As her party struggles with declining poll numbers as a result of the cost-of-living crisis, UK deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has admitted she underpaid property tax on a purchase of a home.
After initially relying on incorrect advice, Rayner, who also serves as housing minister, confirmed she owed more tax on a property she purchased in southern England’s Hove.
She told Sky News on Wednesday, “I’m devastated because I’ve always upheld the rules and always have done so.” According to the advice I received at the time, I “made a mistake.”
She is now under pressure as Labour struggles to win the election, a year after Keir Starmer won by a landslide.
In a June YouGov poll, Reform’s victory over Labour’s party in parliament has soared to 271 seats, putting Labour’s lead at 178. Just 46 seats would be occupied by the Conservatives, who suffered a historic defeat last year.
Rayner, 45, is thought to be a contender for the position of ministerial leader in the future, but her future may depend on an independent ministerial standards investigation. Prior to purchasing the Hove property, her opponents have accused her of avoiding 40, 000 pounds ($54, 000) in stamp duty on a second home.
resignation calls
Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservatives, urged Starmer to sack her at Prime Minister’s Questions. Starmer defended his deputy, claiming she had “over and above” the transparency requirements for her property dealings and that he was “very proud” to work with her.
Four ministers have already resigned over misconduct since the Labour government’s election, which has already shook the organization. Starmer and Rayner received criticism earlier this year for accepting donations for expensive clothing, which they later discontinued.
Rayner is widely regarded as one of Labour’s most powerful political assets because of her blunt style and strong working-class roots.
She gained notoriety from a posh background and frequently used her story to make connections with disenchanted voters. According to political analysts, Starmer’s leadership team’s potential demise is a significant blow because of her significant appeal to working-class communities as a key component of Labour’s strategy.
The controversy comes as Labour battles sluggish economic growth, anger over welfare-cuts, and frustration among voters who voted for sweeping change last year. Farage positioning himself as the voice of working-class Britons, according to pollsters, indicates a high level of public outcry at the mainstream parties.
United States and Europe have long used unilateral sanctions as a means of imperial power to discipline and even overthrow Global South governments that seek to end Western dominance, chart a free path, and establish any kind of meaningful sovereignty.
In any given year, there were on average about 15 nations subject to unilateral sanctions from the West during the 1970s. In many cases, these sanctions sought to stifle trade and finance, destabilize industries, and exacerbate crises to stoke state collapse.
The US government, for instance, harshly retaliated against Chile when the popular socialist Salvador Allende won the election in 1970. US President Richard Nixon stated at a White House meeting in September 1970 that the goal was to “make Chile’s] economy scream.” The sanctions, according to historian Peter Kornbluh, were an “invisible blockade” that deposed Chile of access to international money, sparked social unrest, and opened the door for the US-backed coup that erected the brutal right-wing dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
The US and Europe have since used sanctions in a significant way. In any given year, an average of 30 nations were subject to unilateral sanctions from the West during the 1990s and 2000s. It is more than 60% of the countries in the Global South as of the 2020s, which is a staggering high proportion.
Sanctions frequently have a significant impact on people. Scholars have demonstrated this in a number of well-known cases, including the US’s sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, which caused widespread malnormation, a lack of clean water, and a shortage of medicine and electricity. More recently, US economic strife against Venezuela has caused a severe economic crisis, according to a study that found that 40, 000 extra-dead deaths occurred between 2017 and 2018 in one year.
Researchers have focused on understanding the human toll of sanctions on a case-by-case basis up until now. This work is challenging, and it only ever provides a glimpse into the finished product. However, this has changed with the release of new research, which was first published in The Lancet Global Health this year. The University of Denver study, led by economist Francisco Rodriguez, calculates the total number of extra-deaths caused by international sanctions between 1970 and 2021.
The outcomes are astounding. According to their principal estimate, the authors discover that the US and the EU have since instituted unilateral sanctions that have resulted in 38 million deaths. More than a million people died in the 1990s, some years. Sanctions were responsible for more than 800 000 deaths in the most recent year of data, 2021.
According to these results, sanctions cause approximately 100, 000 deaths annually, which is more than direct casualties of war (on average, around 100, 000). Children and the elderly, who are most susceptible to malnutrition, account for more than half of the victims. According to the study, more than one million children have been killed by sanctions since 2012 alone.
Hunger and poverty are a key goal of Western sanctions, not an accidental result. A State Department memo from April 1960, which explains the purpose of US sanctions against Cuba, makes this clear. According to the memo, Fidel Castro and the revolution in general enjoyed acclaim in Cuba. It argued that “every possible means should be taken seriously to weaken the economic life of Cuba,” that “distribution of resources to Cuba, a reduction in monetary and real wages, hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of government should be taken seriously.”
The effectiveness of Western sanctions depends on their dominance of the world’s reserve currencies (the US dollar and the euro), their dominance of SWIFT, and their monopoly over key technologies (such as satellites, cloud computing, and software). Countries in the Global South will need to take steps to lessen their dependence on these things and protect themselves from negative feedback if they want to chart a more independent path towards a multipolar world. Such a strategy can be successful, according to recent Russian experience.
By establishing new payment systems outside Western control, establishing South-South trade and swap lines between the main currencies, using regional planning to develop necessary technologies, and establishing new payment systems, governments can increase their independence. In fact, several nations are already implementing this strategy. Importantly, new Chinese systems (such as CIPS for international payments, BeiDou for satellites, Huawei for telecom) now offer other world South countries alternative options that can help them break Western dependence and the sanctions net.
These actions are both morally necessary and necessary for nations that want to experience sovereign development. We cannot accept the fact that half a million people are murdered annually to advance Western hegemony. This kind of violence must be replaced and eliminated from an international order.
Due to the food company’s burden of tariff-driven economic uncertainty, Campbell’s Co anticipates sales to decline in the upcoming year.
The New Jersey-based company predicted that its sales will likely remain flat or decline by as much as 2 percent in the upcoming year in its fourth quarter earnings report released on Wednesday.
For the 2026 fiscal year that started on August 4, Campbell’s, which is best known for its canned soup products, said it anticipates that tariffs will account for about 4% of the cost of goods.
As inflation affects how much money consumers spend, the company says it will try to lower the cost by introducing price increases and other cost-saving measures.
CEO Mick Beekhuizen stated that consumers are becoming more and more deliberate about their food choices.
The most recent consumer price index report for the month of July, which was released in mid-August, revealed an increase in overall food prices at home of 2.2 percent compared to the same time last year.
The company faces “a dynamic operating and regulatory environment,” according to Beekhuizen, which has led to significant input cost pressures, primarily caused by tariffs, which, despite significant efforts to mitigate, lower its earnings outlook for the upcoming fiscal year.
According to LSEG’s data, Campbell anticipates an annual adjusted profit per share decrease of 18% to between $ 2.40 and $ 2.55, including tariffs, and below $ 2.63.
Steel, which has been subject to high tariffs, is used in food products like Campbell’s and its rivals. The Can Manufacturers Institute earlier this year issued a warning that tariffs would put strain on food producers, especially given that domestic steel production for cans has fallen by 75% in the last eight years.
Nearly 80% of the tin mill steel is now imported from trade allies, according to Robert Budway, president of the Can Manufacturers Institute at the time.
Campbell’s Co. reported a 1% increase in net sales for the fourth quarter, or $2.3 billion. Additionally, the quarter’s price increased by 2%, making up for the volume decline by 4%.
cuts caused by food dye
By the second half of the 2026 fiscal year, the company that makes the Goldfish snack will stop using artificial food dyes in its products. The company intends to replace them with more conventional options like Lance crackers and V8 Splash’s purple carrot juice, which are made from the achiote tree seeds and annatto, an orange-red food condiment made from the seeds of the achiote tree.
In response to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative and consumer preferences, it joins industry peers like PepsiCo, Kraft-Heinz, and Nestle in replacing synthetic food dyes with natural ones.
In order to deport Venezuelans as part of its immigration crackdown, a federal appeals court has found that Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully invoked a wartime law.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was cited by Trump’s use of it to expedite deportations without a fair trial on Tuesday by a majority of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On several fronts, the choice was remarkable. Trump’s use of the 18th-century law was the first time a federal appellate court had evaluated the use of it, and it also served as a staunch condemnation of his mass deportation campaign from a court known for leaning conservative.
Judge Leslie Southwick refuted Trump’s claim that Tren de Aragua, a member of the Venezuelan gang, was a US invasion, in writing for the three-person bench.
According to Southwick, “we draw the conclusion that the findings do not support the existence of a predatory invasion or incursion.”
Therefore, we believe that petitioners’ arguments are likely to support the improper use of the AEA [Alien Enemies Act] by the petitioners.
The government is only permitted to detain and deport citizens of “hostile” foreign nations when they are at war or when they are “invasion or predatory incursions” under the Alien Enemies Act.
The law had only been used three times, and only once during war, prior to Trump. However, Trump administration officials have cited the law as a justification for the swift deportation of Venezuelan nationals because they constitute a criminal “invasion” across the border.
That claim was refuted by Southwick, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.
There is no evidence that the mass immigration was caused by an armed, organized force, or by any other organization, according to Southwick.
The panel’s decision regarding Trump’s deportations has been made by the highest federal court so far. The US Supreme Court is expected to hear the case eventually.
However, the appeals court’s decision on Tuesday had a narrower scope: it only applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but it may also be used as precedent in other appeals court circuits.
On March 15, Trump first invoked the Alien Enemies Act by publishing an executive order accusing the Tren de Aragua gang of “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion” into the US.
The Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT), a maximum-security facility known for human rights violations, was visited by his administration on the same day.
Despite a lower judge’s request to forbid his use of the law while the flights were afoot, that transpired.
Although their lawyers claim that many of the Venezuelan migrants on those flights had no criminal records, Trump officials claimed that the Venezuelans were Tren de Aragua members.
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a long-time adversary of the Republican leader, controls Tren de Aragua in order to meet the requirements for using the Alien Enemies Act.
In a coordinated effort to destabilize the US, Trump has accused Maduro of being the mastermind of a “narco-terrorism enterprise.” However, a declassified US intelligence memo refutes this assertion, claiming that Maduro and Tren de Aragua had no connection to each other.
All 11 alleged Tren de Aragua members were killed when the US attacked a boat in international Caribbean waters on Tuesday, according to the US statement. Trump referred to them as “narcoterrorists.”
The US Supreme Court has twice heard cases involving Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, but it has not yet determined whether the Trump administration’s actions are legitimate.
The Supreme Court ruled in April that immigrants should still be able to file for deportations under the law, but that they should still have “reasonable time” to file objections.
Additionally, it recommended that courts elsewhere in the country address these disputes rather than the federal ones where the deportees are being held.
In a second decision, which was made in April, the Supreme Court halted a group of Venezuelan men’s deportations from northern Texas.
The Supreme Court then extended the block in May, criticizing the Trump administration for attempting to remove detainees quickly just one day after issuing deportation notices.
The majority of the opinion was clear: “Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights,” “seen as a muster.”
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was ultimately given the go-ahead for the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer Lee Gelernt called the decision a “critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts” in a statement released following the decision on Tuesday.
The Venezuelan men were represented by the ACLU.
However, one judge, a Trump appointee named Andrew Oldham, dissented from the Fifth Circuit Court decision on Tuesday.
According to Oldham, the president has the right to decide whether the necessary conditions were met in terms of the Alien Enemies Act’s deportations and that they are “matters of political judgment.”
A Palestine Action supporter was allegedly present at a Zoom meeting to protest the government’s designation of the group as a “terrorist” organization, according to UK police.
The US stock market has been performing exceptionally well, many investors assuming it is overpriced.
The benchmark S&, P 500 has increased by more than 60% since early 2023, surpassing all previous highs, despite concerns about US President Donald Trump’s tariffs and concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) overhype.
The explosive growth has a price for investors: according to some, US stocks are now more expensive than ever.
According to GuruFocus, the highest price-to-sales ratio on record, an investor buying into the S&, P 500 last week had to pay over $3.25 for every $1 in revenue generated by its 500 constituent firms.
The benchmark index is still trading at more than 22 times forward earnings, which is significantly higher than the historical average, even though US stocks appear less expensive in relation to company profits forecasts.
Nine out of ten fund managers surveyed by Bank of America said they thought US stocks were overvalued in a poll conducted last month.
Some analysts have drawn comparisons to the late 1990s dotcom bubble due to the market’s sky-high market value.
Shares of the tech-heavy Nasdaq rose by about 80% before losing almost all of their gains between 2000 and 2022 as a result of the excitement surrounding the growth of the Internet.
No one is certain what a stock really is worth, according to James Angel, a McDonough School of Business expert on financial markets at Georgetown University.
Only God is able to predict the future. Stock prices have always been and will always be very volatile as a result of this uncertainty. A small change in the market’s general consensus forecast of future performance can cause a significant and unexpected decline in value.
Investors are not renouncing their reservations about the value of US stocks, despite the fact that they are becoming more and more concerned about the price of the stocks.
The S&, P 500, which is on track to comfortably surpass its average annual return in 2025, reached five all-time highs in August alone and is now up about 10% this year.
[File: Angela Weiss/AFP] US stocks are now at their lowest levels.
Analysts have provided a number of explanations for the market’s untamed ascent, including the remarkable profitability of the “Magnificent Seven”: Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Meta, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet, as well as the still untapped potential of AI.
Aswath Damodaran, a professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business, noted that “earnings at US companies have held up surprisingly well and continue to grow.”
“AI may have increased the value of a few of the major tech companies and those who create AI architecture,” Damodaran continued, but it cannot explain the market’s overall rise.
Some investors have been concerned about the “Magnificent Seven,” who make up about one-third of the S&, P 500, but such concentration is not unprecedented.
The market dynamics of a few companies can be traced back to the late 18th century, according to Robert E. Wright, a lecturer in the Department of Economics at Central Michigan University.
According to Wright, “property insurers were the most important technology at the time,” followed by banks.
“Later, textile mills and other companies were established, railroads and, inevitably, automobiles. The measurement of capitalization is different, so we can’t be too precise, but the pattern seems to be the same: innovations lead to success, investment, and more success until commodification. The cycle then starts over in a different field.
Herd behavior
The market’s stellar performance, as well as the recent shift away from actively managed mutual funds to passive index funds, have prosaic explanations been provided.
More people are buying stocks now than ever thanks to the increased popularity of funds that monitor the , S&, P500, and other broad market measures.
Human psychology, however, could be a bigger factor than any other economic indicator.
Herd behavior, according to Stephen Thomas, a professor at the UK’s Bayes Business School, is more accurate for explaining stock market movements than business performance or the state of the economy.
The only proven investment strategy with both historical support and cross-account support is “momentum,” which means that what goes up continues to rise until it doesn’t, according to Thomas.
According to Thomas, “Fund managers can’t afford to fall behind their competitors.”
“And these are using momentum either secretly or deliberately. They behave therefore in a rational manner in terms of firm behavior and, in fact, in terms of our understanding of investment strategies.
Herd behavior is one reason behind stock market moves, experts say [File: Frank Franklin II/AP]
Steep falls
A stock market crash cannot be accurately predicted.
However, the market frequently exhibits steep falls.
The market has fallen 20 percent or more from its peak 15 times since World War II’s end.
In the majority of those cases, the market recovered to its peak within a few years, but the worst crashes kept investors in the red for a long time.
For nearly 13 years, investors who were hit by the dot-com bust and the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 struggled to fully recover their losses.
However, if there is one thing that practically everyone agrees on, it is that trying to time the market.
According to Angel, “waiting to see a trend is so dangerous is the result of some of the best uptrends occurring soon after the worst downtrends occur.”
1933, when the Great Depression was at the height of the stock market, was the “best year in US stock market history.” When it became clear that a recovery was in progress, the market quickly rallied because the market had already fallen so much.
Investors who feel they are within their risk tolerance, according to Burton Malkiel, a professor of economics at Princeton University, should shift the balance of their portfolios towards lower-risk assets, such as bonds, and hold onto more cash rather than attempt to time the market.
