George

In January, 1991, as America stood on the edge of its first war in a generation, a quiet, bespectacled man stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and forced the nation to hesitate and think. George J. Mitchell, a former federal judge who was then Senate majority leader, had successfully pressed the Bush Administration into something Presidents had ignored for half a century: allowing Congress its constitutional authority to vote on making war.

Mitchell’s maneuver was politically perilous. Anyone who opposed the Gulf War risked appearing disloyal to the country and its then enormously popular President. Yet what followed, people in both parties now recall, was one of the finest moments in Senate history, a high-minded and highly emotional debate of conscience by a nation about to send its young people to war.

During George Bush’s four years as President, it was only one of many incidents when Mitchell, an intellectual politician in the era of three-second attack politics, drew sharp lines between Congress and the Republican Administration. For a time, the stoic New Englander, who avoided flashy TV sound bites and had a strong commitment to lighthouses and waterfowl, was the most important Democrat in the country.

Mitchell had risen to majority leader with historic speed. He was in only his eighth year when the Senate picked him as its leader. The former political protege of legendary Maine Democrat Edmund S. Muskie, Mitchell had spent much of his time in the Senate fighting to pass two liberal bills, a Clean Air Act and a law to clean up oil spills. He struck colleagues as uniquely decent and fair, disciplined, unemotional and deeply intellectual.

Early in 1994, he stunned Washington by announcing he would not seek almost certain reelection for a third term. He then turned down a seat on the Supreme Court in the spring of 1994. Some speculated that he was holding out to become commissioner of baseball. Still others linked his court demurrer to the fact that the 61-year-old divorce would marry 37-year-old Heather MacLachlan, a manager of professional athletes.

He dedicated the rest of his Senate career to passing health-care reform, but by October, that effort had collapsed. Then, on Election Day, his chosen successor for the Senate lost, the seat going to Republican Olympia Snowe. His party had lost the Senate after six years in the majority and the House after 40. On election night, Mitchell says, he never saw it coming.

During his last week in Washington, Mitchell sat down a t the polished conference table in his elegant Senate office to reflect on his leaving. He was still busy, juggling plans for his marriage in December and managing the passage of GATT , always dressed in crisp white shirt and dark suit, even on Saturday. But over the course of three long sessions, his reserve began to ease and his hands to wave as he reflected on what is right and wrong with the U.S Congress, on President Clinton, the Republican and Democratic parties, and about why so many Americans feel the nation is in political crisis.

*

I was taken by surprise. I’d hoped that we would retain control of both the Senate and House, although I knew that we would suffer some losses. In off-year elections, the party of the President usually loses about four seats in the Senate. We lost eight.

In retrospect, if the Administration and the congressional leadership had decided to forgo health care for this year and concentrated on welfare reform, it might have produced a different result.

But I think the Democrats are also suffering the effects of larger cultural, political and economic upheaval. Whenever a society is in transition, there’s uncertainty, anxiety, even fear. Clearly, we are a society undergoing major transition now. For most American families, incomes have either declined or remained stagnant. People see now that it is not inevitable or likely that incomes will continue to rise. Whenever there is a major transition, there is a natural desire, even a longing, for a simple, easy answer–Why is this so? How can it be corrected? There is a nostalgia for the past, often an inaccurate glorification of the past. We’ve had in our history times when seemingly simplistic answers have been offered, which in retrospect look ridiculous. The Know-Nothing movement flourished in the mid-19th Century; the Ku Klux Klan flourished early in this century; we’ve had a lot of Red scares; we’ve had a lot of things we look back on and wonder now how they happened. But at the time, given the state of anxiety and fear, it’s understandable.

I want to make very clear that I do not equate what happened this year with the Ku Klux Klan or the Know-Nothings. I’m simply describing a phenomenon of a society in transition being (susceptible).

What the Republicans did was very skillful. They developed a clear and simple message–that if we can somehow stop this expansion of government authority, then family values will be restored. It has an appeal. It’s simple, it’s comprehensible, it appears to be logical. Of course, it isn’t going to restore those values. It certainly isn’t going to do the really essential thing of promoting economic growth. Indeed, they also labeled the Democrats as the party of high taxes. In fact, the President’s economic plan passed in 1993 raised income-tax rates only on the highest-earning 1.2% of all Americans and cut taxes for most lower- and middle-income families. Polls show people don’t know that. But the Republicans didn’t make up their argument out of whole cloth. Democrats helped them.

For too many in our party, government became a first resort rather than a last. There was an inability to distinguish between principle and programs–we became committed to programs. Democrats have succeeded when we have seen the difference and when we have been perceived as the party of economic growth. But in recent years, we’ve become increasingly perceived not as the party trying to make the economic pie grow but as the party trying to make sure that every single person gets an absolutely equal slice of the pie. That has coincided with a polarization of income concurrent with the polarization by race.

In Congress, meanwhile, the Republicans have been very skillful, cynical but skillful, in creating a gridlock from which they have benefited.

Perhaps the best example is the first item in the House Republicans’ contract with America, which would require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress. That’s a good idea, isn’t it? It’s so good, in fact, that we Democrats have promoted this legislation even longer than Republicans. That bill passed the House of Representatives when it was controlled by Democrats.

When I tried to bring it up in the Senate, Republican senators objected. They prevented the Senate from considering the legislation that their party said was No. 1 on its contract. That’s cynicism and, I’m sorry to say, successful cynicism. Now next year they’ll pass the legislation, and they’ll say, “Look here, we’re honoring our contract.”

*

Though they barely knew each other before Election Day in 1992, Mitchell was one of President Clinton’s closest allies during the past two years. He fought for Clinton’s deficit-cutting budget in 1993 and battled for health care reform in 1994 even when most Democrats thought the battle was lost. Since the Democratic defeat in November, many in Mitchell’s party have laid most of the blame on Clinton.

*

I think the problems the President has encountered are largely the result of too ambitious an agenda. If we had had just a few items, I think we’d have been a lot better off.

In retrospect, moreover, if I had known that health care would not be enacted, it would have made sense to discontinue the effort and to go on to welfare reform. But nine months ago, (passing health care) looked pretty good.

I didn’t know then-Gov. Clinton very well prior to the election, but I came to consider him extremely intelligent, very knowledgeable on issues, hard working, and the policy positions he has taken are mostly, not always, consistent with my own.

I recall one meeting last year, when he had a group of us to the White House for dinner to talk on health care, bipartisan, maybe 10 or 12 senators. Usually at these meetings, the members of Congress know all the details because the President speaks in general terms. It became evident quickly that the President knew much more about the details than did any of the members. It was a complete reversal in terms of knowledge of the subject.

I also disagree that the President is vacillating and indecisive. Historian Garry Wills has compared Clinton to Lincoln and said that the difference is Clinton does it all publicly in advance, and Lincoln did it all privately, behind the walls of the White House. I think one of the problems that has depicted this White House as vacillating is that they do their thinking out loud.

It is unfair, too, to have suggested that President Clinton has no bedrock principles on which he will not compromise. Look at the things he’s taken on. Why does he have political problems? In the South, they say it’s because of the policy on gays in the military. Is this a man without conviction? I don’t see how critics can have it both ways. On the one hand they say he pursued unpopular policies, on the other he doesn’t have convictions.

I have a theory, though it’s entirely subjective and personal, that economic matters are more important to the electorate in presidential elections than they are in off-term elections. I think if the economy stays strong, he’ll be in a much better position to gain reelection than he is now. Right now he’s being measured not against another person, but against each citizen’s individual subjective idealization of the presidency. When he runs, he’s going to be running against a person, (who will) have a personal life and a business background that will be relentlessly scrutinized. I’m convinced that Ross Perot will be running, and that will help President Clinton–even more than in ‘92, because the Perot supporters are much more Republican now. I think Bill Clinton will be reelected.

*

Mitchell said he began thinking about retiring the day of the 1994 State of the Union speech in January. There were many factors, but important among them was the realization that if he didn’t leave now, at 61, he would become too old to take up anything else–such as, for instance, baseball commissioner.

*

In 1993, when I turned 60, I decided to celebrate by climbing the highest mountain in my home state of Maine, Mt. Kitahdin. It’s one of the toughest non-technical climbs in the East, a mile high and about a 4,000-foot vertical climb.

There are two peaks on Mt. Kitahdin: Pamola Peak and the summit. The distance between them is a narrow ledge that stretches more than a mile, called the Knife’s Edge; I have a fear of heights.

Late that night, after we finished, I told my friends that the climb reminded me of Charles Darwin’s trip around the world, during which he first conceived the theory of evolution. It was a physically rough trip for him; he was sick for a large part of the time. He never made another such trip, and he spent the rest of his life talking about that one. That’s the way I felt about climbing Mt. Kitahdin.

That is also how I feel when I reflect on what it took to pass major legislation in the U.S. Senate, including one of my highest priorities, the Clean Air Act.

I had run for majority leader in 1988, in significant part so that we could pass some of the legislation that I had tried for six or seven years to make into law and failed. After I was majority leader, and we finally got the clean air bill onto the floor, it became obvious it couldn’t pass. I didn’t want it to die, so I decided we should negotiate. We spent over a month in my conference room–members of the Bush Administration and senators, groups of 10 or 12, sometimes 50 or 60. There were many 16- to 18-hour days. We went over every provision, negotiating in good faith, and we finally reached a consensus.

That’s what it takes to enact major legislation. And that is one of the few tools available now to the Senate majority leader: the ability to get people together, to get them to listen to each other. No longer can a leader order senators to follow. Lyndon B. Johnson centralized power in the majority leader. He was able to exert influence on his colleagues for three reasons. One was his personality. Second, he had the power to appoint all senators to committees and to remove them from committees. That can make or break a senator’s career. The other was that if you wanted a roll call vote, you had to get his approval. He used those powers very effectively, but in the minds of many of his colleagues, he abused them. When he left, those powers were taken away from the majority leader, so majority leaders since have had very little in the way of institutional tools to impose discipline (over their party or the institution).

I have advocated that some of these powers be restored. Bob Dole, the new majority leader, disagreed. I expect he may change his mind now. Of course, the Senate could make these changes simply by operating with a resumption of the self-restraint that existed among its members for most of our history but no longer does.

In the entire 19th Century there were 16 filibusters in the U.S. Senate–an average of one every 6 1/2 years. For most of this century, filibusters occurred fewer than once a year. In the 103rd Congress just concluded, there were 20 filibusters attempted and 72 motions to end them.

It is harder to govern now, I think, because of the tone in politics today, which debases public discussion. Distrust of Congress and elected officials is not new in our society, but I think several factors have contributed to the increase in negativism in politics.

First, the press has abandoned many of the traditional restraints it imposed on itself with regard to reporting on the personal life of public officials. Second, television. The viewer, the voter, hears candidate Tom say that his opponent Diane is a bum; Diane responds that Tom is a crook, and so the voters come to believe that they have a choice between a bum and a crook. A third factor, I believe, is partisan. Until Bill Clinton was elected, there seemed a nearly permanent state of affairs in which the presidency was held by Republicans and the Congress by Democrats. So for nearly two decades, Republicans bashed the Congress.

All of those things have combined to create a highly negative discussion in which issues are oversimplified and reduced to slogans.

*

In his own career, Mitchell was unusually fair and bipartisan when it came to dispensing the rules of the Senate. Among his first acts as majority leader was ending the practice of tactical surprise . Before that, both sides had to keep one senator on the floor at all times . But Mitchell could also be scorchingly partisan when it came to policy differences.

*

We Democrats bear responsibility for the failure to deal more effectively with the nation’s problems. But so do Republicans. Their policy in the Senate in 1994 was one of total obstruction. Let me give you an example.

We passed earlier this year in both houses the gift- and lobbying-disclosure legislation. The Republicans really didn’t want it, so when the bill came up for final passage in the House, Newt Gingrich concocted this argument that it will have some effect on grass-roots lobbying, and they got Christian organizations to come out against it. That same excuse was used in the Senate. So I offered to take that provision out and vote on the same bill that we had passed by a vote of 95 to 2 a few months earlier. Which, of course, all the Republicans had voted for. But they refused. When you prevent legislation that you’ve actually voted for, you’re engaged in a policy of total obstruction. But it worked. The Republican (complaint) was, well the darned place isn’t functioning. The Democrats are in charge, so let’s change the people in charge, and maybe we’ll get some action.

Now they are in a different position. I think the Republicans will soon learn that it’s easier to campaign against something than to govern. You actually are responsible for acting. I think we Democrats suffer the burden more because we believe that government can produce beneficial results and conditions in our society. But we didn’t do a very good job of making that case this year.

I don’t know Newt Gingrich very well. Most of my dealings have been with Bob Michel, who was the Republican leader in the House for all of the time that I was majority leader. Newt sort of took over during the latter stages of this Congress. My impression is that he’s very smart and appears to be committed to an ideology. But I wonder if he is smart enough to recognize that in order to be a successful Speaker, he will have to use an approach different from that which got him to be Speaker–basically the difference between campaigning and governing.

I believe people can change. In general terms, I think people grow in office. I think people become more responsible with increased responsibility, become more active with increased demands on them. But I have no way of knowing in his particular case.

*

For all his frustration, even anger, Mitchell wanted to assert that he does not feel jaundiced about politics and the future. He also remains, in the parlance of Washington, an unreconstructed liberal, though not without complaints .

*

For all this, the problems of the party and the historical forces the Republicans have capitalized on, I don’t share the view that the country is shifting ideologically. Nor do I fear that the Democratic Party is somehow marginalizing itself. I am, on the contrary, very optimistic.

I’ve written a lot of bills that have become law, and many of them are meaningful to me. I’m the author of something called the Lighthouse Preservation Program. It’s a very small bill, but I regard it as a great accomplishment.

It’s ironic that at this moment, when American ideals and culture are ascendant in the world, when the American economy is the most productive and efficient in the world, when unemployment in America is less than that in virtually every other developed industrial democracy of the world, that Americans should be so anxious and fearful, such easy prey for demagoguery and scapegoatism. I think the Democrats still are the party of opportunity and economic growth.

What we have to do is to narrow our focus to economic-growth policies as opposed to trying to solve every other problem. I can sum up my philosophy in a sentence: In America, no one shouldbe guaranteed success, but everyone should have a fair chance to go as far as talent, education and will can take them.

When Los Angeles County Museum of Art director Michael Govan first stepped up to the podium at the museum’s star-packed 14th annual Art + Film Gala, the Dodgers were down one point to the Toronto Blue Jays in the eighth inning of the final game of the World Series.

There was no giant screen in the massive tent where a decadent dinner was being served Saturday night in celebration of honorees artist Mary Corse and director Ryan Coogler. Instead guests in elaborate gowns and tuxedos discreetly glanced at their phones propped on tables and at the base of flower vases across the star-packed venue. This became apparent when Miguel Rojas hit a game-tying home run at the top of the ninth inning and the whole room erupted in cheers.

Michael Govan, CEO of LACMA, wearing Gucci, speaks onstage during the 2025 LACMA Art+Film Gala.

(Amy Sussman / Getty Images for LACMA)

When Govan returned to the stageto begin the well-deserved tributes to the artist and filmmaker of the hour, the game had been won, the effusive cheering had died down, and the phones had been respectfully put away.

“Go Dodgers!” Govan said, before joking that LACMA had engineered the win for this special evening. The room was juiced.

It made Los Angeles feel like the center of the universe for a few hours and was fitting for an event that famously brings together the city’s twin cultural bedrocks of art and cinema, creating a rarefied space where the two worlds mix and mingle in support of a shared vision of recognizing L.A.’s immeasurable contributions to the global cultural conversation.

“This is a celebration that can only happen in L.A. — where art, film and creativity are deeply intertwined,” Govan said. “I always say this is the most creative place on Earth.”

The event raised a record $6.5 million in support of the museum and its programs. Co-chairs Leonardo DiCaprio and LACMA trustee Eva Chow hosted a cocktail party and dinner that drew celebrities including Dustin Hoffman, Cynthia Erivo, Cindy Crawford, Queen Latifah, Angela Bassett, Lorde, Demi Moore, Hannah Einbinder, Charlie Hunnam and Elle Fanning alongside local elected officials and appointees including U.S. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles); L.A. County Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Lindsey Horvath; L.A. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky; West Hollywood Councilmember John M. Erickson, and Kristin Sakoda, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture.

Sakoda said she thoroughly enjoyed the festivities “as representative of the incredibly diverse culture of Los Angeles and how that speaks to our entire nation.”

1

2

3

1. George Lucas arrives at the LACMA Art + Film Gala on Saturday. (Jordan Strauss / Invision via Associated Press) 2. Elle Fanning arrives at the LACMA Art + Film Gala on Saturday. (Jordan Strauss / Invision via Associated Press) 3. Angela Bassett arrives at the LACMA Art + Film Gala on Saturday. (Jordan Strauss / Invision via Associated Press)

A special nod of gratitude went to previous gala honorees in attendance including artists Mark Bradford, James Turrell, Catherine Opie, Betye Saar, Judy Baca, George Lucas and Park Chan-Wook. Leaders from many other local arts institutions also showed up including the Hammer Museum’s director, Zoe Ryan; California African American Museum Director Cameron Shaw; and MOCA’s interim Director Ann Goldstein.

Rising in the background was LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries, the 110,000-square-foot Peter Zumthor-designed building scheduled to open in April as the new home for the museum’s 150,000-object permanent collection.

“Every day I’m in that little building behind installing thousands of artworks,” Govan said to cheers. “I can’t wait for people to rediscover our permanent collection, from old favorites to new acquisitions. It’s a monumental gift to L.A., and in addition to L.A. County and the public, I would like to thank the person whose generosity brought us to this landmark moment, Mr. David Geffen.”

Geffen sat in a sea of black ties and glittering gowns, near Disney CEO Bob Iger and DiCaprio — who had been filmed earlier in the week in attendance at Game 5 of the World Series at Dodger Stadium.

Govan also gave a special acknowledgment to former LACMA board co-chair, Elaine Wynn, who died earlier this year and was one of the museum’s most steadfast champions. Wynn contributed $50 million to the new building — one of the first major gifts in support of the effort. Govan noted that the northern half of the building will be named the Elaine Wynn wing.

Honoree Ryan Coogler, wearing Gucci, speaks onstage during the 2025 LACMA Art+Film Gala.

(Amy Sussman / Getty Images for LACMA)

Left unmentioned was the fact that earlier in the week LACMA’s employees announced they are forming a union, LACMA United, representing more than 300 workers from across all departments, including curators, educators, guest relations associates and others. One worker told The Times there were no plans to demonstrate at the gala, which raises much-needed funds for the museum.

The crowd sat rapt as the night’s guests of honor, Corse and Coogler, humbly spoke of their journeys in their respective art forms, with Govan introducing them as “artists whose brilliant groundbreaking work challenges us to see the world differently.”

The night concluded with an enthusiastic performance by Doja Cat on an outdoor stage in the shadow of the David Geffen Galleries, the lights girding its massive concrete underbelly like stars in the sky.

“It was a beautiful evening of community coming together around something that reminds us of our shared humanity at a time when we need it,” said Yaroslavsky with a smile as the evening wound down.

THE Wanted star Nathan Sykes has taken a swipe at bandmate Max George amidst bitter feud. 

Nathan, 32, tied the knot with his girlfriend of six years Charlotte Burke earlier this month and broke his silence as to why his former pal was not in attendance.

Feud rumours have recently reignited inside the huge UK boyband following a wedding snub. 

Nathan opted for an intimate celebration inviting just 61 of their closest friends and family, among them was The Wanted star Jay McGuinness.

But, Max was noticeably absent from Nathan’s wedding alongside Siva Kaneswaran – Max and Kiva now have their own boyband The Wanted 2.0 together.

Following the wedding Nathan opened up about why Max and Siva weren’t in attendance, speaking to OK! he said: “We haven’t touched base recently, so I’m not sure they would have known the wedding date. 

GOLD FOREVER

The Wanted’s Nathan Sykes marries girlfriend of six years in stunning ceremony

final days

The Wanted’s Siva shares promise he made to bandmate Tom Parker before his death

“With them being out in America at the time, we’ve not had the chance to [catch up], but I’m sure we will soon.”

He added: “We had a room full of people we’re comfortable with, so it was a really safe space and allowed us to relax.”

The band was first formed in 2009 by Max, Nathan, Jay, Siva and the late Tom Parker.

The group had massive hits between 2009 before it was disbanded in 2014, with plans to bring the boys back together.

But now it seems The Wanted aren’t reuniting, and Max and Nathan might not be talking at all.

Recently, fans on Reddit noticed that the pair unfollowed each other on Instagram, cutting off social media communication.

One wrote: “Not to sound parasocial or anything, but for some context, I have been a fan of The Wanted since 2012.

They added: “Couldn’t help but notice Max and Nathan unfollowed each other?

“I wonder if there’s any beef between them lol.”

Another fan replied to the Reddit thread, saying: “I’ve always suspected Max and Nathan had a falling out before they broke up the first time.”

A third said: “It’s a real shame because teenage me loved Nathan and Max’s interactions.

“I remember when Nathan used to comment on Max’s ig posts around 2 years ago.

“They haven’t followed each other in a very long time.

Dodgers catcher Ben Rortvedt connects for a double against the Cincinnati Reds during Game 2 of the National League Wildcard Series at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 1.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Neither Alex Call nor Ben Rortvedt had appeared in a playoff game until this season. And though neither Dodger reserve got off the bench in the first two games of the World Series, they’re a lot closer to the action then they expected to be before the July trades that brought them to Los Angeles.

“It’s really cool. I’m just soaking it all in,” said Call, who came over from the Washington Nationals at the deadline.

“It’s been a whirlwind,” added Rortvedt, who was acquired from the Tampa Bay Rays, then spent most of the summer in triple A before being called up when Will Smith got hurt in early September. “I’ve been taking it more day by day, so it hasn’t kind of struck me as much as people think it would. Definitely when this is done I’m really going to reflect and kind of realize how crazy it has been to kind of be on this team and be where we are now.”

Call, 31, who also played with the Cleveland Guardians in a five-year big-league career, appeared in one game in each of the Dodgers’ first three playoff series, going three for four with two walks, getting hit by a pitch and scoring a run.

“It’s kind of crazy because it feels like it should have been harder,” Call said of reaching the World Series. “With the Nats, it’s like we were going to have to grind our way all the way to the top. And then you get to come over the Dodgers and you’re the favorites, World Series champs. You’ve got probably the best roster ever assembled, with amazing stars up and down the lineup, and then they’re like, ‘Oh yeah, we want Alex Call on our team.’

“That’s kind of an amazing compliment.”

Rortvedt, 28, who also played with the Yankees and Minnesota Twins in four seasons, started the first four games of the postseason and hit .429.

“If I pinch myself, it’s kind of like I’m not sure [I’m here,]” he said. “I just try to be as prepared as I can, understand the magnitude of things, and just try to be prepared and try to slow everything down and do my best.”

“What a horrible story! What a hideous play!” a theater critic for the Daily Telegraph lamented after the London premiere of “Hedda Gabler” in 1891. Victorian audiences were repelled by Henrik Ibsen’s fatally attractive newlywed who appears to have it all — the fancy house, the doting husband — only to be violently bored.

But writer-director Nia DaCosta (“Candyman,” “The Marvels”) and her star Tessa Thompson understand Hedda down to the pretty poison in her molecules. Their rollicking redo, set from dusk to hangover at a drunken bacchanal, is vibrant and viciously alive. With apologies to Ibsen’s ghost, DaCosta’s tweaks have sharpened its rage. I don’t think that long-dead critic would like this “Hedda” any better. I think it’s divine.

Thompson’s Hedda is a clever, status-conscious snot raised to believe that her sole purpose is to be a rich man’s wife. With no hobbies or career and no interest in motherhood, her only creative outlets are squandering money and machinating the success of her milquetoast husband, middlebrow academic George (Tom Bateman), who has such a flimsy hold on his bride that his last name might as well be attached to hers with Scotch tape. (It’s Tesman and it’s pointedly rarely used.) Hedda doesn’t love George. In fact, she seems to think he’s a whiny little worm. But she’s dead-set on securing him a promotion to afford her expensive tastes.

If Hedda had been born a man, she’d be leading armies into battle like her late father, General Gabler, who spawned her out of wedlock. Instead, she takes out her aggression on civilians. Using her charm offensive, Hedda goads naive spouses to cheat, recovering alcoholics to drink and depressives to wander off into the darkness with a revolver. Some of her havoc is calculated, most of it is out of pique that others are living braver, more fulfilling lives. All of it feels like a cat tipping over water glasses just to see them shatter. Like the nasty seductress of “Dangerous Liaisons,” she’s a warning that frustrated women aren’t merely a hazard to themselves — they’re a menace to the society that made them.

Inspired by her antihero, DaCosta manipulates Ibsen to suit her own goals. She’s updated the play’s setting to 1950s England, a similar-in-spirit era in which well-bred women were kept domesticated. (I can’t wait for someone to do a version among the tradwives of Utah.) From there, DaCosta has smartly tightened the narrative, which used to have a key scene at an off-stage bachelor party to which Hedda was pointedly not invited. “What a pity the fair lady can’t be there, invisible,” Ibsen’s Hedda grumbled at being left home while the men got to carouse.

In DaCosta’s version, the whole drama unfolds during a martini and cocaine-fueled rager at Hedda’s mansion, a party she’s throwing to impress George’s potential new boss, Professor Greenwood (Finbar Lynch), who she hears has a bohemian streak. At her own happening on her own turf, Hedda couldn’t be more visibly in command. She rallies the guests to hurl her former classmate, Thea (Imogen Poots), a wretchedly earnest drip, into a nearby lake and gets the whole room grooving to a dance band’s cover of “It’s Oh So Quiet,” the swinging hit that the Icelandic pop singer Björk would popularize a half-century later. It’s a great song pick with manic crescendos — You blow a fuse, zing boom! The devil cuts loose, zing boom! — that capture Hedda’s feverish mood shifts.

We know this evening will go wrong from the film’s opening shot of Hedda facing down two policemen who keep interrupting her explanation of the last 24 hours. “Where should I start?” she says with smothered exasperation. As we cut back to watch the night unfold, a shot of Hedda surveying the crowd from an upstairs landing feels like she’s looking at a game board — Clue, perhaps? — with a weapon stashed in every room. Which threat is most pressing? The pistols she keeps in a leather box, the precarious crystal chandelier or the lake’s deep waters outside?

Thompson is marvelous in the role. Even the way she chomps a cherry off a cocktail toothpick has menace. I first saw her as the lead in “Romeo and Juliet” at a 99-seat theater in Pasadena when she was barely 20 years old (there’s so much talent in our small stage scene), so it’s a nice reminder that the funny and soulful actor of the “Thor” and “Creed” franchises is also a hell of a good classical performer and a worthy star on her own.

She wears Hedda’s lovely mask with confidence — red lips, lush cheekbones, cool demeanor — and periodically allows it to slip. Editor Jacob Schulsinger often allows Hedda a tiny hesitation before she charges ahead ruining people’s lives, long enough to know that she’s considering the consequences. “Sometimes I can’t help myself, I just do things all of a sudden on a whim,” she admits to the nosy Judge Brack (Nicholas Pinnock), revealing a sliver of weakness. She’s almost (nearly) asking for help. Yet, the judge just wants to maneuver her into bed. How tedious.

DaCosta boldly layers race and sexuality on top of Ibsen’s tale. She’s gender-swapped Hedda’s ex-lover, Eilert, into a lesbian named Eileen (a swaggering Nina Hoss), a brilliant, openly norm-defying author who is George’s job-seeking competition (and the only person Hedda enjoys kissing). If earlier incarnations of Hedda didn’t dare defy social rules when she was white and straight, being Black and queer adds so much additional peril that the script barely needs to say out loud. The new tension is there in just a few whispers, as when Hedda overhears a guest murmur that their hostess is “duskier than I thought she would be.” Hedda doesn’t acknowledge the slight. That would mean admitting vulnerability. She simply starts destroying the speaker in the very next scene.

What’s wiser? Eileen’s determination to face down the boys and be accepted for her full self or Hedda sneaking around and steering everyone’s fates behind the scenes? They can’t team up — they’re doomed to tear each other to shreds. And as much glee as we get watching Hedda’s rampage, it aches to see these two formidable women reduce each other to hysterics (to use the medical diagnosis of the day).

From our 21st century perspective, they both have a right to be mad and they both might be mentally ill. DaCosta doesn’t offer a verdict, but she plunges us so deeply into Hedda’s headspace that we can hear how certain things set her off. Insults hit her with a knife-like hiss of air; fresh schemes get her charging around to Hildur Guðnadóttir’s tumultuous, percussive score.

Costume designer Lindsay Pugh has done incredible work outfitting the film’s central female roles. Hedda wears bullet-like strands of pearls that choke her neck and a jade-colored gown that seems to molder into a festering, jealous shade of green. When her rival, Poot’s Thea, arrives underdressed, Hedda forces her into a hideous frock with fussy bows and an ungainly skirt. Poots, her nose raw and red, her character kicked when she’s down, gamely looks a fright, trusting that moral fiber will expose Hedda’s ugly insecurities.

But Pugh’s stroke of genius is putting Eileen not in some sort of mannish suit but in a bombshell dress that highlights her curves like a primal goddess. It’s pure feminine power — just like the film itself — and when Eileen struts into a room of her all-male colleagues, that dress exposes how fast the tenor can shift from awe to jeers and how little wiggle room she or any woman has for error.

The political cartoon by Auth (Commentary, Aug. 2) was very appropriate. It’s too bad the cartoon had to be cropped for space, as I am sure that just behind the two elephants were two donkeys and many, many people, all laughing their heads off at “Noah” Bush standing there on the deck of the ark. We all know what happened to those who thought they were too wise to enter the safety of the ark. Perhaps the animals that the real Noah allowed aboard the ark had misgivings too, but they entered and settled down to ride out the storm, and in the end they were better off than those who stood outside and laughed.

Those who were unwilling to ride with Noah were doomed, just as are those who now think they are too wise to ride with “Noah” Bush (and Dan Quayle).

CLIFFORD L. LILLO, Torrance

Oct. 19 (UPI) — Former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., a convicted fraudster and identity thief, has said he will work to reform U.S. prisons, having been released from a penitentiary Friday by President Donald Trump.

Trump commuted Santos’s seven-year sentence for wire fraud and identity theft, the latest in a series of moves by Trump to exonerate associates and Republicans involved in criminal activity.

Santos was expelled from the U.S. House in 2023 after refusing to resign following a scathing ethics investigation uncovered his criminal activity. In an interview with the Washington Post, Santos called his time in federal prison “dehumanizing” and “humbling.”

The former representative admitted to stealing the identities of 11 people, including his own family members. He served 84 days in prison before being exonerated by Trump and released from prison Friday night. He also admitted that he embellished and fabricated his biography during his run for Congress in 2020.

Santos called the prison system, and the facility where he was housed, FCI Fairton in N.J., as “broken” with “rotting facilities, and administrators who seem incapable or unwilling to correct it.” He said a large hole in the ceiling exposed “thick, black mold,” and claimed broken air-conditioning systems forced inmates to endure sweltering heat.

“The building itself is hardly fit for long-term habitation: sheet metal walls, shoddy construction, the look and feel of a temporary warehouse rather than a permanent facility,” Santos wrote on The South Shore Press website while he was incarcerated.

As part of his plea deal, Santos agreed to pay $600,000 in restitution and forfeiture costs.

Santos pushed back on critics who claim the former congressman is not being held accountable for his crimes, and said that, beyond repentance, he has “dealt a second chance.”

“I understand people want to make this into “he’s getting away with it. I’m not getting away with it,” Santos said following his release. “I was the first person ever to go to federal prison for a civil violation … I don’t want to focus on trying to rehash the past and want to take the experience and do good and move on with the future.

In announcing Santo’s commutation on social media, Trump claimed that the former congressman had been “horribly mistreated,” and that “at least” the former representative had the “Courage, Conviction, and intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Santos, 37, served fewer than three months of his seven year sentence. He said he has no plans to re-enter politics and would do his best to repay campaign donors based on “whatever the law requires of me.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that he had commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who is serving more than seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft charges.

Joseph Murray, one of Santos’ lawyers, told the Associated Press late Friday that the former lawmaker was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N.J., around 11 p.m. and was greeted outside the facility by his family.

The New York Republican was sentenced in April after admitting last year to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of 11 people — including his own family members — to make donations to his campaign.

He reported to FCI Fairton on July 25 and was housed in a minimum-security prison camp with fewer than 50 other inmates.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on his social media platform. He said he had “just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY.”

“Good luck George, have a great life!” Trump said.

Santos’ account on X, which has been active throughout his roughly 84 days in prison, reposted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post Friday.

During his time behind bars, Santos has been writing regular dispatches in a local newspaper on Long Island, N.Y., in which he mainly complained about the prison conditions.

In his latest letter, he pleaded to Trump directly, citing his fealty to the president’s agenda and to the Republican Party.

“Sir, I appeal to your sense of justice and humanity — the same qualities that have inspired millions of Americans to believe in you,” he wrote in the South Shore Press on Monday. “I humbly ask that you consider the unusual pain and hardship of this environment and allow me the opportunity to return to my family, my friends, and my community.”

Santos’ commutation is Trump’s latest high-profile act of clemency for former Republican politicians since retaking the White House in January.

Like Santos, Trump has been convicted of fraud. He was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts in a case related to paying hush money to a porn actor. He is the only president in U.S. history convicted of a felony.

In granting clemency to Santos, Trump was rewarding a figure who has drawn scorn from within his own party.

After becoming the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress in 2022, Santos served less than a year after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story.

On the campaign trail, Santos had claimed he was a successful business consultant with Wall Street cred and a sizable real estate portfolio. But when his resume came under scrutiny, Santos eventually admitted he had never graduated from Baruch College — or been a standout player on the Manhattan college’s volleyball team, as he had claimed. He had never worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

He wasn’t even Jewish. Santos insisted he meant he was “Jew-ish” because his mother’s family had a Jewish background, even though he was raised Catholic.

In truth, the then-34-year-old was struggling financially and faced eviction.

Santos was charged in 2023 with stealing from donors and his campaign, fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits and lying to Congress about his wealth.

Within months, he was expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives — with 105 Republicans joining with Democrats to make Santos just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues.

Santos pleaded guilty as he was set to stand trial.

Still, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) urged the White House to commute Santos’ sentence, saying in a letter sent just days into his prison term that the punishment was “a grave injustice” and a product of judicial overreach.

Greene was among those who cheered the announcement Friday. But Rep. Nick LaLota, a Republican who represents part of Long Island and has been highly critical of Santos, said in a post on social media that Santos “didn’t merely lie” and his crimes “warrant more than a three-month sentence.”

“He should devote the rest of his life to demonstrating remorse and making restitution to those he wronged,” LaLota said.

Santos’ clemency appears to clear not just his prison term, but also any “further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions,” according to a copy of Trump’s order posted on X by Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

As part of his guilty plea, Santos had agreed to pay restitution of $373,750 and forfeiture of $205,003.

In explaining his reason for granting Santos clemency, Trump claimed the lies Santos told about himself were no worse than misleading statements U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal — a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration —had made about his military record.

Blumenthal apologized 15 years ago for implying that he served in Vietnam, when he was stateside in the Marine Reserve during the war. The senator was never accused of violating any law.

“This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!” Trump wrote.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Susan Haigh in Connecticut contributed to this report.

George Santos, serving a prison term on charges of fraud and identity theft, had been held in solitary confinement.

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will commute the sentence of former Republican Representative George Santos, who was serving a prison sentence for fraud and identity theft.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump acknowledged that Santos had made mistakes. But he celebrated Santos as a strong supporter of the Republican Party and noted that family and friends had raised concerns over the former lawmaker’s conditions in prison.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“At least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Trump added that Santos has been “horribly mistreated”, citing his isolation behind bars: “George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time.”

Santos became a well-known political figure after his election victory in 2022, when he flipped New York’s 3rd Congressional District from Democratic control to Republican.

Election observers noted it was one of the first times an openly gay Republican had won a seat in the House of Representatives.

But news reports quickly revealed that Santos had fabricated key details of his life story, and by December 2022, investigators had started to delve into his business dealings.

After a congressional committee found evidence that Santos had violated federal law, including by deceiving donors and stealing from his own campaign, the House of Representatives voted to expel him. Santos was less than a year into his term.

By 2024, Santos had entered into a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial over the allegations. He was sentenced in April for deceiving donors and misleading 11 people, including members of his own family, into giving money to his campaign.

But Santos, a vocal Trump supporter, quickly began a push for the president to commute his prison time, claiming that his punishment was politically motivated.

Trump has also depicted himself as a victim of unjust persecution at the hands of political enemies. He is known to use the power of presidential pardon on behalf of his supporters.

At the beginning of his current term, for example, Trump controversially pardoned nearly all of those charged with participating in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. That attack was part of a bid to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.

Santos and his allies have also drawn attention to his placement in solitary confinement. Though cells meant to maximise isolation are common in US prisons, critics argue they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, given their connection to mental health issues and heightened risks of suicide.

Santos entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, on July 25. He has written several columns about his experience with solitary confinement since then, reiterating his appeal for Trump to show mercy.

“I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be treated as a person – with attention, dignity, and the care any human deserves when in distress,” he wrote in an opinion column.

“And yes, I renew my plea to President Trump: intervene. Help me escape this daily torment and let me return to my family.”

Oct. 17 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday night said he commuted the sentence of George Santos, freeing the former Republican U.S. House member after just three months in federal prison.

Santos, who served in the House for less than one year, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty to charges of committing wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Santos, 37, reported to a federal facility in Fairton, N.Y., on July 25.

Santos also gained prominence for lying about his employment history and education, and information about his family.

“George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time and, by all accounts, has been horribly mistreated,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Therefore, I just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!”

Trump left the White House on Friday to spend the weekend in Florida. He’s the keynote speaker Friday night at a fundraiser for the super PAC MAGA Inc.

A senior White House official told NBC News that Trump decided to help Santos this week and “many people wrote to him about it.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., had sought a pardon, which erases the legal consequences of a crime. A commutation only reduces the severity of the punishment.

Greene told NBC News this week that she had been in contact with the Department of Justice in recent weeks regarding the possibility, saying the sentence was overly harsh.

“George Santos never raped anybody, never murdered anybody, is not a child sex-trafficker. Why is he in solitary confinement?” she said. “That is an extreme treatment for someone for the crimes that he was convicted of.”

CNN didn’t receive comments from his lawyers.

Santos, before reporting to prison, told a Saudi outlet, Al Arabiya English, that he asked Trump for a pardon.

“I did not spend time in D.C. making friends,” Santos said. “I never made it to the president. I got stonewalled by the gatekeepers.”

From prison last week, Santos wrote a letter to Trump published in The South Shore Press: “Mr. President, I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for fairness — for the chance to rebuild. I know I have made mistakes in my past. I have faced my share of consequences, and I take full responsibility for my actions. But no man, no matter his flaws, deserves to be lost in the system, forgotten and unseen, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires.”

Trump took notice of Santos’ situation.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I started to think about George when the subject of Democrat Senator Richard ‘Da Nang Dick’ Blumenthal came up again.”

Trump explained that Blumenthal, who has served as a U.S. senator serving Connecticut for 14 1/2 years, lied about his military involvement.

“He was ‘a Great Hero,’ he would leak to any and all who would listen — And then it happened! He was a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD. He never went to Vietnam, he never saw Vietnam, he never experienced the Battles there, or anywhere else. … This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Santos fabricated parts of his biography, including falsely, saying that he was a “star” player on a championship volleyball team.

Santos was raised Catholic but claimed his mother had a Jewish background and that his maternal grandparents were Jewish refugees from Ukraine who survived the Holocaust. His grandparents were born in Brazil.

He also said his mother died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, though she wasn’t in the United States at the time.

Santos took office on Jan. 3, 2023, serving in New York’s 3rd Congressional District.

On Nov. 16, 2023, Santos announced he would not seek re-election for the seat that serves parts of Long Island and Queens.

That day, the House Ethics Committee found that he “violated federal criminal laws.” The funds were used for personal purposes and he filed false campaign reports, the report said.

Despite a slim Republican majority and relying on his vote, the House expelled Santos the next month on Dec. 1, 2023. The 311-114 vote surpassed the required two-thirds majority.

He was the sixth lawmaker to be forced out of the chamber.

On March 7, 2024, he announced he would run as a Republican in the 1st Congressional District and 15 days later, Santos said he would seek the office as an independent. A month later, on April 23, he withdrew his candidacy.

He pleaded guilty on Aug. 19, 2024, in federal court in Central Islip, N.Y., and was sentenced on April 25.

“I deeply regret my conduct,” Santos said in court during his conviction and sentence. “I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

STRICTLY viewers have spotted a last minute wardrobe change as George Clarke danced his first Couple’s Choice – but did you see it?

Podcaster and social media personality George, 25, is competing on the show alongside new pro partner, Alexis Warr, 25.

4

4

George and Alexis took the floor tonight with their couple’s choice accompanied by Soda Pop from K-Pop Demon Hunters.

The lively hip-hop dance thrilled the audience but viewers spotted a last minute costume change.

Taking to social media one wrote: “Thank GOD the wig changed.”

Another added: “WHYD THEY GET RID OF THE WIG.”

While a third exclaimed: “Not George taking that ugly blue wig off.”

“The fact he said NO WIG for the show,” added another.

Wicked actress Cynthia Erivo praised the dancers and declared: “I am so proud of you because earlier I felt you were not taking yourself as seriously as you could.”

Shirley Ballas agreed and said: “You were flying like an angel.”

However, Anton Du Beke stated: “You came alive…but I thought it lacked a bit of edge.”

Craig Revel Horwood echoed this and said: “It needed to be sharper.”

But Oti Mabuse added: “You’re doing a beautiful job and keep going.”

When the scores came in George and Alexis received 6 points from Criag, 8 from Oti, 9 from Shirley and 8 from Anton giving them a respectable total of 31 points.

Cheers rose from the audience and the adorable pair looked very happy with their scores.

Meanwhile, viewers have branded the show’s latest judge shake-up awkward after a baffling decision.

Strictly Come Dancing 2025 lineup

Strictly Come Dancing news and the latest line up

Cynthia has spent the week working with the celebrities and their partners to help them with their performance and offering up her advice during their training.

However, when the live show kicked off, hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman confirmed that despite the huge hype surrounding Cynthia being on the panel, the actress was barred from scoring the couples.

As she wasn’t allowed a paddle to mark the pairs, Cynthia found herself sitting awkwardly among the judging panel as the other four judges offered up their scores.

It left fans at home begging the BBC to let Cynthia have a paddle last-minute after branding her inclusion on the panel “awkward”.

4

4

FOR SIX YEARS, Gov. George Deukmejian has successfully run a state bigger than most nations. But to the po litical elite of his own country, he couldn’t be much less visible than if he were the mayor of California’s insular state capital.

Interviews with more than two dozen Republican political consultants, Reagan Administration officials, California congressmen, and independent national policy analysts found that Deukmejian, for the governor of the nation’s largest state, has a remarkably low profile in national political circles–even as his name appears on lists of potential running mates for George Bush. The Iron Duke to his supporters, Deukmejian is virtually the Invisible Duke in national political terms. At best, with Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis poised to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in Atlanta this month, Deukmejian has acquired an identity as the Other Duke.

“There are people I’ve run into in the higher reaches of the federal government who don’t even know who the governor of California is,” says Martin Anderson, former chief domestic policy and economic adviser to President Reagan and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “He is largely unknown in Republican circles,” agrees Republican political consultant John Buckley, press secretary for New York Rep. Jack F. Kemp’s presidential bid. “There is no perception of him,” says Roger J. Stone, another leading Republican political consultant.

Not all governors, of course, are national figures. But it has become increasingly common for the governors of major states to wield national clout. Many governors–from Republicans Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey and John H. Sununu of New Hampshire to Democrats Mario M. Cuomo of New York and Bill Clinton of Arkansas–are influential in shaping both the political agenda of their parties and the policy agenda of Congress, particularly on issues confronting the states.

By and large, Deukmejian hasn’t been among them. Deukmejian has not been a force on Capitol Hill. His relations with the California congressional delegation are cordial but distant, several members and aides say, and he has never testified before Congress. Nor has he been a significant participant in the Republican Party’s intramural ideological debates; he remained distant from the presidential primaries this year until the result was long decided. He rarely interacts with the national press corps or national conservative activists.

This parochialism is remarkable considering the lineage in which Deukmejian stands–one that traces back not only to such nationally prominent California governors as Ronald Reagan and Earl Warren, but also in a sense to New Yorkers Franklin D. Roosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey. In the first half of this century, when New York was the nation’s most populous and powerful state, its governors consistently shaped the national agenda. In the 12 presidential elections from 1904 to 1948, a New York governor headed the ticket for one or the other party nine times.

Since then, California has muscled its way to clear economic pre-eminence among the states, the economic boom fueling an explosion in population. Inexorably, if unevenly, political influence has followed. California now sends as many representatives to Congress as New York did at the height of its power; after the next congressional reapportionment (which will follow the 1990 Census), California will command a larger share of the Congress than any state in history. In the four decades before Deukmejian took office, every California governor save one made at least an exploratory run at the presidency. Earl Warren sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1948 and 1952. In 1960, Democrat Edmund G. (Pat) Brown seriously examined challenging John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and the rest of the Democratic field before deciding not to make the race.

Once California passed New York as the most populous state in 1964, it cemented its reputation as the launching pad for political trends, and its governors emerged as national figures almost as soon as they finished taking the oath of office. At the 1968 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan, just two years into his tenure as governor, offered himself for the presidency as the hero of the nascent anti-government conservative revolt. In 1976, Jerry Brown, also just two years into his term, declared the dawning of the “era of limits” and rocketed into the political stratosphere with a string of late primary victories over Jimmy Carter.

After Brown came Deukmejian, and as far as the spotlight of national attention was concerned, the heavy drapes fell around Sacramento. “I just sort of sensed the public at the time I came in was looking for a governor who would not be off running for some other office, and in fact, was going to be carrying a hands-on approach to state government,” Deukmejian says in a relaxed, wide-ranging interview in his small office in the state Capitol. “Also at the beginning we had some very severe financial difficulties (namely a $1.5-billion budget deficit he inherited from Brown). And when I won in my first election, it was by a very, very narrow margin, and I felt that I really had to concentrate on . . . what goes on in the state capital and building a much greater degree of support from the public before . . . taking some steps out toward more exposure on the national scene.”

Since then, though, Deukmejian has come a long way politically, which makes his low national profile remarkable for a second reason: None of his recent predecessors have been more popular or politically successful within the state than Deukmejian. His crushing reelection over Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in their 1986 rematch was a more decisive victory than Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan or Jerry Brown ever managed. Two years into his second term–when most of his predecessors had been hobbled by nicks and bruises–Deukmejian’s job approval ratings from Californians remain buoyant; his latest numbers in the Field Institute’s California Poll exceed Reagan’s highest marks at any point during his two terms. “He’s been a far better governor than Reagan,” says conservative Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove).

Sometimes governors get into trouble for paying too much attention to Washington and the bright lights of national politics. But Deukmejian has so secured his position in the state that no one would be likely to grumble if he examined the national terrain more purposefully. If anything, some Republicans are puzzled about Deukmejian’s passivity in pushing the cause of the party, the state and, not incidentally, himself. “Deukmejian is the first governor of the state that is the largest who is not a national factor,” Dornan says.

Politics, as much as nature, abhors a vacuum that immense, and events may be pulling Deukmejian, inch by inch, toward the national stage. Even though most Republican leaders have only vague impressions of Deukmejian, the popular governor cannot entirely escape notice. When the party gathers for its convention Aug. 15-18 in New Orleans, Deukmejian is bound to appear on the short list of Republicans positioned to compete not only for the vice presidency in 1988, but also for the party’s presidential nomination in the 1990s. And for all of his reticence, Deukmejian in recent months has become more willing to expose himself to audiences outside of the state. It is much too early, many national Republicans agree, to write off George Deukmejian as a force in the future of his party, well beyond the borders of California.

TODAY, however, Deukmejian stands on square one in national Republican circles. “People have no sense of him,” says political consultant Edward J. Rollins, who ran Reagan’s presidential reelection campaign and served as his chief political adviser in the White House from 1981 to 1985. “There is no question when he was first elected six years ago the potential was there for him to have a very big national profile, and I think a lot of people turned to him. There were a lot of comparisons between him and (New York Gov.) Cuomo, who was elected the same year. But he has sort of stayed where he’s at, and Cuomo has gone on to be a big national player.”

Cuomo has emerged partly because of his restless ambition, but also because he seems genuinely fascinated with public debate over the most fundamental social and moral issues. That’s a fascination Deukmejian, the diligent manager, doesn’t appear to share. He has always operated on the assumption that politicians who seek attention often find problems instead.

Whether for lack of interest or lack of time–as aides note, a governor of California has more to manage than a small-state governor such as Sununu or Clinton–Deukmejian simply hasn’t done the drill necessary to achieve national notice for himself and for issues affecting the state. Not much for mingling with the media at home, he has been aloof from the national media. His June appearance on ABC’s “This Week With David Brinkley” was his first on one of the national Sunday-morning interview shows, and his lack of experience in the fast-moving format showed. “It has been a mystery to those of us who are national conservatives why he will turn down appearances on the ‘Today Show,’ ‘Good Morning America,’ ‘CBS Morning News’ (and) ‘Nightline,’ ” Dornan says.

Deukmejian says he considers it “important, particularly on issues that affect California” to influence national-policy debates. “That’s why we have become very, very active in areas” such as national trade policy, he says. “Little by little, but in a very determined way, we’ve been trying to indicate our presence in that field of trade policy.” But almost all the outside observers interviewed had difficulty naming a front-burner national issue–trade or otherwise–on which Deukmejian has been a force.

“He has not become a national spokesman for quality education as an investment of the foundations of our economy; he hasn’t become a national spokesman on our relationship with Asia, which as a California governor he could do,” says Derek Shearer, a professor of public policy at Occidental College who has advised several Democratic presidential candidates.

Similarly, Deukmejian has had relatively little contact with the Republicans in the California congressional delegation. He has occasionally offered them opinions on pending legislation–he opposed, for example, protectionist amendments in the recent trade bill–but “there aren’t many such examples,” acknowledges his chief of staff, Michael Frost.

One California Republican representative, who asked not to be identified, complains that Deukmejian has virtually ignored Washington. “He has no dynamic presence, he hasn’t really pitched for anything, he hasn’t testified on stuff, he hasn’t looked for a role to play,” the representative says. “There are things the governor could do if he was looking to build a national base. Instead he comes back here quietly, has a quiet dinner and then quietly slips out of town. There has never been a closed-door, discuss-the-issues meeting with him and the delegation. He has come back a couple of times, but they have been very formal, overly organized, stilted lunches.”

Rep. David Dreier (R-La Verne), by contrast, defends Deukmejian, noting that “it bodes well” that the governor nominated a member of the congressional delegation, Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), to replace the late state treasurer, Jesse M. Unruh.

Nor has the Deukmejian Administration unveiled the dramatic initiatives that would bring Washington to him. Although Frost cites programs to combat AIDS and to commercialize research performed in state university labs, Deukmejian hasn’t turned many heads among Washington’s policy junkies–the analysts, authors and think-tank fellows who watch new ideas percolating in the state and bestow intellectual credibility on the creative politicians in the provinces. “In the 1980s, California has been in a state of governmental stagnation compared with previous decades,” says Jerry Hagstrom, author of “Beyond Reagan,” a recent book examining politics and policies in the 50 states.

To the extent Deukmejian has a national reputation, it is as a steadfast fiscal conservative, a skilled and dogged manager. “On the state level,” Deukmejian says, “I think people first of all expect us to run government in an efficient manner.” In his first term, Deukmejian withstood pressure to raise general taxes and used his line-item veto repeatedly to resist spending increases. From 1982 to 1986, the share of personal income claimed by state taxes in California declined slightly, whereas it increased in the states overall. That resistance to spending provides the one hook on which many national Republicans hang their vague images of Deukmejian. “The perception I find in many of my colleagues (outside of California) is that George Deukmejian exudes a kind of quiet competence,” Dreier says.

Deukmejian’s hesitant response to the recent state revenue shortfall–first proposing revenue-raising measures, then dropping them after Republicans rebelled–may stain that image, particularly if budget problems continue through the remainder of his term. But Deukmejian’s decision to back away from his tax proposal also enabled him to loudly reaffirm his opposition to new taxes. And that should serve him well over the long haul since anti-tax sentiments remain strong not only in the GOP but throughout the electorate. “I don’t think the average person feels as though they are overtaxed now,” Deukmejian says, “but they also aren’t asking for a tax increase.”

THIS SPRING’ Spersistent discussion about Deukmejian as a potential running-mate for George Bush has provided the governor with his first serious national attention. No matter how the rumor mill treats his prospects in the weeks leading up to the Republican convention, some Republican strategists believe the importance of California–which alone provides 17% of the electoral votes needed for victory–guarantees that Deukmejian “is absolutely permanently fixed in the top three vice-presidential choices,” as conservative political consultant David M. Carmen put it.

In the fall campaign, California may be not only the largest prize, but the pivotal one. Since World War II, the Republicans have owned this state in presidential politics, losing only twice. But they have almost always had the advantage of a native son on their ticket. In eight of the past 10 campaigns, the Republicans have nominated a Californian for President or vice president: Earl Warren was the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee in 1948; Richard M. Nixon was the party’s vice-presidential choice in 1952 and 1956, and its presidential nominee in 1960, 1968 and 1972; Reagan carried the GOP banner in 1980 and 1984. Only Warren, running with Dewey against Harry Truman, failed to bring home the state for his party.

No Democrat has carried this state in a presidential campaign since Lyndon Johnson. (Even without a Californian on the ticket, Ford edged Carter in 1976.) But Bush faces a surprisingly uphill battle. Independent polls show Dukakis leading Bush by double digits in California–a spread slightly larger than Dukakis’ margin in most national surveys. If Bush continues to trail so badly by the time the Republicans gather in New Orleans, he will undoubtedly face pressure for a dramatic vice-presidential selection. Those options are few: his chief rivals, Kansas Sen. Robert Dole or New York Rep. Jack F. Kemp perhaps, a woman such as Elizabeth Dole or Kansas Sen. Nancy Kassebaum to fight the gender gap, or Deukmejian to try to sew up California and block the Democrats from assembling an electoral college majority.

Deukmejian has said repeatedly he couldn’t take the vice-presidential nomination because, if the ticket won, he would have to turn over the statehouse to Democratic Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy. Deukmejian has insisted about as firmly as he plausibly can that he does not want to take the job and hand over the reins to McCarthy. “I just can’t see any situation–I really can’t see any situation–where I would be able, even if I were asked . . . to accept it,” he says. “I honestly don’t expect to be asked. I really think he can carry California without . . . me on the ticket, and there will probably be either some other areas of the country Bush will want to shore up. I’ve said for a long time if they see there is a very major gender gap, he might very easily pick a woman.”

But Deukmejian’s certainty in June and July may be irrelevant in August. Even such a close adviser as former chief of staff Steven A. Merksamer agrees that, for all the governor’s firmness today, it is impossible to predict what Deukmejian would say if Bush actually offers him the position. If Bush’s advisers decide that he can win only by carrying California and only do that by picking Deukmejian, most national Republicans doubt that the governor would hesitate for long. In those circumstances, how could Deukmejian argue that maintaining control of the statehouse is more important than holding the White House? “It would be” difficult to make that case, Deukmejian acknowledges, “but I hope I don’t have to.”

Few analysts today expect it to come down to that. To some extent, Bush’s advisers have accepted the conventional wisdom that choosing Deukmejian would so roil local Republicans that his selection could hurt the campaign here. And if Deukmejian joined the ticket, his recent problems with an unexpected budget deficit would complicate Republican efforts to criticize Dukakis for the similar shortfall he faces in Massachusetts.

In all likelihood, though, neither of those arguments are compelling enough to disqualify Deukmejian. The Massachusetts revenue shortfall is unlikely to be a decisive issue in any case. And as Bush’s problems deepen, local opposition to Deukmejian as vice president diminishes. Instead, the key question is whether Deukmejian’s presence on the ticket really could ensure Bush victory in California. If Deukmejian can’t deliver California, there’s no reason to nominate him since he is unlikely to help much anywhere else.

Early polls differ on how much Deukmejian would help Bush. Pollster Mervin Field believes Californians are unlikely to vote for a ticket just because it has a local office-holder on it, though the state’s recent electoral history certainly suggests otherwise. On a more tangible level, Deukmejian may not have enough appeal for the crucial blue-collar suburban Democrats to put Bush over the top. “I think it is unlikely he will be chosen because I don’t think you would see any numbers where George Deukmejian would add that much to the ticket,” says one Bush adviser. Still, the talk of Deukmejian won’t die down soon because it may not take that much to turn the result in California–and the nation.

EVEN IF Deukmejian comes out of New Orleans with nothing on his plate but some gumbo and a return ticket to Sacramento, many local and national Republicans believe the governor could yet become a significant factor within the GOP, if he decides to work at it. As governor of a state this large, Deukmejian can always make himself heard. “It is inevitable,” predicts former Reagan aide Anderson, “that Deukmejian will become a major, if not the major, figure in the party in future years.”

If Bush doesn’t succeed this fall, and Deukmejian wins reelection in 1990, the objective factors for a Duke-in-’92 presidential bid are intriguing, some Republicans believe. Deukmejian’s name usually appears on the early lists of potential contenders, though admittedly more because of where than who he is. “He gets mentioned because The Great Mentioner turns to Republicans (and says) California is a big state and you have to mention Deukmejian,” says Washington-based Republican media consultant Mike Murphy.

In 1992, the Republican field mobilizing against a President Dukakis could be much like the Democratic field in 1988, with no clear front runner and no candidate with a deep national base of support. Texas-based Republican pollster V. Lance Tarrance, who advises Deukmejian, thinks that if Bush loses, some candidates (for example Sens. Phil Gramm of Texas and William L. Armstrong of Colorado) would run as issue-oriented ideological revolutionaries and another group would run as capable, tested administrators. As governor of this sprawling nation-state, Tarrance argues, Deukmejian brings to the table solid administrative credibility.

Deukmejian would bring another significant advantage to such a hypothetical nomination contest. As Dukakis demonstrated this year, in such a murky atmosphere, a candidate who can raise the large sums it takes to cut through the clutter is difficult to stop. With a huge and prosperous home state on which to draw, and a skilled team led by Karl M. Samuelian, Deukmejian’s fund-raising potential matches that of any Republican.

Before we pull this Deukmejian train out of the station, a few reality checks might be in order. Reality check No. 1: This is not a man who sets hearts aflutter. Deukmejian’s detractors–and even some of his friends–point out that as far as charisma goes, he makes “Dukakis look like the Beatles.” But if charisma was the key to national success, Dukakis and Bush would be looking for other work. Besides, Deukmejian’s campaign presence is usually underrated. It’s not hard to imagine Deukmejian performing at least at the level of this year’s nominees. Somewhat prosaic and uninspiring, Deukmejian is far from the best campaigner in the world, but he’s not the worst either–with an easygoing, unassuming amiability that wears well on voters. With the press he is personable and unaffected, and though he is sometimes defensive, Deukmejian can defuse tension with unexpected flashes of self-deprecating humor.

Second reality check: This is not a man who suffers from a visible need to make himself a household name. Deukmejian has always enjoyed governing more than campaigning, and many Republican strategists believe he lacks the fire to push himself through the demanding course that any effort to emerge nationally would require.”I just don’t know if the energy and the ideas and the intensity is there,” said an adviser to another Republican angling for the presidency in the 1990s.

While some of those around him would probably like the governor to seek the White House, Deukmejian clearly isn’t consumed with ambition to move up. Seeking the presidency someday now seems to him, “out of the question,” he says. “When I started in the Assembly and later in the Senate, I could say, yes, in my mind that if the opportunity presented itself I’d like to be governor. But I’ve never really had as a goal that I would want to seek the presidency.” He speaks with a combination of amazement and scorn of politicians “who seem to live and breathe and eat politics.”

On the other hand, Deukmejian only became governor by winning an arduous primary against Lt. Gov. Mike Curb, the choice of the California Republican establishment, and then hanging tough against Los Angeles’ popular Mayor Bradley. That is not the profile of a man impervious to ambition’s insistent tug. “He is modest in his demeanor,” says state Republican chairman Bob Naylor, “but there is ambition there.”

Midway through his second term, Deukmejian has shown flashes of interest in examining the world beyond Sacramento. The governor has not pursued opportunities as systematically as Kean and some others, and insists the recent increase in his out-of-state activity “has been primarily just to be of help to the national ticket.” Deukmejian denies any interest in raising his own profile for its own sake. “I’m not out looking for things to do,” he says, “but we do get requests, and I feel a little more comfortable in accepting some of those.” Whatever the motivation, his recent activity and upcoming schedule add up to a typically cautious effort to broaden his horizons.

In April, Deukmejian visited Texas to address a Republican party fund-raiser and drew high marks for a speech in which he gleefully bashed Dukakis. Deukmejian has scheduled four more out of state appearances at Republican fund-raisers through the campaign–including speeches in New York City and Florida. And in recent months he has become more active in governor’s activities. This winter, he assumed the chairmanship of a National Governors Assn. subcommittee on criminal justice–the first time he’s accepted such a responsibility. He’s currently vice chairman of the Western Governors Assn. and is scheduled to become chairman of the group next year. In the second term, he has also seasoned himself with international trade missions to Japan and Europe; later this month he’s scheduled to visit Australia, Hong Kong, the Philippines and Korea. He has formed a political action committee, Citizens for Common Sense, to build a statewide grass-roots political organization and fund his travel.

Deukmejian still isn’t looking for excuses to visit Washington. “I’m not anxious to make that trip back and forth anymore often than I have to,” he says. Earlier this year, he turned down an invitation to attend the Gridiron dinner, the annual closed-door gathering of the capital’s journalistic and political elite. But he did make a well-received address to the conservative Heritage Foundation last fall, and aides say his recent ABC appearance may signal a more open attitude toward the national press.

Third reality check: Even if he’s willing to hit the road, does Deukmejian have anything to say? Now that the Reagan era is ending, the GOP is groping for new direction. But unlike Reagan with his anti-government insurrection, or Kemp with his supply-side economic populism, or New Jersey’s Kean with his brotherly “politics of inclusion” aimed at broadening the party’s base, Deukmejian has offered no overarching vision of the Republican future. Asked to define the fundamental principles that have informed his administration, Deukmejian first listed “a common sense approach to running government.” Try constructing a banner around that. In Jesse Jackson’s terms, this is a jelly-maker not a tree-shaker.

The brightest ideological line running through Deukmejian’s politics is suspicion of government expansion. In that, he’s closer to Reagan than most of the emerging GOP leaders. In office, Deukmejian, like Reagan, has generally been more successful at saying no than yes. His first term, dominated by his unyielding resistance to Democratic spending, had a much sharper focus than his second term. That could be because the times are subtly changing. The polls have shifted, with more people demanding more services from government, and Deukmejian has been somewhat uncertain in his reaction– hesitancy demonstrated by his ultimately passive response to the revenue shortfall. (After he dropped his tax plan, the governor essentially told the Legislature to solve the problem.) He has pushed bond issues to pay for transportation and school construction needs, and increased education spending faster than his predecessors. But unmet needs are accumulating too; huge enrollment growth, for instance, is consuming the increases in school funding and driving the state back below the national average in per capita spending on elementary and secondary school education.

Those concerns about infrastructure and education, Deukmejian acknowledges, could threaten the state’s economic future. But so too, he maintained, would a tax hike that might make firms less likely to settle or expand here. “Our two main challenges are growth and the competition we’re faced with from other states for business investment,” he says. “So you have to try to strike a balance so you can meet the needs of the people in terms of growth, and at the same time be aware . . . that all the other states are out there competing very strongly for jobs, and foreign nations are out there competing.”

Democrats believe Deukmejian has struck too penurious a balance and hope the 1990 gubernatorial race will pivot on Deukmejian’s tough line against expanding government in a period of expanding needs. “They are too trapped in the present, worrying about this budget year, how much is it going to cost, and they are not thinking through in a systematic way how to plan for the future,” charges State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who may challenge Deukmejian in 1990 as a Democrat.

Those accusations may ultimately cause Deukmejian problems, and the law of political gravity–which holds that everyone eventually comes down–virtually guarantees that his approval ratings will sag at least somewhat. Some Democrats believe Deukmejian has never really been tested because in his 1978 election as attorney general and his two gubernatorial races he bested liberal black Democrats–a tough sell statewide. His opposition in 1990 should be more formidable, with Honig, Atty. Gen. John van de Kamp, former San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and Controller Gray Davis all considering the race.

But his position is solid, especially for a governor so long on the scene. After the June defeat of the Honig-backed proposition to loosen restrictions on state spending, the Democrats may have trouble constructing a campaign around the argument “that the government isn’t spending enough tax dollars,” says chief of staff Frost. With the economy roaring, public opposition to taxes undiminished, and his government free from scandals, even many Democrats and independent analysts believe Deukmejian must be favored for a third term. He says he will decide whether to run again “by the end of this year or early next year.”

If Deukmejian punches through that historic third-term barrier–something only Earl Warren has done–he may be in a much better position to emerge as a national Republican leader than it now appears, particularly if Bush falls this November. Though Deukmejian hasn’t produced the bold initiatives that attract the national press and political elite, his political identity rests on positions consonant with the mainstream Republican electorate: a tough stand against crime, taxes and government spending. “He fits the Republican party like a glove,” says Anderson.

And he has, in California’s blistering economic performance, a powerful calling card. Dukakis’s experience may be suggestive of Deukmejian’s possibilities. Unlike his California counterpart, Dukakis had the advantage of some innovative policies (welfare reform, and a tax amnesty program) to sell, and much more exposure to the national elite, which gave him early credibility. But ultimately Dukakis based his presidential campaign on a story of state economic success. Deukmejian has at least as compelling an economic success story.

Deukmejian’s tough stand against taxes and conservative approach to government regulation may or may not explain California’s success, but questions about Dukakis’ role haven’t hurt his efforts to identify with the Massachusetts miracle. (In both places, Reagan’s defense build-up deserves a significant share of the credit.) And if Massachusetts is a miracle, what’s the right word to describe California, which created 2.1 million new jobs–almost five times as many as Massachusetts, and nearly one of every six non-agricultural jobs in the nation–from 1983 through 1987? In the last five years, California has created almost half of the nation’s new manufacturing jobs, according to the state Department of Commerce. For Deukmejian, the path to prominence could be built on nothing more complicated than promising “to do for the nation what he did for California,” insists pollster Tarrance.

True, Deukmejian faces the risk that the state’s problems in education, infrastructure and growth will tarnish that claim. But if this stubborn governor can demonstrate the flexibility to confront those challenges without violating his conservative principles–the key open question looming before him–he can convincingly hold up California as the prototype of a state that’s racing pell-mell into the future. In a recent speech before a business group, Deukmejian offered what might become his slogan: “Each day our state gives the rest of the nation a glimpse of tomorrow–of the progress that is within our reach.”

Although he’s done little to cultivate them, California’s success has placed possibilities within Deukmejian’s reach, too: Now the question is, does the Duke have the right stuff to reach out and grab them?

George Gilbert was repeatedly warned by Big Brother for using offensive language and has now been removed from the ITV show in scenes that will air tonight’s episode

Big Brother contestant George Gilbert has been asked to leave the show following repeated use of offensive language. The 23-year-old’s removal will be aired in tonight’s episode.

George has been a controversial figure on the show since he entered, as he has had several arguments with other housemates over political issues like immigration and homelessness. He was also given a formal warning by Big Brother after doing a homophobic impression of another housemate, Sam Ashby, in a game of Truth or Dare.

In scenes deemed by ITV to be too offensive to air, George is said to have made an antisemitic comment that led to his ejection from the house. His full exit will be shown tonight (9 October).

READ MORE: Amazon shoppers can bag an Echo Pop for less than £8 a day before Prime Day startsREAD MORE: Big Brother’s George Gilbert worked with Ed Sheeran and Liz Hurley weeks before show axe

In the episode, George will be called to the Diary Room, where Big Brother will remind him of the rules he agreed to when he started on the show. “Hello, George,” Big Brother said. “George, before you entered the Big Brother House, the rules regarding unacceptable and offensive language and behaviour were explained to you.”

George then flippantly asked, “What is it?” Big Brother responded that the show has issued a warning to the Essex-based contestant on “several separate occasions” about his language and even issued him with a formal warning.

“Despite this, at 6.22pm, in a conversation about conspiracy theories, the words you used broke the rules regarding unacceptable and offensive language.

“George, Big Brother thinks that your repeated use of offensive language in the house including during yesterday’s conversation is unacceptable. Big Brother cannot permit you to use language in a manner which is likely to be considered offensive by Housemates or the viewing public.”

Parish councillor and actor George said he understood, but Big Brother then had more to say. He continued: “Despite the prior warnings and the opportunities we have given you to adjust your language in the House, you have persisted in using offensive language. And as a result, Big Brother has no choice other than to remove you from the House.”

George was given the opportunity to say something. He said: ““I always want to question any theory, any movement, I just like to, I just want to know the truth about things and I’m sorry. So I’m really gutted but if that’s what you want to do then I’m sorry it’s ended like this.”

This is very similar to what he said upon leaving the Big Brother house. “As a flag bearer of freedom of speech, I never hesitate to discuss and question any topic regardless of how contentious it may be,” the 23-year-old said.

“Sadly, the boundaries of what is deemed offensive are subjective and I evidently went too far this time by crossing their line one too many times. It is a shame that specific debate could not be had and that it has had to end like this. Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.”

Because of his language and behaviour, George was nominated for eviction in this week’s vote. However, his removal forced ITV to halt the public vote. Addressing the situation on Big Brother Late and Live, host AJ Odudu said “George was removed from the Big Brother house today following repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour.

“As he was up for eviction, the vote has been closed for now. So if you’ve voted already, your votes don’t count. But new votes between Cameron B, Elsa and Richard will be opening tomorrow and you’ll have five new votes. So tune in tomorrow to see the housemates reaction to the news.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Big Brother host AJ Odudu announced a huge change to the show’s voting system for Friday’s eviction after housemate George Gilbert was removed from the house earlier today

Earlier today, Big Brother announced that George Gilbert had been removed from the house over “repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour”. George was one of four housemates facing eviction on Friday, and the public vote has now been halted due to this.

Yesterday, the housemates nominated for the first time, and it was revealed that George, Elsa, Richard and Cameron B would be facing the public vote. George, Elsa and Cameron B received the most amount of votes from their fellow housemates, and Richard was atomically up as he had the cursed eye.

Addressing the situation as she opened Big Brother’s Late and Live tonight, host AJ Odudu said: “George was removed from the Big Brother house today following repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour.

READ MORE: Big Brother chaos as two housemates warned over offensive language in just two daysREAD MORE: Big Brother fans uncover housemates secret past – including Downton Abbey role

“As he was up for eviction, the vote has been closed for now. So if you’ve voted already, your votes don’t count. But new votes between Cameron B, Elsa and Richard will be opening tomorrow and you’ll have five new votes. So tune in tomorrow to see the housemates reaction to the news.”

In a statement following George’s removal, ITV told The Mirror: “Following repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour, George has been removed from the Big Brother House with immediate effect and will no longer participate in the programme.”

It was later revealed that George’s comments will not be aired on the show as they are contrary to broadcast standards. Contestants were told the rules regarding language and behaviour ahead of entering the Big Brother house, receiving training in respect, dignity and inclusion.

However, later on in the day, it was reported that George left his co-stars horrified after making offensive comments which could be interpreted as antisemitic. “Everyone was absolutely disgusted,” a source revealed to The Sun. “Nobody could believe what he said – he was clearly out to shock people.”

It’s been reported that he was called into the Diary Room after making the comments, and was immediately ejected from the show.

George received a warning over his behaviour earlier in the week after imitating housemate Sam during a game of Truth or Dare. He was told by Big Brother in the diary room: “At 11:26, during a game of Truth or Dare, when asked about your least favourite qualities of other Housemates, you said the following, ‘Sam, um too…’, you then went on to mimic Sam using both noises that mocked the way Sam talks and body language that included limp wrists.

“Do you understand how both your language and behaviour could be offensive to Sam, your Housemates and the viewing public?” George then said that he had apologised to Sam after making the comments.

However, The Mirror understands that George was given several warnings for unacceptable language which were not broadcast as they were contrary to broadcast standards.

Big Brother airs tonight at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

BIG Brother star George has broken his silence after being kicked out of the house for a ‘horrifying’ comment. 

The housemate was axed by ITV bosses today after ‘unacceptable language and behaviour’. 

2

2

Now, since leaving the house, George has said: “As a flag bearer of freedom of speech I never hesitate to discuss and question any topic regardless of how contentious it may be.

“Sadly, the boundaries of what is deemed offensive are subjective and I evidently went too far this time by crossing their line one too many times.”

He added: “It is a shame that specific debate could not be had and that it has had to end like this. Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.”

Sources tell The Sun that George left his co-stars horrified after making offensive comments which could be interpreted as antisemitic and was immediately called to the Diary Room and ejected from the house. 

“Everyone was absolutely disgusted,” an insider says. “Nobody could believe what he said – he was clearly out to shock people.”

It’s understood that ITV will air scenes featuring George on tonight’s show but won’t air the comments that led to him being kicked off the show. 

Piastri said he simply did not have the pace to compete and was 0.366secs off pole.

He said he and McLaren had expected to be able to compete at the front.

“My first lap of Q3 felt reasonable,” Piastri said. “It certainly didn’t feel 0.4secs off. We just didn’t have the pace tonight, which was a little bit of a surprise for us. We were relatively confident going in.”

Piastri’s performance, though, was a return to form for the Australian after a difficult race in Baku, where he made a series of mistakes, culminating in crashing on the first lap.

Starting two places in front of Norris, he has a good chance to extend his 25-point championship lead.

Norris said: “We weren’t quick enough., the Mercedes were quite a lot faster. I didn’t put it all together and you need to do it on a track like this.

“There’s still chances so we have to wait and see.”

Hamilton outqualified Leclerc for the first time since the British Grand Prix to underline an upturn in his form in recent races.

He was fastest in the first session and said he felt Ferrari had mismanaged the rest of qualifying.

“The pace was there,” Hamilton said. “We just didn’t optimise the sessions, Q2 onwards.

“I’m definitely more comfortable in the car, this weekend I think I have been driving really well.

“P6 is not good. I definitely think we should have been further ahead but it was all about tyre temp today. It is every week. Tomorrow is going to be tough from where we are. There is not really much we can do from here.”

Williams, whose drivers Alex Albon and Carlos Sainz qualified 12th and 13th, have been reported to the stewards because their rear wings were found to exceed maximum dimensions. This is likely to lead to their disqualification from qualifying.

On the eve of the release of her 12th album, Taylor Swift received a thank-you note from George Michael’s estate for including his work in her version of “Father Figure.”

“When we heard the track we had no hesitation in agreeing to this association between two great artists and we know George would have felt the same,” the “Freedom!” singer’s estate posted Thursday on X.

Taylor’s take on “Father Figure” incorporates an interpolation of Michael’s 1987 song from his album “Faith.”

Both songs share a common thread of telling the tale of a specific relationship. In a 1987 interview with ET, the former Wham! singer turned solo star — who died over the Christmas holiday in 2016 — vaguely discussed the meaning behind his track.

“‘Father Figure’ is just a very, without going into too much detail, it’s just a very specific experience that I wrote about a specific relationship with one person,” Michael said.

“I think there’s a definite pattern in people’s lives where they move away from their parents, then they spend time on their own and then they look for that replacement,” he added.

Similarly, the fourth song on Swift’s album “The Life of a Showgirl,” which was released on Thursday, tells the experience of a specific relationship between a mentor and his protégé.

Hmmm. Who could it be? Are the lyrics imaginative or are the details too specific to brush off as fiction? Let’s dissect.

Swift opens her track with: “When I found you, you were young, wayward, lost in the cold / Pulled up to you in the Jag’, turned your rags to gold.”

There is one person who turned her into the gold standard of pop — music executive Scott Borchetta, who signed her to his Big Machine Records label back in the day.

Swift worked with Borchetta on her first six albums until she wanted to buy her master recordings from the label, which led to the end of their partnership.

The song initially takes the perspective of the mentor who sees potential, profit and the opportunity to be a father figure for the protégé. In the tail end of the track, the point of view changes to the other side.

“You want a fight, you found it / I got the place surrounded / You’ll be sleeping with the fishes before you know you’re drowning.”

Again, the details seem too specific to write it off as pure fiction, but Swifties may have to stick to speculation unless Swift goes on the “New Heights” podcast to discuss the meaning behind her lyrics with her future husband, Travis Kelce, and soon-to-be brother-in-law, Jason Kelce.

Don’t hold your breath — there’s probably a better chance she releases a new version of “Life of a Showgirl” first.

GEORGE RUSSELL ignited chaos in a wild practice day at the Singapore Grand Prix.

Two red flags, a pit lane collision and a FIRE gave stewards a very busy Friday.

3

3

FP1 started with the rear brakes of Alex Albon’s Williams catching fire in the sweltering heat of the Marina Bay Street Circuit.

Team boss James Vowles later confirmed the brakes had reached temperatures of over 1000 degrees before Albon was forced to retire.

But Mercedes ace Russell then sparked more chaos in FP2 as his car went straight on into the barriers at Turn 16.

As he attempted the right hander he lost the rear before the snap correction sent him flying into the wall and prompting the first red flag of the session.

It was an incident labelled “weird” by the Briton over the team radio.

Liam Lawson followed suit not long after as he hit the wall in the run off of Turn 17.

That saw his front-left go flying down the track and the plank under his car grind along the floor as his Racing Bulls drive skidded to a halt at the pit lane entrance.

And following the restart, Charles Leclerc bizarrely smashed into McLaren‘s Lando Norris in the pit lane following an unsafe release from the Scuderia mechanics.

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

Both have been summoned by race stewards over the incident, which is likely to result in some sort of penalty for the Ferrari driver.

A total of 22 minutes of the hour-long session were lost through the various incidents.

FP1 and FP2 were topped by Fernando Alonso and Oscar Piastri respectively.

3

Chelsea academy graduates usually have a couple of well-trodden pathways – breakthrough, loan, first team. Or breakthrough, loan, sale.

The Blues have moved on more than 40 homegrown players in the past decade, and made £315m from selling academy-developed talent in the last four seasons alone – £100m more than Manchester City.

But their latest high-profile prospect George has bucked that trend so far and can look at how Levi Colwill, Trevoh Chalobah and Reece James have progressed to first-team success.

George’s strike against Fulham on 20 April, aged 19 years and 75 days, saw him become the club’s youngest scorer in the Premier League since Callum Hudson-Odoi netted against Burnley in January 2020.

The winger’s breakthrough season included Carabao Cup games against Barrow and Morecambe, substitute league appearances against Arsenal and Brighton, and more than 750 minutes in 12 Conference League games, including a goal in the quarter-final first-leg win at Legia Warsaw.

George, who turned 19 in February, is disrupting the ‘Chelsea’ narrative thanks to a level of dedication unusual even in this era of youth development.

The last Chelsea player to come through the youth system into the first team without a loan was one of his idols, Hudson-Odoi in January 2018.

A source told BBC Sport that in his early years at Chelsea, George was a ‘middling’ player in his age group until around the age of 10.

It was at that point his dad hired a goalkeeper as well as a personal coach, David ‘Guru’ Sobers, to raise his game.

In midweek, George would train with Chelsea, and then from the age of 13 on Fridays, he would play against men in nine-a-side matches at either Vauxhall or Nine Elms Power League in South London.

On Saturdays, he would train again and go through post-match analysis with Sobers from his Power League matches the previous evening, before going back to Chelsea on Sunday to play.

“I used to spend hours travelling on public transport to do two-hour sessions, or longer, with Tyrique as I thought I could help him,” Sobers told BBC Sport.

“We would spend hours doing one-versus-one, technical work, shooting drills, and I enjoyed the fact that he would push himself so much.

“I’d be a ‘bad’ referee when he played against 18-year-olds, so he would get kicked – but have to get up and win the ball back.

“We did tactics on his Friday session during these matches. I think it helped our young players, we also had guys now at Manchester City, West Ham and Reading, become fearless, especially when coming back to their own age group.”