NEWS

The Duke of York has been cut off financially by his brother King Charles, according to an updated royal biography.

Prince Andrew had been under financial pressure over the cost of running his 30-room home at Royal Lodge in Windsor,

But it’s now claimed by royal author Robert Hardman that the King has decided to stop paying for security at Prince Andrew’s house or provide a personal allowance. Together, these costs are believed to currently amount to several million pounds a year.

Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the book’s claims, which are being serialised by the Daily Mail.

The claim over Prince Andrew’s income being stopped comes in an updated version of a biography of King Charles, written by the royal author Robert Hardman.

It says that the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who looks after the royal finances, has been instructed to end the personal allowance and security payments for Prince Andrew.

It had already been understood by the BBC that the King was not willing to subsidise Prince Andrew indefinitely – but this suggests a final decision has now been taken to cut him off.

The prince, who no longer has an official spokesperson, has so far not responded to the claims over losing this funding.

But it would mean that he would have to find his own way of paying the upkeep and security of Royal Lodge, a 19th Century listed building in Windsor. It is believed that there would be a high cost to maintain the large property, which is leased from the Crown Estate.

This financial pressure on the prince comes after the release of two separate films this year – made byNetflix and Amazon – about his interview on BBC Newsnight in 2019, in which he was questioned about his connections to the American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The prince stepped down as a working royal and later lost his military titles and royal patronages and withdrew to a private life at Royal Lodge. A commentator described him as being “de-royalled”.

Although it is the King who is said to have forced the issue of funding, sources have previously suggested this has been part of a longer-term question, pre-dating the King’s reign, about settling 64-year-old Prince Andrew’s future accommodation and finances.

Rather than the extensive home at Royal Lodge, previously occupied by the Queen Mother, it has been suggested that the prince could move to the smaller Frogmore Cottage, once occupied by Prince Harry and Meghan, as it would have a much lower maintenance and security cost.

Frogmore Cottage can be used at the discretion of the monarch, while Royal Lodge remains a leased property, owned independently by the Crown Estate, which could be used for other commercial purposes.

But the prince has his own personal lease on Royal Lodge, which lasts until 2078, and if he can pay his own way he can remain at the house, which he has shared with his ex-wife Sarah.

The prince paid considerable amounts up-front when he moved into Royal Lodge, which has meant lower costs for him in the longer term, making it less of an incentive to leave.

The house had been in need of renovation and he took on the initial repairs of more than £7.5m at the time. There was also a one-off payment of £2.5m as a way of buying out the annual rental.

He also made a one-off payment of £1m to his landlords, the Crown Estate, according to documents from the National Audit Office.

But there was a clause that if he left the house within 25 years of the start of the lease he would receive compensation for his original payment on repairs – with that amount shrinking each year.

With only four years left on that arrangement, he would not stand to recoup much of the £7.5m he spent on renovating the house – another incentive not to give up his lease.

But there are still high costs of security and maintenance – and Robert Hardman’s books says the King will no longer be picking up the bills.

He quotes a source as saying: “The duke is no longer a financial burden on the King.”

Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story by Robert Hardman, will be published by Macmillan on 7 November.

SHARON D Clarke is a three time Olivier Award winner and is best known to television audiences for her role as Lola in Holby City and Grace in Dr Who.

She is currently on television opposite Lennie James in the BBC‘s Mr Loverman and stars in the new Channel 5 detective drama, Ellis.

4

4

4

4

Sharon has had an extensive career, appearing in an array of other TV shows including The Bill and EastEnders, as well as BBC drama The Shadow Line.

However, Sharon has also had a prolific stage career.

She won the 2014 Laurence Olivier Award for Best Actress in a supporting role for her role in The Amen Corner.

She won her second Olivier for Best Actress in a Musical for her role as Caroline Thibodeaux in the 2018 West End production of Caroline of Change.

She reprised the role on Broadway in 2021, earning her both Tony and Grammy Award nominations.

In October 2020, she won her third Olivier for her role in the revival of Death of a Salesman at London‘s Young Vic.

It is no wonder therefore that Sharon chose a romantic stage setting to be married in when she tied the knot with wife Susie McKenna in 2008.

Sharon, who was born in Enfield, North London said: “I have loved Hackney Empire from the first time I saw her. My dad used to play bingo there.

“In 1999, I played Fairy Godmother in Cinderella, written and directed by a lady called Susie McKenna, who I eventually married on the Empire stage in 2008.”

She added: “This beautiful theatre has given me the love of my life and a family who are my true peeps to this day.”

In a new interview with The Guardian Sharon reflected on her illustrious career and said: “I’ve never really known what’s coming around the corner.

“I started at dance school when I was six, so I knew that I wanted to be a part of this industry, but I never asked for fame.”

She added that her 15-year-old self watched Dr Who from behind the sofa and would say: “Wow, this is madness, you’ve gone to Broadway and been on Doctor Who.”

Sharon concluded by saying: “I feel very lucky. The universe has been wonderful to me in my chosen career, so I will continue to leave things in the universe’s hands.”

Top Channel 5 dramas

Channel 5 has become a hub for gripping drama, these are some of the best My5 has to offer.

• All Creatures Great and Small – Based on the best-selling novels by real-life vet Alf Wright, the show revolves around a trio of vets working in the Yorkshire Dales in the late 1930s. Eccentric Siegfried Farnon (Samuel West) hires James Herriot (Nicholas Ralph) for his veterinary practice at Skeldale House alongside himself and his younger brother Tristan (Callum Woodhouse). There James settles into his new life and even finds love with local farmer’s daughter Helen (Rachel Shenton).

• The Ex-Wife – New parents Tasha (Céline Buckens) and Jack (Tom Misson) seem to have the perfect life, but the constant presence of Jack’s overly friendly but suspicious ex-wife Jen (Janet Montgomery) puts pressure on the couple. But as the series progresses it becomes less clear who the bad guy really is and how far everyone will go to get the life they think they deserve.

• Heat – EastEnders alum Danny Dyer leads this four-part action thriller, set in Australia, which sees two families holidaying together during bushfire season. But instead of rest and relaxation, secrets and lies start to unravel — and not everyone will make it out alive…

• Lie With Me – Another soap legend jets off to Australia, this time its EastEnders alum Charlie Brooks who takes as a married woman trying to saving her marriage by moving halfway around the world after her husband had an affair. However it’s far from plain sailing, as a young and attractive live-in nanny comes to work with the Fallmont family, and tensions soon build and eventually, someone ends up dead.

• The Drowning – Jill Halfpenny plays Jodie, a woman whose life is shattered following the disappearance of her beloved four-year-old son, Daniel. However, ten years later, the grieving mother thinks she’s finally found her missing child, and embarks on a journey to discover the truth about him. But has she really just found the son she has been missing for so long? 

Sharon stars in Channel 5’s Ellis where she plays DCI Ellis, a determined black female police officer who is known for cracking unsolved crimes.

It started on Thursday and it is set to rival the beloved ITV drama Vera, which is coming to an end.

Ellis is available to watch on Channel 5.

It has been a bumpy ride for Bitcoin and Dogecoin today, but investors continue to buy the new meme coin Crypto All-Stars.

Bitcoin has slumped by 4.37% and Dogecoin by 9.49%. Yet, Crypto All-Stars is cheering as its presale total raise nears $3 million.

BTC and DOGE Take Hit Despite Record-Breaking ETF Inflows

The Farside Investments ETF tracker reports $870.1 million inflows on Wednesday and $893.3 million on Thursday.

However, it seems Wall Street got cold feet when BTC found sub-$73K resistance because Thursday’s inflows amounted to a measly $32.3 million.

Currently, BTC is trading at $69,247, down 4.37% today, up 2.76% this week, and 12.02% this month.

All eyes were on Bitcoin’s monthly close yesterday – it was on track to be the highest ever. However, it fell short due to strong selling pressure, returning it to its horizontal trading range.

A record-breaking monthly close would have been nice, but analysts are still bracing for a bullish November.

“Bitcoin has entered another extremely bullish month. A new month has started. November is historically speaking bullish,” wrote Mister Crypto.

Today’s price action and traders’ opinions don’t align – and it’s the same story for Dogecoin.

It’s currently trading at $0.1559, down 9.49% today, up 13.05% this week, and 43.66% this month.

Following Bitcoin’s lead, DOGE found resistance at a long-term resistance level. It crashed after retesting $0.18, which it last rejected in May.

But, like Bitcoin, analysts expect big things in November.

Crypto Daily Trading Signals acknowledges that “everyone is in panic mode” but believes Dogecoin’s selloff is necessary for its long-term uptrend.

The analyst says DOGE is forming a “huge cup and handle on the daily chart,” with a price target of $0.22.

OK here it is for everyone that is in $Doge panic mode right now. #Dogecoin has formed a huge cup and handle on the daily chart- Started June 2024.
-Middle of Oct we started the Handle of the cup.
-Handle has $0.15 cent support area in red.
We should bounce off this support… pic.twitter.com/Ir4UBdaAu5

— Crypto Daily Trade Signals (@cryptodailyTS) November 1, 2024

According to analysts, Bitcoin and Dogecoin’s price action isn’t alarming. November will be a bullish month.

This could well be why investors continue pouring funds into the viral Crypto All-Stars presale.

Crypto All-Stars Enables Staking For DOGE and SHIB – Presale Nears $3M

Crypto All-Stars is creating an application we’ve never seen before.

It’s launching a staking protocol that will enable holders of DOGE, SHIB, PEPE, and other meme coins to generate passive income.

The project is causing a stir as meme coin season heats up. It provides an additional revenue stream to crypto’s best-performing narrative.

Users’ earnings will be proportional to the number of $STARS tokens they have, incentivizing them to buy as many as possible.

Meanwhile, supply will be thin because users can also stake their $STARS tokens. This feature is already live and provides an APY of over 500%.

The use case has generated a lot of interest. Analyst Austin Hilton said that “no other meme coin has ever done” what Crypto All-Stars is doing.

Meanwhile, ClayBro says it is “set to soar” and could even see 20x gains after launching on exchanges.

The crypto market has been in freefall today, but Crypto All-Stars is marching torward $3 million total raised.

Coupled with the backing of top analysts, this illustrates the market’s deep appetite and could lead to long-term gains.

The current Crypto All-Stars presale price is $0.0015371, but this will rise in two days.

Visit Crypto All-Stars Presale

There is no Spanish word for “swing state.”

But there are many Latinos living and voting in the seven battlegrounds that will determine the outcome of race for the White House between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump. So Spanish-language network Telemundo came up with a term: “El Péndulo.”

“El Péndulo,” or the pendulum, became the name of Telemundo’s podcast examining the voting bloc and will be used frequently Tuesday when Noticias Telemundo anchor Julio Vaqueiro leads the network’s “Decisión 2024” coverage alongside Arantxa Loizaga. (The broadcast will also be streamed on the network’s free streaming channel, Noticias Telemundo Ahora.)

Vaqueiro has led the NBCUniversal-owned network’s nightly newscast since 2021. A native of San Juan del Rio, Querétaro, Mexico, he has been with the network since 2011 and was a favorite of Los Angeles viewers when he anchored local morning and evening news programs on Telemundo 52.

Vaqueiro, 37, shared his insights on covering the Latino vote in a phone conversation from the network’s Miami studio.

Noticias Telemundo anchor Julio Vaqueiro on Telemondo’s election night set in Miama.

(Telemundo)

What are we learning about Latino voters in this presidential cycle that the English-speaking media had been missing?

People are beginning to understand how important they are in terms of numbers. More than 36 million Latinos are eligible to vote this election cycle. Both campaigns know about their importance. But there’s still a lot to really know about Latino voters — how complex they are, how diverse they are and how many issues are important for them.

Latino voters are a dynamic group that’s been changing. It’s the fastest-growing group, it’s the second-largest group of voting-age Americans, and a lot of them are young voters who are still undecided and are up for grabs. And sometimes we still talk about the “Latino vote” as a big bloc of voters. The truth is that they vote differently if they live in Florida, if they come from Cuba or Venezuela, or if they come from Puerto Rico, or if they live in California and they come from Mexico and Central America.

What are those regional differences?

We can say in general that we see a trend in which Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Central Americans tend to be more Democratic. They tend to live in the southwestern part of the country. And then in Florida, we see a Cuban American population that tends to be more Republican. In central Florida, we have a Puerto Rican community that can be more Democratic. But then the swing states, which really matter this time around — Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania — we see communities that can be very divided.

For instance, we used to think about Latinos in Pennsylvania as Puerto Ricans living in Philadelphia and in the suburbs of that city. And there’s this whole population that got to an area called the “Latino Belt,” in places like Allentown or Hazleton with a large Dominican Republic population and Mexican population, and where you see the vote is very divided.

Part of it has to do with the origins of these voters, the countries where they come from, and their personal stories of migration and the stories of migration within their families. But the issues they care about are very similar to the issues that an American cares about: the economy, the cost of living, inflation.

What was the viewer reaction to that joke that comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made about Puerto Rico at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally?

People are saying they are outraged and disgusted by the joke. And high-profile Puerto Ricans are reacting to this — Bad Bunny, Ricky Martin, Jennifer Lopez — and all of them signaling their support to the Democratic candidate. That can be very important if you think about the amount of followers they have on social media, more than 300 million all together.

So this could have an impact?

Well, I think it could. In a state like Pennsylvania, it can really make a difference. If you think about the margins by which President Biden won the state in 2020 — only 80,000 votes — and there are more than a half-million Puerto Ricans living in Pennsylvania.

Trump has been polling better among Latinos than any recent Republican presidential candidate. Does he have any type of characteristics that appeal to Latino voters?

The most important thing to consider is how these voters can be open to different options. Now, the issue they mostly care about is the economy, the cost of living, inflation. So many of them supporting the alternative to the government that they’ve had for the past four years comes from economic concerns. Former President Trump does appeal to some Latino men especially, because in Latin America we do have that caudillo image or caudillo figure of a strong man in government. We have a couple of examples there: Nayib Bukele, Nicolás Maduro and Fidel Castro. And some voters might feel attracted to that masculinity.

Is a woman president a harder sell for Latino men? Or does what we’ve recently seen in Mexico where Claudia Sheinbaum was elected show that it’s not?

We actually also have lots of examples in Latin America of women presidents. You just mentioned Mexico, for instance. So definitely no.

Harris did a 20-minute sit-down interview with you. Trump did not. (Trump did appear in a town hall that aired on Univison). Did his campaign say why?

No. We’ve really tried. We’ve sent emails, letters, we’ve had meetings with them. They just haven’t agreed to an interview.

In your talk with Harris, you pointed out how neither candidate has really talked a lot about a path to citizenship for migrants. Most of the immigration discussion has centered on border protection. Is that something you’re hearing from viewers?

I think most Latino voters agree with both things: immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship, and also a more secure border. But it’s true, we’ve seen this shift in the Democratic Party, where we are mainly talking about border security. And we have no details about how to get an immigration reform or an immigration relief for immigrants.

The United States is just days away from its presidential election, with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump focusing their campaigns on crucial swing states, where every vote matters.

As Election Day approaches, we take a closer look at what to expect on the day itself and how the results may unfold.

When is the US election?

The election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.

In most states, polling stations will open between 7am and 9am local time. Given the span of multiple time zones in the US, that would be between 11:00 GMT and 16:00 GMT.

At what time does the polling end?

Poll closing times differ from state to state and sometimes county to county.

However, most polling stations will close between 6pm Eastern Time and midnight Eastern Time (22:00-04:00 GMT).

When does the US vote counting begin, and when can we expect the results?

Just hours after the first polls close at 6pm Eastern Time (22:00 GMT), results are expected to start coming in. However, some states will tally votes more quickly than others. As polls close several hours later in states to the west, their first results will only start coming later – when some eastern states might already have been called for Harris or Trump.

In a tight race between them, counting could continue well past election night, and we might not know the winner for several days.

“It’s really close,” says Raymond J. La Raja, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

According to FiveThirtyEight’s National Polls tracker, Harris maintains a narrow national lead of about 1.2 points as of Friday.

However, La Raja explained that the polls might not accurately capture some voter groups, which could lead to surprising results for either candidate. If the polls are wrong and the race is not as tight as expected “then we will know pretty quickly,” he added.

“But my guess is we will not know in the first few days.

“It’s so close [that a candidate might] not concede… so I would get out the coffee and tea because it’s going to be a long evening that might go into few days.”

What do we know about the swing states?

Seven swing states are expected to be key in deciding the presidential race outcome.

These key states include Pennsylvania (19 Electoral votes), North Carolina (16), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), and Nevada (6), collectively totaling 93 Electoral College votes.

A candidate needs at least 270 out of 538 Electoral votes to win the election.

Polls in these states will close between 7pm and 10pm Eastern Time (23:00 to 02:00 GMT).

Some of the first results will likely come from Georgia, where state law requires that all early votes be counted and reported by 8pm Eastern Time (midnight GMT) on election night.

North Carolina follows. In this state, votes will be counted and reported throughout the evening, with complete results anticipated by midnight (04:00 GMT).

In 2020, Nevada was slow, and the state was not called until five days after election day. Since then, the rules have changed, and the process is expected to move faster this time. Still, the results might not be known on election night. The state allows late-arriving mail ballots, so it could take days until we know the final results.

Pennsylvania, one of the most important battleground states, did not have a clear winner in 2020 for four days after Election Day. The state is one of only a few that do not allow election workers to begin processing mail ballots until Election Day, which means it will likely take several days before the results are known.

In Michigan, the counting could be faster than in previous elections, as it now allows officials to begin processing mail ballots before Election Day, but we do not have a clear time yet for when the state might be called.

In Arizona, officials can begin processing mail ballots as soon as they are received. First results are expected to be reported at about 10pm Eastern Time (02:00 GMT), one hour after the polls close.

Finally, in Wisconsin, poll workers cannot begin processing ballots until Election Day, which means there could also be delays, similar to Pennsylvania. According to a CNN report, results are not likely until Wednesday.

What happens if there is a tie?

If there is a 269-269 tie or a third-party candidate wins Electoral votes, preventing any candidate from reaching 270 votes, the step that follows is known as a “contingent election”.

A contingent election is the process that takes place when the US House of Representatives decides the winner. Each state’s delegation in the House casts one vote, and a candidate must receive a majority of the state delegation votes to win.

The US Senate would then choose the vice president with each senator casting one vote and a simple majority (51 votes) required to win.

There have been three instances of contingent elections in the US, in 1801, 1825 and 1837. The closest election in recent years was the 2000 presidential contest, when George W Bush won 271 Electoral College votes – just one more than he needed – after a controversial recount in Florida. Outgoing Vice President Al Gore won 266 Electoral College votes.

Is there concern about a potential delay this year?

If the announcement of results is delayed, “it definitely increases feelings of fraud and illegitimacy,” La Raja said.

“The longer we wait, people are like: what’s going on behind those closed doors? How are they counting the ballots? Who’s lying?,” he added.

According to him, it’s better to have a tight election and reach “the verdict quickly.”

These fears and doubts arose in 2021, when thousands of supporters of then-President Trump stormed the Capitol, trying to overturn his 2020 election loss and forcing lawmakers to run for safety. This happened after he told his supporters to “fight like hell.”

What has happened in previous years?

In the last election in 2020, the results were announced four days after the election on November 3, once Pennsylvania’s results were confirmed. In the previous election in 2016, Hillary Clinton conceded to Donald Trump the morning after the election.

In the 2020 election, some states went through what is known as a “red mirage”, with Trump appearing to lead when the initial votes were counted on election night. A “blue shift” took place as additional, mail-in votes were counted, and President Joe Biden took the lead.

Jury found Brett Hankison used excessive force in botched police raid in 2020 in which Black woman was shot dead.

A former police officer in the state of Kentucky has been convicted of violating the civil rights of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman whose death in a police raid prompted racial justice protests across the United States in 2020.

Brett Hankison, a former Louisville police officer, was convicted on one count of civil rights abuse on Friday, with a 12-member federal jury determining that he used excessive force on Taylor during the raid.

Hankison fired 10 shots into Taylor’s glass door and windows during the raid but did not hit anyone. Some shots flew into a neighbour’s adjoining apartment.

Taylor, an emergency medical technician, was asleep with her boyfriend on March 13, 2020, when police conducted a no-knock raid and burst into her apartment. Taylor’s boyfriend fired once at what he said he believed were intruders. Three police officers responded with 32 shots, six of which struck Taylor, killing her.

Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, celebrated the verdict with friends outside the court, saying: “It took a lot of time. It took a lot of patience. It was hard. The jurors took their time to really understand that Breonna deserved justice.”

Hankison was one of four officers charged by the US Department of Justice in 2022 with violating Taylor’s civil rights. He is the first to be convicted and faces life in prison. He is set to be sentenced next March.

Prosecutors said Hankison acted recklessly and “violated one of the most fundamental rules of deadly force: If they cannot see the person they’re shooting at, they cannot pull the trigger.”

Two other officers remain charged with falsifying a search warrant affidavit. Last August, Kelly Goodlett, a former police officer in Louisville, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge in relation to the killing of Taylor. Goodlett became the first officer to be held criminally responsible for the raid.

Taylor’s killing at the hands of police, along with that of George Floyd in Minnesota, Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia, and others, prompted mass protests demanding an end to deadly police violence against Black people across the US.

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said on Friday: “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend the civil rights of every person in this country to be free from unlawful police violence.”

JANEY Godley’s daughter thanked people for all their love and support as she announced her mum had passed away.

The comedian died this morning aged 63 after a fight with cancer.

4

4

4

4

Glasgow-born Janey died this morning surrounded by friends and family at the The Prince & Princess of Wales Hospice.

Her daughter Ashley Storrie, 38, broke the news to followers on her mum’s social media and thanked medical staff for everything they had done.

She fought back tears in the heartbreaking clip where she said the support from fans and friends had kept her mum going.

In the devastating video, she said: “Hello friends, my mum Jenny Godley died this morning at about 7.

“She was with friends and family and I wanted to tell you face to face because it felt very much what she would have wanted.

“She went peacefully and I want to say a big thank you to all the staff at the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice and a big thank you to mum’s found family who were around her throughout these last horrible days.”

Ashley thanked relatives and friends for being at Janey’s side when she passed away this morning.

She added: “My Auntie Elaine, Auntie Monica, Shirley, Giovanna, Tony Kelly, my daddy, Honey, Julia Sutherland.

“Thank you so much for being there and for making a very very scary moment peaceful and a nice transition.”

But she had a special message for her mum’s fans, who she said kept her going through her final days with all of their support and “all the love in the world”.

Ashley said: “I want to thank all of you for all of your kindness and your support and I believe in my heart of hearts that she felt every bit of love you sent to her.

“And I think it kept her going. I think it genuinely, we got her longer because of all of the support and the love in the world.

“But that’s it, it’s over now. So thank you once again.”

Heartbroken Ashley broke down at the end of the clip, and ended with her mum’s famous exit line from her popular voiceovers of Nicola Sturgeon’s Covid briefings.

She said: “Bye Ma. Frank, get the door.”

Tributes have been paid to Janey after her death this morning.

First Minister John Swinney and ex-FM Nicola Sturgeon are among those posting heartfelt messages.

Ms Sturgeon, who shared a close friendship with the late comic, said she was “a force of nature.”

Janey was diagnosed with cancer in 2021. She announced she was cancer free in 2022 but the disease returned later that year.

She told fans in September how she was receiving end-of-life care after her battle with the disease.

Updates were continually posted to her social media pages throughout her time in hospice.

Janey Godley was born into poverty in Glasgow in 1961.

But her hard work and humour saw her become a regular co-presenter on BBC Radio 4’s Loose Ends, as well as fronting BBC Radio 4 series The C Bomb.

She also appeared on Have I Got News For You and River City.

And she had some fairly high-profile moments in recent years.

She ended up becoming a viral hit over her “unwelcome” sign for Donald Trump when he visited one of his Scottish golf courses in 2016.

Welcome to Screen Gab, the newsletter for everyone looking for something to inspire them — or soothe them — as election day arrives.

This week, Screen Gab editor Matt Brennan recommends the always timely wisdom of historian Howard Zinn, whose perspective shapes the documentaries “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train” and “A People’s History of the United States.”

Also in issue No. 155, we suggest rewatching “The West Wing” and setting a reminder for “The Daily Show” election special. Plus, we talk baseball with the director of Netflix’s new docuseries “The Comeback.”

ICYMI

Must-read stories you might have missed

Harvey Guillén, left, Kayvan Novak, Mark Proksch, showrunner Paul Simms and Matt Berry of “What We Do in the Shadows.”

(Victoria Will / For The Times)

‘What We Do in the Shadows’ is approaching the end, but ‘life goes on’ in the vampire comedy: Showrunner Paul Simms and cast members discuss their otherworldly comedy, now in its sixth and final season.

Everything you need to know about Death before the ‘Agatha All Along’ finale: Aubrey Plaza’s Rio Vidal was revealed to have been Death all along. Here’s everything you need to know about the character before the “Agatha All Along” finale.

PETA files new motion in Tonia Haddix case, citing ‘Chimp Crazy’ as evidence: PETA filed a new motion Wednesday asking the court to compel Haddix and her alleged accomplices to show why they should not be held in contempt of court, detailing evidence that aired in the HBO docuseries.

Martha Stewart is an ‘unreliable narrator’ but also ‘a visionary,’ documentary director says: R.J. Cutler, the director of Netflix’s ‘Martha,’ discussed his film about the lifestyle guru and businesswoman and how he isn’t bothered by her criticism of it.

Turn on

Recommendations from the film and TV experts at The Times

Former President Obama, left, talks with “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart during his original run in 2015.

(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

‘The Daily Show Presents a Live Election Night Special’ (Comedy Central, simulcast)

If you’ve been doomscrolling and viewing clips and political news nonstop like me (and if you’re not, congratulations on keeping your sanity), you’re probably wondering what you should watch on election night to keep track of the races. I tend to flip through the networks, but I always make a stop at “The Daily Show.” This year’s election-night episode, titled “Indecision 2024: Nothing We Can Do About It Now,” marks 24 years of the “Daily Show” special, which originated during Jon Stewart’s first run on Comedy Central’s satirical news program. And it feels like deja vu not just because Stewart is back as host, but because there is a high probability that we’ll have a repeat of 2000, where we won’t know the winner of the presidential race until after election day. (Remember those hanging chads?) At minimum, the show serves as an hour to deride the maps, magic walls and needles that will inevitably rule the night. And Stewart, who plans to stick around through 2025 in his once a week hosting gig, can continue to help us make sense of it all once we know who prevails. —Maira Garcia

READ MORE: Election news is heavy on video clips. Go deeper with these 10 documentaries, series and specials

James Brolin, left, and Martin Sheen in “The West Wing.”

(Marcia Reed / NBC Entertainment)

‘The West Wing’ (Max)

Folks are doing, and advising, all sorts of things to remain calm during this uniquely stressful presidential election. I’m sure yoga and burning sage offer some relief but I have chosen to rewatch “The West Wing.” Currently celebrating its 25th anniversary, Aaron Sorkin’s workplace drama offers the soothing combination of nostalgia — gather round while I tell of a time when broadcast networks could win Emmys for best drama — and political aspiration. Was there ever a White House run by a mere half dozen quick-witted, friendship-bound aides with no ambition beyond serving their quantifiably brilliant economist president and the people? Of course not. Does it remain deeply pleasurable to watch an extraordinary group of writers, directors and actors attempt to convince us otherwise? Yes indeed. Also a tiny bit sad. “The West Wing” was followed by the darker (but undeniably entertaining) visions of “24,” “Scandal” and “Veep” and the more general rise of the antihero. “West Wing” was often pointed and certainly partisan — it was in many ways a centrist Democrat’s fever dream — but it was never politically mean-spirited. Which makes it even more of a revelation, 25 years later, than it was when it premiered. —Mary McNamara

Catch up

Everything you need to know about the film or TV series everyone’s talking about

Howard Zinn in New York in 2006

(Dima Gavrysh / Associated Press)

In the documentaries “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train” (2004) and “A People’s History of the United States” (2015), both streaming on Kanopy, scholar Howard Zinn lays claim to the original meaning of radicalism: Going to the root of the problem.

Born in Brooklyn to working-class immigrant parents and raised in a series of cold water flats, Zinn — by turns shipyard organizer, Air Force veteran, civil rights activist, antiwar protester, university professor, public intellectual — did not so much escape poverty and injustice as spend a lifetime confronting their causes, ultimately fashioning a survey of the American experience written from the perspective of its “rabbits,” rather than its “hunters.” First published in 1980, “A People’s History” placed sit-ins and wildcat strikes at the center of our national narrative, and interpreted such direct action — even when unsuccessful — as evidence of opposition to capitalism, militarism and white supremacy that had too often been written out of the story. “I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong,” Zinn, who died in 2010, once described the perspective that led him to write history from below: “That the wrong people are in power, and the wrong people are out of power.” As a result, his work awakened readers to the role played by class conflict, racial injustice, gender inequality and imperial might in a country whose history has traditionally been framed as a victory march.

Of course, at a brisk 78 and 90 minutes, respectively, “You Can’t Be Neutral” and “A People’s History” barely scratch the surface of the Jamestown settlement or the Ludlow Massacre. (Ken Burns, take note: The survey text practically cries out for the “Civil War” treatment.) The films focus instead on Zinn’s conceptual innovations, particularly his understanding that the government, the law, the police and other major institutions in American life are officially or unofficially owned by, and act in the service of, wealthy, powerful interests — who in turn treat the decisions of those institutions as “holy writ.” Moral outrage and grassroots resistance to those interests, Zinn posited, were the only means of genuine social change; to be silent in the face of the establishment was indeed to endorse it. “I don’t believe it’s possible to be neutral,” he said. “The world is already moving in certain directions, and to be neutral, to be passive, in a situation like that is to collaborate with whatever’s going on.” — Matt Brennan

Guest spot

A weekly chat with actors, writers, directors and more about what they’re working on — and what they’re watching

The World Champion Boston Red Sox of 2004, when the team won the World Series after an 86-year drought.

(Netflix)

When the Dodgers had the Yankees down 3-0 in the World Series earlier this week, the trailing team’s desperate fans and loyal supporters of their archrival Boston Red Sox could agree on at least one thing: “The Comeback” was the only historical precedent the men in pinstripes had for hope. Netflix, now streaming a new docuseries of the same name, could scarcely have planned it any better. Colin Barnicle’s three-part deep dive into Red Sox’s epic victory over the Yanks in the 2004 American League Championship Series, a prelude to their first World Series title in 86 years, is catnip to those, like me, who watched our team “reverse the curse” in real time — and a reminder, for everyone else, that baseball is a game of miracles. Barnicle stopped by Screen Gab recently to discuss his memories of ‘04, what he’s watching and more. —Matt Brennan

What have you watched recently that you’re recommending to everyone you know?

I just saw Jason Reitman’s film “Saturday Night,” which was great. I’m not a “Saturday Night Live” aficionado or anything but it had all the things I really enjoy — amazing characters with high stakes — and it really let you into that experience of trying to accomplish something you’re overzealous about and yet doubtful of the outcome. On the documentary side, “Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story” (VOD) and “The Greatest Night in Pop” [Netflix] are two spectacularly executed pieces where you follow the characters through the story, rather than it being the other way around.

What’s your go-to “comfort watch,” the film or TV show you return to again and again?

If “Raiders of the Lost Ark” [Prime Video, Paramount+] or “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” [VOD] are on, I’m watching. But at night, after my wife and I put the children to bed, we’re putting on “Seinfeld” [Netflix]. The whole idea of no good deed goes unpunished, trying to force an outcome, it never gets old and it’s never not funny.

What’s your most potent personal memory of the Sox’s championship run in 2004?

It’s the first time I’d ever taken a picture with my cellphone. A year prior, my father took my younger brother, Tim, and I to Yankee Stadium for Game 7 and the Red Sox lost. It was devastating. Tim was bawling his eyes out — I don’t know, maybe I was too — and my father leaned down and hugged my brother and said, “I can’t believe I did this to you.” He’d given him something that didn’t love him back: the Red Sox. A year later, we were there again. Same seats, same Game 7, and the Red Sox won and in the chaos of the moment, Tim and I snuck onto the field and Tim ran the bases. He was 11, could barely make it around, winded as all hell as he rounded third base to home and he shouted, “I can’t believe it” and I pulled out my cellphone and took a picture. It’s on the wall at my parents’ house right when you walk in the door.

Between “The Comeback” and “This Is a Robbery,” your two highest profile series to date have taken on Boston-centric subjects. What’s a Boston story you’d still like to tell, if you could do anything?

Boston is a city of neighborhoods. Each one has their own story. The old adage used to be that you either had a priest, a cop, a criminal or all three in your family and this in a place with the best higher education, best hospitals and an outsized punch in politics. There’s no shortage of good stories in Beantown. You can never limit it to just one. That’s the best part.

“Mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual sensitivity should remain the basis of our relations”. That’s what Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India reminded his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping when the two leaders met in Kazan, Russia, for their first formal meeting in five years on the sidelines of the 16^th BRICS summit, while the latter pointed out that the two sides should “strengthen communication and cooperation, enhance strategic mutual trust, and facilitate each other’s pursuit of development aspirations”. However, how will things pan out when one country finds itself on the favourable side of a serious asymmetrical power equation?

The Kazan rendezvous came two days after the armies of both countries reached an agreement on restoring border patrols along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh to the limits as it existed before May 2020, thereby bringing an end to a standoff that went on to cast a long shadow over the overall bilateral ties. This entails a pullback of soldiers and dismantling temporary infrastructure built in contested areas. The soldiers on both sides exchanged sweets at several points along the LAC on the occasion of Diwali, as they completed disengagement at the last two remaining friction points – Depsang and Demchok.

Meanwhile, the Indian industry is elated with the border thaw, considering the much-needed assistance from Chinese technicians, to which the government has responded positively. Earlier, the now-resolved standoff had forced India to impose certain measures to limit Chinese influence on the Indian economy, including measures to ban a slew of Chinese apps, restrict Chinese investment, diversify supply chains, and boost domestic manufacturing, where a significant skill gap exists. But how far can India ease them? Will direct flights between the two countries resume any time soon? Well, all of it squarely depends on how the remaining strategic insecurities between the two countries are ‘minimised’, if not resolved.

Recall that more than a decade before, in September 2014, even as Modi and Xi met in India, one must not forget that the Chinese troops continued to intrude into Indian territory at Demchok and Chumar in Ladakh. The two leaders met 18 times in various formats in the years that followed, including in informal summits, until the 2020 standoff began. Then the Galwan incident occurred in June 2020, which dispelled several illusions and pointed fingers at the looming strategic mistrust between the two Asian giants. So now, the bigger question is, can we take the current thaw for granted?