Families, in their various flavors, have been essential to television since that light first flickered on. They may be ideal or nightmarish, or both, or in between, and we take to them — be they Waltons or Addamses or Simpsons — according to our own experience or desires, having known families of our own or wanted something other than what we had.
In “Schitt’s Creek,” Dan Levy co-created — with his father, Eugene, yet — one of the medium’s greatest family comedies. It was a show that grew over time from a basic premise about rich people who lose their money and are forced to live at close quarters in adjoining motel rooms to a paean to love, understanding and acceptance. It swept the comedy categories at the 2020 Emmys, including acting awards for both Levys, Catherine O’Hara and Annie Murphy and writing and directing trophies for Dan.
“To family” are in fact the last words spoken in the first season of “Bad Mistakes,” Levy’s noisy, funny new show, co-created with Rachel Sennott and now streaming on Netflix — though given what precedes it, it’s less a blessing than a curse. Levy plays Nicky, a pastor at a sparsely attended suburban New Jersey church of no evident denomination. He’s out as gay, but supposedly celibate; that he has a boyfriend, Tareq (Jacob Gutierrez), is known only to Tareq; this, of course, creates a secret, which will create pressure, which will create comedy.
Sister Morgan (Taylor Ortega) is an elementary school teacher, a job that doesn’t quite jibe with everything else we see about her — it’s barely represented, anyway, summer having come — and a very longtime boyfriend, Max (Jack Innanen), who has decided that now is the moment to propose. She had once tried acting in New York, which means that she lived a wilder life once and is something of an improviser. Their mother, Linda (Laurie Metcalf), who owns a hardware store, is running for mayor and the campaign is being managed by extra daughter Natalie (Abby Quinn).
The series begins as their grandmother is dying, and at Linda’s command, they rush out to buy her a present — Linda is trying to squeeze in an “early birthday” before her mother passes. And because she is that sort of person, Morgan shoplifts what she imagines is a cheap necklace from a convenience store. (Attendant Yusuf, played by Boran Kuzum, will have much to do.) The necklace isn’t cheap, it turns out, for no particularly good reason, and the convenience store isn’t just a convenience store, but a kind of waystation for stolen goods run by local Russian mobsters. As a result, Morgan and Nicky find themselves forced to run errands for them, under threat of death, or worse.
The show gets very complicated on its way to a circular semi-conclusion; there is a lot going on, with Linda’s mayoral ambitions and various relationship issues. (Elizabeth Perkins plays Max’s mother, bridging storylines.) But it’s a good ride, and classic in its way; searching the phrase “get mixed up with gangsters” brings forth a host of old comedies. Through the dodgiest situations, brother and sister do not hesitate to argue. Nicky would love to be anywhere else, while Morgan finds it invigorating. Though it is all improbable, the parts do mesh neatly; they make television sense.
Finally, the series rests on the shoulders of the three principal players, who are just a pleasure to watch; the camera obliges by moving in close. Levy brings a soft-spoken breathlessness you may recognize from his David Rose on “Schitt’s”; his softly muttered “OK,” which might just mean “stop talking,” is almost a trademark. Ortega brings a kind of poignance to her reborn wild child, while Metcalf plays Linda with a kind of small-town operatic intensity, eyes popped and pronunciation precise — she’s like a country cousin to O’Hara’s Moira Rose — as if she were onstage pitching to the back row of the theater.
Michelle Pfeiffer and Elle Fanning in “Margo’s Got Money Troubles,” premiering April 15, 2026 on Apple TV.
(Allyson Riggs/Courtesy of Apple)
In “Margo’s Got Money Problems, premiering Wednesday on Apple TV, Elle Fanning plays the title character, a college student flattered into bed by her married-with-children writing professor, Mark (Michael Angarano), despite my shouting at the screen for her not to do it. Soon she is pregnant, and soon after that the essentially single mother of baby Bodhi, unable to find work or the time to write. (As the heroine, we assume her talent.)
Presumably in search of some normalcy, Margo’s mother, Shyanne (Michelle Pfeiffer), a former good time girl — but still sparkly — has become engaged to Kenny (Greg Kinnear), Christian, square and sincere; the Ralph Bellamy of the piece, you are not asked to take him quite seriously (though Kinnear plays him straight). Shyanne’s ex-husband is Jinx, a former professional wrestler, played by Nick Offerman with the low-key affect of Ron Swanson, dialed down even further; depression and drug addiction will do that to you. Fresh out of rehab, he trades a championship belt for a motorcycle and joins the household; though he left Margo early, and unlike Shyanne, he proves to have a marvelous, easy way with Bodhi. (The baby himself, or babies — they use twins for this job — are themselves marvelous.)
Also in residence is roommate Susie (Thaddea Graham), a chirpy cosplayer — and coincidentally Jinx’s biggest fan — whose skills will become valuable as Margo, needing cash, sets off into the world of OnlyFans. First picking up tips describing followers’ penises in terms of Pokémon (no explanation has been thought necessary), she pivots to video, mounting increasingly elaborate sexy sci-fi productions alongside Susie (sets and costumes), Jinx (narrative advice, stunt coordinator) and OnlyFans veterans KC (Rico Nasty) and Rose (Lindsey Normington), a fabulous tag team to whom Margo turns for advice. (Margo does seem to take things over, but it’s her name in the title, so there you go.) This introduces an element of Mickey and Judy, my uncle’s got a barn, let’s put on a show comedy. More important, it creates a team, melding the family you make with the family you have.
It’s as sweet as can be. Apart from sleeping with one’s professor — students, do not do this! — the show is positive about just about everything: motherhood, daughterhood, professional wrestling, second chances, sex work, cosplaying and the way art shows up in strange places. Only Marcia Gay Harden, as Mark’s mother, Elizabeth, is an outright villain, and you will hate her.
The series was created by David E. Kelley (Mr. Michelle Pfeiffer), from Rufi Thorpe’s 2024 novel, once again under the umbrella of Nicole Kidman’s Blossom Films (following their collaborations on “Big Little Lies,” “Nine Perfect Strangers” and “Love & Death”), with its house style of well-upholstered capital-Q Quality (as distinct, in its pop-cult, way, from prestige). (Kidman has a small role as a wrestler-turned-lawyer and it’s been a while since I’ve seen her this well used.) “Margo’s Got Money Problems” can be terribly sentimental, almost corny — the climax is pure Hollywood — but undeniably effective. And if its mix of comedy and drama can be a little destabilizing, you won’t need to worry about where it ends up.
Many people make simple mistakes when submitting passport photos, which often require them to reapply. Here, learn what to avoid and how to take the perfect photo.
Applying for a passport costs over £100(Image: Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
When planning a trip, it’s common to want to spend as little as possible and avoid traps that can land us with unexpected costs. But if it’s time to renew your passport or apply for one, making simple mistakes could end up costing you an extra £102.
UK passport fees exceed £100 for a standard application, so it’s important to ensure everything is correct and up to standard when submitting your application. While there are plenty of official guidelines out there, many applications are still delayed or rejected each year due to photo issues, according to CEWE’s creative lead, Adrianne Yates.
According to HM Passport Office, your passport photo must meet strict requirements so you don’t have to reapply and pay new fees.
For the perfect photo, stand in front of a plain, light-coloured background, use balanced lighting with no shadows, and take a clear, natural image of your face. You’ll also need to keep your expression neutral – so no smiling – with your mouth closed and eyes open.
If you’re wearing glasses, make sure they don’t cause glare. Headwear is only allowed for religious or medical reasons. Additionally, the image must be in colour, unedited, and taken within the last month to reflect your current look.
While these rules are generally well known, Adrianne Yates has shared some lesser-known tips that could help you even further – to avoid an expensive mistake.
The first one is to not tense up – by simply breathing out just before the photo is taken, as people often hold tension in their face without realising.
She says overthinking can also backfire, as trying too hard to take the perfect photo can leave you with what she describes as a “startled” look, which she says could lead to your photo being rejected.
And one of the most common mistakes people make is not paying enough attention to the lighting rules. The rules clearly state that there should be no shadows, but even faint ones, if overlooked, can cause problems. Adrianne highlights how hair, in particular, can cast shadows across your face, so keep that in mind and make sure your features are fully visible.
While the Commission hailed the Australia agreement as a new geostrategic win, EU farmers continue to express deep discontent stemming from the Mercosur deal.
In practice, the backlash around the agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay has done little to shift the Commission’s dual approach in its negotiating line. On the one hand, the commission kept making concessions on entry-level or mid-range farm goods such as beef, while on the other hand, it pushed for market access for high value-added exports —like wine, Geographical Indications (GI) and cars— with mixed results.
“The EU has all the assets to be an agri-food power,” Luc Vernet, from the export-focused brussels think tank Farm Europe, told Euronews, adding: “We should develop a broader strategy beyond high value-added products, covering all sectors and all levels of quality, because the European model delivers exceptional quality not just in luxury products.”
Yet the opposition to the Latin America deal — which triggered a legal challenge suspending its ratification — crystallised among EU farmers over fears of unfair competition from meat imports.
The Mercosur agreement granted quotas of 99,000 tonnes of beef per year, 25,000 tonnes of pork and 188,000 tonnes of poultry. Despite conditions added to new quotas in the Australia deal, EU farmers complain of imports piling up across successive agreements.
Concessions made on beef
Over eight years of talks with Canberra—the world’s second-largest beef exporter—Australia pushed hard for greater access for beef and sheep meat. Tensions intensified in 2023, when negotiations broke down after the EU rejected Australia’s demand for 40,000 tonnes of beef per year, offering no more than 30,000 tonnes instead.
The final deal agreed Tuesday allows 30,600 tonnes of beef annually into the EU. For sheep and goat meat, Brussels accepted a 25,000-tonne duty-free quota, while sugar was limited to 35,000 tonnes of raw cane for refining and rice to 8,500 tonnes a year.
However, perhaps drawing lessons from Mercosur, Brussels imposed multiple conditions on the quotas. Beef imports, which will have to be from grass-fed cattle, will be phased in over 10 years, sheep meat over 7 years, and rice over 5 years. Sugar will also be subject to certification under a private sustainability scheme.
Safeguard clauses, allowing both sides to react to market disruption, will apply for seven years – but are extended for sensitive farm goods : 15 years for beef, 12 for sheep and 10 for rice.
But a farmers’ representative told Euronews there were serious doubts about the effectiveness of the safeguard mechanisms: “Our experience in general with safeguards is that they are extremely difficult to activate because the burden of the proof is on us, farmers.”
The offensive agenda of the Commission
By contrast, agriculture was far less contentious in the India negotiations, where New Delhi itself resisted opening its market due to domestic farm sensitivities, particularly in dairy. EU sensitive products were largely excluded.
But wine featured prominently on Brussels’ offensive agenda, with Indian tariffs cut from 150% to 20% for premium wines and 30% for mid-range products over seven years. Tariffs for cars will also fall from 110% to 10% but under a quota of 250,000 vehicles a year after a decade – by which point Chinese manufacturers have great chances to have strengthened their position.
In negotiations with Australia, the EU again sought greater access for its wine but encountered strong opposition from domestic producers. In the end, the deal protects more than 1,600 EU wine GIs, plus over 50 new ones from 12 member states.
On Prosecco, Australian producers will still be allowed to use the term domestically to designate a grey grape variety, provided it is linked to Australian GI, with Canberra agreeing to stop exporting such wines after 10 years.
The EU also secured protection for 165 agri-food GIs and 231 spirit drink GIs. But it failed to remove Australia’s luxury car tax, securing instead preferential treatment for EU electric vehicles. But Brussels won improved access to critical raw materials – a key EU demand, that may have lead to more concessions on meat.
The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.
California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.
“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”
That’s a lot of, um, hooey.
There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.
Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.
So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?
Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.
“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”
Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.
Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.
As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.
Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.
After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.
As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.
There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.
First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”
Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:
— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.
— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.
— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.
— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)
The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.
But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
As part of its seemingly never-ending search for new fighters, the Indian Ministry of Defense says it wants to team up with one of the two rival European next-generation combat aircraft programs. Faced by the twin challenges of China and Pakistan’s modernizing air arms, Indian defense officials are now looking at sixth-generation fighters, although buying into either of these programs would be fraught with difficulties.
The development was revealed in a report on 2026 defense budget plans tabled in India’s parliament yesterday. Such a move would provide an alternative to India’s domestically developed next-generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), which looks entirely unlikely to meet its timeline.
BREAKING ⚠️
India will join either the Tempest or FCAS 6th generation fighter programs, Indian MoD tells Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence pic.twitter.com/EC9N4d8zSS
The two European efforts identified by the IAF are the British-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), the centerpiece of which is the Tempest next-generation stealth fighter, and the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program, at the heart of which will be the crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF). Both are expected to be in service by 2035, although that target is questionable in both cases.
As well as the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan have joined the GCAP program, and other potential partners have been mentioned. Meanwhile, the pan-European FCAS program is led by France and Germany, with Belgium and Spain on board as junior partners. This may well change, however, with the program riddled by infighting.
The budget report states that the Indian Ministry of Defense has told the parliament’s Standing Committee on Defense that the Indian Air Force (IAF) wants to join one of these programs “right away.”
The result of such a partnership, the defense ministry contends, would help the IAF “ensure that they do not lag behind in achieving the target for advanced aircraft.”
As we described at the end of last year, the Indian government has said that the IAF needs at least 42 squadrons of combat aircraft. Currently, it has just 29, meaning the service is operating its smallest combat force since it went to war with China in 1962. This problem has been exacerbated by the retirement of the veteran MiG-21 Fishbed.
The upgraded MiG-21 Bison was the last version of the iconic Fishbed in Indian Air Force service. Indian Air Force
Meanwhile, the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft program, which should have provided a successor to the MiG-21, has been mired by delays.
An initial-production version of the Tejas Mk 1 during air combat maneuvers. Indian Ministry of Defense
In the background, India faces the dual threats of China and Pakistan.
Shenyang Aircraft Corporation’s (SAC) J-XDS, also referred to unofficially as the J-50. via X
The question of how the IAF shapes up against the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has long underpinned its status and planning. After the brief conflict last year, both services claimed success with contradictory reports from official channels and rampant speculation across social media.
Pakistan Air Force personnel in front of 14 dual-seat JF-17B fighters rolled out at a ceremony which coincided with the launch of JF-17 Block III aircraft at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in Kamra, in December 2020. Photo by AAMIR QURESHI/AFP via Getty Images AAMIR QURESHI
All of this piles on the pressure to modernize the IAF’s aging combat fleet.
At one point, the IAF appeared set on a fifth-generation fighter.
The twin-engine AMCA is planned to feature low-observable characteristics and — in later versions — a supercruise capability, among other advanced features. Bearing in mind that construction is yet to begin, the possibility of putting this aircraft production by 2035, as has been suggested, seems entirely far-fetched. The saga of the Tejas program, in particular, must cast doubt on the future of the AMCA, at least in terms of meeting schedules.
A full-scale model of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is displayed during the 15th edition of Aero India 2025 at Yelahanka Air Force Station in Bengaluru in February 2025. Photo by Idrees MOHAMMED / AFP IDREES MOHAMMED
In the meantime, both the United States and Russia have pitched alternative fifth-generation fighters to India.
Last year, in something of a surprise announcement, U.S. President Donald Trump offered the F-35 to India, while Russia has long sought India as a customer for its Su-57 Felon. As long ago as 2003, the Prospective Multirole Fighter (PMF) was planned as an India-specific version of the Su-57, before New Delhi exited the program, as you can read about here.
A Russian Su-57 (left) and a U.S. Air Force F-35A during Aero India 2025, a military aviation exhibition at the Yelahanka Air Force Station in Bengaluru. Photo by Arun SANKAR / AFP ARUN SANKAR
The budget report indicates that the Indian Ministry of Defense would like to at least have the option of leapfrogging fifth-generation fighters like the AMCA, F-35, and Su-57, and move directly to the sixth generation.
In terms of keeping pace with China and Pakistan, that is an understandable aspiration.
On the other hand, joining either GCAP or the FCAS program would bring challenges of its own.
At this point, GCAP — involving the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan — might look more promising. Compared to FCAS, the relationship between the three partners is relatively peaceful. There has been talk of Saudi Arabia possibly joining in some capacity, and, more recently, Poland has been reported as being interested in buying the aircraft, too.
But the possibility of India participating more directly in GCAP/Tempest is somewhat remote, since workshare arrangements have already been agreed between the three partners. The IAF would likely be forced to buy the aircraft off the shelf.
The latest concept configuration for the Tempest reveals a design tailored for long-range performance combined with a significant payload capacity. Leonardo
And that is if the British-led program survives the considerable challenges, both technical and political, that lie ahead.
After all, the process of creating an all-new fighter, especially one incorporating stealth technologies, brings very lengthy development times and high costs. The prospect of the Tempest entering service long after 2035 is likely, and the IAF needs new fighters sooner rather than later.
The same goes for the FCAS program, of course.
With FCAS, however, the chances of the program actually making it as far as operational hardware currently seem much slimmer.
For months now, there have been reports of significant rifts between France and Germany on the course that FCAS should take, especially when it comes to workshare, which has yet to be resolved.
French and German officials have repeatedly tried to get the program back on track, in the face of a bitter standoff between the two primes, France’s Dassault Aviation and Germany’s Airbus Defense and Space.
Concept artwork of the NGF fighter that is the centerpiece of the pan-European FCAS. Dassault Aviation
Most recently, it has been reported that France and Germany will have one more go at finding common ground on the program in April.
In the meantime, Germany has raised the possibility of taking its own path to developing a future combat aircraft, something it hasn’t done for decades, and which France has campaigned against.
Whatever happens next month, India’s joining FCAS would be a big risk. Some Indian media reports have suggested that, as a Dassault customer (for the Rafale multirole fighter), India might be able to take Germany’s place in the FCAS program, although it’s equally unclear whether it would be able to negotiate the kind of workshare deal it might want.
An Indian Air Force Rafale. Dassault Aviation
In the best-case scenario, it might be able to buy a much-delayed aircraft that is not necessarily tailored to its own requirements. In the worst case, the program may fall apart entirely and force the various partners to start again from scratch or look for alternatives.
If there is a way for India to enter GCAP or FCAS, that could bring a huge financial windfall for either program. This is what each program needs more than anything else, while increased production rates would mean lower unit costs, preventing the program from entering a death spiral should it mature.
Then there is the future of the AMCA to consider. If India genuinely wants to push ahead with a fifth-generation fighter, which can be developed according to its own particular needs, and over which it retains sovereignty, this program will need to be urgently kick-started. It seems unlikely that it would be possible if India had one foot in either the GCAP or FCAS camps.
Finally, it needs to be acknowledged that it is the Indian Ministry of Defense — acting upon the IAF’s wishes — that wants to join GCAP or FCAS, not necessarily a reflection of what the government wants. As one long-standing Indian defense observer told TWZ, “the standing committee has no teeth.” Until the government signs off on it, the Indian Air Force joining an existing sixth-generation fighter program remains just an aspiration.
