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.”

Speculation is rife with just a couple of months to go until the first Autumn Budget for new Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Chancellor John Healey.

“It’s an unusual high-stakes moment,” said Coutts, as Burnham has only just returned to Parliament as an MP and Healey is “fresh to the chancellorship, succeeding Rachel Reeves”. The Budget will be delivered to Parliament on 28 October.

It will come at a time when public finances are “expected to be gloomier than forecast at Rachel Reeves’ spring statement”, said The Guardian, when the Iran war had only just started.

Burnham has already announced a “handful of cost of living measures”, said Which?, which include a £2 cap on bus fares, the removal of VAT from electricity bills and a business rates tax cut for pubs and clubs.

There are plenty of clues on further cost of living support but no certainty yet on what will be announced. Healey has said, however, he wants to move “power and money out of Westminster, and into every postcode around Britain”.

Here is how the Autumn Budget could impact your finances.

Tax threshold tinkering

Burnham has committed to keep Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise income tax rates. But during the Makerfield by-election campaign he did hint at “revising the personal tax allowance”, said Which?, to amend when people’s earnings move into different tax bands.

Wealth taxes

Former chancellor Reeves unveiled a mansion tax in her final budget, which Healey is expected to “push ahead with”, said The Sun.

Other wealth taxes are still “much discussed”, said BDO, but there are fears that a straightforward wealth tax would lead to the wealthy leaving the UK. Other taxes on wealth, such as raising the capital gains tax rate, “might prove better at raising revenue”.

Property tax changes

Burnham has previously described the UK's property tax system as “outdated”, said Fidelity, and has “expressed support” for a land value tax to replace stamp duty and council tax. However, he did say during the summer that there were “no immediate plans” to abolish either one.

Social care strategy

One “bold idea”, said The Independent, is to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with a social care levy. But tax moves to fund a social care overhaul “may simply be delayed until a future budget”, added BDO, as Baroness Casey’s independent commission on adult social care is not due to report until summer 2027.

Pensions

Get set for “another period of speculation on pensions”, said Saxo.

The previous two Labour budgets had all kinds of speculation about limits being cut, such as pension tax relief, “leading to withdrawals and investors pulling money out of portfolios”.

Healey is “broadly expected”, said The Sun, to continue with plans to add pensions to estates for inheritance tax from April 2027.

Burnham has already committed to keeping the state pension triple lock but there is “persistent speculation about cutting the tax-free pension lump sum”, said WealthR. Trimming pension tax relief “could also be on the radar”.

The trial of a Libyan man linked to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing has been postponed at the 11th hour after new evidence emerged just days before jury selection was due to begin in Washington.

Two hundred and fifty-nine passengers and crew, as well as 11 people on the ground, were killed when Pan Am flight 103, from London to New York, exploded over Lockerbie, southwest Scotland, on 21 December 1988. It remains the UK’s worst ever terrorist attack.

Who was behind the bombing?

The bombing was “one of the largest and most complex acts of international terrorism ever investigated” by the FBI. “Solving the case required unprecedented international cooperation.”

Painstaking analysis of 319 tons of wreckage and thousands of pieces of evidence from a crime scene covering 845 square miles, along with thousands of interviews in 16 countries, eventually led investigators to two Libyan intelligence operatives.

In 1991 the UK and US governments charged Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah with the murders, which were believed to be retaliation for a series of confrontations between the US and Libya in the 1980s. A decade later Megrahi was found guilty at a trial held in a Scottish court specially built on a former US army base in the Netherlands and jailed for life. He was released on compassionate grounds in 2009 after being diagnosed with terminal cancer and returned to Tripoli to a “hero’s welcome” before dying in 2012. Fhimah was acquitted at the trial and returned to Libya.

In 2003, the Libyan government formally “accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials” and agreed to pay nearly $3 billion to the victims’ families. “It never admitted Megrahi’s guilt directly”, though, said STV News, and “questions over the evidence, competing theories about who ultimately ordered the attack, and the involvement of only one convicted individual for an operation understood to have required a state intelligence apparatus have all persisted for decades”.

Then in December 2020, 32 years to the day after the bombing, the US charged Abu Agela Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi as a “third conspirator”. He was taken into custody in the US two years later and has awaited trial ever since.

Why has his trial been postponed?

US prosecutors alleged the Libyan and Tunisian dual national, now in his mid-seventies, was a long-time bomb maker for Libya’s External Security Organisation, and built and primed the explosive device placed in a radio cassette player hidden inside a suitcase on flight 103.

The trial of Al-Marimi, the first person to face justice for the bombing in a US court, was due to start in May 2025 but was delayed after his lawyers said they needed more time to work through more than 400,000 files of evidence.

Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled earlier this month that an alleged 2012 confession given to a Libyan investigator could be used as evidence at the trial that was finally due to begin this week. But the trial was again pushed back, this time to early next year, after “newly discovered evidence” previously unknown to the defence and prosecutors emerged on Friday.

The fact that Friedrich “would have been extremely reluctant to allow an 11th hour postponement after months of preparation and marathon pre-trial legal battles” underlines “the potential importance of the new evidence”, said the BBC.

For the families of those killed in the attack, the trial “represents something rare in this case: a chance for evidence gathered over nearly four decades to finally be tested, cross-examined and argued over in open court, in front of a jury asked to reach a verdict”, said STV News. This would provide some closure even though a conviction “would not, on its own, resolve the wider questions that have followed the case for decades about who else was involved in ordering and directing the operation”.

CIA director John Ratcliffe made a surprise, unannounced trip to Moscow on Tuesday, the first time America’s spy chief has visited Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The Kremlin said Ratcliffe held talks with Russian intelligence officials but did ‌not meet President Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did tell reporters that Putin had been briefed on ​the outcome of Ratcliffe's talks.

While the visit has yet to be officially confirmed by the CIA, White House or Pentagon, reports of the “semi-secret mission” were “ringing all sorts of alarm bells in Westminster”, said Politico. “Next to nothing is known” about the trip but “analysts fear escalations against Baltic countries, or other Nato members”.

What happened?

CBS News first reported that Ratcliffe had travelled to Moscow on Tuesday “for meetings”.

A US Air Force Boeing C-17A Globemaster III transport plane was spotted at a Moscow airport, along with a US diplomatic motorcade. Flight tracking data confirmed a large US military aircraft travelled from Washington to Russia via Latvia on Tuesday, departing later that day.

The US reportedly told Ukraine that a senior delegation would be travelling to Moscow and asked it to suspend strikes until the delegation’s departure, according to CBS.

What was the point?

In-person talks between high-level American and Russian officials are incredibly rare. And amid such secrecy “it was not immediately clear what the trip’s purpose is and whether any other senior US officials were part of the US delegation”, said The Washington Post.

John Foreman, a former British military attaché to Moscow, told BBC Radio 4’s “PM” news programme that the visit could be focused on “escalation management” given speculation that Russia could have been involved in recent drone activity in Germany. “The Americans don’t normally send such a high ranking official to Moscow unannounced at short notice unless something is up.”

The visit could also have been concerned with the release of US detainees being held in Russia, Foreman said. The CIA was involved in the 2024 prisoner exchange deal that saw Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich released, while Ratcliffe played a role in the release of Russian-American ballet dancer Ksenia Karelina last year after she was jailed in Russia for allegedly supporting Ukraine.

Was it to stop an escalation by Russia?

With US-mediated peace talks between Russia and Ukraine remaining “mostly stalled, with the sides still far apart on core issues”, Ratcliffe’s visit comes as recent US intelligence assessments suggest that Vladimir Putin’s “risk calculus may be shifting”, said CBS News. The Russian leader appears “increasingly willing to authorise provocative actions against Nato members – including hybrid operations and other deniable measures short of conventional military action – in order to test the resolve of the alliance and the Trump administration”.

North Korea has been hailed as “the world’s most surprising economic success story” by the leading US financial daily, The Wall Street Journal.

Despite being tightly controlled, technologically backward, and subject to crippling Western trade embargoes, the country has recorded year-on-year GDP growth of more than 3%, of which many advanced economies could only dream. Their unlikely success story has been “aided by arms sales and troop deployments to Russia” to fuel the Ukraine war, support from China, and “the ability to flout international sanctions to import more energy, components and materials”.

What has changed?

Five years after making a rare admission that the nation’s economic policies were falling short, in February Kim Jong Un addressed the Workers’ Party Congress to celebrate a turnaround, declaring “everything has fundamentally changed”. But while the supreme leader may have triumphantly taken credit for the boom, in reality “he has Russia and China to thank”, said Forbes.

Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, North Korea has earned an estimated $14 billion providing military support to the Kremlin, and hundreds of millions in trade and foreign aid from China. North Korea’s “emergence as a modern-day pirate state on the back of its lucrative cryptocurrency theft operations” has also helped, Shreyas Reddy of Korea Risk Group, told the Financial Times.

The effect of this influx on the so-called hermit kingdom has been sudden and startling. The regime has used some of the windfall to modernise Pyongyang with new brightly lit shopping districts filled with luxury and high-tech goods, and high-rise apartments blocks. Cars, once a rarity, are increasingly common and frequently electric, and can even be hailed with ride-sharing apps.

Outside the capital, the regime’s ambitious “20x10” regional development initiative aims to build new factories, housing and public infrastructure in 20 counties each year over a 10-year period.

All of this is an “incredible accomplishment for a country that is this poor”, regional expert Stephan Haggard told the WSJ.

Can it last?

Due to a lack of reliable data and the regime’s complete control of the media, accurately assessing what is happening on the ground in North Korea is notoriously difficult, said WioNews. But “a closer look beneath the headlines reveals a more complicated picture than either Western critics” or the Pyongyang regime acknowledge.

While the growth over the last three years appears genuine, said the Financial Times, North Korea’s “economic resurgence fell short of a genuine transformation” in that it “was mostly being driven by participation in Russia’s war in Ukraine”.

Peter Ward of the Sejong Institute in Seoul said North Korea was in the throes of a “Russian sugar high” fuelling a slew of “shovel-ready, exciting-looking projects that will catch the eye of the leader, but aren’t necessarily sustainable”.

Ultimately, said Asia Business Daily, the racks of luxury goods and the Pyongyang construction boom are “merely an optical illusion”, in that they are enjoyed “almost exclusively by the leadership and a privileged class in Pyongyang”.

North Korea remains incredibly poor. Out of its 27 million citizens, 17 million are still believed to live in extreme poverty, and the UN estimates that more than 40% of the population are undernourished. Analysts are sceptical that Kim can turn the short-term gains brought about by the war in Ukraine into sustainable long-term growth. “Knowing the North Koreans, they probably haven’t fixed the roof while the sun is shining,” said Ward.

A government minister has urged social media companies to “step up” and remove “content that celebrates dangerous driving”, after recent fatal collisions caused by young people driving on the wrong side of the road.

Seven people died in the early hours of Saturday morning when a Volkswagen Passat, containing five young men, sped the wrong way down the A66 near Middlesbrough and crashed into a police armed response vehicle. Last weekend, five teenagers were killed when their BMW, heading the wrong way down the M9 near Dublin, hit another car head-on, seriously injuring three women and a child.

“What makes this reckless behaviour even more appalling is that, in some cases, it is being done for social media likes,” said Justin Kelly, head of the Irish police force.

How big a problem is it?

One of the young men killed in the Passat seems to have previously shared TikTok videos of himself in a car chase with the police. And other social media accounts linked to the car’s passengers “appeared to show men in balaclavas on motorbikes and previous police chases set to rap music,” said The Times. Hundreds of videos “shot in the UK” are being “posted online to encourage young drivers to act recklessly for kudos”, according to the paper’s social media analysis.

The crash in Ireland has drawn attention to the activities of the “Lucky Dip” gang, whose members steal cars for thrills and upload footage of their joyriding “for validation and popularity”, said The Telegraph. Irish authorities have warned that they, and groups like them, are “trying to outdo each other” with videos of ever more dangerous driving.

Why are they doing it?

For excitement and for admiration from their peers. Showing off with risk-taking behaviour is nothing new, Mary Aiken, a professor of forensic cyberpsychology at the University of East London, told The Guardian, but social media “is psychologically immersive and could amplify a predisposition to taking risks and ignoring consequences”.

While they are driving, she said, they are “simultaneously filming and capturing content for posting later or live streaming. They have one foot in the real world and one foot in cyberspace. They’re thinking about the likes; they’re thinking about kudos.”

Is TikTok to blame?

The “macabre” video trend “has astonished and outraged” Ireland, and prompted debate not only about policing and criminal justice but also about social media regulation, said The Guardian.

UK defence minister Luke Pollard this morning warned social media companies that they have a decision to make. “They’ve argued against regulations, saying they can police themselves. Well, this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate it.” The government can use powers in the Online Safety Act to compel them to take this content down but, if they took steps not to allow “their algorithm to share this type of content” to begin with, then “I think we’d be in a better place”.

Ireland’s media regulator said it has asked TikTok for a “full account” of what measures it has taken over risky and reckless driving content on its platform. TikTok has said it monitors content, and removes videos and accounts that break its rules.

TikTok has declined an invitation to appear before an Irish parliament’s media committee, partly because it was the only social-media company to be asked to do so. “We all know” it’s those boys who “are responsible for what happened”, said Alan Kelly, chair of the media committee, but the platform they used was TikTok. And we “want to have assurances, not only that they’ll be reactive and take down such content, but that also they’ll proactively make sure that it doesn’t go up. Because they have the AI tools to prevent this from happening, and they need to show that they’re going to do that.”

In the summer of 1976, there was a record-breaking heatwave, inflation and youth unemployment were worryingly high, a Labour prime minister had recently resigned – and a new subculture known as “punk” was spreading rapidly among the young.

Its seed was the Sex Pistols, a band formed only the previous winter, who wouldn’t release their first single, “Anarchy in the UK”, until 26 November. But their early gigs inspired the formation of The Clash, The Damned, Buzzcocks and many other punk bands.

Plenty of adults were appalled, but punk had a powerful influence on fashion, filmmaking and graphic design as well as rock music – well beyond punk itself. Members of the tiny audiences at two shows the Pistols played that summer – in Manchester in June and July – went on to found The Fall, Joy Division, The Smiths, Simply Red and the Creation and Factory record labels.

What even is a punk?

In Shakespeare’s time, the word meant a prostitute. In American-English it became a put-down for an inept youngster and/or petty criminal, as in 1971’s “Dirty Harry”: “Well, do ya, punk?” At around the same time, US music critics were starting to use the term “punk rock” for the amateurish, shouty garage rock bands that appeared in the 1960s. It was also applied to various New York acts – the Ramones, the New York Dolls, Richard Hell – who experimented with outlandish outfits, back-to-basics songwriting, and themes of teenage alienation. But “punk rock” didn’t become a media phenomenon until it crossed the Atlantic.

Why did it take off in Britain?

Britain, at the time, had a hyperactive music press and an entertainment industry with an appetite for eccentricity and theatricality. As American record companies had long understood, these made London an ideal launchpad for pop-culture trends. (The Ramones, who drew crowds of about 150 in New York, were astonished to find themselves in front of thousands of people when they played in Camden Town in July 1976.) The Sex Pistols crystalised punk into an easily imitated package, striking every pop musician who encountered them as “shock troops from the future”, as one critic put it. “It just blew all the other rubbish away,” said Joe Strummer, who joined The Clash after seeing the Pistols play in April. They were the hottest band in London by March 1976, and by 2 December they were household names in the UK.

How did they manage that?

John Lydon (aka “Johnny Rotten”), Steve Jones, Paul Cook and Glen Matlock were bolshy, in their late teens or early 20s, and from deprived backgrounds. (Jones, the guitarist, was functionally illiterate until his 40s.) Lydon, the singer, was smart, gobby and gleefully provocative, which endeared him to the band’s manager, Malcolm McLaren, a fashion designer who’d briefly managed the New York Dolls. Armed with a look provided by McLaren and his then-girlfriend, Vivienne Westwood – ripped clothes, safety pins, bondage gear, spiky, dyed hair – they swiftly outraged respectable opinion. People had used rude words on television before, but never in such uncouth tones as Lydon and Jones in a regional ITV interview on 1 December 1976. The next morning they were on the front page of every newspaper (“The FILTH and the FURY!” splashed the Daily Mirror).

Was that really groundbreaking?

The Pistols’ cartoon-yob image was an important part of their confrontational, anti-establishment appeal: spitting, pogoing, fighting and vandalism were rife at punk gigs. Their raw, confrontational attitude and do-it-yourself musicianship were a reaction against expensively produced “progressive” outfits such as Pink Floyd, “hippies” and over-dressed stadium rockers such as Elton John. “Up to that point, we’d all been singing about bowling along California highways,” one Northern Irish rocker recalled of punk’s impact.

Many found it intensely liberating: female-fronted bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Slits and X-Ray Spex got a leg-up from the movement. Jamie Reid’s iconic cut-out designs for the Sex Pistols’ record covers, with their “ransom note” lettering, inspired countless posters and fanzines, helping to democratise graphic design. Vivienne Westwood became one of the UK’s leading fashion designers.

How authentic was punk really?

McLaren, who’d been to art school, liked to say that the Pistols were “my sculpture, my painting, my little artful dodgers” – an artwork inspired by the French situationists, who aimed to shock people out of their complacency with unexpected spectacles. Lydon rejected this furiously, but McLaren certainly did mould the band. He chose their name (probably), selected band members and planned their media stunts; and they did record their only album, “Never Mind the Bollocks”, in a state-of-the-art studio with a producer who’d played keyboards on The Beatles’ “White Album”. While The Clash later made it big in America, sales figures for 1976 suggest that punk was largely a hipster and media preoccupation. No punk single made the year’s UK top 50; Abba, Rod Stewart and Demis Roussos dominated the album charts.

What became of the first punks?

The Sex Pistols reached new heights of controversy by releasing “God Save the Queen” (“She ain’t no human bein’”) during the Silver Jubilee in 1977, then broke up in chaotic circumstances the following January. The Clash’s original line-up soldiered on until 1982, by which time punk rock had mutated into post-punk and new wave. Countless noisy American guitar bands with an outsider ethos have been inspired by punk, and more purist scenes still exist across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia. More importantly, whenever someone with no training or credentials picks up a guitar, a brush or a pen, the spirit of punk lives on.

With the Trump administration pushing back against a swath of DEI-related federal grants, some research related to major diseases, including Alzheimer’s, is being caught in the crossfire. The most recent round of grant axing resulted in two major universities losing millions in funding related to studying brain disease, and experts say it could put them at a large disadvantage.

What research is being impacted?

In 2025, the U.S. awarded 52% fewer grants related to Alzheimer’s research than in 2024, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with the number of grants falling from 369 to 177. The figure appears to be on track through 2026 as well, especially given the most recent cuts.

The newest funding slashes involve grant cancellations for “brain health and Alzheimer’s disease research at two leading research institutions, Emory University and the University of Pittsburgh,” said The Guardian. At least “three grants were canceled between the two institutions,” representing $15 million in funds that would’ve been used to study “how discrimination” — or racism — “affects long-term brain health.”

The topics “we’re measuring are scientifically valid concepts,” Andrea Rosso, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, told The Guardian. Black people are two times more likely to develop dementia, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. And while these studies “don’t actually measure structural racism,” they do “use that as a framing for why one population is at such high risk.”

The DEI-related funding cuts are also coming alongside additional efforts by the White House to overhaul how grants are awarded. Under newly proposed rules by the Trump administration, any “multiyear grant could be terminated at any point,” and the government “would not be allowed to fund any DEI-related activities or projects or groups that ‘deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans,’” said The Boston Globe.

What does this mean for Alzheimer’s patients?

Many are worried that cutting Alzheimer’s research under the guise of the anti-DEI movement could negatively impact patients, specifically those who are Black. One canceled grant at the University of Pittsburgh “studied how Alzheimer’s disease risk was affected in people who live in divested, predominantly African American neighborhoods,” said The Guardian. The research tracked “socially driven Alzheimer’s disease risk factors by collecting surveys, brain imaging and blood samples.” Another grant at Emory University that was slashed by the White House “studied the impact of racial discrimination on the white matter of the brain, in part surveying participants’ self-reported incidences of discrimination.”

Behind all of these killed studies are “people waiting for answers, for therapies, for relief, for hope,” said a pain researcher at Mass General Brigham, per the Globe. This comes as the Trump administration has “been open about wanting a smaller NIH,” said Vox, and originally “proposed cutting the agency’s budget for 2026 by 40%.”

Some researchers say they are considering taking their studies offshore if things do not change. “While I hope to improve the lives of the American people with my research, if I am not able to pursue this aspiration in the U.S., I would rather continue to do so outside of the country,” one Ph.D. student said in comments about the cuts, per the Globe.

The current state of affairs “demonstrates a lack of understanding of our outcomes versus our exposures,” Ann Cohen, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, said to The Guardian. “That’s epidemiology 101.”

Households could start saving more than £100 a year on their energy bills from later this month as plug-in solar panels are set to hit the shops.

New regulations announced by the government in June will allow supermarkets, stores and websites such as Currys, B&Q, Amazon and Lidl to sell plug-in solar panels from 27 August.

The panels could help “slash families’ energy bills”, said The Sun, a welcome opportunity amid the cost of living crisis. They could also spark a “home energy revolution”, said TechRadar, and reach “‘air fryer’ level of popularity”.

What are plug-in solar panels?

A plug-in panel is a “smaller and less powerful” version of a rooftop solar panel, said The Independent. But it offers renters, flat owners and households without a suitable roof “a cheaper way to generate some of their own electricity and help reduce their energy bills”.

These types of panels have been “popular in Europe in recent years”, said uSwitch, and can be plugged into wall sockets to generate electricity on balconies, gardens and in other outdoor spaces without needing professional installation.

How do they work?

A plug-in panel is typically paired with a “clever micro inverter”, said Octopus Energy, that can be installed in a “sunny spot of your choosing” with a cable that plugs straight into a typical socket at home.

The device works in the same way as a rooftop solar panel by generating electricity from sunlight, which feeds directly to your home’s electrical circuit.

Any switched-on appliance will automatically and instantly use this free solar-generated power, “before importing costly electricity from the National Grid”, said MoneySavingExpert.

How much can you save?

It will be up to stores to set their prices but similar kits in Europe sell for between £400 and £600 – “before extra costs such as mounting, installing a new socket or any wiring checks”.

The government estimates that the panels could save households about £70 to £110 a year on energy bills so the “average break-even point is about four to six years”, said MoneySavingExpert.

Are they worth it?

Plug-in panels work differently to rooftop versions as energy isn’t stored. So it helps if “someone is generally at home during the day and able to use much of the electricity as it is generated”, said The Independent. Other factors such as shading, location, electricity prices and the angle and direction of the panels “could all affect the result”.

Additionally, the panels are limited to a capacity of 800W, which could generate a maximum of about two kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity a day. The average UK household uses around 7.4kWh of electricity a day, according to Ofgem, so it is “unlikely to power your entire home”, said MoneySavingExpert.

Look for UKCA or CE markings before purchasing any equipment to avoid poor quality products. Plus, plug-in solar panels should not be connected through extension leads, adaptors or overloaded sockets, which “can overheat and cause fires”, said the London Fire Brigade.

Before getting too excited, you may still need permission to install a plug-in panel if you are renting or own a leasehold property as the legislation doesn’t “automatically override” other agreements, said This Is Money.

Every cancer has its individual mutations, and scientists have long harboured hopes of developing treatments that can be tailored specifically for each individual patient. And now early results from a final-stage trial of personalised cancer vaccines has the research world holding its breath.

US pharmaceutical companies Moderna and Merck have been testing a personalised mRNA vaccine on melanoma patients who had had surgery for their skin cancer. This week, the firms announced that, combined with an established immunotherapy drug, the vaccine had significantly increased the length of time the patients remained cancer-free. This is “a major success in a new field of cancer treatment” that has sent both companies’ shares “surging”, said Reuters.

The results mark “a landmark moment” for the treatment of melanoma, one of the deadliest types of skin cancer, said the study’s principal investigator Georgina Long, medical director of the non-profit Melanoma Institute Australia. This is also “a pivotal moment” for cancer research, said Moderna’s chief executive, Stéphane Bancel.

How does the vaccine work?

It’s made using mRNA technology – as, famously, were some Covid-19 vaccines. But, while the Covid vaccines were created as a standard formulation for everyone, this time it’s created individually for each patient.

To do that, researchers sequence the DNA of each patient’s tumour (by analysing samples after it’s been removed) and identify its unique mutations. They then “encode selected targets into strands of mRNA”, producing a vaccine designed to teach the recipient’s immune system “to recognise and attack any tumour cells that remain”, said The Times. The result is “a personalised anti-cancer jab” specific to the patient’s tumour, said the BBC.

What do we know about the results?

Very little. The phase 3 trial involved 1,137 high-risk patients with melanoma, who were randomly assigned to receive either the vaccine and the immunotherapy drug Keytruda, or just Keytruda, for about a year.

In a similar smaller trial in 2022, Moderna reported that participants who received the vaccine and Keytruda were 44% less likely to develop new tumours or die within three years, compared to those who only received Keytruda.

Moderna has said that these new trial results “demonstrate statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements” in survival times for the vaccine group, and that there had been “no new safety concerns”. But we don’t know exactly how much the vaccine increased survival times.

The results have not been publicly released or peer-reviewed. More findings from the trial will be presented at a medical conference in October.

What could this mean?

“I think it’s fair to call this a breakthrough,” said Marco Gerlinger of the Barts Cancer Institute. These results have “much wider implications” than just for melanoma treatment, he told The Times. They are “proof of principle that personalised cancer vaccines work”,

The hope is that this personalised vaccine “will work for many other types of cancer”, said New Scientist. Moderna and Merck are already trialling similar personalised mRNA vaccines for types of bladder, kidney and lung cancer. BioNTech, “the other big mRNA company”, is also testing personalised cancer vaccines in human trials. Several of these early-stage trials have produced “promising results”.

If successful, these vaccines could prevent nearly 50,000 deaths in the US alone, Yale University estimated last year. “The positive hit here leads us ⁠into truly this next phase in immunotherapy,” Karen Knudsen of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy told Reuters. “This is an auspicious start – this is where things begin.”

What are the caveats?

Moderna and Merck have only released an interim analysis, not the full trial data. And experts “emphasise caution” until the dataset has been peer-reviewed, said the BBC.

The announcement gave Moderna’s shares “their biggest one-day jump on record”, said The Times, while Merck also rallied. But market moves are “imperfect indicators of real-world significance”, said the Financial Times. It’s “not quite the surprise clinical breakthrough” that the jump might imply. It’s “a big deal for Moderna” but, without all data, it’s “difficult to assess the magnitude, durability, and commercial relevance of benefit”.

Investors will be watching for the “next important steps”: “detailed clinical results, regulatory progress, and evidence that the technology works across other cancers”, a financial markets analyst told Sky News. Even then, they know that manufacturing personalised vaccines at scale is “expensive and complex”. One Reuters report suggested that each vaccine could cost about £147,000.

A new generation of drugs could transform the lives of people with narcolepsy and offer hope of future treatments for ADHD and depression.

Orexins help regulate wakefulness, as well as attention, motivation and the brain’s reward system. This month, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first orexin agonist treatment for narcolepsy. Oveporexton (sold as Orzeyful) is designed to target the cause of the chronic sleep disorder, rather than treat the symptoms with stimulants.

But “the excitement is not just about narcolepsy”, said The Economist. Inspired by the success of drugs that mimic glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), developed to treat diabetes and later used for weight-loss in medication such as Ozempic, drugmakers are “betting” that orexins could “follow a similar path”, potentially leading to treatments for conditions that “burden hundreds of millions” of people.

What are orexins?

They are two peptides (chains of amino acids that act as messengers in the brain) that are involved in the body’s sleep-wake system. Specifically, they are neuropeptides. They act as neurotransmitters, or chemicals, that carry messages between neurons. They are involved with reward and motivation.

Named after the Greek word orexis (appetite), orexins were discovered in 1998 by two teams working independently in the US. The discovery turned “the long march to develop a new kind of sleeping pill into a sprint”, said The Guardian.

But their “true role emerged” in 1999, said The Economist. People with narcolepsy were found to lack the specialised neurons that produce orexins, causing “abnormally low levels”. That means the brain “loses the ability to control when the body sleeps”, said Time.

How do they work?

In 2011, researchers at Takeda, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, found a chemical compound that could block the orexin receptor, and so promote sleep. Orexin antagonists were developed as a treatment for insomnia, differing from conventional sleeping pills that induce sedation.

But “the bigger prize may lie not in blocking orexin’s signal, but restoring it”, said The Economist. The results of Takeda’s trials of oveporexton, published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine, “created a stir”. Volunteers were able to stay awake 12.5 to 25 minutes longer with the drug (depending on the dose) than without it.

The drug “activates the orexin pathway” and “restores the brain’s ability to remain alert”, said Time. Volunteers also had fewer episodes of cataplexy, or loss of muscle control, as well as other symptoms such as hallucinations and irregular sleep. There were “no serious adverse events related to treatment”, said the Smithsonian magazine.

“It’s really a complete revolution,” Emmanuel Mignot, a sleep-medicine professor who led Takeda’s final studies, told The Wall Street Journal. “The first time patients take it, it’s like the light switch.” One 19-year-old trial participant said: “It was the first time I felt somewhat alive in the last 10 years.” “It’s the best thing that has ever happened to me,” he told Nature.

What might the future hold?

In the US and Western Europe, narcolepsy affects about one in 2,000 people, but there is no cure. Existing drugs – “decades-old stimulants and sedatives” – only manage symptoms, said The Wall Street Journal. Oveporexton and its competitors are “designed to treat the disease as a whole”. Morgan Stanley estimates that orexin-based medicines for narcolepsy and other sleep disorders could generate $16 billion a year by 2035, according to SF Globe.

Takeda is testing orexin-targeting drugs for sleep apnea and chronic daytime sleepiness. Alkermes, an Irish biotech company, is testing an orexin drug for ADHD in adults. And this year Eli Lilly (of Mounjaro fame) bought Centessa, a biotech firm with an orexin agonist in trials, in a deal potentially worth up to $7.8 billion. New research has also revealed “the essential role of orexin neurons” in motivation, said BioTechniques.

The twice-daily oral drug Orzeyful could be “a boon for the roughly 120,000 people in the United States with narcolepsy type 1”, said the Smithsonian. But its success also “opens the door to the use of orexin-mimicking drugs for other conditions associated with low levels of the chemical”, such as ADHD and depression. “Orzeyful is just the beginning,” said Andy Plump, Takeda’s president of research and development.

It is “the most sought-after weapon in the world”, said CNN. But the US-made Patriot interceptor, capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, is “the focus of a global supply crunch”, caused by “liberal use in the Gulf”, often just to counter Iranian drone attacks. Ukraine, which is being “savaged” by Russia’s “near-nightly surge” of ballistic-missile attacks, has “pretty much run out”.

What makes Patriot so special?

Patriot (Phased Array Tracking Radar for Intercept on Target) is a mobile surface-to-air missile defence system, and “considered one of the most advanced” in “the US arsenal”, said The Independent. Nineteen other countries buy and operate the system, and its interceptors protect cities and military bases across Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Combined with other defences, Patriot has this year intercepted more than 90% of Iran’s missiles and drones, according to the US Congressional Research Service. It is also “the only weapon capable of shooting down Russian ballistic missiles fired at Ukraine”, said the Financial Times.

Countering tactical ballistic missiles is “not a simple or cheap activity”, said The Guardian. To intercept them, a defensive system “needs to be remarkably sophisticated”, and building it involves “a huge amount of research and development”. Most Nato nations “have been happy for Washington to invest over decades to make the Patriot up to the job”.

The US “tightly guards the technical blueprints required to manufacture it”, said The Telegraph. So far, only Germany and Japan are licensed to make their own. Donald Trump has talked of letting Ukraine produce them but seems lately to have backtracked; Volodymyr Zelenskyy is “desperate for the technology”.

What is the stockpile situation?

Even before the US attack on Iran, Western allies “were nervous about depleting their own stocks by giving Patriot missiles to Ukraine”, said The Guardian. But the Iran war has now “created an acute global shortage”.

The US and its Gulf allies fired 943 rounds of Patriot batteries in the first 96 hours of the conflict, according to the Foreign Policy Research Institute. For context, US manufacturer Lockheed Martin only makes 620 interceptors a year.

Ukraine’s Patriot supplies been exhausted, said The Guardian. Ballistic-missile intercepts “have gone from more than 70% to none”; Russia now strikes “with impunity”. In one recent bombardment of Kyiv, Ukraine’s defences failed to intercept a single missile; 17 people were killed.

The situation is “so acute” that Kyiv has stopped disclosing the number of missiles Russia fires, to “avoid revealing how many it fails to intercept”, and “preserve public morale", said the Financial Times. Zelenskyy has “pleaded with” the US and European countries “to share more” of their stockpile with Ukraine. But such is the current depleted state of those stockpiles, they could take “months or years to be replenished”.

What does it mean for the world?

Almost all the countries that operate the Patriot system are “reliant on US production and supply chains, meaning any shortage in the US effectively becomes a global shortage”, said The Telegraph.

And such a shortage raises “urgent” questions about whether the US and its allies can “keep up in a new arms race with Russia, Iran, China and North Korea”. With those nations “ramping up production” of ballistic missiles, “the defence side is falling behind”.

The US, Germany and Japan can produce about 840 Patriot interceptors a year, said The Guardian. Russia produces about 750 Iskander ballistic missiles a year and “is looking to increase” that total. It can often take two to three interceptors – or more – to defeat an incoming missile. “And Iran has many more missiles in storage.”

Some analysts see America’s “ongoing strikes and conclude that stockpile concerns are overblown”, said the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “That is the wrong inference.” US-led forces can keep striking Iran because their stocks of bombs are “plentiful”. But “the strategic constraint” is the number of interceptors that “hold enemy launchers” at bay and “keep bases alive”. Bombs “let you keep fighting the war you are in”; interceptors decide if you can “afford to fight the next one”. The war in Iran is “creating a strategic illusion”: bombing continues but US readiness for a “larger, second-theatre conflict quietly bleeds out”.

Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has fired the starting gun on the next presidential election, and it’s shaping up to be the country’s closest and most consequential political contest in decades.

The left-wing leader, commonly known as Lula, has launched his campaign for a historic fourth term, vowing not to let the “shameless” right wing return to power. His chief rival will be Flávio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting a coup after losing office in 2022.

But the “two-man race” between Lula and Bolsonaro has “increasingly become a three-way fight” involving Donald Trump, said The Wall Street Journal. Lula has accused the US president of trying to interfere in the October election on behalf of Bolsonaro, while “tit-for-tat visa disputes and US tariffs” have plunged US-Brazilian relations to “their lowest point in years”.

Who are the main contenders?

Lula, whose first two terms spanned 2003 to 2011 and was elected again in 2023, is seeking re-election for the centre-left Workers’ Party. If the 80-year-old wins, Brazil would be the only left-wing major economy left in South America. Flávio Bolsonaro, a 45-year-old senator, “is running as the political heir to his father”, said The Wall Street Journal. There are several other conservative and right-wing candidates but all are currently polling in the single digits.

If no one wins more than 50% of the votes on 4 October, the two frontrunners will progress to a second-round runoff on 25 October. A BTG Pactual/Nexus ​poll reported this week by Reuters suggests that a runoff would see Lula receive 47%, with Bolsonaro on 44%.

What is the likely outcome?

Lula’s approval ratings are high: certainly at “levels at which incumbents can expect to win”, said The Economist. And Bolsonaro’s campaign “took a mighty blow in May”, when leaked recordings revealed he had asked for money from a “disgraced banker at the heart of Brazil’s largest-ever bank fraud”.

But “there could still be an upset”: Lula is “seen as weak” on corruption and crime – both top voter concerns. He also spent 19 months in prison for corruption himself before his conviction was overturned on a technicality in 2021. “Many voters have never forgiven him.”

It’s possible that disillusioned voters, “unenthusiastic” about either Lula or Bolsonaro, could boost the prospects of the currently low-polling Renan Santos, leader of the Missão party. A former entrepreneur, the “firebrand outsider”, who “models himself” on Argentina’s Javier Milei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, criticises both Bolsonaro and Lula in “slick videos posted to millions of followers”.

What is Trump up to?

Trump has already interfered in several Latin American elections since he returned to the White House, said The Economist. And “right-wing lookalikes” have won the past seven. Experts say the Brazilian vote will “serve as a test case of how far Trump and an increasingly co-ordinated global right are willing to go to reshape Latin America’s political landscape”, said The Wall Street Journal.

The US president has recently “turned up the heat on Brazil”, said The Guardian. He has proscribed Brazil’s two biggest criminal groups as terrorist organisations, a move that some observers fear could be laying the groundwork for “a US military intervention”. Trump has also revoked the visa of Brazil’s ambassador to Washington, after Brasilia withheld approval of Trump’s own ambassadorial nominee, and denied entry to several US diplomats it accused of planning to meddle in the election.

“This reflects a dangerous convergence between Washington’s long-standing interventionist instincts in Latin America” and “the interests of Brazil’s far right”, said Brazilian journalist Raphael Tsavkko Garcia on Al Jazeera.

Hospital wards are becoming “unbelievably dangerous” during heatwaves, said Helen Morgan, the Lib Dems’ health spokesperson, with temperatures of up to 41.8C.

“Almost all” hospitals have seen temperatures exceed the recommended NHS maximum of 28C during the recent heatwaves, said The Times, citing figures obtained by the Lib Dems under the Freedom of Information Act. On average hospitals recorded a maximum temperature of 31.9C in July.

How are staff and patients coping?

Put bluntly, they’re not. Nursing staff are “collapsing” on shift in the extreme heat and patients are “suffering” in facilities “not fit for humans”, said the Royal College of Nursing. Staff say they are “dripping with sweat from head to toe”, and one collapsed from dehydration after working a long shift on a ward with no ventilation.

Ambulance workers have described the difficult and “vile” conditions they have had to work in during heatwaves, said the Unison union. One ambulance worker told the union they “have one uniform whether it’s minus 10 or 30 degrees” and during heatwaves “you’re sweating even when you’re just driving”. Doing CPR in the heat is “ten times harder”, they said. “I could have cried during my last shift.”

A “surge” of patients have been “brought in for heat-related conditions”, said the BBC. July was the busiest ever month for A&E units in England and 2.5 million people attended A&E during the month’s two heatwaves, according to NHS data.

The number of patients enduring 12-hour waits in A&E was a third higher than this time last year. GP and doctor appointments and 999 calls in England were both up by around 10% compared with last summer.

According to the UK Health Security Agency, nearly 3,000 patients died in May and June from complications such as heart attacks and strokes linked to the extreme weather.

What issues have there been with equipment?

Hospitals have reported problems with equipment, including scanners and IT systems, and “difficult working conditions” for staff, particularly at “some of the older sites”, said the BBC. MRI scans, blood tests and surgery have all been delayed.

What problems are there with NHS buildings?

Very few hospitals or GP surgeries are equipped with either air conditioning or adequate ventilation. Air conditioning is prioritised for critical spaces such as operating theatres “due to capital and running costs”, said The Times.

Several hospitals have declared critical incidents this summer because ageing NHS buildings, many of which were built in the Victorian era, are “not equipped to cope”.

Tim Lane, president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, said that “across the NHS, surgical teams are struggling to deliver high-quality care in ageing hospital buildings” and in “an infrastructure struggling to cope with continuing heatwaves”.

An “additional burden” is placed on the NHS “during periods of extreme heat”, said Health Secretary Yvette Cooper. “I have made clear that we must start planning for summer pressures in the NHS in the same way we do for winter.” NHS England said it must “adapt its sites and services to cope with the impacts of severe weather”.

China has been the world’s biggest polluter since 2006, but in recent years, it has emerged as a clean energy superpower. Huge swathes of China – from the mountain plateaus of Tibet, where the sun shines brighter in the thin air, to the coast off Qingdao – are now covered by solar panels and wind farms.

It is the first country in the world to have installed more than a million megawatts (MW) of solar power – almost double Europe and America’s combined solar capacity, generating enough electricity to power the entire EU.

In May 2025, it installed solar panels at a rate of up to 100 a second. It’s also betting big on wind: a surge in turbine installations means that its wind capacity is now well over three times higher than that of its nearest competitor, the US.

What explains this shift?

With a population of 1.4 billion and accounting for around a quarter of global manufacturing, China is the world’s largest consumer of energy. Beijing regards its reliance on Middle Eastern oil and gas as a dangerous vulnerability: about 70% of its oil is imported, much of it passing through the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca. China’s rise as a manufacturer was built on coal, but its leaders have also long been concerned about pollution and climate change. Green energy is seen as a solution to all these problems.

Is China a green economy?

In some ways, yes. Analysts believe that China’s emissions may have already peaked. But Beijing isn’t just betting on renewable electricity. It continues to build coal-fired power plants at an eyewatering rate: 85 are due to open this year alone, and it’s building 36 nuclear reactors. China’s National Energy Administration installed over 500 gigawatts (GW) of new power capacity in 2025; the UK grid’s total capacity is around 70 GW.

As a result, China is sometimes described as the world’s first “electrostate”. It is electrifying everything from industry to cars. And the role of green electricity is growing. Coal, which accounted for about 80% of electricity in 2000, provided just 55% in 2025, while wind and solar rose to around 20% from practically nothing over that period. Beijing sees green tech as a source of energy security, future prosperity and influence abroad.

How has it built up this industry?

The Made in China 2025 industrial plan, launched in 2015, identified it as a core strategic sector, concentrating on the “new three” industries – solar, batteries and electric vehicles, moving away from lower-value sectors such as textiles and cheap electronics. China also moved to dominate supply chains for the raw materials: cobalt, nickel, graphite, rare-earth metals. Local governments offered cheap land, subsidised electricity, and state-backed credit to manufacturers.

Much of the groundwork had been done before. Chinese researchers studied in Europe and North America, where all these technologies were pioneered; Western companies sold equipment and production lines. Since then, China has left its rivals in the dust.

What effect has this had?

China now controls 90% of the world’s solar manufacturing, more than 70% of wind turbines, 80% of battery cells, and 70% of electric vehicles. This is leading to plummeting costs across the world: solar panel prices have fallen by some 90% in the past decade (though installation costs have fallen more modestly). The solar boom means that panels are now a ubiquitous sight on rooftops in Pakistan, India and across Africa, providing low-cost energy for millions of people.

In March, driven by the Iran war, exports of Chinese solar panels hit a record 68 GW-worth, double the previous month, with demand especially strong in Southeast Asia and Africa. Chinese wind turbines are now 30%-50% cheaper than those made in the US or Europe.

What are the downsides to this?

The UK, like much of the West, has been wiped out as a producer of solar panels and batteries; China has cornered the market. Europe still has a wind turbine industry – there is a major Siemens Gamesa factory in Hull – but they rely heavily on crucial Chinese components, such as high-strength magnets.

There are ethical concerns about Chinese green tech supply chains: over 50% of polysilicon, a key raw material used in solar panels, is produced in Xinjiang, where Uighur Muslims have been subjected to forced labour.

There are also national security concerns about China’s chokehold over a crucial sector: theoretically power units could contain kill-switches or data-harvesting features. Against this has to be set the benefits to the world of cheap tech, subsidised by the Chinese state – providing power that is cheaper, cleaner and less vulnerable to supply shocks or price jumps than oil and gas.

Will the boom continue?

Despite its apparent successes, China’s solar industry is currently in the midst of a major downturn: all five of the major Chinese players in this sector posted losses for the last quarter, totalling seven billion yuan (£770 million). This is partly because of a production glut driving prices down, but also because exporting Chinese panels is becoming more difficult: the US Uighur Forced Labour Prevention Act bans the import of goods made with materials sourced from Xinjiang; India has imposed new tariffs; and the rollout of solar energy has slowed in Europe, owing to grid connection limits.

China’s renewable sector, like the UK’s but on a larger scale, also faces storage and connection problems, because renewables are intermittent and often far from population centres.

But the direction of travel is clear. According to the International Energy Agency, solar will become the biggest single electricity source in the early 2030s, with wind power second in line. And China will be at the forefront of that transformation.

Engineers vs. lawyers

In his book “Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future”, Dan Wang argues that China is an “engineering state”, run by leaders with technical backgrounds, while the US is a “lawyerly society”, driven by a legal mindset.

China’s technocratic, top-down culture allows it to quickly build megaprojects, construct vast numbers of homes, and make long-term plans to dominate certain sectors of manufacturing. The rights-based mindset of the US, by contrast, often leads to gridlock, slower infrastructure development, and an obsession with process rather than output.

There are great human costs to treating China’s society as a big engineering exercise, the most famous example being the one-child policy. Economically, it also often leads to inefficiencies and overproduction. The state is often not an effective allocator of capital; in recent years, driven by government subsidies and centralised production goals, supply has massively outpaced demand in the real estate and green tech sectors.

On the other hand, the US free market system is arguably too fixated on short-term profits and efficiencies; while fast-changing political priorities – and President Trump’s dislike of renewables – mean that it has surrendered leadership in solar and wind.

“From humble origins”, Notting Hill Carnival has grown to be the riotous explosion of colour we know today, a “cultural landmark” in the heart of London, said The Voice.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of what has become a “massive celebration” of Caribbean culture, “artistic expression, music, design, business and much more” for millions of people.

What is it?

The second largest carnival in the world, which takes place over the August bank holiday weekend, offers a wide range of music including “steelpan, calypso, soca, reggae, dancehall” and more, said Travel Noire. Food is also a “major part of the carnival experience”, and visitors can expect to sample everything from Guyanese pepper pot to Trinidadian roti.

But the event also stretches back “through several connected histories”, and it is these that continue to endure as carnival enters its sixth decade.

What’s the history?

Many Caribbean carnivals across the world trace their roots back to “rebellion against enslavement”, said Secret London. Enslaved people would don costumes and cover themselves with “paint, mud or oil, as an act of defiance against their oppressors”. This tradition is still seen in the parade today, on carnival Sunday.

A similar defiance in the face of tragedy was part of the birth of Notting Hill Carnival. The event began as a response to the “brutal, racially motivated murder” of Antiguan carpenter Kelso Cochrane in 1959, said Sky History. The 32-year-old was fatally stabbed in nearby Paddington, a consequence of the “febrile” atmosphere arising from racial tensions during the Windrush era.

That year, Trinidadian-born activist and journalist Claudia Jones organised an indoor carnival to “push back against the racism the community faced since the 1958 race riots” and “celebrate Caribbean culture”. When it moved outdoors in 1966, it became what is now known as Notting Hill Carnival.

What’s happening this year?

To mark the event’s 60th year, community leaders have “clubbed together to kick the party off”, said London’s The Standard. A “host of talks and panels” will be on offer, alongside dedicated walks through west London to “learn about what the carnival really means”.

But amid financial pressures and “scrutiny like never before”, the future of Notting Hill Carnival remains uncertain, said The Guardian in 2025. That year’s event was only saved by a last-minute “cash injection” of £1 million by the local council. It continues to be a “political lightning rod”, said The Times, and what happens “to the carnival depends on what happens at the carnival”. Policing challenges, the use of facial recognition and a debate over the location have all plagued the event in recent years.

What is “not up for debate” is the carnival’s “underlying importance” to the community. Its preservation for future generations is seen as one of the most “vital” ways to emphasise Caribbean identity – “and a British Caribbean identity, too”.

A wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is gathering pace across Africa, driven by political opportunism and rising anti-Western sentiment, and fuelled by US far-right groups.

Last week 71 men were arrested in Senegal and charged with “unnatural acts”, said the public prosecutor’s office, under a strict new law that has doubled the maximum prison sentence for same-sex relations to 10 years. It also criminalised the “promotion” of homosexuality, including any public representation or financial support.

Senegal has criminalised same-sex sexual activity since 1966, but hostility towards LGBTQ+ people has “intensified in recent years”, said Human Rights Watch. Since the new law came into force in March, more than 100 people have been charged, including “local celebrities”, said AfricaNews. Senegal is one of several African countries to have introduced or intensified its anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in recent years. Activists say LGBTQ+ people are being “scapegoated by politicians”.

What’s the background?

In 2023, Uganda hosted the first African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty. Many argue this forum has “influenced anti-LGBTQ+ laws” across Africa, said The Guardian. The annual gatherings have been endorsed by Family Watch International, a US-based Christian campaign group that “opposes abortion” and sex education.

Later that year, Uganda introduced “one of the world’s harshest anti-LGBTQ laws”, said Africa News with Agence France-Presse. It included life imprisonment for same-sex sex, and the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”, which includes same-sex sex while HIV-positive, or with minors. Uganda “set the tone”, and other countries “followed suit”.

Since then, three neighbouring former French colonies – Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger – have all tightened restrictions on same-sex relations, after being taken over by military juntas in a series of coups. In December 2024, Mali criminalised same-sex relations for the first time. Burkina Faso followed last September, introducing prison terms of up to five years. In February, Niger criminalised same-sex sexual activity for the first time, with same-sex marriage punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Today, 33 of Africa’s 54 countries criminalise LGBTQ+ people “in some form”, said Human Dignity Trust: more than any other region. In some countries, including Somalia and Mauritania, the punishment is death.

What’s the latest?

In Senegal, which borders Mali, MPs unsuccessfully sought to increase jail terms and penalties for “acts against nature” in 2022 and 2024. But in March this year, after a “wave of arrests over alleged same‑sex relationships”, parliament passed the new law by an “overwhelming majority”, said the BBC. Dismissing international criticism, the government said the legislation “reflected the views of Senegalese people”. But funding from US conservative movements may have helped “precipitate” the law, French-Senegalese expert Marame Kane told The Guardian.

In June, Ghana’s parliament voted to pass “one ‌of Africa’s most draconian anti-LGBTQ bills”, said openDemocracy. Same-sex relations were already criminalised, but this latest version of the bill (introduced in 2021) would impose prison terms for “promoting” same-sex relations. If signed into law, it would make identifying as LGBTQ+ “punishable by up to three years in prison”.

Days later, Ghana hosted this year’s family values conference, attended by “members of far-right and Christian groups in the Global North”. The conference produced a new African Charter on Family Sovereignty and Values, which encouraged governments to “withdraw from international treaties or funding agreements that promote ‘the LGBT agenda’, abortion and sex education”. Critics warned the charter could “entrench anti-LGBTQ laws across the continent”. Despite protests, lawmakers from 18 of the 20 countries represented voted to approve it.

What’s driving the shift?

The “shift toward more restrictive laws” is being “encouraged by conservative figures” in the US and Europe, said Reuters. It has “gained new momentum since Donald Trump returned to the White House”. Some conference attendees said they “saw an opportunity to promote their agendas under Trump”.

Ugandan people are also “very highly homophobic”, Ugandan activist Agather Atuhaire told Africa News. Politicians “want something that is going to put them in their good books”.

LGBTQ+ people are “scapegoats”, one activist told Africa News, used to “deflect attention from thorny subjects” or rising discontent. They are also viewed as a “symbol of Western dominance in Africa”, said Ivorian anthropologist Stephane Ballet Djedje. The new anti-LGBTQ+ laws are linked to rising anti-Western sentiment across former colonies, particularly where military juntas have seized power. In Burkina Faso, the law was “framed as boosting its sovereignty in opposition to the West”, said The Guardian.

“Proponents of so-called African ‘family values’ have long portrayed the issue as a religious and moral concern,” said openDemocracy. But they are “increasingly recasting it as part of Africa’s fight against neo-colonialism”.

Nearly 30 years to the day since the fatal shooting of rapper Tupac Shakur, and Duane “Keffe D” Davis is standing trial for one of America’s most notorious unsolved murders.

At the core of the case is a self-published memoir by Davis, in which he claimed to be “one of the only living eyewitnesses” to the rapper’s killing.

It means, rather unusually, “he’s the defendant but he’s also the all-star witness,” said CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

What is in the book?

“Compton Street Legend”, published in 2019, opens in Las Vegas on the night of 7 September 1996, with a step-by-step account of the plan to confront Shakur and Death Row Records CEO Marion “Suge” Knight in retaliation for an earlier fight.

Davis writes how he secured a gun, jumped into a Cadillac with three others and drove around before spotting the pair at a junction.

“No words exchanged, the time for talking had passed, the shit was about to go down!” he wrote. Shakur was hit multiple times in the shooting that followed, and died from his wounds six days later.

At first, the book “drew little attention outside of online circles devoted to hip-hop lore and true crime”, said Julia Jacobs in The New York Times. But a detective with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department quietly began to build a case around it, and in 2023 excerpts from it convinced a grand jury to indict Davis on one count of murder, which Davis denies.

How will it be used at trial?

Given there is no murder weapon, getaway vehicle or surveillance video of the shooting, the prosecution’s case is “largely built on the defendant’s own words”, including his book, as well as podcast and documentary interviews and statements made to police, said CNN’s Eric Levenson.

Authorities accuse Davis of orchestrating the killing, without actually being the one who pulled the trigger, although he denies involvement. The prosecution team has painted him as a “shot caller” in the gang rivalry of the East and West coasts that climaxed in the shooting of Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G. six months later. They say passages in the book are a confession made public in the mistaken belief he had immunity.

What does Davis say?

Davis, who has pleaded not guilty, claims that his prior statements about the night in question were false and merely an attempt to sell books.

“Not a confession to a priest, not a confession to a police officer, but rather to promote a book, to sell a product”, one of his lawyers said at a hearing last month.

His defence team unsuccessfully fought to block the use of the book during the trial, arguing that it was fictionalised and written with a co-author, making it impossible to know which parts Davis wrote.

It means the jury will face an “unusual dynamic”, said Levenson: “prosecutors are set to argue the accused murderer is credible and trustworthy, while defence attorneys will deride their client as a liar and fraud”.

The trial, which is taking place not far from the location of the shooting, is expected to take several weeks.

Alleged drug kingpin Daniel Kinahan is back on home soil in Ireland after being extradited from Dubai, marking “the end of a global game of cat and mouse with European, US and Gulf authorities”, said The Guardian.

Ten years after “escaping assassination and fleeing into exile”, the alleged head of Ireland’s biggest organised crime syndicate landed in Dublin on Sunday. “But it is not the homecoming he wanted.”

Met at the airport by a massive security operation, the 49-year-old was immediately taken to the Criminal Courts of Justice to face a charge of directing organised crime, then whisked away to the high-security Portlaoise Prison.

Who is Daniel Kinahan?

The son of Christy “the Dapper Don” Kinahan, a convicted drug trafficker, he allegedly took over from his father as leader of the Kinahan Cartel, a crime ring that is said to control about a third of Europe’s cocaine supply. He has been charged with directing the activities of a criminal organisation from 18 October 2015 to 6 April 2017, which he has denied.

The married father of five is also the founder of the boxing management company MTK Global, although the organisation, which ceased operation in 2022, has insisted it had cut ties with Kinahan.

He is said to have fled to Spain and then Dubai after an attempt on his life at the Regency Hotel in Dublin in 2016. “Six men, some disguised as police and one wearing a dress and a wig, entered the hotel” and opened fire at a boxing weigh-in, said The Washington Post. Kinahan escaped, but his associate, David Byrne, was shot dead, sparking a feud between the Kinahans and the rival Hutch gang.

How did he end up back in Ireland?

In April 2022, following pressure from the Irish authorities, the Kinahan Organised Crime Group was sanctioned by the US, which compared the group to “Mexico’s Los Zetas, Japan’s yakuza and Russia’s ‘Thieves In Law’”. A $5 million (£3.7 million) reward was also offered for tips leading to the arrest of Kinahan, his father or brother.

From then on, “it was always a case of ‘when’ and not ‘if’ the man labelled by Europol as one of the bosses of Europe’s ‘super cartel’ would be getting a one-way ticket home”, said Paul Williams in the Irish Independent.

Kinahan’s presence in the UAE over the past decade had “become a source of international embarrassment” for the Gulf state, especially when his 2017 wedding at the luxury Burj Al Arab was tweeted by heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury.

The breakthrough came in 2024, when Ireland managed to negotiate an extradition treaty with the UAE. Kinahan was arrested in April this year, and has remained in custody, clearing the way for his forced return to Ireland over the weekend on an Irish government jet.

When will he face trial?

In his brief court appearance on Sunday, Kinahan “cut a dejected but polite figure” as he addressed the three judges from the dock, said The Irish Independent. He will remain on remand in Portlaoise Prison until his trial, in a block cleared especially for him, spending up to 20 hours a day in his cell.

How long Kinahan stays there “has not been decided”, said The Irish Times. If he chooses to fight the case and wins at trial next year, “he would be released immediately”. If convicted, he faces “somewhere between 20 and 30 years in prison”. However, “nothing is proven against him at this point”, so “he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law.”

If one company has its way, animal allergies could soon be a thing of the past. A biotech laboratory has developed gene-edited dogs that do not contain the allergy-causing proteins found in most pups, which the lab says marks a breakthrough in the pet industry. But it could still be a long time before dogs like these become available on a wide scale.

How were these dogs created?

Bailey and Alfie are two beagles who were specifically bred with a “targeted genetic knockout” of Can f 1, the major allergy-causing protein in dogs, according to research published in The CRISPR Journal. The canines were born in September 2024 and “have shown healthy growth and development,” Kindred Companion Sciences, the company behind the research, said in a press release.

The idea of allergy-friendly dogs is not new, and breeds like poodles are often recommended for their hypoallergenic coats. But these dogs “still produce allergy-causing proteins that end up in their saliva, hair and dander, so they can still make people sniffly,” said The Associated Press. In the case of Bailey and Alfie, scientists at Kindred used the DNA-altering technology CRISPR to eliminate the Can f 1 protein entirely. Tests of the two dogs thus “showed no detectable protein compared to samples from nonedited dogs,” said Wired.

The use of genetic editing to create completely hypoallergenic dogs marks a significant shift in the field. Previously, efforts to “reduce dog allergen exposure have focused on downstream mitigation, including selection of so-called ‘hypoallergenic’ breeds and household hygiene measures,” said The CRISPR Journal. But scientists have started looking into new approaches, as tests measuring Can f 1 have “found that breeds marketed as hypoallergenic do not yield consistently lower environmental exposure.”

How will this affect the pet industry?

Experts believe it could open the door to a new wave of adoptable pets. Gene editing “can, and should, be applied to solving legitimate problems that humanity has,” Fyodor Urnov, a gene editing expert at the University of California, Berkeley, said to Wired. “Dogs are a human’s best friend, now potentially more so because of one tiny gene edit.”

Questions remain as to the viability of the genetic changes. For one, Can f 1 “isn’t the only protein in dogs that can trigger allergic reactions — there are also so-called minor allergens,” said New Scientist. There are also concerns about the long-term health of these dogs, although “so far, both dogs appear normal and healthy.” Researchers overall maintain that this option could be groundbreaking for people with pet allergies, which is about 10% to 20% of the world’s population, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

“The feeling right now is sort of a mix of relief and awe and gratitude that it worked,” geneticist Matt Walker, the founder of Kindred, said to the AP. “It feels just amazing to get to have a dog.” For others, the jury is still out. “It opens the door to a lot more people being able to own pets,” New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan told the AP. But on the “negative side, it may discourage people from trying to use strays and unwanted animals that are not engineered to be allergy-free.”

Parts of Europe will receive a brief respite from searing summer heat this week with the first solar eclipse in nearly three decades.

According to Nasa, on Wednesday parts of Greenland, Iceland, northern Russia, Spain and a small corner of Portugal will be plunged into darkness as the Moon briefly passes directly between the Earth and the Sun, the first time this has happened on the continent since 1999.

What about the UK?

A total solar eclipse occurs at a specific location on Earth on average once every 366 years, and the British Isles are currently in “no-man’s land”, with the next one not visible from the UK until 2090, said Space.

This time around, most of the country will experience a partial eclipse where around 90% of the Sun’s rays will be blocked by the transit of the Moon. “First contact”, when the Moon first covers the disc of the Sun, will begin shortly after 6pm, reaching its “maximum”, when most of the Sun is covered, at 7.05pm in Scotland, 7.10 in Manchester and Liverpool, and 7.12pm in London, Bristol and Cardiff. Some parts of Cornwall will have a 95% blackout, rising to 97.7% in the south-west of Ireland.

For the rest of the country, enough of the Sun will be covered to make a “noticeable difference in the temperature and light levels” but “unlike with a total eclipse, the sky will not become dark – it will feel more like a cloudy day or close to dusk or dawn”, said Royal Museums Greenwich, home to the Royal Observatory.

“As always with astronomy, we’re at the mercy of the weather”, meaning “there’s always the possibility that clouds could obscure part or all of the eclipse”.

How should you view it?

Even with a partial eclipse, because the Sun is so bright it is still “extremely dangerous” to look at it without taking safety precautions, said the Royal Astronomical Society, otherwise it could cause permanent damage to your eyes or even blindness.

“Never look directly at the Sun without appropriate solar viewing equipment. Certified eclipse glasses, specially designed solar filters for telescopes and binoculars, or indirect methods such as pinhole projectors are all safe ways to observe the event”, said RAS President Professor Jim Wild.

If using eclipse glasses “make sure they work”, said Sky News, “as bogus retailers capitalise when an eclipse is due and you may be duped into buying a counterfeit pair”.

The American Astronomical Society advises trying them on indoors first. You should not be able to see anything through them, except very bright lights which should appear very faint. Even in regular sunlight outdoors you should only be able to see a slight reflection of the Sun off a shiny surface. Looking at the Sun for a second you should see a sharp-edged disk that is comfortably bright.

Wednesday is set to be an extra special evening for astronomy lovers, with the partial eclipse followed by the peak of the annual Perseid meteor shower a few hours later.

Anything else to know about it?

Octopus Energy is asking customers to delay using washing machines, dishwashers and other plug-in devices between 6pm and 8pm on Wednesday.

The eclipse “will send solar generation plunging just as electricity demand begins to rise as millions of people return home from work”, said The Telegraph.

While there is no suggesting that the eclipse could trigger outages, Octopus said it was encouraging people to use less energy to negate the need for carbon-emitting gas power.

At least 6,000 seafarers are stuck on board at least 400 tankers and cargo ships, according to the UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Many of the ships have been stranded in the Persian Gulf since the US-Israel war with Iran erupted in late February.

“It’s as if we are trapped in a pond,” Shafiqul Islam, captain of a ship carrying some 37,000 tonnes of fertiliser bound for South Africa, told the BBC in June. “There’s only one way out”: via the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which some 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas – as well as crucial commodities including fertiliser, aluminium and helium – once flowed from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and Iran to global markets.

Before the war, more than 130 ships a day transited the strait, which is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. Iran declared the waterway closed and launched missiles and drones at vessels trying to sail through, grinding traffic to a halt. At one point, up to 20,000 mariners and 2,000 ships were stuck in the Gulf, with only a few vessels squeezing through each day.

How were they able to get out?

India, China, Pakistan and other nations negotiated with Iran for safe passage for their flagged vessels, and some tanker operators paid Iran up to $2 million for transit rights for individual ships. The logjam in the Gulf eased in June after Washington and Tehran struck a preliminary peace deal, after which about 30 ships a day were able to exit the strait. But that number dropped back to single digits earlier this month when the war restarted.

For the trapped sailors – mainly from India and the Philippines, as well as from nations including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria and Ukraine – the fear of death or injury is a constant. “Everyone is just exhausted,” said captain Hassan Khan, “both physically and mentally.” While trapped on ships often loaded with explosive substances, the crews have watched missiles and drones streak overhead, and at least 17 mariners have been killed in Iranian and US strikes.

Raman Kapoor, a tanker captain who had ten days left on his tour when the war erupted, watched helplessly in March as a nearby tanker exploded after being hit by an unmanned craft. One sailor died. “Everyone was so scared,” Kapoor said. “We are just seafarers. We are not trained for any war.”

What is life like on board?

Long, monotonous and very hot (daytime temperatures are usually above 40°C in July). While the crews work to ensure their ships remain seaworthy, and films and ping-pong serve as distractions, staving off boredom and depression is a struggle. “We do our best to keep [up] morale,” Abhijit Chopra, the captain of a tanker that had been stuck for more than 120 days, told Bloomberg. “But there is definitely a sense of strain and uncertainty.”

To entertain themselves and add some diversity to onboard meals, some crews are catching and cooking fish. Calls home are a boon, but infrequent, because satellite phone time is limited and expensive. To protect sailors’ mental health, captains encourage crews to do everything together and to never leave anyone alone – even when they dine or relax. Sailors report that access to knives and other sharp objects is more tightly controlled than normal, to prevent people from harming themselves or others. Meanwhile, food, water and medicine on many vessels are running low.

Is anything being done about that?

Boats from nearby ports are delivering supplies, but prices keep going up. One Korean sailor told the BBC that it feels like suppliers “are trying to take advantage of the situation and make excessive profits”. The engineer of one ship said the cost of 180 tonnes of water has spiked from about $2,000 to $11,000. Fees for “bottom cleaners”, removing biofouling – barnacles, mussels, algae – from ships’ hulls have shot up, too. Scammers are also taking advantage, claiming to belong to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, they’ve tricked shipping firms into sending hefty payments to their cryptocurrency wallets in exchange for safe passage.

Has there been any formal evacuation attempt?

A short-lived one. While a ceasefire was in effect in late June, the IMO began ushering ships through the strait’s southern and northern corridors – avoiding the central lanes where Iran had laid mines. Some 115 ships and 2,500 sailors made it out, but the US-backed initiative was scrapped within days after Iran attacked a tanker that was not taking part in the evacuation off Oman’s coast.

Some sailors have taken matters into their own hands. Stuck at an Iranian port, Santosh Kumar borrowed nearly $7,000 to pay an agent to drive him some 600 miles to Armenia, where he boarded a flight to Dubai and then on to his native India. “My family just wanted me home alive,” he said.

But such escapes have become increasingly difficult: some Gulf Arab states have restricted short-term shore passes for sailors over security concerns. Many merchant sailors are now wondering if the profession has become too dangerous, because the Iran war is only the latest crisis to hit the shipping industry.

What have been the other crises?

Mariners were stranded at sea during the pandemic, and drone attacks on vessels in the Black Sea have become routine since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen – who attacked more than 100 vessels during the war in Gaza – last month declared an embargo of Saudi Arabian shipping in the Red Sea, putting more commercial vessels in the line of fire. Merchant seamen seem increasingly wary of going to sea: companies have struggled to secure replacement crews to relieve sailors in the Gulf whose contracts have expired, despite offering substantial bonuses. The war, said Arsenio Dominguez, the IMO’s secretary-general, has heightened the feeling among seafarers that they are “invisible, that they are not valued.”

A hidden workforce

Seafarers move 90% of global trade ($16.5 trillion worth of goods annually), yet they are largely invisible to the public. There are an estimated 2.6 million seafarers currently serving aboard 85,000 merchant vessels worldwide, according to the Seafarer Workforce Report 2026, published by the shipping association Bimco and the International Chamber of Shipping. More than half of all merchant mariners are provided by the “big five”: the Philippines, India, China, the Russian Federation and Indonesia; Poland, Romania and Ukraine are also important “supplier” nations. About a million are officers, and 1.5 million are ratings.

As ships have got bigger, and docks more automated, the number of sailors required per tonne of cargo has reduced drastically. Pay has become globalised, with most packages for able seamen around $1,200-$1,500 per month (the International Transport Workers’ Federation minimum basic wage is $690 per month). Around 24,500 UK merchant mariners were at sea in 2025; a collapse from the 1970s, when there were nearly 90,000 British sailors. This was driven by British-owned vessels shifting to foreign registries (known as “flagging out”) and the rise of recruitment from Asia and eastern Europe.

The UN is preparing to choose a new secretary general for the first time in a decade as six candidates vie to succeed António Guterres of Portugal.

But the winner faces a huge challenge, with a host of geopolitical crises and the very status of the body itself in question.

Who is in the running?

Calls for a “madame secretary general” have been growing “louder”. So the next appointment will “test whether the UN is committed to breaking glass ceilings” by appointing a woman to the post for the first time, said the Australian Institute of International Affairs.

The candidates include Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile; Maria Fernanda Espinosa, former foreign minister of Ecuador; Rebeca Grynspan, former vice president of Costa Rica; and Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett, former foreign minister of Guyana and permanent representative to the UN.

Several female candidates were overlooked in 2016, when Guterres was elected to serve the first of his two terms. “If I am polite, I would say the world was not prepared for it,” said Bachelet in April. “Is it prepared now? I hope so,” adding that appointing a woman as secretary general would be “a good signal”.

Among the men in contention is Rafael Grossi, the Argentinian diplomat who is director general of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Macky Sall, a former prime minister and president of Senegal.

The successful candidate will be chosen by the UN General Assembly following the recommendation of the Security Council, whose permanent members are the UK, China, France, Russia and the US.

Those nations “have the future of the world body in their hands”, said Agence France-Presse. Observers say “it is difficult to pick a favourite” because the world’s major powers are “divided on the outcome”, but Grossi has been “repeatedly mentioned”.

What does the secretary general do?

The secretary general is the chief administrative officer and public face of the UN. The role is “equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO”, according to the UN itself.

They oversee several important UN bodies, including the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining peace and security. However, unlike a prime minister or president, the secretary general does not have the power to make laws or command countries. The role is more about persuasion, diplomacy and authority rather than objective political or military power.

What will be in their in-tray?

Gaza and Ukraine will be high in the pile but they’ll have a “tough task” because the “relevance, power and financial capability” of the UN is “under an increasingly harsh spotlight”, said Deutsche Welle.

“Simply put,” said Politico, the UN is “an increasingly irrelevant global institution”, because the United States, “its most powerful member”, is “abandoning and defunding” many parts of its “sprawling structure”.

The Security Council itself “barely functions” because of the “rivalries” between the US, China and Russia, all of whom have the power of veto. “Even as a venue for international gatherings”, the UN is “fading” because leaders would “rather meet and make deals” at the G20.

Updated guidance on single-sex public spaces came into force across most of the UK on Wednesday, despite opposition from trans-rights groups and many MPs.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new code of practice says people must use facilities such as toilets and changing rooms according to their biological sex. It was updated following the Supreme Court judgment last April, which ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” under the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, rather than gender identity.

The equality watchdog says trans people should use either gender-neutral facilities or those that match their biological sex, a move welcomed by groups campaigning for sex-based rights. But critics say the code is difficult to implement, unworkable in practice and could lead to discrimination against trans people.

Where does the guidance apply?

It’s the EHRC’s services, public functions and associations code of practice that has been updated. That applies to organisations such as cafes, leisure centres, gyms and hairdressers, as well as public toilets, local sports clubs with at least 25 members, hospital wards, domestic violence shelters and rape-crisis shelters. It covers England, Scotland and Wales. (Northern Ireland uses different equality legislation, and is still considering the impact of the Supreme Court ruling.)

The code “does not impose legal obligations”, nor is it a “statement of the law”, said lawyers at Pinsent Mason. But it can be “used in evidence in legal proceedings”, so organisations are likely to treat it as “the most reliable guide for managing legal risk”. It is also “important to bear in mind” that the employment code, which guides workplaces, has not changed.

How will it be implemented?

Nearly 13,000 toilets and more than 5,000 changing rooms might need to be “revamped”, said Sky News. At least 18,000 signs may need changing. The building work could cost more than £14 million per year, an analysis by the Press Association suggests. Cleaning the new facilities could also cost public sector bodies, such as councils, more than £20 million. Both estimates “may be too low”, said Sky News.

Many organisations have already made changes they say are in line with the code. But some, such as Lambeth Council in London (run by Green Party councillors), say they might refuse to implement the guidance if advised that it’s lawful to do so.

What does it mean for trans people?

Organisations might be able to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces if they decide someone could “object” to their presence. If they allow trans women into women-only spaces, those will no longer legally qualify as women-only spaces under the Equality Act.

The code says that where it is “proportionate” for spaces to remain single sex, such as a rape crisis centre, then only those of the same biological sex should use them. But it would be “very unlikely to be proportionate to put a trans person in a position where there is no service that they are allowed to use”.

The code also notes that forcing a trans person to use services related to biological sex could amount to discrimination. It suggests gender-neutral “third spaces”, such as unisex lockable cubicles, should be provided where possible, said The Guardian.

What has been the reaction?

The guidance is “unworkable” and could “lead to widespread harm for trans people and those who don’t conform to gender stereotypes”, said a spokesperson for the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance. It also “puts businesses and charities in the crossfire of endless litigation”.

Critics question how organisations could visually identify biological sex. Legal action on how the code is implemented is likely, both from those who “think the guidance itself is wrong” and from gender-critical groups who “will want to challenge any organisations” they believe aren’t complying, said the BBC.

There are also criticisms about the delay in publication of the guidance. The draft was sent to the equalities minister, Bridget Phillipson, last September for approval.

After an amendment was made in June, 135 MPs, 69 from Labour, signed a motion calling for it to be scrapped, “primarily because of worries about its impact on transgender people”, said The Guardian. Those MPs are “increasingly doubtful” that the guidance is "workable in the real world”.

Labour MP Kevin McKenna, "questioned whether trans patients in hospitals could really be cared for in gender-neutral side rooms, given these are scarce and often needed for clinical reasons”. He said he feared the unsafe and impractical guidance “may not survive contact with reality”, and “will not make life any safer” for anyone.

However, Maya Forstater, from the sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, said: “The law is clear and the code is practical, giving many examples that apply to everyday services.”

The next major fight between Israel and Palestine might be fought not on the ground, but rather below it. Israel is currently attempting to seize the land around archaeological sites throughout the West Bank, the largest of which has an ancient history going back three millennia. But Palestinian officials believe Israel is claiming these areas illegally, and they are revving up for a political battle.

Why is Israel going after these sites?

Israel is “undertaking a major drive to develop and expand archaeological sites in the occupied West Bank” because officials believe it is “incumbent upon Jewish citizens to connect to their history and heritage,” said The Forward. There are several locations that Israel is working on developing, with two being the most prominent: Sebastia, a small village near the West Bank city of Nablus, and Jericho, another West Bank city that is home to the ancient Hasmonean Palaces.

Sebastia is “one of the most layered archaeological sites in the Middle East” and is now a “flashpoint in a fight between Israeli and Palestinian authorities over land, heritage and narrative,” said CNN. The town’s history “goes back at least 3,000 years” to when it was the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. The archaeological site “lies in Area C of the West Bank, under full Israeli civil and security control according to the Oslo Accords,” while the town itself is in “Area B, under mixed Palestinian-Israeli jurisdiction.”

In Jericho, Israeli officials want to control the Hasmonean Palaces site because they claim it is under “deliberate and systematic destruction by the Palestinian Authority,” which Israel says has “targeted it and other sites in a bid to erase evidence of Jewish ties to the land,” Israel Ganz, the head of the West Bank’s Yesha Council, told The Forward. To try and control these sites, as well as others, Israel’s parliament has proposed a bill to create a new Israeli body in the West Bank, which would “have the power to conduct excavations, declare sites, expropriate lands and more,” said Haaretz.

What has the Palestinian response been?

The Israeli bill, as well as Israel’s overall push near the sites, has “drawn criticism from Palestinians and Israeli rights groups who say it is tantamount to annexation of occupied land and would expand Jewish settlements,” said Reuters. Israel’s actions are “intended to expand control in these areas, deep inside Palestinian territories,” Hani Al-Hayek, the Palestinian Authority’s tourism minister, said to the outlet.

Palestinian officials are taking action to stop Israel’s movement in the region. At their urging, UNESCO recently designated Sebastia a full “World Heritage site, hoping it will prevent Israel extending ​its control at the ancient village,” said Reuters. Some Israelis seem to agree that their government is being overzealous. The digs are “another way of weaponizing. That is, you attach more importance to a certain kind of heritage and less importance to other kinds of heritage,” Rafi Greenberg, an archaeology professor in Israel, told CBS News.

The Israeli government, however, remains steadfast. “The area is Israeli territory. It belongs to the Jewish people,” Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu told CNN. No matter the end result, this archaeological debate will be a “test case to a battle not just over the past but about the present and the future of the territory and the people who live near its historic stones.”

“To Do. Buy Japanese Yen (JPY) $5-10 bil,” read a note written by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a cabinet meeting on Friday. By Monday, he had confirmed on X that the US had participated in “coordinated foreign exchange actions” with the Japanese government to counter “disorderly yen movements”.

In recent weeks, the yen sank to a 40-year low against the dollar, the latest milestone in Japan’s economic decline. However, having traded at ¥163 to the dollar on Thursday, the yen has strengthened to ¥155 to the dollar since the intervention.

Donald Trump claimed the joint move would be “good for the world economy”. But some analysts believe the intervention will best serve America’s interests.

Why is the yen so weak?

Japan, the world’s fourth biggest economy, has “long struggled with a weak yen”, said CNN. After suffering recession and “chronic deflation” in the 1990s, Japan has kept interest rates much lower than other developed economies. In April, the Bank of Japan increased its rate to 1% – the highest since 1995 – while the US rate usually lies between 3.5% and 3.75%. While such low rates hope to stimulate consumer spending, they also are much less attractive to international investors.

Global events such as the Iran war have also impacted Japan’s import-heavy economy. The country is “resource-poor”, said The Japan Times, with around “95% of its oil imports” coming from the Middle East before the recent conflict began. While a weak yen is beneficial for Japan’s exporters and the tourism industry, energy and fuel inflation have hit the country’s population hard.

Other issues such as a “decades-long slide in its working-age population”, substantial government debt and low productivity have also hampered economic growth, said the BBC.

What’s in it for Trump?

The president called the move a “signal of friendship” between the two nations. The US is “always there for Japan”, a country that has been “very good to us, with the exception, of course, of Pearl Harbor”.

But the US also stands to benefit. The Japanese government has been buying up yen, thereby “raising the value of their currency”, said The Guardian. But to pay for this, Japan has been selling off US government bonds, which are kept by many countries as a “store of national wealth”. If, however, these bonds are sold quickly and in large quantities, it can lead to a rise in the interest rate the US pays on its debt, thus making it more expensive for the US to borrow money.

Another factor behind the intervention could be that Trump sees Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi as an “ideological ally”. In October, the US bought “billions of Argentinian pesos to help prop up the country’s finances” just weeks before midterm elections for President Javier Milei, another ally of Trump’s. Takaichi’s defence agenda – she is planning to double spending to 2% of GDP over the next five years – has been “broadly welcomed” by the Trump administration.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Both US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Japanese Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama have announced they would not hesitate to participate in further joint interventions.

In April, the Bank of Japan took action to boost the yen, said CNN, but it proved to be only a “temporary success”. Analysts are “less optimistic” that this latest intervention could “fundamentally alter the broader course of the yen’s weakening”.

Within Japan, there is concern that Takaichi’s spending plans will put further pressure on the currency. A two-year cut in sales tax on food and soft drinks from 8% to 1% is an attempt to ease cost-of-living pressures, and the PM has promised to invest hundreds of billions as part of a pro-growth agenda that led to her election. However, the policies could instead “strain public finances and rattle markets”, said the Financial Times.

It’s widely assumed that eight hours is the perfect amount of sleep but a new study found the “sweet spot” is a little less than that, said sleep specialist Dr Allie Hare in The Telegraph.

Getting it right matters because new research, published in Nature, found that “falling short, or exceeding” the “precise window” discovered by the research, is “linked with poorer brain, heart and immune health”.

What did the research say?

People who got between six hours 24 minutes and seven hours 48 minutes of sleep a night were found to have better functioning immune systems, brains and hearts, according to researchers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

This ideal amount of sleep was associated with less ageing, as measured by organ-specific biological clocks. Duration alone doesn’t cause organs to age faster or slower, but the findings do suggest that insufficient or excessive sleep may be “markers of poorer overall health across the body”.

Is it different for men and women?

There is also a gender factor because women “seem to do better with a little longer”, Marie-Pierre St-Onge, a professor at Columbia University, told The Washington Post. They need “15, 20 minutes” more sleep, which reflects the “slightly longer” sleep duration reported by the “general population”, which “tends to be slightly longer in women than men”.

Previous research found that sleep is “largely linked to ageing and the pathological burden of the brain”, said Junhao Wen, an assistant professor at Columbia and lead author of the study. But the new research "goes further” and shows that “too little and too much sleep” are “associated with faster ageing in nearly every organ”.

Should we all be getting seven hours?

There are a number of conflicting theories about how much sleep we need. According to individual needs theories, there is no single ideal amount of sleep, because genetics, age, health, activity level and even life circumstances influence how much sleep someone needs. Adaptive or evolutionary theories hold that the correct amount of sleep varies depending on factors such as season, workload, stress, illness and safety.

But we “might be overthinking it”, said Emma Beddington in The Guardian. Sleep is “important and fascinating for science to explore, but surely, for the rest of us”, it’s “best left mysterious”.

There’s “so little we can do” to reach the “ideal” amount of unconsciousness, so “knowing precisely how bad that is for us is unhelpful”.

Labour looks set to pass its first test with voters since Andy Burnham took over as prime minister, with the party’s candidate the favourite to succeed him as Manchester mayor in today’s by-election

The race to replace Burnham has been somewhat “overshadowed by events in Westminster” over the past week. But the region’s two million voters go to the polls today to take part in “the biggest by-election in British political history”, said The Guardian.

Who’s running?

Bev Craig, current leader of Manchester City Council, is standing for Labour against Reform UK councillor for Baguley, Sian Niamh Astley, in what has been a heated contest between the two parties.

Other names throwing their hat into the ring include Altrincham councillor Geraldine Coggins, representing the Green Party, Bowdon councillor Phil Eckersley for the Conservatives, and Didsbury West Liberal Democrat councillor Richard Kilpatrick. Marlon West is standing for Restore Britain, with former mayoral candidate Marcus Farmer running as an independent.

How does the vote work?

UK mayoral elections use a system known as supplementary voting that gives voters the option to choose their first- and second-choice candidate.

If any candidate secures more than 50% of the first-choice votes, they will automatically be elected mayor. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, the contest moves to a second round between the two candidates who received the most first-choice votes. All other candidates are eliminated, and ballot papers are counted again factoring in second-choice votes.

What do the polls say?

When Burnham declared his intention to return to Westminster, “the prospect of Labour losing control of Greater Manchester was used as an argument to keep him in post”, said Dan Haygarth in The Independent. After the mayoral by-election was announced, some bookmakers even made Reform the early favourite, but polls suggest that Labour will retain the mayoralty with “relative ease”, leaving Reform and the Greens to battle it out for second place.

YouGov polling from 17 July had Craig on 38% to Astley’s 24%, with Coggins in third on 17%. But in a second-round run-off, the Labour candidate would trounce Reform’s 62% to 38%

With both the Greens and Reform offering radical alternatives to a deeply unpopular Starmer government, this election could have been “a mighty close battle and very difficult for Labour to hold on”, Jon Tonge, professor of politics at the University of Liverpool, said in The Independent. But now voters are less likely to be “looking for an alternative to Labour; they’re prepared to support Labour, for now at least, across Greater Manchester”.

What’s at stake?

The winner of Thursday's race will take control of the biggest mayoral authority outside London, with a £3 billion budget and wide-ranging powers across housing, health, policing and transport. But the race also has deep implications far beyond Manchester.

Professor Rob Ford, of the University of Manchester, said in The Guardian that the real mark of success would be whether Labour was able to push back the Green tide in Manchester and close the gap in Reform-leaning areas such as Wigan and Bolton.

Whatever the result, Greater Manchester will be “very close to the heart of power given the location of Number 10 North”, Professor Andrew Russell, from the University of Liverpool, said on the BBC. “Not for the first time of late, all eyes will certainly be on the city.”

As tens of thousands of people continue to be evacuated from parts of southern France ravaged by wildfires, firefighters are facing a new threat never seen before in the region in the form of “fire clouds”.

Described by Nasa as the “fire-breathing dragon of clouds”, pyrocumulonimbus formations are the result of extreme heatwaves and can lead to wildfires.

Sophie Brocas, the prefect of the Gironde in Bordeaux at the epicentre of recent blazes, told Le Monde the “incredible, unprecedented, unknown phenomenon” meant we are “entering a new dimension” when it comes to fighting the effects of global warming.

How are they formed?

Pyrocumulonimbus or cumulonimbus flammagenitus – more commonly known as fire clouds – are created by intense heat from the Earth’s surface. This is usually caused by volcanic eruptions or large wildfires where temperatures can reach as high as 800C.

The rapidly rising plume of air cools and forms fire clouds, which, when combined with enough moisture and strong updrafts, can develop into so-called “fire storms”. These produce downdrafts that spread burning embers and dry lightning that starts new fires; and they can even form dangerous fire tornadoes.

The result is so intense, they effectively create their own internal weather systems.

Are they getting more common?

Fire clouds have become increasingly common in the US, Canada and Australia, where the 2019-20 “black summer” bushfires killed at least 33 people and destroyed more than 11 million hectares (27.2 million acres) of bush, forest and parks.

Fire officials in New South Wales reported that embers from the fire storm were landing 18 miles ahead of the front, three times more than the usual distance, said the BBC. But until now, there have been no documented cases in France or northern Europe.

Given pyrocumulonimbus are more likely in extreme weather conditions such as high temperatures, strong winds and little moisture, scientists have warned climate change is likely to increase the chance of them forming.

How can they be stopped?

With the advent of devastating fire clouds, French authorities have “reached a point of ‘operational impossibility’ that requires us to accept the need for strategic retreat”, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Brocardi, spokesman for the National Firefighters Federation of France, told Agence France-Presse.

These fires are convective, which is a problem because they create their own winds “that constantly shift direction, unlike a standard fire that spreads in a conical pattern”. This makes the movement of the blaze “completely unpredictable” as it spreads outwards and becomes impossible to fight head-on.

“It’s a David-versus-Goliath scenario: the idea is that, at some point, we’ll find a weak spot and strike there”, said Brocardi.

“Salvation will come either from the sky – in the form of rain, though it would need to pour heavily for three days – or by finding a way to steer the fire towards a place where it will die out on its own. The sea, for example.”

We’ll be seeing huge numbers of colourful migrants in the UK this summer – in what is widely predicted to be the largest arrival of painted-lady butterflies for 17 years.

“We are in the midst of a miracle”, said wildlife writer Simon Barnes in The Observer. Last time there was a painted-lady spike, in 2019, they were seen in their hundreds of thousands. Clouds of the butterflies have already been spotted, as Butterfly Conservation’s annual Big Butterfly Count – the world’s largest citizen-science insect count – gets under way. Large numbers have been recorded along the east coast into northern England and, at Hickling national nature reserve, close to the Norfolk coast, 253 of them have been seen feeding on one patch of brambles.

What are painted ladies?

Formally known as Vanessa cardui, they are medium-sized orange butterflies with black markings and, on their forewing tips, white spots on a black background. Every year, in a spectacular long-distance migration, they fly from the desert fringes of North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia to mainland Europe and then Britain and Ireland. Then in September, they fly south again, completing a 9,000-mile round trip and one of the world’s longest insect journeys. “They can move from egg to adult in less than six weeks,” said Barnes in The Observer, so it might take “three or four” generations to reach the UK.

In an average year, the number of painted-lady arrivals in the UK hovers around 15,000, although, some years, hardly any reach our shores. But butterfly experts are confidently predicting such a surge in numbers this year that we’re in for “a once-in-a-decade ‘painted lady summer’”, said The Guardian.

Why are numbers spiking?

It’s down to a combination of “favourable early spring conditions in southern Europe”, the recent heatwaves and “benign southerly winds”, said The Guardian. Sightings have been increasing for several weeks but “there’s been a big recent immigration” in the past week, Dan Hoare of Butterfly Conservation told the paper. Painted ladies “grow extremely fast, feed easily and fly really well” and, after breeding particularly successfully during heatwaves in France and Spain, they have benefited from “favourable winds to get them across the Channel”.

The last time this happened, in 2019, more than 420,000 painted ladies were recorded in the UK. But that most recent summer spike pales in comparison to the record year of 2009, when more than two million painted ladies arrived in the UK over a two-day period in May. Over the course of that summer, there were a “barely credible” billion British painted ladies, said Barnes in The Observer.

What about wider butterfly numbers?

In marked contrast to the excitement about the “painted-lady summer”, butterfly numbers in the UK have long been decreasing, according to Butterfly Conservation. Sightings hit record lows in 2024, although there was “improvement” in 2025. Climate change, habitat loss, pollution and plant pesticides have contributed to a picture where more than three-quarters of butterfly species are in decline.

Warnings about the “fragility of nature in the 21st century” are the “naturalist’s lot”, said Barnes in The Observer. But the “awe and disbelief” that will no doubt greet this year’s painted-lady numbers are “symbols of hope”. The bumper success of that butterfly’s 9,000-mile intercontinental journey is a reminder that “if you give nature even the fragment of a chance, it’s always avidly seized”. If the “right decisions” are made, at local, national and international levels, British butterfly “recovery is still possible”.

US dominance of the AI landscape is receding with the release of Kimi K3, the newest model developed by a Chinese start-up called Moonshot AI.

Kimi K3 is as “powerful as the most advanced AI systems” from the US, such as OpenAI and Anthropic, while being “cheaper to run”, said The Telegraph. It is available for people to freely download and is an “open-weight model”. This allows developers to download it, modify it and run it on their own servers for free, “positioning it for easier adoption and a wider market globally”, said CNN.

How good is K3?

K3 was “beating” Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 model and OpenAI’s 5.5 in most coding and “general AI agent benchmarks”, according to results released by Beijing-based start-up Moonshot. This was while costing “about a third of Anthropic’s Opus 4.8”, said the Financial Times. But K3 was “falling short” of Anthropic’s Fable model.

Unlike the “closed” and “proprietary” American systems, K3’s “open nature” allows global users to “modify the system for advanced reasoning and complex software development”, said the BBC. It will be the world’s first open source model in the “three-trillion-parameter class”. A parameter refers to “learned values within a machine learning model that determine how it maps input data into outputs”, said IBM.

The release of K3 had an “immediate” market reaction, said The New York Times. The Nasdaq dropped around 1%, with investors selling shares in US companies like Intel and Nvidia, who make computer chips to power AI.

How have Anthropic and OpenAI reacted?

Anthropic and OpenAI have accused Chinese companies of “improperly harvesting data” from their systems to “accelerate” their own competing models’ development. However, after years of “operating under export controls” and “tight computing constraints”, China’s advances “cannot be explained by distillation alone”. There is “real innovation going on”, said Graham Webster, a Stanford University professor.

The “steady stream” of Chinese open-source AI models, including K3, that “rivals” the performance of “costly systems from Silicon Valley” have become the “preferred choice” for developers, said the NYT. President Trump has “repeatedly framed maintaining America’s “lead” in the “defining technological race of our time” as a “strategic imperative for preserving the country’s economic and national security”. These technological developments have “underscored the geopolitical stakes of the US-China contest for leadership”.

What does this mean for US dominance in AI?

Xi Jinping released a statement saying AI development should not be a “solo performance by a single country” but instead a “symphony of international cooperation”. He said China was “ready to work with all parties to seize the opportunities of AI development”.

US AI leaders and policy makers had taken “comfort” from “estimates that China remained six to 12 months behind”, even with Chinese open-weight models “gaining momentum”, said Axios. However, the release of Kimi K3 suggests that “cushion may have collapsed far faster than expected”. With the “entire game changed”, this could “trigger some code red for some”, said AI analyst Kim Isenberg.

American labs are “hardly out of ammunition” with OpenAI and Anthropic “racing ahead” to build newer systems like GPT-6 and Claude Opus 5. But even if the US “pulls ahead” again, China has shown it can “close the gap quickly”.

A shrinking pool of ultra-wealthy donors increasingly bankroll Britain’s political parties. Should we be worried?

Why is this issue in the news?

The short answer is because of Reform UK. In December 2025 the Electoral Commission, the statutory body that regulates elections and political finance, reported that Reform had received £9 million from the Thai-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne – the largest donation to a political party ever made by a living person in the UK. (Harborne also gave £5 million, said to be a personal gift, to Nigel Farage in 2024.)

The latest figures show that just under £25 million was donated to UK political parties in the first quarter of 2026: £9.9 million to Reform, £6 million to the Conservatives, £4 million to Labour and £3 million to the Lib Dems. Of the money given to Reform, £7 million of it came from Harborne and one other donor, Ben Delo, the Hong Kong-based founder of a crypto exchange. This is, increasingly, a theme of all political funding. In 2015, donations of £1 million or more from individuals and companies accounted for 1% of all private political donations. By 2024, such high-value donations made up fully 35% of the total.

Why is this happening?

Voluntary donations fuel party politics in the UK. State funding is limited to relatively small amounts given to opposition parties. Parties need money to pay their staff, conduct research, advertise and fight elections. The steady decline of membership – the Tories had around three million members in the 1950s, and now have around 130,000 – has seen fees replaced by donations.

Big donations are not limited to Reform: members of the Sainsbury family have given tens of millions to the Conservatives and Labour, including a £10 million bequest to the Tories in 2022, the largest donation in UK history. Yet the past decade has seen the rise of a new generation of mega-donors, less well known, often residing abroad. At the same time, overall spending has grown, aided by the Tories’ controversial decision to raise the electoral spending cap by 80% in 2023. The total spent by all parties at the 2001 election was £27 million; at the 2024 election, it was nearly £69 million.

What does the law say about political spending?

For election campaigns, spending limits are set for each national party (calculated at £54,010 per constituency contested) and for each local candidate (from £11,390). There is, however, no general limit on political donations. Since 2000, donations over £11,180 (previously £7,500) must be reported to the Electoral Commission. However, loopholes abound. For instance, Frank Hester and his company The Phoenix Partnership donated £15 million to the Conservatives before the 2024 election (63% of the party’s campaign spending) but broke it up into smaller amounts to avoid scrutiny.

Donors have to be “permissible”, meaning they’re an individual who is on the electoral register (this includes overseas voters), or a UK-registered company, union or other body. Those who are not UK voters can get round the ban by giving money via UK subsidiaries, or by using so-called unincorporated associations.

Why is this a matter for concern?

Money affects electoral outcomes. Arguably, Reform could not have established itself as a major party without generous funding for it and its predecessor, the Brexit Party. And by and large, parties do not get something for nothing. Political scientists often divide donors into three (overlapping) groups: “ideologues”, motivated by a cause; “investors”, who give money to those they think will represent their interests; and “intimates”, who enjoy the access it gives to lawmakers and the associated prestige. The dangers of this are well-rehearsed. But as donations grow more narrow and concentrated among the super-rich, the fear is that parties are ever-more vulnerable to donor pressure. It is no coincidence, critics say, that two-thirds of Reform’s money comes from crypto businessmen, and that the party is calling for a regulatory “Big Bang 2” to turn the UK into a “crypto hub”.

But the problem spreads wider than that. Transparency International UK has assessed that £42 million given to political parties since 2001 came from donors either alleged, or proven, to be involved in fraud, corruption or money-laundering.

Is there an alternative to the current system?

Many nations cap not what parties can spend but what donors can give. Australia has a $50,000 annual donation cap; Canada limits individuals to around $1,750 per year; France caps them at $7,500. In each case, however, the state makes up the shortfall – per voter, France spends over ten times as much as the UK on political parties – and in Britain such state funding is unpopular; most taxpayers reject the principle that they should fund parties they disagree with.

At the other end of the spectrum from France is the US, where the Supreme Court has scrapped all donation and spending limits on freedom of speech grounds. The cost of US elections, and the influence of the very rich, has since rocketed.

Are there any plans to limit donations?

Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to “protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations”. Philip Rycroft’s independent review into foreign financial interference recommended, among other things, an annual £100,000 cap on political donations from British voters living abroad; a suspension of crypto donations; and tighter “Know Your Donor” checks. In March, these were added as amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, which was due to come to the Commons for its third reading last week.

The bill’s progress was abruptly delayed, because of backbench amendments aimed at capping domestic political donations. The Labour MP Stella Creasy proposed a universal annual cap of £100,000 on individual donations. (This would have stripped Reform of around 85% of its funding.) Both Reform and trade unions – whose block donations to Labour could have been affected – objected. The delay will allow Andy Burnham’s government to reshape the legislation.

When President Donald Trump announced he was gifted a new luxury Boeing 747-8 from Qatar to use as an interim Air Force One, many national security analysts were worried about risks potentially inherent to the plane. Now that Trump has started using the vehicle, it seems some of those concerns have been borne out, with even Trump himself insinuating that the plane may have security lapses.

What makes Trump’s new plane different?

The plane was designed to be used only during Trump’s presidency. It is built on the body of a Boeing jumbo jet, but there are some significant differences from prior Air Force Ones. The biggest change is that it appears to almost uniquely suit Trump’s taste, complete with a new color scheme after the plane was “repainted in dark navy blue, deep red and gold,” said CBS News.

In keeping with Trump’s affinity for gold and luxury, the plane’s interior features “cognac leather seats” with lie-flat capabilities alongside tray tables made of “mahogany with silver trim,” CNN reported. To communicate with the outside world, the plane serves as an “airborne command post equipped with a new communications system that enables resilient, secure connectivity to respond to global events without disruption,” said L3 Harris Technologies, the contractor used by the U.S. Air Force to upgrade the plane.

What are the security issues?

For all the talk of the gilded plane, there is no shortage of worries about how secure it is. The new model “lacks the same defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities,” sources told The New York Times. At least two Air Force officials were “surprised to see Trump fly on the new jet overseas, where there are greater security risks.”

The plane was gifted by Qatar, a nation that Trump “used to accuse of supporting terrorism,” said MS NOW. But since receiving the jet, the White House has “cozied up to Qatar to a remarkable degree, even unilaterally extending a NATO-like security guarantee to the nation.” That has not changed the fact that the plane “may ​not be as ⁠secure as the baby blue Air Force One that preceded it,” said Reuters.

The White House originally shot back at these insinuations, sending subpoenas to the reporters at The New York Times who wrote about the plane; these were later withdrawn. Trump has since “acknowledged that the Boeing jet given to him by Qatar cannot match the defensive armor of a true presidential aircraft,” said The Guardian, telling reporters he will go back to using the original plane while the new one is “grounded and ‘maxed out’ with the protections it was never built with.” Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to halt further work on the vehicle.

During a recent overseas trip to Turkey, Trump initially flew aboard the plane but “switched to an older, more heavily defended aircraft for the return leg amid rising tensions with Iran, reportedly on the advice of the Secret Service,” said The Guardian. Despite the security concerns, as well as ethics controversies over accepting the $400 million jet, it is “perfectly safe for the president’s travels but will receive additional upgrades and enhancements in the fall, which will take approximately one month to complete,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.

“Ticks are small, and you might not notice when they bite,” but their bites have the potential to “dramatically harm” your health, said Amanda Roome, co-director of the University of New York’s Tick-Borne Disease Center, on The Conversation. Ticks can carry viruses that “really pack a punch” in terms of “how sick they make you” or even trigger an allergy to red meat. And, in the UK, the number of ticks are on the rise.

What are ticks?

They are small arachnids that feed on the blood of animals, including humans. They tend to live in woodland, heathland or scrubland, climbing to the tips of grass blades or other vegetation and using the sensory organs on their front legs to detect carbon dioxide, body heat and movement from a passing animal host. When they bite, they inject an anaesthetic that prevents you from feeling pain or itchiness as they dig in.

The majority of tick bites don’t cause illness – many ticks don't carry disease-causing pathogens and not all bites from an infected tick cause infection. But the illnesses some of them can cause can be pretty nasty.

The most common is Lyme disease, carried by the castor-bean tick, which can do long-term damage joints, heart and the nervous system. Cases of Lyme disease are spiralling in the US but, in the UK, it’s still pretty rare – although 1,168 cases were recorded last year, a 20% increase from the previous year. But cases could well in increase as the number of ticks in the UK grows.

Some ticks can also carry a type of encephalitis, with symptoms that range from a mild flu-like illness to a stiff neck, brain inflammation and loss of consciousness. These ticks have been detected in a small number of areas in England but very, very few cases of tick-borne encephalitis have been diagnosed. The UKHSA classes the risk to the general population as “very low”.

In the US, other tick-borne illnesses, including Heartland virus disease, Powassan virus disease, babesiosis and anaplasmosis, have been causing concern. They can all cause “serious health problems” and in, “severe cases”, even death, said Roome on The Conversation.

There’s also been much media coverage of a rare allergy that can be triggered by tick bites: Alpha Gal syndrome. Affected people can develop a potentially fatal reaction to red meat, dairy products and some animal-derived medicines and vaccines. There have been more than 110,000 suspected cases in the US and an estimated 5,000 in Australia but hardly any in the UK.

Why are there more ticks?

“Tick populations are expanding geographically because we’re changing the climate,” Vett Lloyd, a tick expert at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, told The Guardian. Our milder winters and warmer summers are boosting ticks’ survival rates, and there are also more mice to act as hosts: ticks “feast on rodents” as well as deer and birds. Reforestation and the expansion of green spaces closer to residential areas also play a role. Ticks – and the pathogens they can carry – “are expanding almost exclusively because of human changes” to the environment.

What can we do?

The best way to prevent infection is to avoid a tick bite “in the first place”, said Roome. If you’re planning a walk away from paths over areas of long grass, make sure you’re wearing socks, sturdy enclosed shoes, long trousers, and a long-sleeved shirt. Choose light-coloured clothing if you can: it can help you spot – and brush off – a tick before it bites. When you get home, check your skin thoroughly for ticks: they tend to lurk in armpits, the groin, behind the knees, around the waistband, the wrists, the back of the neck and the hairline.

If you do get bitten, “try to get the whole tick out”, Charlotte Mao, a US doctor who works with the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, told The Guardian. She recommends using “fine tip tweezers with firm gentle pressure” to grasp the tick at its head and pull it up. “You want to try to not have the mouth parts break off and stay stuck in the skin.” Then you should wash the site of the bite, and your hands, thoroughly with soap and water or rubbing alcohol.

After a tick bite, if you notice a spreading “bullseye” rash at the site of the bite (a common of Lyme disease infection) or symptoms including feeling flu-ey, a facial droop or numbness or tingling in the hands or feet, do seek advice from your GP.

A financial trick that uses credit card debt to make money has returned because of relatively high savings rates.

Financial conditions are now in a “sweet spot” for the strategy known as stoozing, said The Telegraph.

A “successful stoozer”, said MoneySuperMarket, effectively turns credit card debt into a short-term interest-free loan while keeping their actual money in a high-paying savings account.

The difference between the savings interest and any credit card fees is your profit. But while the concept is “relatively simple”, successful stoozing “requires careful organisation and financial discipline”.

What is stoozing?

Stoozing is a way of “manipulating 0% spending credit cards to make money”, said MoneySavingExpert.

The method means you can “maximise interest earnings”, said The Independent, by spending on a 0% interest credit card “while diverting your actual cash into high-yield savings accounts”.

How stoozing works

Stoozing involves taking out a long-term 0% spending credit card and using it for your normal daily spending, while any unspent money from your bank account – such as your wages – goes into a top savings account to earn interest.

You need to make sure you pay off the credit card bill each month. When the 0% deal is about to end, you will need to either “pay off the balance using the money from the savings account or transfer it to a new credit card with a 0% balance transfer”, said Go.Compare. Meanwhile, any interest you earn on the money in the savings account ends up as profit.

Pros and cons of stoozing

The method can be “lucrative”, said MoneySavingExpert, but it will not work if you are “not very financially organised, unsure of how it works, have a poor credit history, don’t have financial self-discipline, or have other credit card, overdraft or loan debt”.

It is a “relatively low-effort” way to earn some extra money and maximise savings interest, said Moneyfacts.

But there are risks. You could be hit with interest charges if you don’t clear the debt, said CompareTheMarket, “undoing all the good work of having your money in a savings account”.

Taking out too much debt can also have a “negative impact” on your credit score, said Money to theMasses, which may make it harder to borrow money for a “legitimate reason” such as if you need a mortgage.

Plus, you may regret “locking away your savings” if you suddenly need the money sooner than expected, as there may be penalties for early withdrawals.

Is stoozing worth it?

Stoozing “only really works”, said uSwitch, when “savings interest rates are high”.

The method can be “worth the hassle”, said Go.Compare, if you have “strong credit” as well as “discipline for timely repayments”. Stoozers also need to be able to invest borrowed funds “profitably”. It is risky if you will struggle to pay the credit card bill or “the returns are too small for the effort involved”.

There are alternatives to stoozing, such as reward or cashback cards that pay “a percentage of your money back or build points to redeem in shops”.

Two of the biggest tech giants are locked in a head-to-head legal battle, with Apple claiming OpenAI stole trade secrets as the AI start-up plans its first hardware devices.

Apple launched the “blockbuster lawsuit” last week, accusing OpenAI and several of its staff – formerly Apple employees – of “stealing secret hardware plans”, said the Financial Times. One of the staff named in the lawsuit is OpenAI’s head of hardware, who was “a top Apple device designer”.

The lawsuit, which doesn’t name OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, amounts to “a spectacular breakdown in the relationship” between two of Silicon Valley’s “biggest names”.

What is the background between the two?

Apple and OpenAI launched a partnership in 2024, working to integrate OpenAI technology into Apple’s voice assistant, Siri. Apple also built ChatGPT into operating systems for iPhones, iPads and Macs.

But tensions began to surface last year when OpenAI bought a hardware start-up co-founded by Jony Ive, the former chief designer at Apple – and the brains behind the iPhone. OpenAI’s $6.4 billion purchase of io Products signalled that it was “foraying into hardware”, said The Guardian.

OpenAI is working with the “design guru” to develop a line of AI devices, including a hand-held gadget similar to a smart speaker, but equipped with a camera. These are “intended to compete with the iPhone and other Apple products”, said Bloomberg. Ive is “helping lead an effort to supplant” the very device he did so much to create. Much of his design team at Apple followed him and now work either at OpenAI or on its hardware products. This “exodus” has “fuelled resentment” at Apple.

The scale of departures is “astounding”, said Business Insider. More than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI, with some being “unusually senior”. Apple is “furious” that it’s losing talent to “a scrappy start-up” that’s “refusing to stay in its lane”. Last month it unveiled its revamped Siri, which used Google’s Gemini AI model rather than OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

What does the lawsuit claim?

“OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,” Apple wrote. The suit claims OpenAI “poached Apple employees”, said The Guardian, “coaxing them to hand over confidential material, product designs and other tightly held information”.

It names Tang Yew Tan, OpenAI’s chief hardware officer – and a former vice-president at Apple. In 2024, Tan left Apple to work on Ive’s start-up. After OpenAI purchased io Products, it appointed Tan as its own chief hardware officer. The lawsuit claims Tan took information about Apple suppliers with him.

Apple also alleges that when its employees went for job interviews at OpenAI, Tan “asked them to show up with something unusual”, said The Verge: hardware components they were working on at Apple and unreleased product samples for “show and tell sessions”.

Apple claims another former employee took an Apple laptop when he left for OpenAI, and used an authentication bug to breach the company’s internal network and download “dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files”.

After filing the lawsuit, Apple sent “a barrage” of legal warnings to about 40 of its former employees at OpenAI, looking for evidence, said the FT. These “aggressive tactics” show “just how broad and combative the legal fight could become”.

What does OpenAI say?

OpenAI says it is not aware of “any evidence that the complaint has merit”. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” said a spokesperson. But if the case goes to trial, it could “reveal the secret hardware OpenAI has long teased”, said CNET, perhaps before it is ready to launch.

Apple is seeking damages and a court order that would block OpenAI from possessing or using its trade secrets. Essentially, OpenAI is “a huge threat” to Apple, said Business Insider. It wants to either “directly challenge the iPhone, or completely replace this device as the go-to gadget of the AI era”.

OpenAI is “ridiculously well funded”, so Apple can’t easily acquire it to bring talent back into the fold. It’s also “too ambitious to swat away or subsume easily”. This explains “the intensity (or desperation?)” of Apple’s lawsuit.

The dispute also “underscores just how intertwined Apple and OpenAI have become”, said Bloomberg. “It’s an extraordinarily awkward situation, made all the more remarkable by the web of personal relationships that still connects the two companies.”

Nicaragua will stop holding elections in a bid to prevent foreign-backed interference, the country’s long-standing president Daniel Ortega has announced.

In a speech to commemorate the Sandinista revolution, which overthrew the US-backed Anastasio ⁠Somoza dictatorship in 1979, the 80-year-old strongman leader declared “the days when parties backed by the Yankees and the Somocistas would return to power are over – never again”.

Who is Daniel Ortega?

A key figure in the revolution, Ortega has held office continuously since 2007, having also served as president in the 1980s.

During his nearly two decades in power, his government has transformed Nicaragua into an “authoritarian state”, according to the UN Human Rights Council.

He has cemented control over virtually all branches of government, including the army and judiciary, and crushed political opposition, with hundreds killed and even more imprisoned following mass anti-government protests in 2018. Last year, further constitutional reforms extended presidential terms to six years, made his wife, Rosario Murillo, co-president, and effectively established a one-party system.

Why has he cancelled elections?

The last elections in 2021 were “widely disputed” after Ortega “detained opponents and business leaders and criminalised dissent”, said Reuters. Hundreds of opposition figures were imprisoned in the run-up to the vote, including a number of presidential hopefuls, before being stripped of their citizenship and expelled to the US and Guatemala.

Nicaraguans had been due to go to the polls again next year before Ortega’s recent announcement that “there won’t be any more elections here for them to try to seize the government and seize power”.

But analysts and opposition figures say the move has highlighted the Ortegas’ fear of a growing opposition movement taking root.

“Ortega and Murillo are evidently afraid at the idea that the slightest political opening could create the conditions for dissent to manifest and threaten their grip on power,” said Tiziano Breda, a senior analyst at Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, a non-profit organisation that tracks political violence. “Instead of staging a rigged election, they have opted to eliminate electoral competition altogether.”

What will the international reaction be?

In the wake of the US military raid in January to capture Venezuela’s then-President Nicolás Maduro, the Nicaraguan government announced it would release more political prisoners, “apparently an effort to stave off pressure on itself”, said AP News. “But there has been no follow-up and little transparency on the issue.”

Despite proscribing the Ortega government as a dictatorship, and imposing sanctions on more than 2,350 Nicaraguan officials and their relatives, the Trump administration has remained remarkably quiet on Ortega and the potential for regime change.

There are a “range of explanations” for this, said Politico’s Nahal Toosi, “including that the regime is making smart moves on battling drug trafficking, that it’s benefiting from a lack of natural resources for Trump to covet and that it doesn’t have a slew of migrants in the US”.

“The lesson from Nicaragua is: don’t matter too much, don’t embarrass Washington and don’t become a domestic political issue,” said Juan Gonzalez, a former Latin America aide to Joe Biden. “For an administration that doesn’t care about democracy or human rights, that’s an effective survival strategy for authoritarians.”

When it comes to a major purchase like a car, you likely want to save any money you can. Unfortunately, car-buying deals are not so easy to come by these days.

Though increases in new car prices have slowed since they shot up during the pandemic era, the “average cost of a new car remains historically high,” said Nerdwallet. “At the end of 2025, the average transaction price hit an all-time high of $50,326 according to Kelley Blue Book — and despite recent moderation, prices haven't strayed far from that peak.” And unfortunately, used cars are not that easy on the wallet either lately, especially given rising financing and car insurance costs.

But for many, a set of wheels is a necessity. If you are in the market, here are some ways you can try to trim costs.

1. Do your research

Doing your homework before you set foot in a dealership is essential. Get familiar with car models in the class you are interested in, and see what is well-rated for factors like performance, reliablity and value. Figure out what a fair price is for that vehicle using “online pricing guides, such as Kelley Blue Book, Edmunds or NADA guides, to know what price you should pay,” said Nerdwallet.

2. Get pre-approved

Equally important is getting prepared financially. “Before you start visiting dealerships, get a pre-approved financing offer,” as this will ensure that the “dealer has to offer a better deal if they want to earn your business for this part of the transaction,” said U.S. News & World Report. Be sure to shop around, too, before you settle on any one offer from an auto lender, to ensure you get the best rate.

3. Keep your eye out for incentives

“Check dealership and manufacturer websites for local and national incentives such as cash-back offers, low-rate or even 0 percent financing, and lease deals with low monthly payments, said Consumer Reports. It is not uncommon to find these sorts of offers “among less-popular offerings — such as sedans, small hatchbacks, and front-wheel-drive (as opposed to all-wheel-drive) SUVs,” said the outlet. Certain times of year to buy a car are also better than others if you are after a good deal.

4. Brush up on your negotiation tactics

Whether you are working with a car dealer or a private seller, it never hurts to ask for a better offer. One “good negotiation tip is to focus on the car’s total price,” said TaxAct. “A salesperson will sometimes try to gauge how much of a monthly payment you can afford instead of your total budget, which can lead to you spending more money than you anticipated,” especially once car ownership costs are factored in.

The trump card in a negotiation, however, is being comfortable walking away. “Just showing the willingness to get up and leave is often a powerful enough message to get the dealership staff to take notice and make you a better offer,” said U.S. News & World Report.

5. Stay flexible

Staying open about which car you get and the features it has can go a long way towards getting a better price. For instance, “note which brands have more or fewer cars in stock,” as those with more inventory will typically be more willing to negotiate, said Kiplinger (a sister site of The Week). Also consider the different trims offered in a vehicle, and which features seem like a necessity and which you are fine living without. If you feel like you need certain add-ons but the price is not matching up with your budget, “consider downsizing or shopping among models that aren’t as popular,” said Consumer Reports.

Andy Burnham began his premiership in dramatic style last night, with a brutal purge of ministers loyal to his predecessor in a cabinet reshuffle far more wide-ranging than many expected.

Today the new PM welcomes the first meeting of his top team, “spanning the mainstream wings of the party, including key Northern allies and ministers who fell out with Starmer”, said Politico’s UK political correspondent, Sam Blewett.

Who took the top jobs?

Burnham aside, the biggest winner following the toppling of Keir Starmer is the new Chancellor, John Healey. A surprise pick, the veteran MP – who quit as defence secretary last month in a row over funding – first held a Treasury brief under Tony Blair back in the early 2000s. Hailing from the centre of the party, he is seen as a safe pair of hands who, it is hoped, will not spook the markets like some other names who had been tipped to replace Rachel Reeves.

Chief among these was former Labour leader and net zero champion, Ed Miliband, who has instead been appointed foreign secretary. He replaces Yvette Cooper, who moves to the health department in what is technically a demotion. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is one of the few Starmer-era ministers to keep her job, along with Pat McFadden at the Department for Work and Pensions, and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy.

And what about the rest?

Burnham loyalists make up much of the rest of the cabinet, with his right-hand woman and key enforcer Louise Haigh becoming chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, first secretary of state and Cabinet Office minister, tasked with making government run effectively.

Anneliese Midgley, one of the key figures in Burnham’s leadership campaign, has become chief whip, while Miatta Fahnbulleh, another close ally of the PM who has been advising him on policy, takes over from Miliband as energy secretary.

Rounding off a long evening of Westminster psychodrama, former deputy PM Angela Rayner returned to her old job as housing and communities secretary, while one-time leadership contender Wes Streeting becomes secretary of state for defence.

What does the line-up say about Burnham’s plans?

Downing Street has insisted Burnham and Healey have the “same outlook” when it comes to the major issues that the new PM wants to tackle, including re-industrialisation, devolution and the cost of living. While his appointment signals that the new government will prioritise defence spending – perhaps through the issuing of so-called “war bonds” – many see Healey as more of a blank slate than the likes of Miliband or Mahmood, suggesting economic policy could ultimately emanate from No. 10, rather than next door.

In his first speech as PM, Burnham vowed to end rough sleeping, raise the income tax personal allowance, cut VAT on electricity bills and reform social care. Now it’s up to Healey to find the cash and flexibility, within strict fiscal rules, to make these and other ambitions happen.

The elevation of Miliband to the Foreign Office suggests Burnham also wishes to break from Starmer when it comes to international relations, to “focus relentlessly on the domestic”, said Blewett. Having a “big figure from Labour’s left in charge of the foreign brief could help smooth that ride”.

If there is one thing we learnt from yesterday’s appointments it is that Burnham has a “much stronger theory of power – a view about how he wants to use the office and what he wants to prioritise – than his recent predecessors”, said journalist Sam Freedman in his Comment is Freed newsletter.

Unlike Starmer, whose government “looked buffeted by events and U-turns” from day one, Burnham “has indicated not just that he has priorities but that he is willing to make the institutional changes required to make them happen”.

More young people will be able to vote in the next general election but many of them won’t be able to smoke on the way home – Keir Starmer’s reign has signalled drastic changes in the lives of British teenagers.

While rights and participation have been expanded by lowering the voting age to 16, young people are also facing increased protection and regulation, with limits being imposed on tobacco and social media use.

Smoking

Children aged 17 or younger face a lifelong ban on buying cigarettes after the Tobacco and Vapes Bill became law in April.

Now anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 cannot legally buy tobacco products in the UK. The new law also strengthens restrictions around vaping products aimed at children.

“The world-leading legislation means today’s children will never legally be sold cigarettes, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has persisted for decades,” said the government.

But pushback has come from conservatives and from members of the tobacco industry. Nigel Farage told The Telegraph in March that if Reform ever comes into power, the law would be scrapped.

Voting and consultations

The government will reduce the minimum voting age to 16. The registration age will be moved to 14, to help make sure that young people can be fully registered and have the opportunity to vote even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday.

Young people “represent the future of our country”, said the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. “Decisions the government makes now” will “affect young people today” and “have an enduring impact on their entire lives”, so it’s “only right and fair” that younger people can vote.

For those supporting the change, the move is seen as a massive expansion of civic education, primarily in schools. But as Harriet Andrews, a campaigner for young people’s democratic engagement, told the Institute for Government in May: “Provision is really quite patchy and it’s a real lottery.”

As well as their direct involvement in voting, teenagers have been consulted in other ways. The recent online safety proposals were accompanied by consultation responses from young people themselves, reflecting a broader trend towards involving young people in decisions that affect them.

Social media

The government announced in June that it will ban under-16s from accessing a range of platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram. The government hopes to “pass regulation before Christmas”, said former PM Keir Starmer, with the ban coming into force in spring 2027.

Older teenagers will face an overnight social media curfew, meaning apps such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube will be unavailable by default to 16- and 17-year-olds between midnight and 6am.

The moves follow “growing pressure from campaigners to make the online world safer for young people”, said the BBC. They’re “part of an international trend of governments restricting who can access social media”.

Everything else

There is still, though, no real consensus on the age of maturity into adulthood in the UK. British teens turning 16 can have sex if they want, unless it’s with someone in a position of “trust and responsibility” like a teacher. But they can’t watch other people having sex in pornographic films until 18.

They can’t drive on public roads until they are 17 and can’t drink alcohol until they reach 18. Since 2023, teens have to be 18 to be married or enter into a civil partnership.

Teens can start enlisting in the military when they are 15, but are not able to engage in combat until 18. And in education English pupils must stay in school or training until the age of 18. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they can give up learning at 16.

“Confused? How do you think teens feel?” said Rosa Prince on Bloomberg. And with all of the changes from Starmer’s government “it’s getting worse”.

Things are very difficult in Cuba. Since February, the country’s power grid has suffered three nationwide blackouts: there is currently electricity for two hours a day at most in Havana, and less in rural areas. Mains water works roughly every other day. The average monthly wage, in real terms, is under US$20. Food production has fallen drastically; shortages are common. Petrol is prohibitively expensive. Cuba’s once-impressive healthcare and education systems are in tatters.

Tourism – the island’s main economic lifeline – was down 58% in the first five months of 2026 compared with the year before. Long-haul flights there have stopped because they can’t refuel. Mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever and chikungunya have staged a comeback, and the UN reported last month that child mortality has risen sharply. An estimated fifth of the population has left since 2021.

Why is this happening?

Cubans have endured decades of mismanagement from their own communist government, along with economic warfare from the US – but the past few years have been particularly harsh. Cuba invested heavily in tourism and underinvested in healthcare during the 2010s, only to see both sectors heavily impacted by the Covid pandemic. Miguel Díaz-Canel, who in 2021 became the nation’s first leader not from the Castro family since 1959, ordered a crackdown that year on the largest wave of protests seen for decades.

But the main cause of the present trouble is a US oil blockade, which began in January – the biggest such action since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Trump at the same time issued an executive order designating Cuba a national security threat – and called on Cuba’s leaders to “make a deal before it is too late”.

Why does the US think Cuba is a national security threat?

It didn’t offer specific reasons beyond Cuba’s alliances with Russia and China, along with claims that it “destabilises the region through migration and violence”. Cuba’s communist regime has historically been a bugbear for the US, particularly for Republicans. And Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants, favours regime change.

But the timing suggests that the decision to tighten the screws was inspired by the successful US action against Venezuela on 3 January – and, more broadly, by Trump’s desire to assert US primacy in the western hemisphere. In March, the president told reporters he believed he’d have “the honour of taking Cuba... I think I can do anything I want with it.”

What’s Venezuela’s role in this?

Venezuela became Cuba’s main regional ally in 1999, when Hugo Chávez’s left-wing government began supplying Fidel Castro with cheap oil. The alliance continued under Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, and until this year, 75% of its oil imports came from Venezuela and Mexico. But after seizing Maduro in January, killing 32 Cuban security personnel in the process, the US made Venezuela cut off Cuban oil supplies; Mexico did the same under the threat of tariffs. The island requires around 100,000 barrels of oil per day for its power stations and infrastructure to function; since January, episodic shipments have only given short-term relief.

It now seems that the Trump administration is looking for a similar outcome to Venezuela: sources told The Wall Street Journal they were aiming for regime change by the end of 2026.

What are the US demands?

They haven’t shared them in public, though the Cuban government confirmed in March that talks were taking place. Trump’s previous actions suggest that his definition of regime change is flexible. In Venezuela, the US left Maduro’s government in place under the control of his deputy, Delcy Rodríguez; the country was forced to open up its oil and mining to US investors, but not to democratise. In the case of Iran, similarly, Trump has shown himself willing to treat a change of personnel at the top as regime change. The Cuban leadership may feel they have some wiggle room; in June it announced a package of 176 free-market reforms in an effort to placate the US. But there are big obstacles to a political settlement on both sides.

Why might a deal be difficult?

A law from 1996 prohibits the US from recognising any Cuban government that includes Raúl Castro, Fidel’s brother, who is still, aged 95, a major figure in Cuban politics. Florida’s Cuban-American community, a key part of Trump’s voter coalition, would also object to any deal that did not mean the end of the regime. The US might settle for custody of Castro, who was indicted this May by a Florida grand jury for his part in shooting down two planes belonging to a Cuban exile group in 1996.

But the Cubans are unlikely to agree to that, and there is no plausible opposition party or Delcy Rodríguez-like figure to deal with – though Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, a reputed playboy who’s close to the Cuban military’s wealthy holding company, is said to have been auditioning for the role.

What if there’s no deal?

An American invasion looks unlikely: Trump is clearly wary of that level of commitment, and has his hands full trying to extricate himself from his “excursion” in Iran. Cuba’s military isn’t the fighting force it used to be, but the country has been resisting US pressure since 1962, and it’s difficult to see the Cuban elite colluding – as some of Venezuela’s did – with a theatrical special-forces raid on Raúl Castro or Díaz-Canel. Castro’s age may be the best hope for a solution, but Cuba has been a one-party state for generations, and with the Trump administration on the opposite side, any transition is likely to be messy.

From the point of view of ordinary Cubans, however, something has to give. “Living like this is agony,” Meyboll Font, a 51-year-old Havana resident, told Agence France-Presse last week.

You could have sworn you did not spend that much, but once again, you get to the end of the month, and the numbers in your bank account are not quite adding up. So, what gives? There is one easy way to get to the bottom of this mystery: expense tracking. By taking note of every time you spend throughout the month, you can more easily see where you might be overspending and where you might be able to cut back.

What are the benefits of tracking your spending?

Tracking your spending is effectively an exercise in attention. When you get into the nitty-gritty of your day-to-day expenditures, you can quickly start to see where exactly your money is going and identify patterns in your spending.

That noticing is only the first step, however — “pairing action with that attention is what really makes a difference,” said Nerdwallet. With increased awareness, perhaps you can figure out what is causing you to veer off budget each month and then make adjustments there. Or, maybe you will spot spending you did not even totally realize was happening, such as on subscriptions or other recurring purchases. Once you cut those out, you free up room in your budget to put towards building your emergency savings account, paying off debt or inching closer to your long-term financial goals.

Ultimately, “not only is tracking spending fundamental to understanding where your money is going, but it also ensures that your spending truly aligns with your goals and priorities,” said Daniel E. Milks, certified financial planner and co-founder of Fiduciary Organization, to Fortera Credit Union.

Is expense tracking the same thing as budgeting?

Expense tracking and budgeting certainly can go hand in hand, but they are not one and the same. Tracking your spending simply refers to the act of “monitoring where your money goes,” whereas “budgeting is more of a proactive approach to managing your money,” said Chase.

You can think of expense tracking as an information-gathering step, with the data you gather there informing the budget you create and adhere to.

How can you track your spending?

There are a number of ways that you can go about tracking your spending. The best option will be whichever feels easiest to you.

A “notebook or printed tracker,” for instance, can be “good for people who remember better by writing things down,” while a spreadsheet can work well for those who “like totals, categories and monthly comparisons,” said MoneyFit, a nonprofit financial education and counseling organization.

There are also a variety of budgeting apps and tools available. “For those who prefer the convenience of automation, linking checking and savings accounts to a budgeting app can often simplify the process,” said Milks to Fortera Credit Union.