Latest news with #WPAPool
Edinburgh Live
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Edinburgh Live
Strictly's Amy Dowden hints at 'exciting news' after doing 'everything to stay alive'
Amy Dowden has opened up on her cancer battle over the past few years, reflecting on her incredible journey since her diagnosis. The Strictly Come Dancing favourite battled breast cancer and shared news of her diagnosis publicly in May 2023. She recounted the chilling moment she discovered a lump in April, just before embarking on her honeymoon with her dancer husband Ben Jones. This led to Amy facing a single mastectomy and chemotherapy. In February 2024, Amy confirmed that she had "no evidence of disease" based on recent medical tests. Then, the survivor rejoined Strictly for its milestone 20th-anniversary edition last year. Embracing every moment, the talented dancer expressed how thankful she is while soaking up the sun on a joyful holiday with Ben and friends. Sharing snaps of herself enjoying some rest and relaxation on a sunlounger, Amy expressed on Instagram: "What a day! Forever grateful!". Her post continued: "Two years ago I was doing everything I could to be alive with chemo ahead! Now I'm living every day to the fullest! Forever grateful." But it didn't end there – as Amy was later stunned by some "super exciting news". Amy teased an update with her followers, writing: "l've just found out some super exciting news that I can't share yet but can't wait to," alongside a photo. She continued: "Honestly can't believe it. FaceTimed mom and dad and their reactions were just so cute." (Image: WPA Pool, Getty Images) It comes as Amy celebrates a year since being awarded an MBE. In a post to Instagram, the Strictly Come Dancing star shared: "A year ago it was announced on the Kings birthday honours list I would be receiving an MBE for my fund raising and raising awareness for inflammatory bowel disease! "Such an honour and one that still feels surreal! Congratulations to all those announced this weekend on this year honours list. I will forever do all I can to keep raising awareness and fundraising for both inflammatory bowel disease and breast cancer." A recent post to Instagram from Amy also had her sharing her love of the sun, with many fans joking she should bring the nice weather back home with her. Fans were thrilled to see the post and praised Amy. One fan joked: "Bring that sky back to Wales please." Another shared: "So gorg!!! Hope you're having the BEST time." Another fan shared they had been holidaying in the same area just last week and that they had a brilliant time. They wrote: "I was there last week. Fabulous place. Have a great time."
New Statesman
4 days ago
- Business
- New Statesman
Labour's vicious blame game
Photo by Jacob King - WPA Pool / Getty Images. Next week marks the first anniversary of Labour entering government – though you could be forgiven for forgetting. Not just because of the distracting spectre of World War Three but because this now bears little resemblance to a one-year administration. The mood is instead reminiscent of the dark days of Rishi Sunak's government – when the prime minister struggled to impose his will on a quarrelsome party – or of late-era Tony Blair when three-figure rebellions became the norm. Despite frantic phone calls by cabinet ministers, 126 Labour MPs have signed a wrecking amendment to the welfare bill (including 71 of the new intake, once depicted as comically loyal 'Starmtroopers'). Threats of deselection have proven no deterrent to MPs who already expect to lose their seats and 'want to leave the Commons standing tall and proud' in the words of one rebel. The scale of the revolt has stunned plenty in Westminster but the warning signs have been clear for months. From the moment the government announced its intention to cut health and disability benefits by £5bn, outrage and upset spread far beyond the 'usual suspects' (as ministers refer to the likes of the Socialist Campaign Group). 'Too many of the proposals have been driven by the need for short-term savings to meet fiscal rules, rather than long-term reform,' warned the Resolution Foundation, the body previously led by Labour minister Torsten Bell, back in March. 'The result risks being a major income shock for millions of low-income households.' Here is precisely why so many Labour MPs have revolted (370,000 current Personal Independence Payment claimants and 430,000 future ones would lose an average of £4,500 per year). Government officials now identify the failure to make a 'moral' case for the bill as the defining problem. And the cuts were transparently driven by the desire for savings. As one Labour MP puts it, 'the magician's cloak fell' when Rachel Reeves added an extra £500m of cuts just a day before her Spring Statement (after a worse-than-expected OBR forecast). But the problem is not simply that the moral argument was not made – it is that Labour rebels don't believe any such case exists. Indeed, attempts by ministers to convince them to the contrary have only stiffened their resolve. A party that often defines its moral purpose as reducing poverty cannot accept a bill forecast to achieve the opposite (an additional 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, would be left in relative poverty). No 10 is now planning concessions to avert a government defeat when parliament votes next Tuesday (83 Labour rebels would be enough to deny Starmer victory). 'There will be a ladder for people to climb down,' one cabinet minister tells me. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe In the meantime, a vicious internal blame game has begun. Reeves and No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney are those often singled out by critics – the two figures who Starmer outsourced economic and political strategy to. Reeves is accused of 'lacking political antennae' and of failing to learn the lessons of the winter fuel debacle (when Labour similarly underestimated the revolt that benefit cuts would unleash). 'Don't be surprised if she's gone at the next cabinet reshuffle,' one senior party figure remarks (though Starmer has so far remained conspicuously loyal). McSweeney, critics say, has pursued a Reform-focused electoral strategy that has alienated Labour from once-loyal supporters – with a 'forgotten flank' defecting to the Greens and the Lib Dems – and has adopted an 'imperious' party management style that has created a deep disconnect between No 10 and backbenchers. There is a well-established pattern in British politics of blaming the courtiers rather than the king – and it is one that some in Labour inveigh against. 'How many heads have to roll before people remember who the PM is?' one previously loyal MP asks (it was once Sue Gray who was identified as the root of the government's woes). 'People have got to start laying the lack of leadership at Keir's feet.' By this account, Labour's routine stumbles and ever more frequent U-turns are symptoms of a far deeper malaise – a Prime Minister who has lacked direction from the moment he entered Downing Street. In one year, Starmer has managed to use up an impressive number of his political lives. The question even some cabinet ministers are already asking is how many he has left. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Can the ceasefire hold?] Related
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
King Charles in surprise move for Donald Trump
Buckingham Palace has confirmed a surprise move to Donald Trump's expected visit to the UK, bringing forward a planned state visit, reportedly because PM Keir Starmer wants to 'curry favour ' with the US president. Mr Trump will be given all the 'bells and whistles' during the visit now planned for later this year. It is understood that the formal document required to initiate a state visit, known as the Manu Regia, was delivered to the White House last week by a member of the British Embassy. The visit had been planned for next year but UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer pushed for it to be sooner, despite concern from King Charles about Mr Trump's statements regarding Canada, where Charles is head of state. The King had reportedly expressed concerns about Mr Trump's threats to Canada, after he repeatedly claimed the country could become the '51st state' of the United States, and saw it as a reason not to rush a state visit. The King did not want to celebrate Mr Trump with a state visit while he was 'impugning his sovereignty' over Canada, The Times reports. Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he was not impressed with Britain's invitation to Mr Trump at a time when he was threatening to annex the country. Donald Trump with Queen Elizabeth II during his last State visit in 2019. Credit: Victoria Jones / AP During a visit to the White House in February, Sir Keir presented Mr Trump with a letter from the King in which he proposed a meeting in Scotland to discuss details of the state visit. But that informal meeting, while the King was in Scotland over the summer, will no longer happen due to scheduling issues. The timing of the State visit has not yet been confirmed but is likely to be in September. 'His Majesty has known President Trump for many years and looks forward to hosting him and the first lady later this year,' a Buckingham Palace aide said. Mr Trump's last state visit to the UK was during his first term in 2019 with Queen Elizabeth. President Donald Trump, Queen Elizabeth II, First Lady Melania Trump, then-Prince Charles and Camilla attend a State Banquet at Buckingham Palace in 2019. Credit: WPA Pool / Getty Images Traditionally, second-term US presidents are not offered a state visit and have instead been invited for tea or lunch with the monarch at Windsor Castle, BBC reports. 'They're going to do a second, as you know, a second fest… that's what it is: a fest, and it's beautiful, and it's the first time it's ever happened to one person,' Mr Trump said in April. 'And the reason is we have two separate terms, and it's an honour… I'm a friend of Charles, I have great respect for King Charles and the family, William, we have really just a great respect for the family. 'And I think they're setting a date for September.'
Grazia USA
4 days ago
- Lifestyle
- Grazia USA
Do Women Prefer Beards or a Clean-Shaven Look? The Answer Might Depend on Their Age
LONDON, ENGLAND – MAY 20: David Beckham wearing a David Austin Roses 'King's Rose' waits to meet the King during a visit to the RHS Chelsea Flower Show at Royal Hospital Chelsea on May 20, 2025 in London, England. (Photo by Toby Melville – WPA Pool / Getty Images) The debate over beards versus a clean-shaven man has long captured the interest of men and women alike. But does a woman's age influence which look she finds more attractive? According to research and grooming trends, the answer may be more nuanced than many assume. Beards and Younger Women: What the Studies Say Several studies have examined how women perceive facial hair. A notable one, published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Dixson et al., 2016), found that women across a range of ages tended to rate men with beards as more attractive and masculine vs. clean-shaven men. Researchers noted that beards can signal maturity and strength, making them a popular choice — especially among younger adults — for dating and long‑term partnerships. While this doesn't mean every woman in her 20s or 30s prefers a beard, many seem to be drawn to well‑groomed stubble or a fuller beard as a sign of individuality and confidence. The trend has also been reflected in mainstream culture, where bearded celebrities and influencers dominate style guides and social media feeds. The Appeal of a Clean Shave for Older Women For women in their 40s and beyond, trends and anecdotal evidence suggest that a clean‑shaven look may carry certain advantages. According to behavioral trend analyses and commentary in lifestyle media, many women in this demographic tend to perceive clean‑shaven men as approachable, trustworthy, and polished. While concrete, peer‑reviewed studies focusing exclusively on women's age‑based preference for clean‑shaven looks are scarce, the association appears to align with broader perceptions about grooming and professionalism. In many workplaces and social settings, a smooth, well‑groomed appearance is still viewed as a timeless symbol of reliability and sophistication. Why Might Preferences Vary with Age? The reasons behind these evolving trends may relate to both biological and social factors. Evolutionary psychology suggests that younger women can be more attuned to traits that signify strength and maturity, such as a beard. Meanwhile, as women move into later life stages, priorities can shift towards traits like approachability, emotional intelligence, and trustworthiness — characteristics that may be symbolically represented by a clean‑shaven look. It's worth noting that personal taste doesn't fit neatly into any category, and countless women of all ages have strong and varied preferences when it comes to facial hair. The Final Take: Confidence Is What Truly Matters While trends and studies can point to patterns, one fact remains universally true: a man's grooming choice is most attractive when it suits his features, style, and, above all, his confidence. Whether opting for rugged beards vs. sharp, clean‑shaven looks, the best choice is the one that allows a person to present themselves authentically. In the end, beauty — and attractiveness — are deeply individual. What truly captures attention is how a person carries themselves, regardless of the style that suits their face. topics: men's facial hair, Male Grooming, dating
New Statesman
16-06-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
Labour is heading for war over welfare cuts
Photo by Jordan Pettitt - WPA Pool / Getty Images After the celebration, the hangover. Rachel Reeves' £300bn Spending Review gave Labour MPs plenty to cheer but reality soon intruded. GDP was revealed to have shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April (as Donald Trump's tariffs and higher taxes depressed growth). Israel and Iran's escalating conflict has only further darkened the global outlook. How, in this climate, will Reeves' largesse be paid for? Higher taxes are one answer (the Treasury is already compiling potential revenue raisers ahead of this autumn's Budget); the other is more cuts. When Keir Starmer last month U-turned on winter fuel payments and indicated his intent to abolish the two-child benefit limit, some inside Labour questioned whether the government's welfare bill would ever emerge. But the answer will become clear this week with legislation due to be published on Wednesday ahead of a vote next month. No 10 maintains that there is not just a fiscal case but a moral case for the bill. 'Winter fuel was a policy that was forced on us in a difficult situation at the start,' an aide told me. 'Welfare reform is an argument that we want to make about how to protect the most vulnerable and how to help people into work.' Starmer himself is moved to passion on this question, telling the cabinet earlier this year that there is 'nothing progressive' about a system in which one in eight young people are not in employment, education or training, and one in ten working-age people are claiming at least one type of health or disability benefit (with spending projected to rise from £48.5bn in 2023-24 to £75.7bn in 2029-30). But he faces the biggest revolt of his premiership to date. Forty-two Labour MPs have signed a public letter describing the £5bn cuts – which would see 370,000 current Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants and 430,000 future ones lose an average of £4,500 – as 'impossible to support'. More than 100 have signed a private letter to the Chief Whip ('none of us are consistent rebels,' they emphasise), warning that they too are unable to endorse the proposals. Here is why a government with a Commons majority of 165 seats has been forced to contemplate the possibility of defeat (with Downing Street also primed for ministerial resignations). The Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall – who faces the defining test of her political career – has sought to contain the rebellion by offering an 'olive branch' to critics. Those who no longer qualify for PIP would continue to receive payments for 13 weeks (rather than the standard four) and those with lifelong conditions or fewer than 12 months to live would automatically receive a higher rate of Universal Credit and be exempt from reassessments. By the end of the parliament, No 10 points out, there will still be an extra 750,000 people receiving PIP. Yet most MPs remain unmoved. 'The hang-tough position dressed up as concessions won't wash,' one soft-left figure told me. 'MPs know how this stuff works and can't be fobbed off.' Many privately warn that only a change in the assessment criteria would persuade them to support the bill. At present individuals who need help dressing, washing and feeding themselves would no longer receive PIP. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe What lies ahead is nothing less than a battle over Labour's founding purpose. For some – as cabinet ministers often like to put it, 'the clue is in the name' – this is the party of work, not welfare. Others riposte that Labour's duty is precisely to support those unable to support themselves. Kendall's task is to convince rebels that her bill does. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Impunity is fuelling Israel's spiralling aggression] Related
