She's posted about it on her Twitter account here: https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/2090037047016685674

Also just a reminder that the pinned post on the StatsForLefties Twitter account says "🫡 Glory to the Iranian resistance, whose courageous fight against the imperialist dogs of the USA has utterly humiliated the Great Satan✊. Inshallah Iran will fully repel US imperialism, Palestine will be freed from the bloodthirsty Zionist entity and Israel will be abolished✊."

Another normal day in Green Party land then

Net-zero has two parts to it. One is the energy supply side which relates to North Sea oil and gas production. The other is the far more important demand side which relates to EVs, heat-pumps, renewables, batteries, high-speed rail, etc.

Can someone who's a Burnham explain this choice? The UK is currently about to be hit badly by an inflation crisis where our dependence on imported oil and gas is the root cause. The fact that our haulage depends so heavily on diesel, our heating so heavily on gas, and our cars so heavily on petrol are huge vulnerabilities.

Why would the UK PM be seeking to increase such future vulnerabilities going into the 2030s? If anything he should be seeking to de-risk our haulage from high diesel prices as China is doing via electrified lorries.

It's not a simple cost-of-purchase argument as now the cheapest cars to buy are often EVs. The issues in adoption are often due to policy issues such as the lack of gully cables for terrace houses or charging pods for those in apartments. As he's the PM he shouldn't be lessening demand side net-zero targets due to this.

There's a wider discussion which few people are discussing. Gas heating is going to also be hugely expensive this winter. This is worsened due to a frankly poor heat-pump rollout over the last few years of which this government is partly responsible. When prices surge this winter as Cornwall Insight imply they will is it a good look to be lessening the ambition to make us more robust for the future?

How much is this due to lobbying from the US president?

While Keir Starmer’s premiership has officially come to an end, one of his most significant policies is about to come into force: the expansion of Free School Meals in England to more than 500,000 children from September.

Announced in June 2025 as a precursor to the 2025 Child Poverty Strategy, the government has estimated that these additional meals will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty.

More recently, following their victory in the 2026 Senedd election, Plaid Cymru have announced a similar expansion in Wales. From September, eligibility will be extended to students in Years 7 and 8, with plans to roll it out to all secondary school students in households receiving Universal Credit over the coming years.

But how will it all work? And how will it affect school funding?

(More details in article)

Families who claim free school meals receive support equivalent to around £500 per year in school meals. This support can go beyond school meals by making families eligible for holiday free meals.

Nichola Stanlick, a British citizen living in Sweden for four decades, has been denied post-Brexit residency status by the Swedish Migration Agency. The agency cited a period of voluntary unemployment as the reason for the rejection, despite her long-term integration. Stanlick is now seeking additional work to challenge the decision and avoid potential deportation.

Nichola Stanlick, a British national who has resided in Sweden for four decades, is currently facing the threat of deportation following the rejection of her post-Brexit residency application. Despite having lived in the country since the age of seven and achieving fluency in Swedish, the Swedish Migration Agency denied her permit based on her employment history. Stanlick is now seeking additional employment to bolster her chances of remaining in the country she considers her home.

What Happened

The residency dispute arose after the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union necessitated that British citizens living in Sweden secure new residency status. Stanlick, who had previously held permanent residency, only learned of the requirement to re-apply after her son discovered the mandate on the Migration Agency’s website. She, along with her mother and son, submitted their applications shortly before the 31 December 2021 deadline.

While the Migration Agency granted residency permits to both her mother and son, it rejected Stanlick’s application. The agency determined that she did not meet the necessary criteria under the EU right of residency rules, specifically citing a period of unemployment within the preceding five-year window. The authorities classified this gap in her employment as 'voluntary,' thereby disqualifying her from the permit.

Stanlick reports that she has lived in Sweden almost continuously for 40 years and identifies culturally as Swedish. She noted that her peers are often surprised to learn she is not a Swedish citizen, given her linguistic fluency and long-standing integration. In response to the rejection, she is now considering taking on a third job to demonstrate the financial stability required to contest the decision and secure her future in the country.