On May 7, 2026, English voters made a dramatic shift. The upstart right-wing party Reform UK won 1,454 council seats and took full control of 14 local authorities. These victories weren’t in quiet, out-of-the-way places. They happened in areas long considered Labour strongholds. England has 317 main councils, with about 16,000 elected councillors from around 7,000 wards. (A ward is the smallest political boundary. Similar to a U.S. city council district, each ward has two or local councillors representing an average population of 6000 people.) These councils make decisions that affect daily life, like planning, housing, social care, and services such as waste collection and child protection. In this year’s elections, nearly 3,000 wards were up for more than 5,000 seats. Reform’s gain of over 1,440 seats gave them control of Barnsley, Calderdale, Essex County, Gateshead, Havering (their first London borough), Newcastle-under-Lyme, Sandwell, South Tyneside, St Helens, Suffolk County, Sunderland, Thurrock, Wakefield, and Walsall. The size of these wins speaks for itself. Reform took 58 out of 75 seats in Sunderland, ending over 50 years of Labour control. In Sandwell, Labour’s 47-year hold ended in one night. Winning Havering was especially important, showing that even outer London wanted change. Across northern and Midlands towns and some key southern counties, voters showed they were fed up with mass immigration, grooming-gang scandals, and limits on free speech. Labour suffered the most. They had 66 councils and they now control only 28. This is around 10% of the councils in the country despite being the ruling party in Parliament. Many of the councils lost by Labour are now either under Reform or have no clear leadership. The Conservatives didn’t do much better, losing six councils and holding on to about 25. After years of dominance, both parties are seeing their local power break apart. American readers, who are used to a system with 500,000 local officials, might find Britain’s setup much smaller, with one councillor for about every 3,500 people. This means that every ward change is important. Just a few wins in key areas can quickly change policies. Reform’s steady gains show that focused grassroots organizing can beat established parties. For years, working-class communities have dealt with the effects of open-border policies, which put pressure on housing, schools, and the National Health Service. Scandals in places like Rotherham and Rochdale showed how political correctness sometimes took priority over protecting vulnerable girls. At the same time, strict hate speech rules and the closing of bank accounts for dissenters made many feel ignored by those in power. Reform addressed these concerns with a platform focused on controlled immigration, protecting women and girls, and defending free speech. The similarities between the U.K. and U.S. are clear. Britain’s local councils are like America’s county commissions and school boards, which handle issues like education, border security, and parental rights. U.S. conservative activists have already shown what focused organizing can do. Reform’s success shows how quickly things can change when voters feel heard by one party. Some critics may call this just a protest vote, but the facts show otherwise. Reform had already won 10 councils in 2025, and 2026 built on that progress. Now that they have real power, expect early actions like stricter checks on social-care contractors, better protection against grooming risks, and planning rules that prioritize current residents. British voters have made it clear: the old parties no longer have a hold on the working class. For American conservatives looking ahead to the midterms and beyond, the lesson is simple—local power is up for grabs. Issues like immigration, child safety, and free speech are decided at the local level, not just nationally. Reform UK’s win in 14 councils shows that the commonsense movement is real and growing, and it could help Nigel Farage become prime minister in the 2029 general election. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

REUTERS–The Supreme Court on Monday extended a pause on a ruling that would curb the abortion pill mifepristone from being prescribed through telemedicine and dispensed through the mail in a challenge by a Republican-led Louisiana lawsuit to a federal rule that had eased access. Justice Samuel Alito kept the matter on hold until May 14, meaning the pill can continue to be dispensed by mail pending a further order by the court. The nine justices are considering a request by two manufacturers of the medication to lift a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block a 2023 rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration during Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration. The appeals court ruling on May 1 reinstated an older requirement that patients receive mifepristone only after an in‑person visit with a clinician. Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed the 5th Circuit action restricting access to mifepristone. The Supreme Court in an interim decision on May 4 put the 5th Circuit action on hold to give the justices more time to decide how to proceed. Medication abortion, typically a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone followed by misoprostol, accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. abortions, and any restriction on how the pill is dispensed could significantly reduce access nationwide. The case has put the contentious issue of abortion back in front of the justices, with the November midterm congressional elections looming and President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans fighting to retain control of Congress. The Supreme Court in 2024 unanimously rejected a previous attempt by anti-abortion groups and doctors to roll back FDA regulations that had eased access to the drug. Battles over abortion rights follow the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent that legalized abortion nationwide, prompting 13 states to enact near-total bans on the procedure, while several others sharply restrict access. Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2025 claiming that the 2023 rule that eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement was illegal and has allowed medication abortions to skyrocket despite the state’s near-total ban on abortion. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Howard Goller)

The latest slaying in the New York City subway highlights yet again how most violent crime is preventable. On Thursday, “ex-Broadway dancer” Rhamell Burke allegedly shoved 76-year-old retired high school teacher Ross Falzone down the steps at New York City’s 18th Street subway station. Emergency personnel took Falzone to the hospital, but he later died from a traumatic brain injury. The terrible incident was caught on camera. NEW: Repeat offender and Broadway dancer shoves a 76-year-old retired teacher down New York City subway stairs, killing him.32-year-old Rhamell Burke was seen grinning in court after allegedly carrying out the horrific murder.The victim, Ross Falzone, was a social worker for… pic.twitter.com/cBlbscyOOW— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 11, 2026 I have to say, if you are on the New York subway with a former dancer you might want to get off at the next station. Those who knew Falzone are understandably in a state of disbelief at what happened. His next-door-neighbor said that he was “disappointed and shocked, frankly, that somebody could do such a thing.” What makes this story even more outrageous is that Burke had already demonstrated that he could do something violent. In fact, he had been picked up by police just hours before he allegedly pushed the 76-year-old teacher down the stairs. According to ABC 7 Eyewitness News, “officers encountered [Burke] acting erratically outside the 17th Precinct stationhouse on East 51st Street at around 3:30 p.m.” The officers who picked Burke up said he plucked a stick out of the trash and held it up as he approached them. After detaining him, police took Burke to Bellevue Hospital. There he spent a few hours being evaluated in the psychiatric ward. Incredibly, the hospital released this obviously dangerous man just a few hours later. An anonymous “high-ranking NYPD cop” reportedly told the New York Post that this sort of release “happens all the time.” “We brought him in at 3:30 p.m. and he was released just before 5 p.m.,” the officer said, according to the Post. “Meanwhile, if you or I walked into Bellevue for a headache, it would take 8 hours just to be seen. NYPD uses its involuntary removal powers all the time. And they just get right out with an Advil.” As you might suspect, these incidents were far from Burke’s first and second rodeo in the legal system. The New York Post reported that he’d been arrested four times in four months. He was busted three times in February—on Feb. 2 for allegedly assaulting a Port Authority police officer, again on Feb. 14 for burglary, and on Feb. 25 for resisting arrest,” the New York Post reported. “The perp was then hauled in again on April 2 for allegedly assaulting a stranger. He was later granted supervised release at arraignment.” America doesn’t have a crime problem; it has a repeat crime problem. Most crimes, violent and otherwise, are committed by repeat offenders in this country. Burke’s April 2 incident delivers another lesson about why crime is unacceptably high in our cities. This isn’t just about bad policy and rogue judges; it’s about a specific mentality that leads to a broken justice system. In April, Burke allegedly attacked a 23-year-old woman and her friend in the subway after he first aggressively tried to engage them in conversation then pursued them. The New York Post reported that Burke “stalked them closely and allegedly yanked her by the back of her head in an attempt to slam her to the ground and booted her friend in the back.” The two were fortunate that the train came to a stop where they took their chance to escape at the West 4th Street-Washington Square Station in Greenwich Village. Burke apparently kept pursuing them until they found some police officers who arrested him. But instead of helping law enforcement keep this man off the subway and streets, the woman decided not to cooperate with prosecutors. It’s a decision she said she regrets. “Maybe a part of me was just like, I don’t want to put another black man in jail, but, you know, at some point, if you are a criminal, you’re a criminal, and he was scary, he was a scary guy,” she said. This almost perfectly encapsulates how mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, as Adam Smith once put it.   This is social justice in action. A woman decided to be an “anti-racist” rather than pursue justice against a violent criminal who was clearly a danger to people of all races. And you have a justice system prevented from keeping repeat offenders locked away, or mentally unwell people committed to institutions. The result is that an innocent man has had his life randomly snuffed out. If justice had been carried out sooner an innocent man would be alive and a villain would have been stopped from committing evil. It’s a lesson delivered again and again, but too often unheeded.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating continues to climb among Republican voters in Wisconsin, even as support for the Republican Party overall has slightly declined, according to a new League of American Workers poll. The survey also suggests that Trump‑endorsed candidates are well positioned to secure their party’s nominations in key Wisconsin races. According to the poll, Trump’s job approval rating among Badger State Republican voters has risen 5 percentage points since March, while approval of the Republican Party has fallen 1 point. Favorability toward the U.S. war in Iran has also increased by at least 8 points. In Wisconsin’s marquee races this November—including the gubernatorial contest and the 7th Congressional District—the poll shows that candidates backed by Trump hold a significant advantage. Michael Alfonso, who is running to succeed Rep. Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin’s 7th District as Tiffany seeks the governorship, is viewed favorably by 39% of voters, while 45% said they have no opinion. The survey of 504 registered voters, which has a 4‑percentage‑point margin of error, found that when respondents are informed of Trump’s endorsement of Alfonso, 62% say they are “more likely” to support him. Just 7% said they are “less likely,” while 29% said the endorsement makes “no difference.” Voters also responded positively when told about Alfonso’s familial ties. According to the poll, 58% of district voters say they are “more likely” to vote for Alfonso when informed that his in-laws are Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and “Fox and Friends Weekend” host Rachel Campos-Duffy. League of American Workers founder Steve Cortes told The Daily Signal that Trump’s endorsement and Alfonso’s family connections are decisive assets in the race. “By far the biggest two assets are the Trump endorsements and his in‑laws,” Cortes said. “These attributes should be emphasized at every opportunity.” The poll also shows strong support for Tiffany, who received Trump’s endorsement earlier this year in his bid for governor. Tiffany holds a favorable rating with 52% of voters, while 14% remain undecided. “Tom Tiffany is VERY well regarded in his district,” Cortes said. “Additionally, he is very well known, as a repeated winner there. Obviously Tom must focus on his own race, but an endorsement would be very helpful—and any willingness to campaign with Michael even better.” More broadly, the poll found that Republican voters’ views of Democrats continue to deteriorate. Democrat favorability has fallen by 9 percentage points in Wisconsin, according to the survey.

California is the most unaffordable state in the union, where the cost of living is a punishing 11 percent above the national average. Rents for an ordinary two-bedroom apartment average $2,200–$2,700 monthly statewide. Gas prices flirt with $6.16 per gallon—the highest in the nation—while electricity rates hover at 33–35 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the U.S. average.  Factor in groceries, childcare, and healthcare and the result is California’s shameful status as the state with the highest cost-of-living-adjusted poverty rate in the country and a homelessness crisis with more than 180,000 people living on the streets.  Families are fleeing in droves, packing up U-Haul trucks, and heading for cheaper lives in Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. This disaster, of course, is entirely of Sacramento’s own making. Yet faced with these crushing realities, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has chosen to ride to the rescue with 400 free diapers at hospital discharge—his big and bold idea that will surely turn the tide and save California. Yes, really. This is not satire. This is official state policy. Behold the glorious “Golden State Start” program, rolling out this summer at 65–75 hospitals, mostly serving Medi-Cal families. New parents will receive a shiny box of state-branded diapers courtesy of the politically connected nonprofit Baby2Baby. No pesky income test. No boring paperwork. Just 400 government-approved diapers to kick off that beautiful California newborn journey. The price tag for taxpayers: $7.4 million already spent, and another $12.5 million requested, for a grand total approaching $20 million to distribute roughly 40 million diapers in the opening act. All this for a program that covers only about a quarter of births initially, with plans to expand using even more public money. A newborn goes through eight to 12 diapers a day. That generous government box lasts a grand total of five to six weeks. Then reality hits like a 3 a.m. blowout: families are back paying $80–$120 every single month for diapers, with prices up 45 percent since the pandemic. The “solution” evaporates almost as fast as Newsom’s credibility during budget shortfalls. But here’s the punchline that makes this whole charade performance art at its finest: taxpayers aren’t actually saving families much money. Those 400 diapers cost a normal person $80–$120 at Costco, Target, or Amazon (12–25 cents each in bulk). Under Newsom’s brilliant master plan, the state spends around 50 cents per diaper after manufacturing contracts, warehousing, hospital logistics, nonprofit overhead, and the inevitable Sacramento grift. Translation: California will pay roughly $200 in taxpayer funds to deliver $100 worth of diapers. We’re paying double—sometimes triple—so Gavin Newsom can play hero for five pathetic weeks. And it gets even better: Baby2Baby’s co-CEO, Norah Weinstein, sits on the board of Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s own nonprofit, the California Partners Project.  The First Partner’s network helped facilitate the partnership. Cozy, right? Private diaper banks have been quietly doing this work for years at a fraction of the cost. Cash transfers, tax credits, or simply eliminating the sales tax on diapers forever would let parents buy what actually fits their kid. But that wouldn’t generate the glossy photo-op or allow money to flow through favored insiders. The absurdity is comedic, if not outright insulting, when you dare stack this stunt against California’s crushing problems. One single month of rent in Los Angeles equals 25 to 30 times the diaper “savings”—and it arrives like clockwork, draining family budgets relentlessly.  Decades of zoning zealotry, environmental red tape, and endless lawsuits have murdered housing supply. Newsom offers no serious deregulation, just more performative programs layered on top of the dysfunction he helped create.  Gas prices extract an extra $65–$80 monthly from the average family driving 1,000 miles, thanks to the nation’s highest taxes, cap-and-trade grift, boutique fuel rules, and refinery exodus engineered by Sacramento.  Electricity bills run $200 to $400 higher per month than in most other states because of aggressive renewable mandates, unreliable solar-and-wind experiments, and a fragile grid that forces blackouts and insane peak pricing.  Throw in sky-high grocery bills inflated by regulation and taxes, $2,000-plus monthly childcare costs, and healthcare premiums that lead the nation, and Newsom’s diaper box looks not just small—it looks insulting and pathetic. This is virtue signaling elevated to an art form—Sacramento’s signature contribution to governance. Identify a real but relatively minor pain point. Partner with a well-connected nonprofit tied to the governor’s wife. Spend multiples of what the private sector charges. Hold a press conference with the First Partner beaming beside you. Declare victory. Then ignore the $2,500 rents, $6 gas, and sky-high power bills that actually determine whether young families can survive in the state. California doesn’t need more symbolic handouts from an out-of-touch governor. It needs leaders willing to slash housing regulations, reform disastrous energy policy, cut taxes on everyday essentials, and stop treating taxpayers like an unlimited ATM for expensive feel-good stunts.  Instead, while the state burns with unaffordability, we get 400 diapers that run out faster than Newsom’s poll numbers at a $6-a-gallon gas pump. Golden State Start is a punchline delivered at taxpayer expense. A state that can’t house its people, fuel its cars, or keep the lights on affordably has decided the answer to family struggles is a short stack of overpriced government diapers.  The joke, as always, is on the hard-working Californians left footing the bill while the real crises grow worse by the year under Newsom’s watch.