17-year-old Loki star Jack Veal shares update after revealing he’s homelessJonBenét Ramsey Shocker: Film Director Bickers with Police as Family Waits for Answers

Scottish artist Jasleen Kaur has won the Turner Prize for her solo exhibition Alter Altar, which includes an installation of a car with a giant doily on it. Happy Valley actor James Norton announced the winner in a ceremony held at Tate Britain on Tuesday evening. The five jury members chose Kaur for “her ability to gather different voices through unexpected and playful combinations of material, from Irn-Bru to family photographs and a vintage Ford Escort, locating moments of resilience and possibility”. Kaur, who was born in Glasgow but lives and works in London, used her speech to advocate for the people in Palestine. The 38-year-old said she wanted to “echo the calls of the protesters outside” who had gathered after an open letter urged the Tate to cut ties with “organisations complicit in what the UN and ICJ are finally getting closer to saying is a genocide of the Palestinian people”. “This is not a radical demand,” Kaur said on stage. “This should not risk an artist’s career or safety. We’re trying to build consensus that the ties to these organisations are unethical, just as artists did with Sackler,” she said, referencing the family linked to the opioid epidemic. “I’ve been wondering why artists are required to dream up liberation in the gallery but when that dream meets life we are shut down. “I want the separation between the expression of politics in the gallery and the practice of politics in life to disappear. “I want the institution to understand that if you want us inside, you need to listen to us outside.” Kaur concluded her speech by calling for a ceasefire, adding: “Free Palestine.” BBC reporter Katie Razzall had to apologise to viewers after Kaur used a swear word in her speech. The artist was nominated for an exhibition that was held at the Tramway in her home city last year. The display, a series of installations exploring religious identities, politics and history, makes heavy use of different sounds, embedded into the exhibition by way of worship bells, Sufi Islamic devotional music, Indian harmonium, and pop tracks. This year the arts prize, named after British painter JMW Turner, which awards £25,000 to its winner, is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Established in 1984, the prize is awarded each year to a British artist for an outstanding exhibition or other presentation of their work. Previous recipients include sculptor Sir Anish Kapoor (1991), artist Damien Hirst (1995), and filmmaker Sir Steve McQueen (1999). In 2025, the prize will be presented in Bradford at Cartwright Hall art gallery, marking the 250th anniversary of Turner’s birth. The exhibition of the four shortlisted artists – Pio Abad, Claudette Johnson, Delaine Le Bas, and Kaur – is at Tate Britain until February 16 2025.Guardiola admits City are 'fragile' after Champions League collapse

Even if we lived in a fishbowl, the turbulence in our political scene would be important. New Democracy finally rid itself of a former prime minister who was continually seeking attention by playing the popular roles of embittered messiah and compulsive Cassandra. SYRIZA abdicated the role of official opposition by splitting continually in its search for leadership and a policy. PASOK emerged stronger from its own leadership election and is winning back some of the strength that it lost when its support plunged from 44 percent in 2009 to 4.68% in 2015. SYRIZA and PASOK have changed places and percentages, the government is dealing with ever greater fatigue and voter discontent, offering hope to smaller parties for a greater influence. Normally, there would be sufficient time until the next elections for this ferment to lead to new dynamics and new balances which might avert the danger of the political scene’s fragmentation. But Greece has to deal with the great disturbance playing out internationally at dizzying speed and with unpredictable consequences. Whatever happens in the United States, in Ukraine, in the Middle East, in Europe, will affect domestic developments and our place in the world. The Trump Restoration will disrupt much that we know, without anyone able to predict whether this will lead to a new sort of balance or whether things will spiral out of control. Europe is frozen in midstep, as its leading powers, Germany and France, turn inwards to deal with domestic turbulence. Greece’s political leadership must deal with an exceptionally fluid situation without standing on stable ground. This responsibility has seldom made an impression on those who consider themselves protagonists of our public life, as the traditional priority is personal vindication and revenge. They speak on behalf of Greece while they serve their own interests. Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ government is our only choice today. It remains to be seen whether it is good enough to deal with the situation. We shall also see how the various political forces develop in coming months. The government needs a credible opposition and tireless, constructive self-criticism. This is where the “elders” of public life ought to contribute, not in the pursuit of new supporters with outdated theatrical outbursts.Jonah Goldberg Among elites across the ideological spectrum, there's one point of unifying agreement: Americans are bitterly divided. What if that's wrong? What if elites are the ones who are bitterly divided while most Americans are fairly unified? History rarely lines up perfectly with the calendar (the "sixties" didn't really start until the decade was almost over). But politically, the 21st century neatly began in 2000, when the election ended in a tie and the color coding of electoral maps became enshrined as a kind of permanent tribal color war of "red vs. blue." Elite understanding of politics has been stuck in this framework ever since. Politicians and voters have leaned into this alleged political reality, making it seem all the more real in the process. I loathe the phrase "perception is reality," but in politics it has the reifying power of self-fulfilling prophecy. Like rival noble families in medieval Europe, elites have been vying for power and dominance on the arrogant assumption that their subjects share their concern for who rules rather than what the rulers can deliver. Political cartoonists from across country draw up something special for the holiday In 2018, the group More in Common published a massive report on the "hidden tribes" of American politics. The wealthiest and whitest groups were "devoted conservatives" (6%) and "progressive activists" (8%). These tribes dominate the media, the parties and higher education, and they dictate the competing narratives of red vs. blue, particularly on cable news and social media. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Americans resided in, or were adjacent to, the "exhausted majority." These people, however, "have no narrative," as David Brooks wrote at the time. "They have no coherent philosophic worldview to organize their thinking and compel action." Lacking a narrative might seem like a very postmodern problem, but in a postmodern elite culture, postmodern problems are real problems. It's worth noting that red vs. blue America didn't emerge ex nihilo. The 1990s were a time when the economy and government seemed to be working, at home and abroad. As a result, elites leaned into the narcissism of small differences to gain political and cultural advantage. They remain obsessed with competing, often apocalyptic, narratives. That leaves out most Americans. The gladiatorial combatants of cable news, editorial pages and academia, and their superfan spectators, can afford these fights. Members of the exhausted majority are more interested in mere competence. I think that's the hidden unity elites are missing. This is why we keep throwing incumbent parties out of power: They get elected promising competence but get derailed -- or seduced -- by fan service to, or trolling of, the elites who dominate the national conversation. There's a difference between competence and expertise. One of the most profound political changes in recent years has been the separation of notions of credentialed expertise from real-world competence. This isn't a new theme in American life, but the pandemic and the lurch toward identity politics amplified distrust of experts in unprecedented ways. This is a particular problem for the left because it is far more invested in credentialism than the right. Indeed, some progressives are suddenly realizing they invested too much in the authority of experts and too little in the ability of experts to provide what people want from government, such as affordable housing, decent education and low crime. The New York Times' Ezra Klein says he's tired of defending the authority of government institutions. Rather, "I want them to work." One of the reasons progressives find Trump so offensive is his absolute inability to speak the language of expertise -- which is full of coded elite shibboleths. But Trump veritably shouts the language of competence. I don't mean he is actually competent at governing. But he is effectively blunt about calling leaders, experts and elites -- of both parties -- stupid, ineffective, weak and incompetent. He lost in 2020 because voters didn't believe he was actually good at governing. He won in 2024 because the exhausted majority concluded the Biden administration was bad at it. Nostalgia for the low-inflation pre-pandemic economy was enough to convince voters that Trumpian drama is the tolerable price to pay for a good economy. About 3 out of 4 Americans who experienced "severe hardship" because of inflation voted for Trump. The genius of Trump's most effective ad -- "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" -- was that it was simultaneously culture-war red meat and an argument that Harris was more concerned about boutique elite concerns than everyday ones. If Trump can actually deliver competent government, he could make the Republican Party the majority party for a generation. For myriad reasons, that's an if so big it's visible from space. But the opportunity is there -- and has been there all along. Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch: thedispatch.com . Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!Jonah Goldberg Among elites across the ideological spectrum, there's one point of unifying agreement: Americans are bitterly divided. What if that's wrong? What if elites are the ones who are bitterly divided while most Americans are fairly unified? History rarely lines up perfectly with the calendar (the "sixties" didn't really start until the decade was almost over). But politically, the 21st century neatly began in 2000, when the election ended in a tie and the color coding of electoral maps became enshrined as a kind of permanent tribal color war of "red vs. blue." Elite understanding of politics has been stuck in this framework ever since. Politicians and voters have leaned into this alleged political reality, making it seem all the more real in the process. I loathe the phrase "perception is reality," but in politics it has the reifying power of self-fulfilling prophecy. Like rival noble families in medieval Europe, elites have been vying for power and dominance on the arrogant assumption that their subjects share their concern for who rules rather than what the rulers can deliver. Political cartoonists from across country draw up something special for the holiday In 2018, the group More in Common published a massive report on the "hidden tribes" of American politics. The wealthiest and whitest groups were "devoted conservatives" (6%) and "progressive activists" (8%). These tribes dominate the media, the parties and higher education, and they dictate the competing narratives of red vs. blue, particularly on cable news and social media. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Americans resided in, or were adjacent to, the "exhausted majority." These people, however, "have no narrative," as David Brooks wrote at the time. "They have no coherent philosophic worldview to organize their thinking and compel action." Lacking a narrative might seem like a very postmodern problem, but in a postmodern elite culture, postmodern problems are real problems. It's worth noting that red vs. blue America didn't emerge ex nihilo. The 1990s were a time when the economy and government seemed to be working, at home and abroad. As a result, elites leaned into the narcissism of small differences to gain political and cultural advantage. They remain obsessed with competing, often apocalyptic, narratives. That leaves out most Americans. The gladiatorial combatants of cable news, editorial pages and academia, and their superfan spectators, can afford these fights. Members of the exhausted majority are more interested in mere competence. I think that's the hidden unity elites are missing. This is why we keep throwing incumbent parties out of power: They get elected promising competence but get derailed -- or seduced -- by fan service to, or trolling of, the elites who dominate the national conversation. There's a difference between competence and expertise. One of the most profound political changes in recent years has been the separation of notions of credentialed expertise from real-world competence. This isn't a new theme in American life, but the pandemic and the lurch toward identity politics amplified distrust of experts in unprecedented ways. This is a particular problem for the left because it is far more invested in credentialism than the right. Indeed, some progressives are suddenly realizing they invested too much in the authority of experts and too little in the ability of experts to provide what people want from government, such as affordable housing, decent education and low crime. The New York Times' Ezra Klein says he's tired of defending the authority of government institutions. Rather, "I want them to work." One of the reasons progressives find Trump so offensive is his absolute inability to speak the language of expertise -- which is full of coded elite shibboleths. But Trump veritably shouts the language of competence. I don't mean he is actually competent at governing. But he is effectively blunt about calling leaders, experts and elites -- of both parties -- stupid, ineffective, weak and incompetent. He lost in 2020 because voters didn't believe he was actually good at governing. He won in 2024 because the exhausted majority concluded the Biden administration was bad at it. Nostalgia for the low-inflation pre-pandemic economy was enough to convince voters that Trumpian drama is the tolerable price to pay for a good economy. About 3 out of 4 Americans who experienced "severe hardship" because of inflation voted for Trump. The genius of Trump's most effective ad -- "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" -- was that it was simultaneously culture-war red meat and an argument that Harris was more concerned about boutique elite concerns than everyday ones. If Trump can actually deliver competent government, he could make the Republican Party the majority party for a generation. For myriad reasons, that's an if so big it's visible from space. But the opportunity is there -- and has been there all along. Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch: thedispatch.com . Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!None

Syria latest: Syrians celebrate in the streets as Russian media says Assad has arrived in Moscow

’Unsinkable Mrs. Brown’ was Hannibal nativeJustice Are Extending The ‘Justice: Live’ Tour To 2025 With New Dates

None