Subscriber of the week: Ilse Pospischil
What do you do?
Retired.
Where do you live?
Havant.
Do you vote?
No.
Yonks.
What made you start?
A family member recommended it.
Is the NS bug in the family?
Yes, everyone reads it.
What pages do you flick to first?
I quickly flip though the lot and then go back to the beginning.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
How do you read yours?
I read all the articles I'm most interested in and skip the others.
What would you like to see more of in the NS?
International news.
Who are your favourite NS writers?
Megan Gibson.
Who would you put on the cover of the NS?
Jürgen Klopp.
With which political figure would you least like to be stuck in a lift?
Starmer. What's he done for us pensioners?
All-time favourite NS article?
No one article comes to mind but every week I do enjoy the Books section.
The New Statesman is…
very interesting and entertaining.
[See also: Gertrude Stein's quest for fame]
Related
This article appears in the 21 May 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Britain's Child Poverty Epidemic
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
11 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Can Europe stop Trump selling out Ukraine?
Photo by. This summer, in between hosting JD Vance at Chevening and visiting Switzerland, David Lammy has been reading Edward Luce's Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski. The book charts the intellectual and political rivalry between the Polish-born US diplomat and Henry Kissinger. While Kissinger championed a foreign policy centred on the great powers – an approach Lammy regards as 'cynical' – Brzezinski consistently advocated for smaller countries, noting how they can act as 'geopolitical pivots' (a world-view that has influenced the Foreign Secretary's 'progressive realism'). Contemporary examples are not hard to find. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin prepare to meet in Alaska on Friday, the question is whether Ukraine will merely be a spectator to its fate or, as Brzezinski would have wanted, a participant. For Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump's election appeared to promise the worst. The US president had praised Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine as 'genius' and repeatedly hailed his leadership of Russia. It was no surprise, then, when Trump treated Zelensky as a helpless vassal during their Oval Office encounter back in February. Ever since, through patient diplomacy, the UK has sought to bridge the gap between Ukraine and the US. Rather than rushing to denounce Trump for his treatment of Zelensky, Keir Starmer 'hit the phones'. Ahead of today's virtual meeting between European leaders and Trump, No 10 has similarly avoided making public demands of the US president. The UK government's position, insiders emphasise, remains unchanged: any peace deal must be agreed with Ukraine rather than 'imposed' upon it and must be backed by security guarantees that will deter Russia from attacking again. But unlike Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, Starmer has avoided publicly demanding that Zelensky be present at the Alaska summit. After the nadir of the Oval Office meeting, government officials insist that there are encouraging signs. They point to Trump's increasingly public anger over the war – 'It's disgusting what they're doing,' he declared of Putin's actions earlier this month – and the announcement of sanctions on India over its purchase of Russian oil. But the danger is clear: that Trump resolves to impose a land-swap deal on Ukraine – weighted in Russia's favour – and declines to offer any security guarantees to Zelensky. (With this risk in mind, Starmer will co-chair a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing' this afternoon, after their call with Trump.) For Starmer, there is domestic as well as international peril in any capitulation by Trump to Putin. The British public is among the most pro-Ukraine in Europe: 79 per cent believe that protecting Ukrainian sovereignty matters to the UK, a sentiment shared across all voter groups, including nearly two thirds of Reform supporters. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Britain has consistently sought to flatter Trump into a just peace (as opposed to insulting him). 'What I do know about Donald Trump is that he doesn't like losers and he doesn't want to lose; he wants to get the right deal for the American people,' Lammy told me last year. 'And he knows that the right deal for the American people is peace in Europe and that means a sustainable peace – not Russia achieving its aims and coming back for more in the years ahead.' The latter scenario is precisely what Zelensky is now invoking. 'We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this… Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive,' he has warned. The question, then, is whether Ukraine's fate will be one in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must or whether, as Brzezinski intended, a more enlightened outcome is possible. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Visions of an English civil war] Related
New Statesman
2 days ago
- New Statesman
Labour students revolt over Gaza
Youth membership for the Labour party has collapsed – from 100,000 to just 30,000 under Starmer's leadership. The relationship between Labour HQ and its members on university campuses has soured over the past year, reaching boiling point following the prime minister's decision to conditionally recognise a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire. Anoosh Chakelian is joined by Hattie Simpson. Read: Inside Labour students' revolt over Gaza Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
Sturgeon: I'm ‘partly' to blame for loss of rationality in trans debate
Oh dear. If Scotland's former Dear Leader thought she could have an interview about her legacy that didn't touch on the question of putting male rapists in women's prisons she was sorely mistaken. Nicola Sturgeon has come under fire for a promotional clip ahead of tonight's ITV interview with the ex-SNP leader. In the clip, the former FM is quizzed on her gender reform bill and the scandal that saw the double rapist Isla Bryson – born Adam Graham – initially housed in a women's prison. And yet despite the outrage the case provoked, Sturgeon still couldn't bring herself to call Graham a man in her latest TV interview. Some people never learn, eh? Sturgeon's gender bill – which would allow a person to self-identify as the opposite gender from the age of 16, after living as their acquired gender for six months and without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria – grew to become an extremely divisive piece of legislation that was initially passed in Holyrood before being blocked by Scotland Secretary Alister Jack. On the subject, Sturgeon admitted that her handling of the Bryson case – where institutional creep past the point of the law saw the male rapist end up in a female prison – hadn't been optimal, adding that rapists 'probably forfeit the right to be the gender of their choice'. At the time, the ex-FM refused to admit whether Bryson was male or female – and it seems not much has changed. Julie Etchingham: You became unstuck over the questions about the transgender prisoner, the rapist Isla Bryson. Why couldn't you answer that question? Nicola Sturgeon: I think I was caught up in the… JE: Will you answer it now whether you believe Isla Bryson… NS: Isla Bryson identified as a woman. I think what I would say now is any anybody who commits the most heinous male crime against women probably forfeits the right to be, you know, the gender of their choice. JE: They forfeit to be the gender of their choice? That's, quite, I mean, this actually goes to the heart of the difficulty. NS: That probably was not the best phrase to use… If you rape a woman, then I think you probably… the debate about whether they should be called a woman or not. Probably. JE: Well, why don't you simply say then Isla Bryson is a biological male. NS: They are a biological male. But that's about whether it gets back into the self-ID thing. I should have been much more straightforward. I wasn't, but that's because of the debate. We'd lost all sense of rationality in this debate. I'm partly responsible for that. How very revealing. Watch the clip here:
