UN-backed ceasefire allows for crucial repairs to prevent nuclear meltdown in Ukraine

Ukrainian engineers have successfully fixed a critical power line supplying energy to Europe‘s largest nuclear plant after a UN-brokered ceasefire was observed in the area.

The high-voltage line is one of only two supplying the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, and was disconnected earlier this month.

The plant ceased operations when Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but needs a constant supply of electricity to operate cooling systems and prevent its reactors from going into meltdown.

Though the UN’s nuclear watchdog succeeded in brokering a limited ceasefire in Zaporizhzhia, Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia is preparing to strike infrastructure around its other nuclear plants as part of a sustained campaign against its energy grid.

On Monday night Russia launched its latest major air raid on Kyiv, just hours after Volodymyr Zelensky warned his countrymen to remain “extremely vigilant” for large-scale attacks.

Zelensky also announced Ukraine was introducing a new air defence system in the face of sustained waves of nightly Russian attacks, though he did not provide details.

Ministers launch consultation on social media ban for under-16s

The government has announced plans for a consultation on social media restrictions for under-16s amid growing calls for an Australian-style ban.

The consultation will look at all options for reform, including a blanket ban, limits on app time, raising the digital age of consent, and restricting potentially addictive app features such as “streaks” and “infinite scrolling”.

Ministers will visit Australia as part of its consultation, where a social media ban for under-16s came into force in December.

It comes after dozens of Labour MPs signed an open letter urging prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to back a ban, and to “protect young people from the consequences of unregulated, addictive social media platforms”.

Another letter, written by the mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey and signed by eight sets of bereaved parents, urged Sir Keir to back an amendment to stop children under 16 from using social media platforms.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said it will be taking immediate action on children’s social media use, including by directing Ofsted to examine schools’ mobile phone policies and whether they are effectively implemented.

The government will produce screen time guidance for parents of children aged five to 16, before guidance for parents of under-fives will be published in April.

Later this week, the Lords is set to vote on an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which if passed would require social media platforms to stop children under16 from using their platforms within a year of the Bill passing.

The amendment, tabled by former schools minister Lord Nash, is supported by the National Education Union (NEU) and the 61 Labour MPs who signed the open letter to Sir Keir.

Lord Nash said the government’s consultation will only produce more delay. “This announcement offers nothing for the hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers, medical professionals, senior police officers, national security experts and parliamentarians of all parties who have been calling for a raising of the age limit for social media,” the Conservative peer said.

“The prime minister must be in no doubt about the strength of feeling on this. The longer we delay, the more children we fail. I continue to urge all peers to back my amendment on Wednesday which would begin to end the catastrophic harm being done to a generation.”

In her joint letter from the Bereaved Families for Online Safety on Monday, Esther Ghey described how her daughter had a social media addiction and was “exacerbated by the harmful content she was consuming online”.

“I speak not only as Brianna’s mother, but alongside many other bereaved parents who have lost their children to harms that began or were amplified online,” the letter, signed by a number of bereaved parents, reads.

“Some have lost children after they were groomed by online predators, others through dangerous online challenges, and others following prolonged exposure to self-harm and suicide content.”

It adds: “The online world our children are living in, and the harms that come with it, are vast. We need a multi-pronged approach to address this crisis properly, one that includes legislation, regulation, education, and societal change.”

Speaking on the government consultation, Jess Asato, Labour MP for Lowestoft said: “Consulting on a social media ban for under 16s is a good first step in protecting our children from the huge harms they face on platforms which were never designed with their wellbeing and development in mind.

“Parents and carers across the country are calling for bold action now and it’s crucial the consultation does not simply kick this issue into the long grass.

“There is strong evidence that social media has a significant negative impact on children’s physical and mental health, educational attainment and exposure to harms such as child sexual abuse and exploitation.

“Listening to parents, children and the generation who have grown up with this technology must take priority over the industry itself.”

On Monday, Sir Keir said that “no options are off the table” when it comes to changes to the use of social media for children.

“We are obviously looking at what’s happened in Australia, something I’ve discussed with the Australian prime minister,” he added.

“I don’t think it’s just a question of social media and children under 16. I think we have got to look at a range of measures.”

The open letter from 61 Labour MPs read: “Across our constituencies, we hear the same message: children are anxious, unhappy and unable to focus on learning. They are not building the social skills needed to thrive, nor having the experience that will prepare them for adulthood.”

The letter, signed by dozens of backbenchers as well as education select committee chair Helen Hayes, former whip Vicky Foxcroft, and former education minister Catherine McKinnell, says Britain risks being “left behind” if it does not act.

The UK’s largest teaching union has also said the prime minister should fully support an amendment for an outright ban.

National Education Union (NEU) general secretary Daniel Kebede said No 10 signalling it is open to raising the age limit for social media “was a welcome shift”.

Mr Kebede said: “The additional pressure from Labour backbench MPs needs to move Keir Starmer to full support of this amendment to ban social media for under-16s. This cannot be a moment for passivity – it demands leadership.

“Every day, parents and teachers see how social media shapes children’s identities and attention long before they sit their GCSEs, pulling them into isolating, endless loops of content.”

However, at the weekend, 42 child protection charities and online safety groups issued a joint statement warning a blanket social media ban would not deliver the improvement in child safety and wellbeing needed, and would treat “the symptoms, not the problem”.

Instead, the government should strengthen the Online Safety Act to require platforms to robustly enforce risk-based age limits, the organisations said.

Why the latest right-wing Tory MP to defect to Reform is a new low for Farage

Good old Aesop was spot-on when he said, “A man is known by the company he keeps”.

It’s a saying that Nigel Farage would do well to observe, or not. Does the Reform UK leader really care what others think? Does he sincerely believe, for instance, that Andrew Rosindell is a fine addition to the party roster?

The former shadow minister and MP for Romford is not somebody that the Tories, even in their present predicament, should miss. If Robert Jenrick has “something of the night about him”, as was said about by Ann Widdecombe about Michael Howard and has been repeated in relation to the former shadow justice secretary’s defection, then the latest Reform adornment inhabits a very dark space indeed.

Rosindell, 59, has chosen to major on the Tories’ lack of support for the Chagos Islanders as forcing him out. That’s what Farage also focused on, saying: “The Tories’ lies and hypocrisy over the Chagos Islands betrayal has tipped him over the edge, and we are delighted to welcome him to our ranks.” All very upstanding, as Rosindell accused the government and main opposition of having “been complicit in the surrender of this sovereign British territory to a foreign power”.

What Farage chose to ignore is the rest of Rosindell that ought to make any seeker of the highest office in the land think twice about welcoming him. It is a residue from a heap of right-wing detritus, an indelible stain that, no matter how hard Rosindell or his new leader tries, cannot be scrubbed clean. Rosindell represents a new low, even for Farage and Reform.

Farage might want to wonder why it was that, despite being an MP for 25 years, Rosindell was not appointed a minister by five Conservative prime ministers. David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak all saw fit to pass him over for promotion.

Campaigning with his trusty Staffordshire bull terrier Spike, the dog bedecked in a union jack waistcoat, he hardly conveyed an image the inclusive Tory party wanted to send. That came with support for the death penalty, detention of asylum seekers, membership of the hardline Monday Club (a breeding kennel for Reform) and with loathing of lowering the age of consent for gay people and same-sex marriage laws.

He has repeatedly voted against LGBT+ rights laws and defended the Thatcherite Section 28 law banning “promoting homosexuality” in schools. Fumed Rosindell: “Where would it end? You could finish up at a stage where the monarchy in this country is in a same-sex marriage and that would have constitutional implications.”

Yeah right.

There was his failed bid to introduce a law to create a special customs queue for people from countries where the Queen was head of state, and he wanted more pictures of Her Majesty and royal symbols to be displayed at UK borders.

In a row over the National Trust and colonial links to stately homes, he harrumphed in a letter to The Daily Telegraph about the ultimately middle-class charity, renowned for the courtesy of its guides and cream teas and scones, as being “coloured by cultural Marxist dogma”.

In the MPs’ expenses scandal, the same Daily Telegraph outed Rosindell as having “claimed more than £125,000 in second home expenses for a flat in London, while designating his childhood home 17 miles away – where his mother lived – as his main address”. Rosindell, between “2006 and 2008, claimed the maximum £400 a month for food”. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to claim £20 a day for food,” he told The Daily Telegraph at the time. “That barely covers the cost of my subsistence.”

In 2010, the BBC reported he had breached parliamentary rules by accepting subsidised overseas trips to Gibraltar and subsequently raising pro-Gibraltar issues in the Commons without disclosing the visits in the Register of Members’ Interests. He was later identified as among a small group of backbenchers who had little compunction in taking a high number of foreign jollies – more than their fellow MPs. His travel record included 16 freebies to Gibraltar and 29 to other far-flung destinations, valued at £45,000.

This is a man who sponsored the first “Erotica” event in parliament, insisting he was promoting the hosts who hailed from his constituency.

On the roll call of dishonour goes. He was a self-professed “huge” admirer of Chilean dictator General Pinochet. Someone, too, who questioned the ability of Rachel Reeves to do her job (she was then shadow secretary for work and pensions) in a possibly imminent Labour government because she was due maternity leave and would be caring for a young child when she returned to a ministerial post – prompting Rosindell’s boss, David Cameron, to call his comments “outrageous”.

If Kemi Badenoch said Robert Jenrick’s going was “a good day” for the Conservatives and that Jenrick was “now Nigel Farage’s problem”, she would be entitled to say it even louder with regard to Rosindell. But presumably, his new bedfellows, travellers and all, don’t see him like that. Rosindell should give pause to any serious political aspirant. Farage is desperate to be treated as that person – but is going about it in a funny way.

Legendary Italian fashion designer Valentino dies aged 93

Valentino Garavani, the legendary Italian fashion designer known mononymously as Valentino, has died. He was 93.

Garavani founded the luxury fashion house Valentino on Via Condotti in Rome in 1960, and it quickly became known as a leading “maison de haute couture”.

Among his early successes, Garavani designed the cream lace wedding gown worn by former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy at her marriage to business tycoon Aristotle Onassis in 1968.

His other creations included Audrey Hepburn’s white lace gown in How to Steal a Million (1966), Julia Roberts’s Y-neck halter gown, which she wore for her Best Actress Oscar win in 2001, and the pale yellow, one-shoulder silk taffeta gown Cate Blanchett wore when she won Best Supporting Actress for The Aviator in 2005.

In a statement on social media, Fondazione Valentino Garavani e Giancarlo Giammetti said: “Our founder, Valentino Garavani passed away today at his Roman residence, surrounded by his loved ones.”

Tributes to Garavani were led by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who wrote on X: “Valentino, undisputed master of style and elegance and eternal symbol of Italian high fashion. Today Italy loses a legend, but his legacy will continue to inspire generations. Thank you for everything.”

Gwyneth Paltrow wrote on Instagram: “I was so lucky to know and love Valentino – to know the real man, in private. The man who was in love with beauty, his family, his muses, his friends… This feels like the end of an era. He will be deeply missed by me and all who loved him.”

Garavani was born in Voghera, in Northern Italy, on May 11, 1932. His mother named him after the famed Italian movie star Rudolph Valentino.

He was fascinated by fashion design from a young age, and went to Paris to study at the École des Beaux-Arts and at the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne. While still in Paris, he apprenticed with Jacques Fath, Balenciaga and Jean Desses.

In 1959, at the age of 27, he returned to Rome, where he opened his own fashion house the following year. He was known for his striking dresses, often in a bright shade that became known as “Valentino red”. He soon became a favorite of celebrities. In 1961, Elizabeth Taylor wore a white haute couture column by Valentino to the premiere of Spartacus.

In 1964, Jacqueline Kennedy became a fan of Valentino and bought six black-and-white haute couture dresses that she wore during her high-profile year of mourning for President John F Kennedy, who had been assassinated the previous year.

Garavani’s association with Kennedy helped grow his reputation in the United States, and he spent much of the 1970s based in New York City. He became a well-known public figure and had his portrait painted by Andy Warhol. “He was very nice all the time with me,” Garavani recalled in an interview with System Magazine. “He invited me to the Factory many times, and I was admiring all the paintings on the floor – you had to be careful not to step on them.”

In the 1980s, Garavani helped shape the fashion of the era with his broad-shouldered tailored suits. They became a favorite of the Dynasty star Joan Collins, who was often photographed wearing Valentino. By 1986, Valentino was Italy’s top fashion exporter, shipping some $385 million worth of sales that year.

In 1990, Garavani opened the Accademia Valentino, an art gallery and cultural institution in Rome. He sold Valentino for around $300 million to an Italian conglomerate in 1998, but continued to design until he retired in January 2008. The months leading up to his retirement were captured in the 2008 documentary Valentino: The Last Emperor. In the film, Garavani comments to a reporter: “I know what women want, they want to be beautiful.”

Garavani also made a cameo appearance as himself in 2006’s The Devil Wears Prada.

When Garavani was profiled by The New Yorker in 2005, the mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni quipped: “In Italy, there is the Pope — and there is Valentino.” Vogue described him as “one of the key architects of late 20th century glamour.”

In a 2009 interview on the talk show Charlie Rose, Garavani discussed his method and said: “First of all, I start to draw, to make design of clothes. I’m not capable of creating anything if I have not designed it. So for me, it’s my passion. It was always my life. To wake up in the morning, or in the middle of the evening, if I have some idea, to put on the light and to draw clothes.”

Garavani is survived by his partner Giancarlo Giammetti, whom he met in 1960 and worked with to co-found Valentino.

Garavani’s foundation announced that he will lie in state this Wednesday and Thursday, before a funeral on Friday, January 23 at Rome’s Basilica Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri.

Mapped: Every country Trump has attacked or threatened in a year of ‘America First’

When US president Donald Trump began his second term in office, it was on the promise of putting “America first”.

For many of his MAGA supporters, that meant rejecting interventionist policies that had overextended the country’s military commitments across the globe.

His National Security Strategy, published last year, promised that “the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests”.

But since his return last January, the US commander-in-chief has pursued an aggressive foreign policy, greenlighting military strikes on multiple countries, seizing oil tankers and overseeing the shock overnight capture of Nicolas Maduro that led to the decapitation of the Venezuelan government.

Other targets have included Iran, Iraq and Somalia, among others. Trump is far from the only US president to launch military action in the Middle East – Biden, Obama, Clinton, both Bushes, and Reagan have all done so over the last 50 years. The US also has a long-running history of intervention in Latin American countries.

However, it is Trump’s ongoing threats to take Greenland, a Nato territory, that is causing particular concern across Europe now.

“The larger picture of Trump’s foreign policy is one of transactional disruption rather than strategic leadership,” Aurélien Colson, academic director at the ESSEC Business School Institute for Geopolitics & Business, told The Independent.

Colson says that Trump’s National Security Strategy exposed his intent to “undermine the EU as a political and strategic actor”. The document claimed that the continent was facing “civilisational erasure”.

“The so-called ‘Donroe Doctrine’ openly revives a logic of spheres of influence,” he explains. Trump joked that the Monroe Doctrine – associated with exerting control over the Western hemisphere and warning about a Europeanisation of America – could now be dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine”, a clear indication of his intentions.

But, while Trump has made some historic statements and carried out unprecedented military action, Colson says that much of his behaviour can be interpreted as bluster.

“Trump’s moves are driven less by coherent geopolitical objectives than by a mix of narcissistic posturing (which even his own administration finds difficulties to cope with), domestic political signalling, and personal financial interests: from his admiration for strongmen to policies that align with opaque business networks, including crypto-financial channels,” he says.

“What he appears to seek is not a stable international order, but a world in which power is personalised, deals are opaque, and loyalty matters more than rules. The consequences are deeply negative, of course, for the world order, and for specific states such as Ukraine, but also for the USA: alliances are weakened, American credibility eroded, and strategic rivals emboldened.”

Colson explains: “Far from ‘America First’, the outcome is increasingly ‘America Isolated’: mistrusted by partners and progressively less able to shape the rules of the international system it once led – to its own benefit.”

Below The Independent looks at the countries where Trump has taken military action in the last 12 months, and where he could strike next.

In February last year, 10 days after his inauguration, Trump launched a series of military strikes against Isis key figures in Somalia.

“The strikes destroyed the caves they live in, and killed many terrorists without, in any way, harming civilians. Our Military has targeted this Isis Attack Planner for years, but Biden and his cronies wouldn’t act quickly enough to get the job done. I did!” Trump said.

“The message to ISIS and all others who would attack Americans is that “WE WILL FIND YOU, AND WE WILL KILL YOU!”

Further attacks on Isis, and the Islamist paramilitary group al-Shabab, were launched in January this year.

According to think tank, New America, Trump has so far launched 135 strikes in the country in his second term, more than the entire Bush Jr, Obama and Biden presidencies combined.

Meanwhile, Somalia has become a lightning rod for MAGA Republicans, with Trump calling the country a “hell hole” and repeatedly attacking Somali immigrants in the US as “garbage who contribute nothing”, comments that have sparked widespread backlash.

The US conducted several counterterrorism operations against Isis in Iraq in March 2025. Trump praised the operation as an example of “peace through strength”.

According to the US CENTCOM, the precision airstrike killed Isis’s second-in-command, Abdallah “Abu Khadijah” Makki Muslih al-Rifai, in the Al Anbar province of Iraq.

Posting the update on X with a portrait picture of himself, Trump wrote at the time: “Today the fugitive leader of ISIS in Iraq was killed. He was relentlessly hunted down by our intrepid warfighters. His miserable life was terminated, along with another member of ISIS, in coordination with the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish Regional Government. PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!”

The operations were a continuation of an ongoing campaign of targeting ISIS in Iraq, begun during President Barack Obama’s tenure in 2014, and dubbed Operation Inherent Resolve.

Trump launched bombings against Yemen’s Houthi rebels in March 2025 after a wave of attacks by the group against ships in the Red Sea that were in response to Israel’s war in Gaza.

The United States is reported to have carried out more than 1,100 strikes, killed hundreds of Houthi fighters, and spent more than $1 billion over the 52-day campaign, officials told the New York Times.

Despite the bombardment, rebels began attacking cargo ships in the Red Sea again in July.

The Iran-backed group captured and sank a Greek-owned bulk carrier named ‘Magic Seas’ using drones, missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades, forcing its 22 crew members to abandon ship.

The next day, the Houthis sank another Greek-operated vessel called ‘Eternity C’, leaving at least four dead and 15 missing.

In June last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Iran was violating its non-proliferation commitments and had enough enriched uranium to potentially develop nine nuclear bombs.

Within days, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and the so-called Twelve Day War began. Iran launched a wave of missile and drone strikes in response.

On June 22, the US intervened and launched a series of bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear sites.

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow.”

A ceasefire was agreed the next day, but tensions between the US and Iran resumed in January this year after widespread protests across the country that prompted a ruthless government crackdown, with human rights groups warning of thousands dead.

Trump, backing the anti-regime protesters, warned repeatedly he would take action against Iran if the killings continued. However, after considering multiple options to respond to the crisis including sanctions and cyber attacks, Trump has yet to launch further military strikes on Tehran.

The US began attacking alleged “narco-terrorist boats” off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela in September 2025, which later expanded to the Pacific Ocean.

The administration claimed it was taking action to stem the flow of drugs into the United States, with Trump accusing Venezuela’s then president of being a top-level member of drug cartel, “Cartel de los Soles”.

At least 123 people are reported to have been killed in the operations, which UN and legal experts criticised for being “extrajudicial killings”.

Between 10,000 and 15,000 American troops were stationed near the country as Trump reportedly gave Maduro an ultimatum to surrender.

Then, on 3 January, US special forces raided Maduro’s residence in Caracas in Operation Absolute Resolve. Maduro was removed from office and extradited to the US to appear in a New York court to face criminal charges.

Trump officials have said the US is “not at war with Venezuela” and that it is not planning any further military action, though the president also said, “we’re not afraid of boots on the ground”.

In the days after the raid, Trump announced the US would be taking over sales of Venezuelan crude oil across the globe and said the government in Caracas was providing Washington with between 30 and 50 million barrels of formerly sanctioned oil to sell.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) launched Operation Hawkeye Strike against Isis in Syria, in coordination with Jordan, on 19 December 2025. The most recent attacks took place earlier this month.

The operation was a direct response to the killing of two US soldiers and a civilian US interpreter.

Three additional US military personnel and two members of Syria’s security services were injured in the attacks. Trump blamed Isis for the attacks, but Syrian officials said the attacker was a disgruntled member of the security services facing dismissal over allegations of holding extremist views.

An unnamed US official told CNN that the January operation had launched 90 precision munitions at more than 35 targets, using over two dozen aircraft.

Earlier operations took place in November, with the US military joining the Syrian armed forces to destroy 15 Isis weapons caches in southern Syria.

On Christmas Day 2025, Trump ordered strikes against Isis targets in Nigeria after he accused the group of targeting Christians. The US military confirmed “multiple fatalities” after camps in Sokoto state near the border with Niger were hit during the strikes.

US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said of the attacks: “The President was clear last month: the killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria (and elsewhere) must end. The @DeptofWar is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight — on Christmas.”

He added: “Grateful for Nigerian government support & cooperation. Merry Christmas!” He then warned: “More to come…” Trump said that the attacks were “powerful and deadly” and “at levels not seen for many years, even centuries!”

A defense department official told The Independent that the strikes had been carried out with the knowledge and cooperation of the Nigerian government.

Mexico has long been a target of Trump’s anger with the president blaming their government for failing to deal with drug cartels and preventing the flow of migrants across the border.

He warned the country, which has been led by left-wing president Claudia Sheinbaum since October 2024, “has to get their act together” or “we’re going to have to do something”.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio said in January that he believes Cuba is “in a lot of trouble” following the capture of Maduro, a key ally.

“I’m not going to talk to you about what our future steps are going to be and our policies are going to be right now in this regard,” Rubio told NBC. “But I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro.”

Trump also warned Colombian president Gustavo Petro – one of his fiercest critics on the international stage – that the South American country could be his next target.

“Colombia is very sick, too, run by ‍a ‌sick man, who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States, ‍and he’s not going to be doing it very long,” he told reporters while on board Air Force One.

Trump has had his sights set on purchasing the semi-autonomous territory of Greenland since 2019, but has ramped up his rhetoric in recent weeks and refused to rule out military action.

The president argues it is vital to ensure the “national security” of the United States and to prevent the island falling into the hands of Russia or China.

However, his threats have sparked backlash from Nato allies and European leaders amid fears Trump could fracture the long-standing alliance and play right into Vladimir Putin’s hands.

Denmark and the US have agreed to set up a working group to discuss ways to resolve their differences, but Trump remains adamant that anything less than US control is unacceptable.

Tensions have continued to mount throughout January, with European troops from Germany, France and Sweden deployed to the region, and Trump threatening tariffs against any country that stands in his way.

In December 2024, Trump began to tease that some of his supporters had expressed support for Canada to be annexed into the United States.

He had threatened to impose tariffs on Canada unless it increased its military spending and fortified its border security.

The president ruled out the use of military force to annex Canada, but said he would use “economic force” instead, and has continued to reiterate his desire to annex Canada throughout his second term in office.

Trump has continued to make comments that the country should become the “the 51st state” of the US.

His comments have sparked a furious backlash in the country and even sparked a boycott of American products. A poll conducted by Angus Reid poll last October suggested nearly half of Canadians (46 per cent) want their government to approach the US as an “enemy or potential threat”.

Save £190 on heat pump installation with this exclusive deal from Octopus

Readers of The Independent can now save five per cent on the cost of a heat pump installation, with an exclusive offer from Octopus Energy.

Available for a limited time, the deal could mean an average saving of around £190 on a typical heat pump installation. Prices vary depending on the heat pump type and size of your home, but the discount is applied to the final installation cost after the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant, where applicable – helping to make low-carbon heating more affordable.

Heat pump installation costs vary depending on the size and layout of your home, which is why every installation starts with a bespoke home survey.

Octopus Energy says its typical heat pump price is £3,818, based on the median of its heat pump quotes issued between June and September 2025. This compares with a national average of £5,295, according to Boiler Upgrade Scheme statistics published in July 2025.

With this exclusive five per cent discount, eligible Independent readers could save around £190 on that typical price. The discount is applied after the £7,500 Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant, where applicable, helping to reduce upfront costs even further.

Claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

Octopus Energy installs air source heat pumps and manages the process from survey to installation. Because every home is different, prices aren’t fixed online and are confirmed after a home survey.

To qualify for the discount, readers must request a heat pump during the offer period, complete a home survey, and quote the code ‘INDY5’ to their heat pump specialist before signing the final installation agreement.

This exclusive offer is available from 12 January 2026 to 28 February 2026.

The five per cent discount is applied to the final installation price (after the BUS grant) and cannot be combined with any other promotion.

Claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

To qualify for the discount, readers will need to book a home survey during the offer period. If Octopus Energy is unable to carry out the survey before the offer ends, the discount will still be honoured as long as a survey date is scheduled.

However, if you choose not to have a home survey during the offer period, the discount will no longer apply.

After the survey, you’ll need to sign your final installation agreement within 14 days of it being issued. If this 14-day window is missed, the offer will lapse and the five per cent discount will be removed.

View full terms and conditions and claim the offer now

The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) grant is subject to eligibility

Why this year’s messy Traitors are the only ones I’m rooting for

January often feels about six weeks long, but it seems like just days ago that Claudia Winkleman reappeared on our screens on New Year’s Day, clad in her finest knitwear, to welcome 22 contestants to The Traitors’ Ardross Castle. And now, suddenly, the series is in its final week. With just eight contestants remaining – and the prize money well into five figures – there are only two players worth rooting for: the ones who are, and have always been, the Traitors.

It’s partially thanks to the nature of the game that the remaining Faithfuls are not the best, or most memorable, players. Don’t get me wrong, Roxy and Faraaz seem lovely, but they’re classic examples of Faithfuls who have bumbled through by never posing a real threat. Then there’s Jade, who is well deserving of a spa break after largely contributing to the game by unwillingly serving as the ideal decoy.

Meanwhile, Jack and Matthew were, until very recently, among the male players who were indistinguishable from each other, and the final Faithful left is James, whose erratic behaviour and shield-stealing antics have puzzled contestants and viewers alike.

Cast your eyes, then, to the Traitors. Under the cover of darkness, Stephen and Rachel have run a successful, if not always slick, operation. The Celtic pair vowed to stick together after fellow OG Traitor Hugo was banished, and they’ve since rolled with the many punches – the Secret Traitor reveal! Murder in plain sight! Harriet’s unravelling! – in an expert, if messy, fashion.

The Faithfuls have been more distrustful of each other than ever, and this distrust has been easily exploited by the Traitors, who have shown the utmost commitment to each other and, much to Matthew’s chagrin, turned down all chances to recruit anyone else.

It has seemed, on many occasions, that Stephen’s time in the castle was surely up. But like a cat with nine lives, the Scottish Traitor has always survived – usually thanks to someone else (ahem, Fiona and Harriet) accidentally creating the perfect distraction by causing drama or behaving suspiciously (or, as Harriet so memorably put it, setting the “CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS”).

Just as season one’s Maddy rumbled Traitor Wilf, the lovely Jessie correctly figured out Stephen’s true status early on with her “Library Five” theory, rightly suggesting that Ross was being framed for murdering Ben (remember him?).

Jessie also correctly clocked that a Traitor was most likely among the players caged after Rachel created a murder shortlist using the castle’s family tree portrait. Unfortunately, just like Maddy before her, Jessie never managed to convince enough Faithfuls of either theory. And in one of the boldest, most successful gameplays of the series so far, Stephen took matters into his own hands last week when he decided that his and Rachel’s next kill should be his flame-haired accuser.

The pair knew Jessie’s murder would leave the Faithfuls disheartened and on edge – and that it would put Stephen straight back in the spotlight. Having presumably practised his poker face in the 4×4 to the castle, Stephen expertly deployed an “I’m being framed” defence convincing enough that – to his own shock – he didn’t receive a single vote at the Round Table. At least for now, the risky play appears to have paid off, cementing Stephen as a Traitor who has proved he deserves the win.

Before callously murdering Jessie, Stephen was an easy contestant to love. With his Anneka Rice-esque jumpsuit, penchant for a high-waisted trouser, and perfectly coiffed locks, he’s the most stylish of this year’s contestants – though an honourable mention must go to the Queen of Knitwear, Jade – and has spawned many memes thanks to his most adventurous looks. His inability to pull off a neutral poker face in most scenarios is equally entertaining.

Then there’s Rachel, a 42-year-old mum-of-three who is undeniably the puppetmaster of this year’s series. With her three months of FBI training – no one can accuse her of not taking the game seriously – she has been unflappable as she picks off the Faithfuls one by one. And those who cross her don’t last long.

Early on, Rachel found a castle BFF in Amanda, who felt so confident in her Irish pal that she confided in her about her police background. When the former detective was ousted, Rachel cunningly revealed Amanda’s past to the whole group, sparking a confrontation for the ages with Fiona, who spectacularly ruined her own game by turning on her fellow Traitor.

Having seen off her Welsh rival, Rachel once again proved herself to be invincible when she came under suspicion from secret barrister Harriet, whose explosive breakfast outburst made Fiona’s attack look positively cordial. In a fit of fury at the Round Table, Harriet threw herself under the bus to prove her theory to the rest of the Faithfuls – who have since completely ignored everything she said. Oops.

A pair of Traitors have never won the British version of the show, with the final episodes of each series typically seeing any who remain forced to turn on each other. But in Stephen and Rachel, it looks as though the show has finally found a duo who take their vow seriously. And with the Faithfuls having stumbled through so badly, who can claim that this year’s Traitors don’t deserve to steal the cash? I know who I’m rooting for.

Starmer will need to use the King as his Trump card in the row over Greenland

The proposed state visit by King Charles III on July 4 in the rose garden at the White House – to mark the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence- has taken on huge significance.

With Donald Trump in the process of imposing new tariffs over Greenland and renewing threats against other allies, there are few levers Sir Keir Starmer can pull to persuade the US president to be more reasonable.

But the royal visit this year is perhaps the only lever which can now be deployed to stop an international crisis from spiralling out of control.

If there is one card the UK holds in its dealings with Mr Trump, it is the royal family.

Partly because of his late mother coming from Scotland, President Trump reveres Britain’s royals and the trappings of power that go along with them.

It is already a well-established fact that the senior royals, in particular, are in essence an extension of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and this is most true regarding the careful dealings with America’s capricious 47th president.

Sir Keir has already deployed Prince William as a crucial go-between with the US president. The relationship began in late 2024 just before Trump’s inauguration when he and William met in Paris ahead of the reopening of Notre Dame cathedral.

Since then, the prince and president speak regularly, The Independent has been told – even more than Trump speaks to Starmer.

Most important though, has been the pageantry. One of the ways that Sir Keir was able to outperform the EU on getting a trade deal, post Trump tariffs, was because of Trump’s historic second state visit to the UK.

He may be regretting the appointment now, but the prospect of the state visit also ensured Trump did not reject Starmer’s first choice ambassador to the US – Lord Mandelson.

The state visit became a sort of golden carrot which the president fixated on and told those close to him that he did not want to go wrong in any way.

So Trump made it clear that he did not want anything to interfere with that and was willing to be much more amenable to the UK.

In the process, it gave space for Starmer to build his relationship with the US president and earn his status internationally as a “Trump whisperer”.

Going forward, the plan to send the King, or perhaps Prince of Wales, on a state visit for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July is perhaps now even more important for Trump and what he sees as his legacy.

So as diplomatic tensions mount and the threat of tariffs increases, this visit and whether it goes ahead will be highly significant.

If the UK is in recession because of Trump tariffs and the Nato alliance has collapsed over the US president’s demands for Greenland, then it seems impossible for a senior royal to roll up and essentially give the US president their blessing.

Of course, there would be a delicious irony of a British monarch refusing to attend an event to mark the occasion of revolutionaries ending the rule of his predecessor George III.

But the threat that the visit might not happen may even at this stage be enough to stay Trump’s hand.

There is a risk though. Trump is not a man who takes being slighted lying down. If a royal state visit is cancelled he will take it personally and things could get much worse.

And it is not as if brandishing royalty at Trump has helped hugely with international issues like Ukraine or the Middle East.

As ever, Sir Keir has a difficult tightrope to walk in the diplomatic turbulence of the Trump presidency.