A quick overview of what has made the news briefing today.
This introduction provides a summary of what’s going on today. Before you get into today’s main stories; that have been summarised and contextualised for you. And at the bottom we have today’s newspaper summarised as well. Goodie!
Thursday’s headlines are dominated by analysis over Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s tearful appearance at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions. As the PM faced questions at the dispatch box, he was asked if the Chancellor would remain in post and appeared to avoid answering. The Chancellor was seen crying behind him. Starmer has since said he backs the chancellor completely and she will not be replaced.
The chancellor’s tears caused some panic in the market, leading to a multi-billion-pound sell-off. There is further analysis of Starmer’s grip on his party, as some Labour MPs want a cabinet reshuffle.
The prime minister will set out a 10-year plan for a “neighbourhood health service” in England this morning, in a move he’ll surely be hoping will deflect attention from his chancellor.
Four people have been charged by counter-terrorism police over a break-in at RAF Brize Norton last month, during which military planes were damaged. It comes as MPs voted to ban Palestine Action under anti-terror laws.
In sports news, Emma Raducanu is having a great time at Wimbledon, and the Lionesses and the Welsh women’s team are preparing for their opening Euro 2025 matches.
Reeves in tears at PMQs as the prime minister is forced to confirm she’s be staying in the role of chancellor
Chancellor Rachel Reeves was seen in tears during Prime Minister’s Questions after Labour was forced into a major U‑turn on welfare reforms, ditching planned cuts to disability benefits and abandoning a £5 billion-a-year saving target. Her emotional moment came when PM Keir Starmer declined to confirm whether she would remain in post until the next election, triggering speculation. Later, Downing Street clarified that Reeves will stay, attributing the tears to a personal matter and not political pressure.
This incident exposed deep internal fractures in Labour over fiscal policy, calling into question Starmer’s control over his party. The reversal has created a significant hole in government finances, unsettling markets: UK borrowing costs rose sharply, and the pound weakened. It places Reeves’s fiscal strategy and her future under intense scrutiny, while raising the prospect of tax rises or departmental cuts to fill the funding gap.
Starmer defended Reeves after PMQs, confirming she will remain chancellor “for a very long time to come” and dismissing suggestions the tears were politically motivated. No. 10 insisted there would be no cabinet reshuffle. Conservatives seized on the moment, with Kemi Badenoch calling Reeves a “human shield” and questioning Labour’s competence. Treasury insiders warned ministers that filling the fiscal gap may require raising taxes or cutting public services.
With the welfare bill concessions done, ministers must now find £5 billion via taxes, spending cuts or borrowing. The Treasury will likely explore Autumn Budget adjustments. Reeves faces renewed pressure to restore financial credibility before markets settle. The episode also fuels debate over Labour’s fiscal agenda, internal cohesion, and strategy ahead of the next election.
Diddy acquitted of sex trafficking but convicted on prostitution charges in mixed verdict in New York City trial
A Manhattan federal jury delivered a split verdict in the high-profile trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. He was acquitted of the most serious charges-racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion-but was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, in violation of the Mann Act. The jury found insufficient evidence to link Combs to a broader criminal enterprise, but concluded that he had facilitated the movement of individuals across state lines for sexual services. After the verdict, Judge Arun Subramanian denied bail, ordering Combs to remain in custody until his scheduled October sentencing.
The verdict marks a significant moment in legal scrutiny of celebrity misconduct, blending issues of sexual abuse, power dynamics, and the #MeToo movement. While Combs avoided the most life-threatening charges, the prostitution convictions are serious and carry combined sentences of up to 20 years, with sentencing guidelines suggesting 4-5 years behind bars. The mixed outcome underscores the challenge prosecutors face in proving racketeering-style conspiracies, while highlighting the judiciary’s willingness to hold powerful figures accountable for lesser offences.
Combs and his legal team hailed the acquittals as “a great victory” and a triumph of justice, as his family cheered in court and supporters chanted “dream team”. However, his accusers, including ex-partners Cassie Ventura and “Jane,” expressed deep disappointment, emphasising their continued belief in the broader trafficking allegations. Social media was awash with debate on the implications of the verdict, with some suggesting Combs’ wealth influenced the outcome.
Combs will remain in federal custody until his October sentencing, when the court will decide his prison term, likely within the 4-5-year guideline range. He also faces ongoing civil lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct. The darker spotlight on sexual misconduct in the industry may continue, with this verdict potentially influencing future high-profile cases involving power, celebrity, and sexual exploitation.
UK MPs vote to ban Palestine Action under terror laws after their recent stunt damaged four RAF jets
The House of Commons voted 385 to 26 to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The ban also includes the neo-Nazi Maniacs Murder Cult and the extremist Russian Imperial Movement. The move came after direct-action protests by Palestine Action, including a break-in at RAF Brize Norton and vandalism of military aircraft. Membership or support for the group would carry a penalty of up to 14 years in prison, if the measure is approved by the House of Lords. Palestine Action has formally launched a High Court legal challenge and sought a temporary injunction to block the ban.
This marks the first time a domestic protest group has been labelled a terrorist organisation based on property damage rather than violence against people. Critics say it sets a dangerous precedent that could deter peaceful yet disruptive activism. The move expands the definition of terrorism in UK law, triggering urgent debate about civil liberties, protest rights, and proportionality in counter-terror legislation.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the decision, citing Palestine Action’s “long history of unacceptable criminal damage,” including the RAF Brize Norton incident. Security Minister Dan Jarvis described their tactics as exceeding lawful protest. Meanwhile, figures such as MP Zarah Sultana, Amnesty International, Liberty, UN experts, and other campaigners denounced the move as authoritarian overreach that conflates non-violent dissent with terrorism, potentially chilling legitimate protest.
The draft proscription now goes to the House of Lords, where it is expected to be debated. Palestine Action’s High Court challenge, including a bid for a temporary injunction, will be heard this Friday, with an urgent hearing already held. If the ban is confirmed, members or those supporting the group could face serious criminal liability. A successful legal challenge could overturn the proscription and set judicial limits on using anti-terror law for protest suppression.
Almost all of Thursday’s UK newspaper front pages feature an image of Chancellor Rachel Reeves crying during Prime Minister’s Questions. The cause of the tears is the subject of much speculation this morning as some papers expect the chancellor to be sacked, whilst other front pages look at the reaction the markets had to the tearful episode.
Copyright WTX News 2025
