wont

WASHINGTON — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 if Kamala Harris does so, appearing to offer deference to the former vice president ahead of a race that could draw a historically crowded field of candidates.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview posted Monday. “Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. … I wouldn’t do it to you, I wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.”

Newsom appeared to acknowledge a desire to avoid the possibly messy fight for California backers that could ensue if both were to run, saying there would be “pure crossover” between Harris’ supporters and his.

The governor’s effective yield to Harris diminishes the possibility of a showdown between two of California’s most powerful political figures in an election whose stakes are viewed by the Democratic Party as existential. The possibility of Harris making a second attempt at the presidency after her loss to President Trump in 2024 has hung as the biggest question over the potential Democratic field.

Both Newsom and Harris have acknowledged they are considering presidential bids in 2028, but Harris has closely held her intentions. She said last week that she had not decided whether to run, telling former soccer player Megan Rapinoe in a podcast interview that she was focused on working full time to help Democrats win the midterms.

A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment. Representatives for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request Monday afternoon.

Harris has appeared as the party front-runner in multiple polls about 2028, including one in July that showed her beating Newsom by double digits. But questions have continually circulated within the party about whether voters who are scarred from the party’s 2024 loss would be enthusiastic about a Harris run.

Several California donors told The Times in May that they did not plan to support Harris or did not want to discuss a possible bid by her; in a few corners, more enthusiasm came through for Newsom.

The dynamics around the 2028 Democratic primary continue to evolve as party hopefuls jockey for the spotlight, and they shifted notably with the selection of South Carolina as the party’s first primary state. That choice could give Harris a boost if South Carolina’s Black voters move in her favor.

Harris and Newsom came up in politics in the same era and have never before run in an election against each other, operating their political careers largely in parallel rather than in competition. In February, Newsom said on CNN that he had “never gotten in the way of her ambition” and he didn’t “imagine I would in the future,” saying “fate” would determine whether they ran against each other.

Newsom swung through South Carolina this month, the type of move generally interpreted as laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. In the CNN interview, Newsom noted that he did not know whether Harris would run and agreed it was a “pretty good case” to make when Tapper raised the argument that Harris had had her chance at the presidency and Newsom had not yet.

The governor suggested that a fight between him and Harris would split their supporters’ vote in a way that would be “a gift from God for everybody else” in the race, saying “it services no greater good” for both of them to run. He also nodded to their overlapping political circles.

“I know her base of supporters, I know her friends. The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that.”

The interview was filmed in Montana, where Newsom’s in-laws own a ranch, as Newsom and Tapper fly-fished together. The full segment was set to air Tuesday.

Newsom said that in order to decide to run, a candidate needs to be able to “meet the moment.”

“You gotta be honest with yourself,” he said. “Do you represent the zeitgeist of the moment or are you wasting everybody’s time?”

Experienced host Emma Willis knows what to expect in some ways and just wants to bring ‘joy’ to Strictly viewers in the same way Tess and Claudia did

Defiant Emma Willis says she knows the new Strictly Come Dancing series will bring her and the other new hosts lots of abuse and criticism – but she won’t engage with it. Emma, former Strictly professional dancer Johannes Radebe, 39, and comedian Josh Widdicombe, 43, will take over later this month from long-time hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman, who stepped down last year.

Emma is used to comparisons with other hosts having fronted Big Brother after Davina McCall and Brian Dowling. But she vowed to ignore the haters and just wants to try to enjoy the experience. She said: “I’m ready for the comparisons. I am ready for the negative opinions that can come with these things. Those things I don’t engage with or read, and there are always positives as well.

“At the end of the day, I feel like it’s really simple, right? We we work in this industry, and we’ve been given the opportunity to work on a phenomenal show that is really well loved by the public and also by ourselves. We we aren’t reinventing the wheel, and we’re not rocket scientists.

“We’re working on an entertainment show about dancing that is meant to hopefully bring joy to everybody watching it. So hopefully we can be a small part of that joy and have a really lovely time doing it.”

She added: “There’s obviously a kind of fear that comes with it because of the enormity of it, and you have nerves about being good enough to kind of do the job and step into the role.”

The trio were a surprise choice to make up the presenting team and they admitted they were also a bit shocked to be picked. They gave the impression they were unsure if they were in pole position to get the jobs, saying their final audition was the “very last of the callbacks on a Friday afternoon”. They had also been told it would be a pair presenting and so Josh presumed it was “two weirdos against each other” and he was being pitched head-to-head with Johannes, only to end up working with him and more established host Emma.

Comedian Josh also said that while they would not “reinvent the show”, they would “be ourselves and our personalities will be there”. He added on taking the job: “It’s like you only get one opportunity at this career. We’re incredibly blessed that we’ve got where we are in our careers, and just why not?”

Johannes was initially nervous but after speaking with his agent was more confident. “If anybody was afforded this opportunity amongst my peers[dancers], any one of them would jump at it.”

Emma turned 50 in March, but rather than seeing that milestone as a time to reflect or slow down, is arguably enjoying her most successful stage of her career. She said: “I think maybe there’s more of a reframe needs to be had around 50 and as you’re getting older, you should slow down or change or maybe not do as much. I feel more invigorated at 50, I’m more like I’m more sure of myself. I know what I want to do. I’m not going to apologise for myself and my successes like I’ve done for the last 25 years.

“I’m not about to step down and slow down for anything. So I say, bring it on. You know, life is short. So take these opportunities when they they come your way, because at some point they’ll stop.”

* Strictly Come Dancing will return on Sunday September 19 to BBC One and iPlayer.

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

ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on broadcast television amid the network’s high-stakes skirmish with the Federal Communications Commission.

Kimmel, during his Wednesday night monologue, said his talk with the 37-year-old Texas Democrat would instead stream on his show’s YouTube channel — depriving ABC viewers and TV stations of a potentially newsworthy interview with Talarico, who has been surging in the polls.

The Texas race is shaping up as a key contest in what could help decide control of the U.S. Senate in the mid-term elections.

Talarico is running against Texas Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who has been endorsed by President Trump.

Kimmel alluded to the Walt Disney Co. network’s ongoing dispute with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr as the reason for the switch. This spring, Carr’s Media Bureau ordered ABC to submit to an early review of its TV station licenses for Disney’s eight owned stations. The FCC launched the review a day after President Trump demanded Kimmel be fired after First Lady Melania Trump became upset over a joke the comedian told on his program, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

ABC has since sued the FCC, alleging Trump’s disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programs has fueled the FCC’s heavy-handed approach to the network, in violation of its 1st Amendment rights.

Kimmel pointed to the “unusual circumstances” in his monologue.

“For the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I’ve been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all, just like [David] Letterman did, [Jay] Leno did, Arsenio [Hall], etc. etc.,” Kimmel said. “I’ve interviewed a lot of political candidates — from Hilary Clinton to Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.”

But, Kimmel said that in the current climate, airing the Talarico interview on the public airwaves carried too much risk.

“Out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense,” the ABC interview, which was scheduled for Thursday, would instead play on YouTube, he said.

ABC declined to comment. An FCC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The issue surfaced nearly one year after a major dust-up when ABC temporarily benched Kimmel after comments he made on his show over the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. During that episode, Carr seemed to threaten Disney by saying that Kimmel should be punished.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways … to take action … on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC.”

Two station groups removed Kimmel’s show, but ABC eventually stood by the comedian returning him to his perch the following week.

The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years when the FCC demanded that Disney defend its stewardship of the outlets. The license for Disney’s KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030 but it is now being challenged.

The Burbank giant has asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.

ABC also is defending against an FCC probe into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

Carr has challenged the status of “The View,” arguing that the topical chat show is not a bona fide news program and, thus, should not be entitled to the exemption.

The same issue tripped up former CBS late night comedian Stephen Colbert who interviewed Talarico in February — before his program, “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, was canceled.

At the time, Colbert told viewers CBS lawyers forbid him from airing a Talarico interview on his program due to the FCC’s increased scrutiny of exemptions to the equal-time rule, an allegation that CBS disputed.

But Colbert’s interview played on the program’s YouTube channel — not the CBS network.

The FCC has said it was investigating ABC stations over whether the company’s diversity and inclusion policies are in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and the agency’s rules, including its “prohibition on unlawful discrimination.”

Last week, the FCC asked a federal judge in Washington to dismiss ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, calling Disney’s challenge to the early review “meritless” because the commission hasn’t made a decision on whether to escalate the matter or rescind Disney’s station licenses.

Kimmel ended his monologue, saying he was grateful for the YouTube channel “because in the America we live in right now, that is the best that we can do until November.”

TRAVEL chaos caused by a major tech outage across all UK airports earlier this week has left thousands stranded – with many left out of pocket when booking back up flights and hotels.

An Air Traffic Control failure in the UK on Tuesday saw thousands of flights cancelled, resulting in travel chaos across the globe.

Many have since been asking if they can claim compensation back, with flights both delayed and cancelled for days.

However, as the NATS issue was classed as an “extraordinary circumstance” travellers are not entitled to cash compensation.

The maximum compensation you can get is for long-haul flights which are delayed four hours or more, which would be £520.

This is only for when the problems are the caused by the airline, directly, however.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

Lisa Minot, Head of Travel said: “Airlines are only required to give you compensation if the delay or cancellation is the airline’s fault, as in a technical failure on a plane or issues with crew.

“In this situation, where ATC is the reason for the chaos, there is unfortunately no compensation due.”

Yet, airlines do have a duty of care, so you can recoup some of your costs.

When affected by flight delays, airlines must provide travellers with food and drink as well as accommodation.

‘Care’ you should receive includes food and drink, two phone calls, accommodation and transport between the airport and where you are staying.

Usually, an airline will provide you with a voucher to get food or drink, however if a voucher isn’t provided, make sure you keep your receipts to claim back expenses incurred.

While an airline might automatically book your accommodation when your flight is delayed or cancelled, sometimes you might be asked to book it yourself via its website or a dedicated app.

Although, it is advised to always ask airport staff before booking a hotel yourself.

If you pay for your own hotel, you must make sure to keep all your receipts so you can claim back your costs.

Airlines will cover a hotel with a reasonable price though, so don’t go booking a five-star stay.

Then head to your airline’s website and find their expenses claims page and fill out the form with the relevant details.

The CAA also recommends asking for an itemised receipt to show what you purchased and how much was spent on each thing.

Lisa added: “Check your insurance policy to see if you have any redress if you have incurred additional costs like missing a concert or unable to pick up car hire. You may be able to claim for that.

“Generally for delays, if an airline looks after you or provides you with food and drink or hotels, you cannot claim for the same costs against your travel insurance.”

Trump also said further negotiations with Iran could possibly happen, “but it’s not something we’re looking at”.

The US president initially predicted the war, which is now in its seventh month, would last only a matter of weeks. The conflict, and its knock-on effects on everything from fuel to groceries, has led to a steep decline in his approval ratings – and pressure from those within his party, including devout supporters, to quickly end the war.

Midterm elections will be held on 3 November, and Republicans are in danger of losing their control on Congress.

At the convention, Trump sought to energise the party ahead of November. Historically, a sitting president’s party tends to lose seats in Congress in the midterm elections.

Fighting in the Middle East has intensified in recent days, as oil facilities throughout the region come under attack, driving up the global price of fuel and any item that requires shipping.

The price of oil hit $100 a barrel on Wednesday for the first time since July. Similarly, earlier this week the price of US diesel hit an all-time-high, which is likely to cause a ripple effect on prices across the US.

On Wednesday, the US military said it had attacked five oil tanker ships with ties to Iran. Tehran, in response, launched attacks on two US Navy destroyers and eight oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, causing “heavy damage” to the vessels, according to Iranian state media.

A day earlier, the Iran-linked Houthis in Yemen launched a wave of attacks in Saudi Arabia, sparking fires at oil facilities.

The fighting, which began again recently after a 60-day ceasefire between the US and Iran formally expired last month, has also raised predictions that the rising fuel costs could lead to higher interest rates in the US.

A MUCH-LOVED ride has closed at Disneyland Paris ahead of a huge makeover.

Crush’s Coaster at Disney Adventure World is now closed until summer 2027 as it undergoes its biggest upgrade in 20 years.

The coaster, which takes riders through the East Australian Current, will have technical elements replaced as well as sections of the track.

In the second phase of the refurbishment, the coaster will be tested to ensure it functions properly before reopening.

Of course, the upgrade will refresh the ride’s show elements as well, such as repainting and repairs.

Crush’s Coaster was last closed in 2015 for six months but this project will be the biggest in the ride’s history.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

Many people have taken to social media to express their excitement about the upgrade: “I’m happy about the refurb but I’ve booked for November. Massively underrated ride.”

Another person added: “Glad to see this happening.”

There are a number of other closures taking place at the theme park including Peter Pan’s flight, which is closed until September 19.

Pirate’s Beach is currently closed and will be until October 23 for a safety inspection as well as replacement of the ground padding.

Mad Hatter’s Tea Cups will be closed between September 21 and October 2 to repaint the floor.

La Tanière du Dragon will close on October 5 until the middle of the month for servicing.

As Shohei Ohtani strode up to the plate Monday, Michael Bublé’s voice crooned over the Dodger Stadium speakers as always. But after four games out of the lineup, the song seemed to be asking fans to believe:

“I’m feeling … good.”

Ohtani at least looked more comfortable in the batter’s box than he did Wednesday, when pain in his biceps had him shaking his right arm. But his performance at the plate still remains in a slump — he went 0 for 3 with a walk in the Dodgers’ 6-3 win over the Cincinnati Reds.

“It’s hard to really feel 100% at any time in the season,” Ohtani said through interpreter Will Ireton. “So I wouldn’t say I’m there.”

Roberts will continue to closely monitor Ohtani, saying he’ll see how the superstar designated hitter feels Tuesday before finalizing any decisions about playing time.

The Dodgers and Ohtani have all but ruled out his return to the mound this season.

“Disappointing,” Ohtani said. “But I want to make sure that when I look back at this season, that I used this as an experience, a learning experience and make sure that I use that as something to improve upon for next season.”

Roberts said he hoped Ohtani could improve his offensive production by not pitching.

“That’s one part of the thought, to sort of take the pitching off of his plate and really try to let him lock in on being a hitter and get on track,” Roberts said. “Because the last couple of weeks he just hasn’t been himself in the box.”

In the six games before Roberts sat Ohtani because of health concerns, he only had two hits.

“I’m confident that my overall performance should be better moving forward,” Ohtani said. “I think the thing that I was more focused on was making sure that the pitching wouldn’t cause the worst scenario, which was for me to not be able to play at all.”

Teoscar Hernández is showered with sunflower seeds after hitting a three-run home run in the sixth inning Monday against the Reds.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Ohtani flew out in his first at-bat, and then struck out on a Chase Burns slider below the zone. He struck out again against Brandon Williamson to end the fifth before reaching base in the seventh on a walk.

“It was certainly good to get him back out there, but there was certainly nothing to kind of write home about,” Roberts said. “I think the main thing is that there was nothing alarming from the at-bats. To take four days off, to come out of it feeling good, I think that’s a win in itself.”

The Dodgers (87-57) caught a break with Burns — considered a top-five National League Cy Young candidate — since the Reds (69-75) had him on a pitch limit in an effort to manage his workload.

Burns held the Dodgers hitless through three innings, striking out Ohtani as his last act before handing duties to the bullpen.

Dodgers starter Emmet Sheehan, recalled on Monday as the Dodgers optioned right-hander Bobby Miller, gave up a home run to Elly De La Cruz in the first before outdueling the Reds’ bullpen. He gave up three hits, one run and struck out 10 over 5⅔ innings.

Sheehan will remain in the rotation and is scheduled to start Sunday in Miami, Roberts said.

Against Williamson in the fifth inning, Teoscar Hernández lined a leadoff single into left field. After Alex Call was hit in the right foot with a pitch, Miguel Rojas chopped a grounder to Reds third baseman Ke’Bryan Hayes, whose errant throw allowed two runs to score as Rojas dashed to third.

The next inning, Hernández punctuated his recent hot streak by lining a three-run homer into the Dodgers’ bullpen — with the highest exit velocity (112.6 mph) of any ball he’s put in play since 2024, according to Statcast.

Dodgers pitcher Emmet Sheehan delivers during the third inning against the Reds on Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Though Dodgers relievers Seth Halvorsen and Jack Dreyer each gave up a run, the Dodgers tacked on insurance in the eighth inning with a bases-loaded sacrifice fly from pinch-hitting Will Smith. And the team extended its winning streak to five games.

Ohtani didn’t play a part in any of the Dodgers’ scoring, but at least he was back in the batter’s box.

“It felt like, ‘long time no see,’” he said.

The Rams will depart for Australia on Tuesday night for their season opener against the San Francisco 49ers.

Will star defensive lineman Aaron Donald be with them?

“Feeling good, feeling really good,” Donald said Monday. “Come up with a game plan and see.”

But could he say for certain he will make the trip?

“I’m feeling really good. Feeling great,” he said. “Come up with a game plan and see what’s going on but I’m telling ya, I feel great.”

Donald, 35, returned from a two-year retirement to join a Rams team that is favored to win Super Bowl LXI. But the three-time NFL defensive player of the year has gone through only one 11-on-11 practice.

2026 NFL season preview

He did that on Sunday, but did not practice Monday. Donald said he did a cardio workout as part of a scheduled day off.

“I’m 35,” he said, chuckling. “You don’t play football in two years, you got to be smart. Even if I feel good, you still gotta be smart.”

Coach Sean McVay has said that Donald’s situation would be evaluated daily.

Rams defensive coordinator Chris Shula, asked if a decision had been made regarding whether Donald would play against the 49ers, said “everything’s” day by day.

“We’re ready for him if he does, ready for him if he doesn’t,” Shula said, “and we’ll have a plan for however many plays he feels like he can go and we’ll go from there.”

Donald said his ramp-up has gone better than he anticipated.

“Thought I’d be a lot more rusty,” he said, adding that things were “clicking.”

Donald said that during his first full practice, he settled in after a few plays. He is not where he wants to be, “but pretty pretty damn good, if you ask me, to not play football in two years to be moving how I’m moving.”

Donald came back, in part, to team with edge rusher Myles Garrett, a two-time NFL defensive player of the year. They have been in meetings and walkthroughs together, and now have practiced.

“It was good to be on the grass with him and do some stuff, and get a feel,” Donald said. “Because the chemistry of playing with each other, kind of learning how each other rush, how each other play, not just Myles just the whole front. … It’s exciting.”

Donald said he was ready for whatever role he fills, and that he was not going to worry about playing 60 or 70 snaps.

“There’s no pressure on me. I can just go out there play free, play ball, let the game come to me,” Donald said. “Play with the guys around me. Help them, they help me.”

Donald, an eight-time All-Pro, has 111 career sacks.

Star receiver Davante Adams is happy that he returned to join the Rams.

“Nobody knows exactly what he’s going to do statistically, if he’s going to be exactly what he was,” Adams said. “But … I know the type of person that he is and I know the way he’s going to work and I know the way he looks right now.

“It looks like it’s going to be a familiar picture for us all out there.”

Puka Nacua ready for opener

Star receiver Puka Nacua said he was happy to be participating in full-team drills after being sidelined for a few weeks because of a psoas injury sustained during a joint practice with the Dallas Cowboys a few days after the end of training camp.

The NFL has been investigating an incident that led to Nacua being the defendant in a civil lawsuit. If the league determines that Nacua violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy, he could be suspended.

But the league has not taken action, and McVay said he expected Nacua to play against the 49ers.

Did the possibility of a suspension before the season weigh heavily on Nacua?

“Definitely feeling emotion of some of the things that, just trying to handle that in the ways that I can and what’s in my control,” he said. “But also having a realistic understanding of the consequences of some of the things that I put myself in this offseason.

“But I feel like I’ve been able to feel grounded and feel present when I step out there on the football field. That’s been one of the positive things, of every time I step on that football field, never taking that moment for granted.”

A few weeks ago, non-chavista politician Antonio Ecarri and American economist Steve Hanke managed to unearth one of Venezuela’s longstanding and unsettling debates: whether the country’s economy should be formally dollarized. After decades of economic hardship brought by repeated devaluations, hyperinflation and scarcity, the country’s monetary regime is heavily fragmented. 

De facto dollarization rules most of the transactions, while the bolívar, crypto stablecoins, euros and the currencies of neighboring countries split the rest of the monetary market share used to maneuver through Venezuela’s complex economy. With the US pushing for the country’s economic stabilization to increase trust in foreign investors, the fragmented monetary ecosystem can be detrimental to the process made so far.

Venezuela’s economic outlook has improved after Maduro’s capture and since the US took control over Delcy’s decisions. Mainly because of a sharp recovery of oil exports to the US recovered sharply; by April, these were up 192% from their 2025 average. The energy sector is spearheading the recovery while attempting to partially compensate for the devastation caused by the twin earthquakes. GDP growth projections for Venezuela are forecasted at 5.8%, almost four times the country’s 2025 growth (1.5%). Yet the threat of inflation and instability compounds investors’ worries about entering the country. After repeated announcements by the interim regime promising to close the exchange gap and tackle inflation, their actions show otherwise.

Delcy continues to erode the bolívar by stimulating the money printer needed to feed chavismo’s patronage system. Exchange rate controls, which have long incentivized corruption and inflation, are still there. On the dollar side, credit loans and transactions remain “officially” forbidden, creating an artificial tax on USD transactions and fear amongst businesses who can be punished for their use.

Eliminating inflation would require abolishing all existing exchange rates and creating a new one based on an agreed technocratic approach.

The result of this unaddressed monetary disaster has been a persistent rise in inflation, which increased by 6.1% in July, bringing year-on-year inflation to 576% and 2026 cumulative inflation to 175.5%.

This is not the first time the call for dollarization has been in the spotlight in Venezuela. Nonetheless, US control over the country’s economy may increase the possibility of it becoming a reality. While dollarizing might be an effective measure to rapidly generate trust and reduce inflation, it raises important questions about its implementation under the interim regime and the future of Venezuela’s monetary sovereignty. Similar to Trump’s oil deal or the post-earthquake reconstruction, all discussions and actions are taking place behind the scenes, sidelining the very population that will have to deal with its consequences. 

The US dollar is not the solution

Discussions regarding dollarization have primarily focused on three benefits: eliminating inflation, forcing fiscal discipline, and eradicating corruption. However, as long as those managing the dollarization process are the same ones who have guided Venezuela to the worst economic crisis in the region’s history, the result might be equally as bad but with a different set of consequences. 

Hanke asserts that no preexisting institutional, fiscal or political conditions are necessary for dollarization to be successful. However, this process requires the willingness of all three areas to move forward. Eliminating inflation would require abolishing all existing exchange rates and creating a new one based on an agreed technocratic approach. Currently, there is no incentive for anyone in the interim regime’s leadership to converge the exchange rates.

A struggling or failed dollarization plan could further erode trust while leaving the country even more vulnerable to external shocks.

The exchange rate differentials have not been an economic policy mistake overlooked by chavismo. These have been an integral part of chavismo’s strategy to undermine and replace old political elites with select, loyal ones. Long ago, they became crucial to maintain the status quo. There are no signs in favour of change in this area, as economist Juan Comella argued in May. Doing so would compromise the structure that keeps her in power.

A struggling or failed dollarization plan—which forces the government to take on further debt, experience severe cash shortages and fundamentally depend on its commodity exports—could further erode trust while leaving the country even more vulnerable to external shocks, such as a sudden plunge in oil prices. The neoliberal constraints posed by dollarization, like an extremely limited Central Bank to aid the government, will not fix decades of institutional erosion, but only try to avoid it while possibly unleashing a fresh round of obstacles that menace an already fragile economic recovery.

The bolívar is not the problem

Decades of monetary policy failures made the population skeptical of the bolívar. For long enough, the system and institutions have incentivised and even rewarded the wrong people to take advantage of its vulnerabilities at the expense of the population and evading any personal consequences.

It is certainly not the paper where the bolívar is printed the element that corrupts people or destroys the economy: it is the system behind it. It is not far-fetched to think of a plan that grants the Venezuelan Central Bank complete independence, empowering the correct people to safeguard the economy from the risks of inflation while maintaining government spending in line and preparing for external shocks.

Relinquishing our monetary sovereignty would be a mistake in a world where governments actively participate and spend to tackle modern challenges, including AI and natural disaster relief. China’s rise as a global power has been, in part, a consequence of decades of industrial policy under intense government intervention. The US and EU have started to catch up in recent years. The US has done so with the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Act under Biden and, most recently, with the Trump administration imposing protectionist tariffs and taking equity stakes in major companies with the aim of safeguarding US interests in key sectors. The EU aims to increase competitiveness under the Clean Industrial Deal and the Industrial Accelerator Act. If Venezuelan leaders seek to move past the country’s commodity dependence, climb up in the global value chain, become competitive and diversify the economy, industrial policy will be crucial. Dollarization would compromise those goals.

Starting a dollarization process under chavista rule is similar to entrusting the reconstruction of Venezuela’s oil sector to a businessman who contributed to the destruction of the country’s electricity grid.

Foreign investment will be the driver of short- and medium-term recovery and growth for Venezuela. However, industrial policy will be crucial to guide the long-term objectives of the country. For this, Venezuela needs the bolívar, even if it’s in an open and competitive currency market where the people decide which currency earns their trust.

The Ecarri-Hanke duo surprised public opinion not only because of their proposal but also because of the odd pairing. Ecarri represents the efforts of Venezuelan politicians with limited legitimacy to enter the spheres of influence in Washington, and also chavismo’s ability to neutralize them. Hanke only views Venezuela as part of a larger plan to promote and deepen the use of the dollar internationally, in a global context that increasingly mistrusts the US currency and is hedging against it.

Ecarri is the result of a system that empowers the wrong people. Hanke represents the oversight of the reality on the ground and the impact Venezuelans will have to absorb. Both display the same shortcomings of Venezuela’s monetary institutions over the past decades. Their proposal simply tries to hide the sun with one finger instead of addressing the historical root causes of Venezuela’s monetary instability.

Starting a dollarization process under chavista rule is similar to entrusting the reconstruction of Venezuela’s oil sector to a businessman who contributed to the destruction of the country’s electricity grid. Policy should depart from both trauma-instilled calls for complete dollarization and a patriotic defense of the bolívar. Instead, it should focus on economic stability and our capacity to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Reporting from Brisbane, Calif. — Just beyond San Francisco’s city limits lies 640 acres of land that could help solve some of California’s biggest problems.

A developer wants to build 4,400 new homes there — one of the largest projects recently proposed in one of the country’s most unaffordable regions. The development would overlook a railway that drops riders into the heart of San Francisco in 15 minutes, reducing the need for cars and cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that come from them.

State and regional leaders have endorsed the project. But its fate rests with Brisbane, a city of 4,700 people that annexed the property 55 years ago. And no one, not even the developer, thinks Brisbane’s residents will approve all 4,400 homes.

“Unfortunately, we believe that their ceiling is going to be below that,” said Jonathan Scharfman, the general manager for the developer, Universal Paragon Corp.

The project, Brisbane Baylands, reveals how few incentives local governments have to accept large developments — even as the state is pushing to lower housing costs and funnel growth toward existing cities and nearby mass transit to combat climate change. Brisbane residents are wary of a project that could triple the city’s population. Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes.

The Bay Area’s dire need for housing makes the debate over the Baylands project “particularly painful,” said Ben Metcalf, director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

“It is frustrating that as a state and as a constellation of local jurisdictions we are constantly making decisions that aren’t the best for alleviating poverty, housing affordability, furthering our state’s economy or meeting our climate change goals,” Metcalf said.

For their part, some Brisbane residents feel besieged by pressure from housing activists, business groups, state lawmakers, San Francisco politicians, newspaper editorials and others beyond the city’s boundaries. An old rail yard and garbage dump contaminated the land, and opponents contend they want to protect anyone who might decide to live there even after regulators approve a cleanup. More than that, Brisbane residents say, outsiders don’t understand how much the Baylands project would upend their community.

“We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.”

Bill Dettmer, left, speaks with a group of men who regularly meet and discuss local politics and civic issues at Madhouse Coffee in Brisbane, Calif. Dettmer thinks a developer should be allowed to build housing on an old rail yard in the city.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Brisbane’s main drag is Visitacion Avenue. It slopes upward for five blocks, starting at a city park and continuing through mom-and-pop shops, cafes and restaurants. The rest of Brisbane comprises office parks, a strip mall and mostly single-family homes built throughout the town’s hills.

“This is the land that time forgot,” said Greg Lee, 55, an electrical engineer who has lived in the city for more than two decades.

San Bruno Mountain, which rises a quarter-mile into the sky, is Brisbane’s landmark, and residents have fought to preserve it. In the 1960s, they blocked a developer from leveling the mountaintop and building enough new homes for 70,000 people. In 1980, after years of battling another massive project on the mountain, residents received a last-minute reprieve from the federal government, which declared San Bruno a critical habitat for the endangered callippe silverspot butterfly.

Anti-development fervor has continued. About a decade ago, a city councilman suggested sidestepping a state housing law that requires cities to plan for growth by zoning for homes where nothing would ever get built — the bottom of Brisbane’s lagoon.

Residents’ efforts to protect Brisbane’s small-town feel make large changes hard to accept, said Paul Bouscal, 58, a San Francisco water department employee who has lived in the area since 1982.

The Baylands, he said, plays on fears of Brisbane getting big.

“For our town to grow like that, it would be too much, too fast,” Bouscal said.

It might be easier for residents and elected officials to welcome growth if the city received more tax dollars for doing so. But the opposite is true.

Because of tax limits established in 1978 by Proposition 13, local governments generally receive more revenue from sales and hotel room taxes than property taxes. Proposition 13 limited property tax rates to 1% of a home’s taxable value and restricted how quickly that taxable value could increase after a purchase.

Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.

Developers are always going to face opposition because of residents’ concerns about their communities changing, said Mark Stivers, a longtime state housing policy staffer. But the tax system is another big reason the state has a housing shortage, he said.

“I’d like to think if just the fiscal incentives were reversed, if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail, we’d be having a very different conversation in California,” Stivers said.

Jonathan Scharfman, general manager of Universal Paragon Corp., describes the area where his company hopes to build a 4,400-unit housing development.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Debate over the Baylands has divided the town and dominated Brisbane politics for at least a decade. More than half of Brisbane residents said in a 2015 city-sponsored poll that they were OK with some housing on the Baylands site. But just 3% backed a project of more than 4,000 homes such as the developer is proposing.

Bill Dettmer, 63, spent a recent morning at Madhouse Coffee, one of the city’s main gathering spots, trying to convince skeptical neighbors that the city should support the housing. Dettmer moved to Brisbane 50 years ago and does maintenance work in the city.

“I see a lot of stuff,” Dettmer said. “I see beds in garages. You have to increase the [housing] supply. If you really want to help out people, let them live in dignity. It just seems like a no-brainer.”

Many local opponents cite the land’s history — not hostility to growth — for why they’re against the project. San Francisco used to dump its garbage on the site, and a railroad company repaired its trains there. Longtime residents remember watching tires burn.

Scharfman, the developer’s general manager, said Universal Paragon Corp. will clean up the land and won’t begin building until all environmental agencies responsible say it’s safe. He likened the process to how an old rail yard at San Francisco’s Mission Bay was cleaned up and now has thousands of homes.

Still, some Brisbane residents say they don’t trust regulators will get it right, because what’s known about the toxicity of chemicals can change over time. Even though they won’t live in the Baylands, opponents believe they have a responsibility to shield those who might.

“Why do we have a seat belt law? Why do we have a helmet law? They’re anti-stupidity laws to protect the general population,” said Michele Salmon, 63, who was born and raised in Brisbane.

Salmon said she understood housing problems were real and lamented the lack of space to accommodate a growing population.

“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”

State and regional officials have few tools to push Brisbane. Every eight years, the state tells every city and county to plan for the construction of a certain number of new homes to accommodate planned population growth. Between 2007 and 2014, Brisbane’s goal was 401 houses. Developers built a little more than a third of that target, but the city faces no consequences for the lack of home building.

Similarly, regional agencies such as the Assn. of Bay Area Governments have to plan for urban growth as part of the the state’s climate change efforts. California won’t meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, regulators have said, without a significant reduction in driving fueled by more people walking, biking and using mass transit. The Baylands project and its 4,400 homes next to a Caltrain station are written into the region’s climate change proposal, but that means nothing for the project’s actual approval.

“This is a plan, an expectation of how we could grow,” said Leah Zippert, an Assn. of Bay Area Governments spokeswoman. “It is not a mandate to build. It’s not a mandate to do anything.”

The Brisbane City Council plans to make a key decision on the Baylands this summer, including whether it supports any housing on the site. But the council expects to put that proposal on the ballot next year. Brisbane’s residents will be the ones with the last word.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

Gov. Jerry Brown says the state’s housing crisis is his next priority, but reaching a deal won’t be easy

California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the state’s housing crisis. Here’s why they’ve failed

California won’t meet its climate change goals without a lot more housing density in its cities

Updates on California politics

Jason Watkins and Robson Green are back for the next chapter in their dangerous game of cat and mouse.

Channel 5’s The Game season two is well underway with fans already desperate to find out what happens next.

Patrick Harbottle (played by Robson Green) continues to attack Huw Miller (Jason Watkins) and his family from behind bars but this time, he sets his sight on his daughter Margot (Indy Lewis).

This time around, Patrick goes a step further in the second episode, getting prison guard Jackie ( Tanya Franks ) to break into her flat and steal her diary in a bid to really get under Margot’s skin.

Things get even more intense though when she discovers that Huw has secretly visited Patrick in prison again, causing her to “explode”.

But the worse could still be yet to come as she grows suspicious that Patrick has hired someone to stalk her.

But as she grows suspicious that Patrick is hiring someone to stalk her, will Margot be able to trust that her own father wasn’t somehow involved?

When is Channel 5 The Game season 2 next on?

Channel 5’s The Game has returned one year later for its second series which made its debut last night, Tuesday, September 1.

Fans have since been treated to episode two this evening, Wednesday, September 2, but unfortunately, its third instalment won’t be airing on Thursday night as expected.

Channel 5 viewers are going to have to wait until the following week for the remaining two episodes of the four-part drama.

The Game season two, episode three, will be shown on Tuesday, September 8, and the grand finale on Wednesday, September 9, both at 9pm, on Channel 5.

What will instead be taking its place tomorrow night will be the sixth and final episode of Benidorm is Murder starring John Hannah.

The intense official synopsis for the finale reads: “A farewell party takes a deadly turn after a power cut plunges the gathering into darkness.

“When the lights return, one guest lies dead on the floor, a kitchen knife in his chest.

“Forced to investigate to clear his name, Dennis reconstructs the blackout second by second, exposing contradictions in the guests’ stories and asking whether the killing was a sudden act of rage or meticulously planned.”

The Game is available to watch on 5.

EVER wanted to head to a music festival abroad? Well, how about heading to the world’s biggest where most concerts are free?

Found in the capital of Morocco – Rabat – Mawazine isn’t your usual festival.

Instead of lasting the normal three-days, Mawazine goes on for nine days in total.

The festival takes place each June and its attendance always breaks records with 3.75million people visiting in 2025 – making it the largest music festival in the world by attendance.

As for whats on at the festival, around 90 per cent of the concerts are free to attend.

You can expect Moroccan and Arab artists as well as global headliners.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

SO FLY

Our fave beach hols under 5 hours from UK with Caribbean dupes & £2 bottles of wine

There are a seven stages in total including OLM Souissi, which is the main stage where international stars such as Rihanna, Beyoncé, Shakira, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Justin Timberlake and Maroon 5 have all performed.

You could then go to the Nahda Stage, which is dedicated to Arabic and Oriental music.

And over at Chellah, you’ll find a historic Roman site used for calm with acoustic music.

The festival isn’t just music either – you can expect art exhibitions, workshops and film screenings.

If you want to head to the festival, make sure to book your hotel well ahead.

The city of Rabat is transformed for the nine days as well, with cafes and shops open later.

The city is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site meaning there is plenty to explore including a huge medina, Hassan Tower and Kasbah of the Oudayas – a historic fortress with sea views.

Return flights from the UK to Rabat cost as little as £125 in June.

Andy Murray has long been a guiding figure for British tennis, but newly-married Katie Boulter will not be following his lead when it comes to keeping her wedding ring safe.

Three-time Grand Slam champion Murray, who married wife Kim in 2015, famously briefly lost his wedding band after playing with it tied to his shoe laces.

Murray had left his trainers – with the ring still attached – under a car to dry out after a practice session in California in 2021, and after discovering they were missing the next day, was eventually reunited with both after putting out an appeal for their return.

Boulter, who married Australia’s world number seven Alex de Minaur this summer, said she will not be making the same mistake.

“I learned from Andy. I’m not going to do that,” the 30-year-old said. “I don’t wear it. Not during matches.”

Boulter and De Minaur tied the knot at a small, private ceremony in England before holding a bigger celebration in Tuscany, Italy, in July.

Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, Boulter said: “One was in the UK for my nearest and dearest. It was like eight people – very, very small, very much for my grandpa.

“It was a huge contrast to the Italian wedding, which had all of our closest people, all of our friends, and was a little bit more of a party and a lot of fun.”

When it came to De Minaur’s speech, however, Boulter admitted she was “sceptical”.

“I hadn’t seen him do any preparation for the speech at all. And he was like, ‘I’m just going to wing it. It’s fine. How hard can it be?’,” she said.

“He was amazing. He was so, good. I was crying the whole time. I think I permanently cried for like three hours straight during all the speeches.”

Since their wedding, the world number 60 has wasted no time in throwing herself back into tennis before the US Open, which gets under way on Sunday.

“I actually just chose to go straight back into the conditions, go into the deep end and see what we’ve got,” said Boulter, who lost in the first round in Washington and Toronto before suffering a second-round exit in Cincinnati.

“I do think the conditions in the States are very different from the UK. I think you can’t really replicate them.

“So I felt like I’d be a little underprepared coming to the US and just getting used to the conditions again would have been quite difficult.”

Boulter’s US Open begins with a first-round encounter against American wildcard Carol Young Suh Lee, who is ranked 143rd in the world.

For the first time in years, Venezuela is discussing institutional change as something more concrete than an opposition demand. The talks between the two National Assemblies have embraced the problem of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), with the electoral authority next in line. New magistrates, new CNE rectors, new elections: after decades of institutional capture, replacing the people who run these bodies is obviously necessary.

The danger is believing it will be enough.

Venezuela has spent the last quarter of century demonstrating that its democratic decline cannot be reduced to bad people occupying important offices. Chavismo did not merely place loyalists inside the State. It gradually transformed the relationships between institutions so that political power could survive electoral setbacks.

The clearest example came after 2015. When the opposition won a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, chavismo did not accept that voters had changed the institutional balance of the country. The TSJ then progressively neutralized the newly elected Assembly. When that was no longer enough, the government created a Constituent Assembly capable of bypassing it altogether.

This adaptability matters for the transition now being negotiated.

Chavismo’s institutional principle has never really been presidentialism. It has been simpler: power should remain wherever chavismo remains.

Venezuela is extraordinarily centralized, and there is good reason to believe that no political project can govern effectively without controlling the presidency. But it would be a mistake to assume that the presidency will remain as powerful after chavismo loses it as it was while chavismo controlled the rest of the State.

A democratic president facing a chavista supermajority in the National Assembly and a hostile Supreme Court could discover rather quickly that Venezuela’s supposedly omnipotent presidency is considerably less omnipotent than advertised.

Chavismo’s institutional principle has never really been presidentialism. It has been simpler: power should remain wherever chavismo remains. That is why replacing the people at the top of Venezuela’s institutions is only the beginning of reinstitutionalization.

We have tried this before

The CNE should make us particularly cautious.

In 2021, Roberto Picón and Enrique Márquez joined an electoral board that was widely regarded as the most balanced Venezuela had seen in years. Both pushed for meaningful improvements, and international observers recognized that the new composition produced a better electoral environment than the one that preceded it. The Carter Center described the board as “less unbalanced,” while still documenting structural problems surrounding electoral competition.

The episode demonstrated the limits of solving institutional problems through personnel alone. An election is not defined solely by what five CNE rectors do on election night. It also depends on who can register to vote, which candidates can run, whether parties can organize, how public resources are used, what media can report, what security forces do, and which court ultimately resolves a dispute.

Barinas provided the almost perfect illustration. After the 2021 gubernatorial election, the TSJ intervened while the vote was still being resolved, invoked a political disqualification against the opposition candidate and ordered the election repeated. Picón and Márquez publicly dissented. The independent rectors were there. The larger machinery around them remained capable of overruling the political meaning of the vote.

A good rector can behave honorably inside a bad system. The same is true of judges.

“Non-repetition” cannot mean guaranteeing that chavismo disappears from Venezuelan politics.

Replacing the current Supreme Court with independent jurists would be an enormous democratic achievement. Even so, courts lack enforcement mechanisms for a reason, meaning that the armed forces or the police could ignore their rulings, or that, as chavismo has already done, the president du jour could resort to the military court system. But Venezuela should also be asking whether a future court should retain all the powers that chavismo accumulated and exploited through it.

Otherwise, the transition risks producing institutions that are safe only for as long as good people control them.

That is not institutional reform. It is institutional trust.

And democracies are supposed to require less of it.

Political scientist Guillermo O’Donnell made this distinction precisely when he wrote about the weakness of “horizontal accountability” in Latin American democracies. Elections determine who governs, but democracy also requires institutions capable of restraining those winners once they do. A president who receives millions of votes is still bound by courts, legislatures, and rules that do not derive their legitimacy from his personal mandate.

Venezuela inverted that principle. Institutions increasingly became instruments for preserving whoever already controlled them. Changing their occupants without changing that logic would leave the central vulnerability untouched.

What non-repetition actually means

This is where the transition needs a more demanding definition of success. “Non-repetition” cannot mean guaranteeing that chavismo disappears from Venezuelan politics.

A democratic Venezuela should permit a chavista party to reorganize, contest elections and, if voters choose it again someday, return to government. Democracy cannot mean competitive elections until the people we dislike win one.

Nor does democratic consolidation require Venezuela to eliminate every trace of authoritarian nostalgia. Spain still contains defenders of Franco. Chile still contains defenders of Pinochet. Their democratic success is not that those political traditions vanished, but that political competition became overwhelmingly organized around institutions that survived changes of government.

Nicaragua, on the other hand, demonstrates what happens when that consolidation remains incomplete.

The Sandinistas lost the 1990 election and surrendered the presidency. Daniel Ortega remained in politics, competed repeatedly, and eventually returned through elections in 2006. This democratic failure was certainly exacerbated when Nicaragua’s institutions proved unable to stop Ortega from progressively dismantling the democratic constraints that had made his return possible in the first place. Research on Nicaragua’s backsliding traces how electoral rules, courts and other institutions were gradually eroded on the road back to authoritarianism.

If judicial independence depends on always selecting virtuous magistrates, the judiciary has not been fixed.

That is the warning Venezuela should take seriously.

Non-repetition does not mean ensuring that Venezuelans never again elect someone with authoritarian instincts. It means building institutions capable of surviving when they do. And that standard has an uncomfortable implication for whoever eventually replaces chavismo.

The next democratic government should not ask only which powers it needs in order to govern. It should ask whether it would be comfortable leaving those same powers to its worst political adversary. That is the test that should apply to the new TSJ, the new CNE and eventually every institution rebuilt during the transition.

If electoral integrity depends on always appointing five excellent rectors, the electoral system has not been fixed. If judicial independence depends on always selecting virtuous magistrates, the judiciary has not been fixed. If the survival of democracy depends on trusting whoever occupies Miraflores, Venezuela has learned very little from the last twenty-five years.

The current negotiations can replace officials. They can make credible elections possible again. They can remove some of the people who converted public institutions into instruments of political control. All of that is necessary. But Venezuela’s democratic challenge will not be solved by transferring those instruments to new hands. 

The institutions being negotiated today should be designed not merely to produce the next democratic government, but to survive the next authoritarian one. Otherwise, Venezuela may succeed in changing who holds power without changing what power allows them to do.

Edwin Díaz said he understands the decision of the Dodgers to use him in lower-stake situations rather than immediately relying on him as a closer. The rationale is that strategy will help him rediscover his confidence.

“I know I haven’t done my job,” said Díaz, speaking to reporters at his locker before Sunday’s game against the Pittsburgh Pirates. “If I had done my job, I would be in the ninth inning.”

He praised Tanner Scott, who has thrived in that role.

“He’s doing a great job,” Díaz said. “I’m really happy for him.”

Díaz, the team’s biggest offseason acquisition, had elbow surgery early in the season and was out from April to late July. His return wasn’t triumphant, as he had three blown saves and two more shaky outings in non-save situations.

After a game against the Colorado Rockies last week, he complained of a neck problem and was placed on the injured list. He has more than a week remaining before he returns.

Díaz said he underwent an MRI scan on his neck and nothing unusual was revealed. He’s working with coaches on making a small adjustment to his delivery.

“They showed me a couple videos from last year — my arm slot’s always a little low,” he said. “We’re working now to get it higher and more consistent in that position.”

The goal, naturally, is to make good on the expectations the Dodgers had for him when they signed him to a three-year, $69-million deal.

“That’s why they signed me here,” he said. “To be the closer.”

There’s no shortage of twisty, intriguing Netflix miniseries to tune into for your next binge session but one show – and its “bonkers” ending – will stay with fans long after they’ve finished watching

A “mind-bending”, “unpredictable” and “memorable” television miniseries has been lauded by fans – and it’s perfect for those who loved the psychological tension of Netflix’s hit show The Beast In Me, which was fronted by Claire Danes and Matthew Rhys.

Those craving intriguing television shows for their next binge-watching session have no shortage of options on Netflix, with The Stranger, His & Hers, Bodies and more all resonating with audiences and keeping people guessing until the final episode – but it’s a 2021 miniseries that still has telly fans talking. Many people turn to social media on the quest for recommendations, with some content creators amassing devoted followings thanks to their passion and insight into a vast array of shows.

This is the case with Luke Ecclestone, who posts content online as Eccy Reviews. He’s become a go-to source for many people looking for their next binge-watch.

The TV and film lover has amassed hundreds of thousands of followers on social media where he shares his opinions and insights on a range of films and television programmes.

In a recent video posted to TikTok, he discussed three miniseries with a supernatural element and plenty of mystery – as the main discussion was all about Behind Her Eyes.

He began: “Here are three Netflix series that will leave you completely hooked and questioning everything.

“All of these shows are unsettling, unpredictable, and full of moments you will never see coming – and the last one on this list is on a whole another level.”

The first show he recommended was the 2022 supernatural thriller The 7 Lives Of Lea and the second was the 2021 gothic, supernatural horror miniseries Midnight Mass.

But it was the third entry on his list that Luke branded one of “the most memorable” shows of all time.

So, what’s the show in question? Luke said: “The last one on this list is absolutely mind bending – everyone I know who’s seen it absolutely loves it – and the show I’m talking about is called Behind Her Eyes.”

What is Netflix’s ’mind-bending’ 2021 miniseries about?

Behind Her Eyes first premiered on Netflix in early 2021. Based on Sarah Pinborough’s 2017 novel of the same name, it follows single mother Louise as she begins an affair with her new boss, David.

When she strikes up an unlikely friendship with David’s wife Adele, things become more and more bizarre, leaving Louise entirely unsure of who she can trust.

David and Adele’s marriage is complicated, yet Louise finds herself drawn to both of them. When Adele starts helping Louise control her night terrors, a supernatural element is involved that leads to devastating consequences for all.

Luke said: “Where this show went I never predicted in a million years.

“And it is one of the most memorable shows I have ever watched and if you haven’t seen it, you are massively missing out.”

How did viewers and critics respond to Behind Her Eyes?

In the comments section, fellow TikTok users were keen to share their thoughts. One person said: “Looking for something you watch tonight… Behind Her Eyes it is!”

Another said: “Behind Her Eyes was absolutely amazing, did not expect the ending. Amazing – [you] defo need to watch. 10/10.”

A third agreed: “Behind Her Eyes is fantastic it blew my head off.”

While someone else was intrigued by all three shows and added: “Mate these sound well good.”

On popular review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, critics had strong reactions to the show – though its “bonkers” twist ending didn’t land with some.

Reviewer Silvina Lamazares said: “A well-structured, complex, attractive story.”

Anne Brodie commented: “Whiplash twists and turns make this a worthy watch as this uncomfortable trio enters new territory.”

But Gayle Sequeira added: “The show’s insistence on progressing towards that bonkers twist, however, results in it sacrificing storytelling in favour of shock.”