector should prioritise “appropriate steps to support safe and responsible model release and deployment on a global basis”.

But he warned that “recent developments” have “highlighted” that “many jurisdictions do not have the protocols in place to manage the development, release, and deployment of advanced frontier AI models, heightening risks for the financial sector and beyond”.

A senior aide to Nigel Farage and Reform UK’s head of policy have both stood down after they were filmed appearing to plot ways to avoid electoral laws on foreign donations.

Undercover investigative journalists posed as a potential Reform supporter and his wealthy American father, who paid for £32,500 of polling commissioned by Reform and which benefited the party. The polling “was not attributed to Reform, and was reported in The Telegraph and The Times without those newspapers knowing that it was commissioned by the party and paid for by the US donor”, said The Guardian. The benefit in kind was then also not reported to the Electoral Commission.

But Farage told LBC the polls in question were commissioned by an independent third party. He added: “Whilst the poll benefited Reform, it wasn’t commissioned by Reform. It had nothing to do with Reform. It was an independent third party that did it. So that’s nothing. That’s nothing. Polls are funded by overseas people every single week. Every single week.”

What was revealed?

In a meeting over oysters and wine in his Clacton constituency, Farage “met with the undercover team in late July after the three polls had been published and paid for”, said Channel 4 News, who aired the investigation by a group of journalists called Verbatim. The Reform leader believed them to be “William” and his father. Farage said the polling was “amazing” and provided “bang for buck,” adding: “It worked. Boom.”

The Channel 4 report also showed Dan Jukes, a senior adviser to Farage, suggesting a way to get around electoral law to secure a foreign donation of £500,000 for the party. Channel 4 said James Orr, Reform’s head of policy, also suggested to the undercover reporter that perhaps his father could pay for opinion polling to aid Reform’s campaigning.

Farage told LBC a “couple of our contractors have said things that shouldn’t have been said” and had been “removed this morning”. But added: “The party has broken no laws, the party has not taken any dodgy money or anything like that whatsoever.”

Is it illegal?

Electoral law says that to be a permissible donor to a UK political party you must be a UK registered voter, or a company registered in the UK. Not disclosing funding such as the ones for the polls would be illegal and accepting this kind of foreign funding would also be illegal.

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: “The law requires political parties to report all permissible donations they accept with a value over £11,180 and all impermissible donations over £500. Information about any potential attempt to evade the controls on donations is for the police to consider.”

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have reported Reform to the Metropolitan Police and the force said it would assess the matter and any information provided to it.

Reform has denied any wrongdoing and said it had “been the target of a hoax perpetuated by foreign funded climate change activists”. Verbatim was founded by journalists from the Centre for Climate Reporting.

What could the fallout be?

Farage “appears to be trying to distance himself [from] Jukes and Orr, with his comments to LBC”, said the BBC. But Jukes “is widely seen as Farage’s closest aide, who is often at his side, and is judged to have an innate sense of his boss’ instincts”. Equally “Orr, a Cambridge academic who has stepped down [as] the party’s head of policy, could also be considered to be in Farage’s inner circle”.

Reform UK chairman Lee Anderson told Sky News there was “no chance” of Jukes and Orr returning to the party. But this “appeared to be contradicted”, said the BBC, by Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice, who told Radio 4’s “Today” programme minutes later that “it’s not actually, in the nicest possible way, for any individual to make that determination” as the investigation continues.

Ulrich Siegmund was described as “the most dangerous man in Germany” by Der Spiegel in a recent cover story.

The 35-year-old is on course to lead his Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to power in state elections in Saxony-Anhalt this week, making it the first far-right government in post-war German history.

The party’s agenda, if put in place, would give the country its first look at what the AfD “hopes could ultimately be a cultural and demographic overhaul of German life”, said The New York Times.

What are their policies?

The party’s 156-page manifesto advocates a “complete 180-degree turn” in migration policy to include deportation and what it terms “remigration” – a word that has “Nazi connotations”, which could see the targeting of Ukrainian refugees who fled the war, said CNN.

Under an AfD government, gay pride flags would be banned at schools, public broadcasters and pro-democracy NGOs would lose funding, there would be a moratorium on new wind turbines and a rollback of other green policies, and large families of German origin would receive tax breaks. The party also wants to improve relations with Moscow, and would move to teach more Russian in schools.

But, in a policy more reminiscent of Zohran Mamdani, the liberal New York City mayor, the manifesto also includes provisions to make childcare, already heavily subsidised by the state, free.

“I want to give the citizens in Saxony-Anhalt their good, old, secure Germany back,” Siegmund told The New York Times earlier this year. “It will be a very beautiful country with a very good spirit of optimism,” especially “for the children, for the families.”

But judging by Siegmund’s campaign speeches, “the goal is a return to a bygone era – a time before Germany viewed itself as a country of immigration, when electricity came from nuclear power plants rather than wind turbines, and when LGBTQ+ rights were not yet recognised”, said Hans Pfeifer in Deutsche Welle.

Could they work in practice?

Eva von Angern, a state lawmaker from the far-left party Die Linke, has called the AfD’s plans a “violation of human rights and unconstitutional”, said the NYT.

But while some of the proposals appear to be “unworkable at a state level”, needing action by the federal government, “many others are feasible”, said the BBC’s Bethany Bell.

Whether they would work in practice is another matter entirely. Saxony-Anhalt has Germany’s highest share of pension-age residents, meaning it needs migrant labour. A study by DIW Berlin economic research institute reported in Modern Diplomacy estimates that under AfD policies such as stopping immigration and cutting state spending, Saxony-Anhalt would lose an average of €1,600 (£1,370) per person in annual income as well as around 10,000 jobs.

How likely is an AfD national government?

Since its founding in 2013, the AfD has evolved from a Eurosceptic party into a “full-scale populist uprising against mass migration, green energy policies and so-called wokeism”, said The Telegraph’s James Rothwell.

It has successfully expanded beyond its heartland in the former East Germany, and now consistently leads Politico’s poll of polls on national voting intention.

Standing in its way of entering national government is the Brandmauer, Germany’s political “firewall” agreement between mainstream parties to refuse to work with extremists. It has succeeded until now in keeping the AfD out of power at state and federal level, but has done nothing to harm the party’s popularity.

Some hope that the AfD taking control of Saxony-Anhalt will force the party to compromise and show that its radical political platform is unworkable and ineffectual.

Others, such as David Begrich of Miteinander, an organisation that fights right-wing extremism, fear the AfD intends to turn Saxony-Anhalt “into a testing ground for the whole country”, he told DW.

“Just how far can one go in overriding the written – and perhaps even more importantly, the unwritten – rules of democratic culture in a federal state?”

Three-quarters of secondary schools in England are breaking healthy eating rules on the food being offered to pupils, according to a report from a charity set up by the chef Jamie Oliver. Bite Back said it discovered “alarming” and “shocking” breaches of school food standards at nearly 400 schools, said The Guardian.

What rules are being flouted?

After investigating 391 state schools, the researchers found that three out of four were breaching the guidelines in at least one respect. More than half (53%), were selling products with levels of fat, sugar or salt that are banned, including crisps, biscuits, chocolate bars and pastries. Under current rules, schools are allowed to sell fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds as snacks.

No fewer than 224 secondary schools (57%) were offering processed meats such as burgers, nuggets, sausages and goujons more regularly than the twice-a-week frequency that the standards allow. Fried potato products, such as hash browns, were appearing on school menus more frequently than the same recommended limit in 144 schools (37%). At 123 schools (31%), chocolate was included in desserts or baked items, even though its use is not permitted.

In a more positive finding, only eight schools (2%) were flouting the ban on selling sweets as snacks and only three schools (1%) were selling banned sugary drinks.

Why is this a problem?

One in three children are overweight or obese when they leave primary school, and this is leading to more cases of type 2 diabetes, asthma and high blood pressure in children, according to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Diet is also linked to behavioural issues, said The Food Foundation. A significant majority of teachers agree that what children eat at school has a direct impact on behaviour and concentration. In a survey of more than 6,000 primary and secondary school teachers across England in May, 80% said unhealthy lunch or snack food can lead to disruptive behaviour, and 85% said diet affects classroom concentration.

What is the new overhaul?

Along with expanding the provision of free school meals to all pupils from a household where someone is receiving universal credit, the government is to further tighten healthy eating guidelines, after years of lobbying by child health and anti-obesity groups. From this month, there is a total ban on deep-fried food, such as chicken nuggets and chips, while high-sugar desserts will be restricted to once a week. Fruit-based options will largely replace puddings like doughnuts, cakes and ice cream.

The “ambitious overhaul” will make sure children have “access to healthy, balanced meals”, and are “protected from the harms of eating too much ultra-processed food”, said a spokesperson from the Department for Education.

“We know not every school is following these standards, which is exactly why we will introduce a strengthened enforcement regime, alongside requiring every school to publish their food policy and menus online to improve transparency for parents”, they added.

But a caterer revealed in April that a six-week pilot of England’s new school food standards led to a 15% decline in uptake of meals, with children rejecting healthier options in favour of a packed lunch. This has “prompted concerns” that these proposals, “though well-intentioned, could end up having a negative impact on children’s health”, said Sally Weale, The Guardian’s education correspondent. After all, as food writer and campaigner Bee Wilson told Positive News: “It doesn’t matter how healthy a lunch is if most of it goes in the bin.”

Meta has agreed to an $18 billion (£13.3 billion) settlement in the US to resolve claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children.

The social media giant was accused of knowingly and deliberately designing features to get children addicted to Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, with commentators describing it as the industry’s “tobacco moment”, said Sky News.

What happened?

Meta has agreed to make a number of changes to the way Instagram and Facebook operate for its youngest users, while denying any wrongdoing. The settlement “came as a surprise”, said BBC technology editor Zoe Kleinman. “I was expecting weeks of courtroom drama.”

What will change?

The ruling could “fundamentally change the social media experience for young people in the US”, said The Guardian. The “biggest alteration” is that Meta must now “make many of its safety limitations the default setting” for accounts created by teenagers, a “pivot from its previous opt-in approach to child safety”.

The new safety barriers include a two-hour time limit on Instagram and Facebook for known teen users (direct messaging will not count towards the daily use limit). Meta agreed to limit teen accounts to only one hour a day if other platforms bring in similar time restrictions.

Notifications will be muted between midnight and 6am and between 8am and 3pm on school days. ‘Likes’ will be hidden on posts from teenagers. Meta will also enhance measures ‌to prevent children from accessing age-restricted content.

Identification or facial recognition verification systems will be used to make sure teenagers aren’t using regular Instagram accounts. But collecting identifying data poses significant privacy risks, said David Greene, legal counsel at digital privacy firm Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The case was brought by 29 US states and was based on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which is nearly 30 years old. “I would be surprised,” said Kleinman, “if these measures remain within the confines of the US for very long, as other countries will almost certainly be keen to adopt them too.”

What does it mean for social media?

The hearing was labelled as social media’s “tobacco moment”, in reference to the trials tobacco firms faced in the 1990s. A “flurry of state lawsuits” forced tobacco companies to stop sponsoring sport and advertising on public transport, banned adverts that “targeted the youth and prevented cigarette companies from putting cartoons on their packets”, said James Titcomb in The Telegraph.

Other social media companies, including YouTube, TikTok’s parent ByteDance, Snap Inc. and Discord, are facing thousands of lawsuits brought by states, school districts and individuals. The litigants claim the companies intentionally designed their platforms to keep young users hooked. The lawsuits come as politicians are considering stricter rules aimed at protecting young users.

If other tech giants follow Meta’s lead, then social media “might indeed start to look more like tobacco: still a regular part of life, but heavily regulated and restricted, and widely understood to be bad for you”.

GB News went live on 13 June 2021, the first news channel start-up in the UK since Sky News in 1989. Broadcast free on most platforms, it promised to serve audiences on the right who felt ignored by traditional media with a news agenda not governed by liberal metropolitan values and assumptions: it calls itself “the people’s channel”.

GB News had a rocky start. Chair and star presenter Andrew Neil stepped back after just two weeks on air; he later complained of a lack of professionalism and “nutty” politics. It has firmly established itself since then.

In December 2025, GB News announced that it had become the UK’s biggest news channel, by daily average viewers. In 2025 it had over 80,000 viewers between 6am and 2am, narrowly overtaking BBC News’ figures. It still trails BBC and Sky in terms of weekly audience reach, with 2.1 million; the other channels have perhaps twice that. But its higher average viewership suggests it is watched consistently by a smaller and more loyal audience.

Why is the channel’s rise significant?

Its content is not just culturally conservative: it is tilted specifically, and vociferously, towards Reform UK and the right-wing of the Conservative Party. Many of its presenters are politicians. Nigel Farage presents an evening prime-time show three nights a week, while other contributors from Reform include Lee Anderson, Richard Tice, Matt Goodwin and Darren Grimes; from the Tory right there are, among others, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Miriam Cates and Esther McVey. Michelle Dewberry, who has her own evening show, is a former Brexit Party candidate. (One former Labour MP, Gloria del Piero, serves as a presenter.)

The channel has come under fire from journalists for breaching the impartiality rules that apply to news broadcasters. Ex-Sky News editor Adam Boulton called for the channel to be stripped of its broadcasting licence.

What does GB News coverage look like?

Its content is focused strongly on populist-right themes: culture wars and “anti-woke” subjects; climate scepticism; and, most of all, illegal migration. Typically, a GB News evening show will begin with a few minutes of the presenter’s own firmly expressed views. Next, there will be four or five segments of news tilted heavily towards the channel’s favoured talking points. Then a panel of guests will discuss the issues. There’s usually a panel of two: say, Reform’s Zia Yusuf offset by one less-well-known liberal, such as Matthew Stadlen or Benjamin Butterworth, in order to provide a semblance of balance. This person is frequently shouted down by the presenter and the other panellist. Critics describe such guests as the “token leftie” or the “chew toy”.

Is this against impartiality rules?

The Broadcasting Code, a list of rules established by the communications regulator Ofcom, covers both TV and radio broadcasters: all news coverage by broadcasting companies, whether across their main channels, or elsewhere, must be presented “with due impartiality”. Ofcom stresses it doesn’t mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view or every argument represented, only that there must be a level of impartiality “adequate or appropriate” to the subject and nature of the programme.

What does this mean in practice?

In the last decade, Ofcom has permitted greater flexibility in the interpretation of its rules, allowing broadcasters to provide more partisan coverage through presenters and guests, with fewer challenging voices. The boundaries were first tested by radio stations, with LBC and TalkRadio featuring more political presenters, including politicians. GB News and Rupert Murdoch’s TalkTV followed suit.

In June, the former chair of Ofcom, the Tory peer Michael Grade, gave some idea of the thinking, saying that sometimes “a sentence in a script” would be enough to comply with impartiality rules. He defended GB News, which he said represented a “majority agenda”, adding that critics just disliked perspectives outside a “liberal, Islington consensus”. Ofcom distanced itself from these views.

However, a High Court ruling from February 2025 also allowed some latitude. It found that “news programmes” must remain impartial at all times, and opinion and fact must be clearly separated, but for “current affairs programmes” – in this case, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s show – broadcasters should be given more flexibility.

Is this a matter for concern?

It opens up the possibility of a much more nakedly partisan and less factually rigorous broadcast media – along the lines of Fox News in the US, from which GB News drew inspiration. Ofcom’s investigation of an interview with Donald Trump conducted by the presenter Bev Turner may be a test case. In the interview, in November 2025, Trump claimed climate change was “a hoax”, parts of London operated under sharia law, and that the capital had no-go areas for police, none of which Turner challenged. She also told Trump it took “real backbone” to “drop so many truth bombs”. Ofcom is now looking at breaches of “due impartiality” and “material misleadingness” rules.

What do its defenders say?

To its critics, GB News is “Reform TV” – a partial, irresponsible outlet that is pushing the news agenda towards the anti-immigrant right. To its defenders, it has taken a vital step in wrenching the news out of the hands of its self-appointed liberal controllers in the mainstream media, and is providing reporting on issues that really do matter to people. A major documentary on grooming gangs in 2023 by Charlie Peters, for instance, helped to refocus attention on continuing police and local authority failures. GB News has also investigated issues such as the abuse of visas. The channel’s critics, argued Simon Evans in The Critic, “just don’t like the plebs having a show that looks them ... square in the eye”.

Who is funding GB News?

The main backers of GB News’ parent company All Perspectives, as listed on its website, are Sir Paul Marshall and the private investment firm Legatum Ventures. Nigel Farage is also a shareholder. Marshall earned the bulk of his estimated £870-950 million fortune from his fund-management company, Marshall Wace. He has long been involved in politics, having migrated from supporting the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives via support for Brexit. He co-founded the political news website UnHerd, and bought The Spectator in 2024. Marshall has said that he hopes his media outlets will fight “progressivism”.

In 2023, he established the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) with the conservative culture warrior, psychologist Jordan Peterson. Legatum, a Dubai-based fund founded in 2006 by the New Zealand billionaire Christopher Chandler, is also a backer of ARC.

GB News has lost investors £131 million since launch, although it is moving closer to breaking even. Its latest figures, for the year to May 2025, showed revenue had grown to £26 million. Its losses were still high, at £22 million, but the annual report stated that there was “no reason to believe” its investors’ support “might vary to a significant degree”.

Statement from GB News
“GB News content is not biased towards specific political parties, and the majority of our presenters are not politicians.

“We’ve been Britain’s number one news channel for more than a year because we provide bold and fearless journalism which connects with communities everywhere.

“GB News has strong support from a number of investors, and we remain firmly on track to achieve our ambition of becoming the UK’s biggest news channel across all platforms by 2028.”