It says something for the conscience of the Church of England that, in 1955, it put up a plaque alongside the former shrine of Little Hugh in Lincoln Cathedral, apologising for the harm it had done by falsely accusing Jews of the ritual slaughter of the boy in 1255.

That Jews habitually murdered gentile children for blood with which to make Passover matzoh, was a popular superstition throughout Britain and Europe in the middle ages. “These fictions cost many innocent Jews their lives,” the plaque reads, “[and] do not redound to the credit of Christendom, and so we pray: Lord, forgive what we have been, amend what we are, and direct what we shall be.”

That it took the Church of England 700 years to amend “what [it] had been” should not detract from the honesty of that amendment, particularly if we remember that the “blood libel”, as it has become known, was still alive and kicking in the modern era, with occurrences of it recorded in Russia and even America as recently as 1928.

Ask wherein the appeal of this libel lies and the answer has to be the necessity for Christians not just to defame Jews and make a clear distinction between Old and New Testament morality, but to set the Jews apart from the entire human family; depraved, accomplices of the devil. And, of course, to justify hunting them down and massacring them.

It has been said often enough that there could hardly have been a more unlikely crime to charge Jews with, given the strict taboo on blood sacrifice and the extreme laws against blood contact and consumption laid down in the Torah. But there lies the further efficacy of the libel – it denies Jews their beliefs, their culture and their nature. It is hateful to be accused of what you haven’t done, but more hateful still to be accused of what you would never dream of doing and what you cannot bear to see done.

Hence the hurt, the anger and the fear that Jewish people have been experiencing in the year since Hamas’s barbaric massacre of Israelis on 7 October and the no less barbaric denials, not to mention celebrations of it, as night after night our televisions have told the story of the war in Gaza through the death of Palestinian children. Night after night, a recital of the numbers dead. Night after night, the unbearable footage of their parents’ agony. The savagery of war. The savagery of the Israeli onslaught. But for many, writing or marching against Israeli action, the savagery of the Jews as told for hundreds of years in literature and art and church sermons.

Here we were again, the same merciless infanticides inscribed in the imaginations of medieval Christians. Only this time, instead of operating on the midnight streets of Lincoln and Norwich, they target Palestinian schools, the paediatric wards of hospitals, the tiny fragile bodies of children themselves. Even when there are other explanations for the devastation, no one really believes them. Reporters whose reports are proved wrong see no reason to apologise. No amendment of their calumnies. What is there to apologise for? It could have been true.

Ask how Israel is able to target innocent children with such deadly accuracy and no one can tell you. Ask why they would want to target innocent children and make themselves despised among the nations of the Earth and no one can tell you that either. Hate on this scale seeks no rational explanation. Hate feeds off the superstitions that fed it last time round. The narrative of these events requires a heartless villainy and who more heartlessly villainous than those who severed the arteries of Little Hugh of Lincoln?

I don’t accuse the BBC and other news outlets of wilfully stirring race-memory of the child-killing Jew of the middle ages. But we don’t have to mean harm to do it. We can wreak havoc just as well by being lazy, by letting our unconscious do the work of thought, by dipping into the communal pile of prejudice and superstition and letting it pepper up our reports.

Events don’t make it on to television through a camera lens alone. What we see is only what an editor chooses for us to see. Yes, somewhere under the rubble is a truth, but closer to the surface is drama.

And if the aim of editors has been to horrify, they have succeeded. Who has been able to watch the evening news on television three nights running without wanting to scream? Scream for those beautiful and broken children, the innocent victims of war, maimed, orphaned, wandering lost through their ruined cities. Scream if you’re a Palestinian, scream if you’re a Christian, scream if you’re a Jew.

A mistake or misascription here, an over-credulousness there, do not a conspiracy make. And I do not minimise the tragedy that has befallen Palestinian children. But when television becomes another mourner by their graveside it can feel as much like propaganda as news. Only compare reporting from Gaza with reporting from Ukraine. Bombs have fallen there, too, but how often is the burial of Ukrainian children the lead story?

Such bias as I have described – conscious or not – has contributed not just to the anxiety level of Jews but to the atmosphere of hostility and fear in which they now live. If you are one of those who believe there is no smoke without fire – Roald Dahl, remember, said there had to be some reason no one liked the Jews – these pictures from Gaza will confirm your conviction that Jews are the devil’s confederates. The litany of dead children corroborates all those stories of their insatiable lust for blood. Maybe the Church of England was wrong to apologise.

Howard Jacobson is a novelist, broadcaster and university lecturer

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at [email protected]

It is “impossible” for the People’s Republic of China to become Taiwan’s motherland because Taiwan has older political roots, the island’s president has said.

Lai Ching-te, who took office in May, is condemned by Beijing as a separatist. He rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying the island is a country called the Republic of China that traces its origins back to the 1911 revolution overthrowing the last imperial dynasty.

The Chinese nationalist government fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war with Mao Zedong’s communists. Mao set up the People’s Republic of China, which continues to claim self-governed Taiwan as its territory.

Speaking at a concert ahead of Taiwan’s national day celebrations on 10 October, Lai noted that the People’s Republic had celebrated its 75th anniversary on 1 October and in a few days it would be the Republic of China’s 113th birthday.

“Therefore, in terms of age, it is absolutely impossible for the People’s Republic of China to become the motherland of the Republic of China’s people. On the contrary, the Republic of China may be the motherland of the people of the People’s Republic of China who are over 75 years old,” Lai added, to applause.

“One of the most important meanings of these celebrations is that we must remember that we are a sovereign and independent country.”

China’s Taiwan affairs office did not answer calls seeking comment outside office hours, the Reuters news agency said.

The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in a speech on the eve of his country’s national day, reiterated his government’s view that Taiwan is its territory.

Lai, who will give his own keynote national day address on 10 October, has needled Beijing before with historical references. In September, he said that if China’s claims on Taiwan were about territorial integrity then it should also take back land from Russia signed over by the last Chinese dynasty in the 19th century.

With Reuters

My wife – and best friend– of the past 38 years can no longer say the word “hippopotamus” or count backwards from 100, or draw a watch face on a piece of paper. Sometimes she leaves the oven on or forgets to turn off the kitchen tap, and yesterday she wandered into the wrong stairwell of our apartment block.

Two years ago, at the age of 60, Cathie was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s and our lives changed irrevocably. There were no soothing words from the family doctor as a bureaucratic error had sent us the PET scan that confirmed our fears. We read the results together and one of us, the weaker one, cried for a week. Then I pulled myself together and focused on what’s important.

Since then, we’ve sold our Blue Mountains house and moved back to Brisbane where we were born. Cathie wanted warm weather and to be close to her parents, and our youngest son. Most of all, she wanted a dog. Enter Biscuit, a 3.5kg toy poodle and the best anti-Alzheimer’s medication invented. Cathie has smiled and laughed more since Biscuit entered our lives than ever. It has left me feeling sheepish that I wasn’t attentive or entertaining enough these past few decades, such is Biscuit’s unrelenting positivity.

We both feel blessed.

Of course, Biscuit sleeps between us. In the morning, it’s often a few minutes before Cathie acknowledges me, such is her focus on the dog. I savour every moment.

Cathie exhibited none of the risk factors for Alzheimer’s. She had an excellent diet; an active social life; was very fit – only a few years ago we cycled from Marseille to Norway. We regularly spent months cycling in foreign lands. I’m grateful now that we didn’t wait until retirement to travel. Cathie still wants to see the world, still wants to explore exotic tastes and meet new people.

Everyone reacted differently when we told them the diagnosis. Most people have been supportive, aware that regular social events are our lifeblood. Cathie lunches with friends, volunteers at the local Salvos, takes bellydance classes on Friday as a student, even though she taught it for 20 years. We have more dinner party invitations than at any time in our lives.

Alzheimer’s is not the loss of memory. A relative, on hearing Cathie’s diagnosis, suggested she might have it as well because she sometimes forgets things. I sucked in a deep breath before explaining that Alzheimer’s attacks more than memory. Yes, Cathie forget things. But it’s the unexpected stuff that hurts. Cathie’s language skills have changed dramatically. We don’t care that she can’t say hippopotamus, but she now rarely speaks in sentences, or can find the accurate word, or pronounce a range of simple and not-so-simple words. My worst fear is that she’ll stop trying to verbalise.

I’m learning to never ask “either-or” questions. Beach? Or bushwalk? Cathie will look confused for a few seconds, smile gently and say yes. I’m always humbled at how often she says yes. She’s up for anything, as long as Biscuit can accompany us.

Cathie prefers colourful dresses and tops, where previously she favoured what she called the “Greek grandmother look’” of black on black. While I cook most evenings, she’s determined to keep trying. We joke whether the result will be of her usual delicious standard or a “Mrs Cropley”.

I hate visiting the neurology department of our hospital. They are sensitive and kind and professional, and I watch them measuring Cathie’s changes. We use the word “changes”. It sounds better than “losses”. Last visit they offered Cathie a higher dose of an antidepressant, because despite the headlines of “major Alzheimer’s breakthrough”, there’s little the doctors can do than this, and to monitor the losses. Sorry, the changes.

I’ve made my living as a writer for 40 years. Since Cathie’s diagnosis, I haven’t been able to face a new manuscript. Writing a book is more than sitting at a desk each morning. It’s living with the characters while walking the dog, or cycling, or doing the shopping. The emotional energy of creating … I’d rather spend it with Cathie and Biscuit.

Every day I detest Alzheimer’s and what’s it’s doing to the person I love. And every day I’m in awe of how Cathie responds to its ravages. Quietly, stoically, with patience, and sometimes tears, before hugging Biscuit and me.

She kisses my bald head when we sit on the lounge. She never did that before the diagnosis. I know what the disease is taking, but Cathie responds with gestures such as this. When we visit our youngest son and daughter-in-law, she washes the dishes piled on the bench, or helps Joe cook, or chats to Rose about clothes and travel.

I know there will come a time when Cathie no longer recognises me, or Joe, or Rose. Or our eldest son Jack and his wife Emma. Or, shudder, our precious grandson, Billy. She’ll sit in a chair staring out the window, at a world shrunken and frail, Biscuit asleep on her lap.

For now, I smile whenever possible. We live one moment at a time, and marvel at the accuracy of cliches.

I prefer today rather than tomorrow.

Tyrell Malacia

The first signing of the Erik ten Hag era, ticking the key criterion of coming from the Eredivisie. It’s difficult to say too much about a player who last featured in June 2023. The left-back made a lot of appearances in his first season but a knee injury has kept him out for 16 months. Rating 1/5

Antony

When the club paid £85.6m for the Brazilian winger, they were expecting a world beater but got ineptitude. Antony will go down as one of the worst pound-for-pound signings. Ten Hag knew him from Ajax and thought he could lead the new era at Old Trafford, but he has been a painful disappointment, putting the blame at the Dutchman’s door. Off-field issues have been a further problem for the 24-year-old who has played one Premier League minute this season, having slipped down the pecking order. 1/5

Casemiro

At the time, he was what United needed but came with a high price tag of £50m plus add-ons for a midfielder over the age of 30. After almost a decade of success with Real Madrid, he had a winner’s mentality, helping United qualify for the Champions League in his first season, but an ageing body. He has been unable to cope with the pace of the Premier League over the past 15 months. 2/5

Lisandro Martínez

Another who moved with Ten Hag from Amsterdam. The combative defender has been one of the more positive arrivals, adding steel to a defence that has too often been weak. Injuries have been a problem but when available is always first choice. 4/5

Wout Weghorst

A desperation signing when United needed an extra striker and could not find anyone suitable at short notice, making an available Dutchman the best option. Tried his best after joining on loan from Burnley but was never at the required standard nor did he fit into the system, netting zero goals in 17 Premier League outings. 2/5

Christian Eriksen

Has never looked like what United need in midfield, lacking speed and is insufficiently robust. Occasionally offers glimpses of the world-class midfielder he once was but those days are behind him. On the upside, at least he did not cost a fee. 3/5

Jack Butland

The goalkeeper never played but was on the substitutes’ bench 20 times. N/A

Marcel Sabitzer

United’s financial situation has seen them dip far too regularly into the loan market. The Austrian’s high point of a forgettable spell was scoring twice in a Europa League quarter-final against Sevilla but the club did not make his move permanent. 2/5

Rasmus Højlund

A striker with potential but like others before him has lacked service. The £72m fee seemed excessive at the time, considering Atalanta paid a quarter of that to sign him 12 months previously. A reminder that United have not been smart in the transfer market for a long time. 3/5

Mason Mount

Kickstarted the second summer of transfer business but it was never particularly obvious where he would fit into the team with others already at the club who could play in his position(s). Injury meant he never got going in his first season and has interrupted the second already as he struggles to remind everyone of the player he once was at Chelsea. 2/5

André Onana

Was available for nothing when his former Ajax manager Ten Hag arrived at United, but let his reputation grow at Inter, forcing United to invest £45m in the Cameroonian goalkeeper. Was unconvincing in the early part of his Old Trafford career but has become a steady performer in an indifferent team. 3/5

Sofyan Amrabat

Another familiar face to Ten Hag, joining on loan on deadline day at the end of the summer 2023 window. Never looked comfortable playing for United, not helped by playing in numerous positions, but did produce a fine FA Cup final performance against Manchester City. 3/5

Altay Bayindir

The Turkish goalkeeper played twice and was victorious on both occasions, giving him a 100% record as a United player. No one else can boast that. 2/5

Jonny Evans

A shock signing when the veteran centre-back returned to the club aged 35, a decade after leaving. Played a lot more games – sometimes at left-back – than he expected and even earned a one-year contract extension, having rarely let anyone down. 3/5

Sergio Reguilón

An underrated loan signing from Tottenham as United needed a left-back. Was allowed to return in January, which was a mistake considering his steady presence and the inability for Luke Shaw or Malacia to stay fit. 3/5

Leny Yoro

The 18-year-old defender is a £52m long-term investment but has been prevented from making his debut after suffering a pre-season injury. N/A

Manuel Ugarte

United’s potential gamechanger in defensive midfield with Casemiro’s decline. Too early to judge whether the 23-year-old Uruguayan signed from PSG will be the transformational signing but his performance against Spurs drew criticism from Marco van Basten who called him “idiotic”. 3/5

Matthijs de Ligt

Another who worked with Ten Hag at Ajax and has plenty of experience for a 25-year-old centre-back. The manager hopes his partnership with Martínez can provide the stability in defence United have lacked for a long time but is yet to show the class his CV promises, giving the impression of being too slow in mind and body. 2/5

Joshua Zirkzee

When an out-and-out striker to challenge Hojlund was needed, United went for a player Ten Hag describes as a “nine and a half” as his first signing of the past summer. Produced a wonderful finish on debut against Fulham but has not scored since and does not look likely to be prolific. 3/5

Noussair Mazraoui

Another of Ten Hag’s former charges, the Morocco international grew up in the Netherlands, joining from Bayern Munich. The versatile defender can operate in numerous positions and is bedding into the team. 3/5

I was a young dancer based in Queensland when in 2012 I got my first international gig at the Leipzig Ballet in Germany, and a year later a beautiful Brazilian named Naiara joined the company. Her personality was infectious and I was instantly drawn to her high energy and natural charisma.

I was attracted to her from the jump and tried to put some moves on, but we were so young – just 22 and 19. I guess she thought I was just playing the field and wasn’t interested in taking it there with me. But we were good colleagues and socialised a lot together. For three years we coasted along that way and were never paired together as dancers.

It wasn’t until I got another job in Switzerland and knew I’d be leaving the company that I goofily approached her in the studio to confess the chemistry I felt between us and the respect I had for her as an artist, and a person. It was a shot in the dark, but I could see it shifted her interest in me.

Before I left for the new job, our company toured in Colombia and romance blossomed. Back in Germany we started spending a lot of time together. By 2016 I was in love. There was this beautiful simplicity to our dynamic. From early on we could be together in silence – dancers are good at communicating without words. I could feel her, I could understand her; that happened so quickly for us.

Between gigs in 2017 – me in Switzerland, Naiara in Germany – we had a summer break and I invited her to Australia to meet my family. Our closeness grew ever deeper, but we knew we were headed into the unknown of a long-distance relationship once we got back to Europe.

It was an eight-hour journey between Leipzig and Basel, but we never let more than a fortnight pass without seeing each other. For some couples distance can create a chasm, for us it brought us closer together. But it wasn’t without its challenges and after about a year she presented me with an ultimatum – we had to be in the same city.

As the pandemic bore down in 2020, I managed to get into the same company she was dancing for in St Gallen, Switzerland. Because of the rules around physical contact during Covid, the fact that we were a couple and living together meant we were paired together for duets, finally.

I remember one day in the studio there we were rehearsing a difficult lift. Naiara assured me my grip was wrong. I kept telling her it was the right thing to do. She kept telling me, “It’s wrong, it’s wrong.”

Despite the risk she obliged me and went into the jump 100%. Partly, I think, to prove she was right, but also because she knew that even if things went wrong, I would catch her. Which I did, just before her head hit the floor.

I felt so silly that I hadn’t double-checked it and believed her, but I understood at that moment how implicit her trust in me was, and how much responsibility I felt towards her. In the moments she’s above my head and our eyes meet, it’s like we are looking into each other’s souls – it’s profound connection, ultimate trust.

I feel like we are in complete balance together. In life and in dance we know where each other’s going, it’s a joint instinct which is so beautiful to share. It’s like we are dancing our way not just through our choreography but through our day-to-day life together. In 2022 that synchronicity brought us to Australia when we joined the Sydney Dance Company.

In the studio and at home, we’ve shared many scary moments together, pushing the limits of our trust for and responsibility to each other’s hearts and bodies. But whether we are doing a duet or making dinner, that sense of vulnerability and nurturing each other makes me feel love. True love.

• Piran Scott and Naiara de Matos appear in the Sydney Dance Company’s production of Momenta at the Arts Centre Melbourne, 8-12 October.

David Paterson, the former New York governor, and his stepson were attacked and injured on New York City’s Upper East Side on Friday night, the city police department said.

Paterson, 70, and his stepson, Anthony Sliwa, 20, had been walking in the upscale neighborhood at about 8.30pm when they were attacked after a verbal altercation with five people, according to the police.

Paterson suffered minor injuries to his face and body, while Sliwa, son of Curtis Sliwa, founder of the anti-crime group the Guardian Angels and New York mayoral candidate, received minor injuries to his face.

“Anthony was able to hold them off because Governor Paterson is sight-challenged but the governor was in the middle of this, too, and they both stood their ground,” Curtis Sliwa told the New York Post. The elder Sliwa said he is “proud” of how his son, who is also a Guardian Angel, handled the incident.

Both were taken to a nearby hospital in stable condition. Police said Paterson, who served as New York’s first Black governor from 2008–2010 after Eliot Spitzer stepped down amid a prostitution scandal, is not believed to have been targeted in the assault.

Sean Darcy, a spokesperson for the former governor, told ABC News that the younger man had had “a previous interaction” with the five people.

Myles Miller, the managing editor of Bloomberg, posted on X that both men had been taken to the hospital as a precaution after they suffered some injuries “but were able to fight off their attackers” and police had not yet detained the suspected assailants.

Paterson’s spokesperson said the “governor’s only request is that people refrain from attempting to use an unfortunate act of violence for their own personal or political gain”.

Reports of the assault come at a tense time in the city around issues of street crime and subway safety. Next week, ex-marine Daniel Penny goes on trial for manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide for choking an unhoused man, Jordan Neely, on a subway train last year.

In that case, witnesses claimed that Neely, 30, had been threatening passengers, and millions of dollars have been donated to Penny’s defense fund. Others have said that Penny, then 24, acted as an overzealous vigilante, stirring memories of Bernhard Goetz, who shot four African American men on a subway train in 1984.

Penny has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Mass hunger and malnutrition. A looming nuclear winter. An existential threat to the Canadian way of life. For months, the country’s Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has issued dire and increasingly apocalyptic warnings about the future. The culprit? A federal carbon levy meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

In the House of Commons this month, the Tory leader said there was only one way to avoid the devastating crisis: embattled prime minister Justin Trudeau must “call a ‘carbon tax’ election”.

Hailed as a global model of progressive environmental policy, Canada’s carbon tax has reduced emissions and put money in the pockets of Canadians. The levy, endorsed by conservative and progressive economists, has survived multiple federal elections and a supreme court challenge. But this time, a persistent cost-of-living crisis and a pugnacious Conservative leader running on a populist message have thrust the country’s carbon tax once more into the spotlight, calling into question whether it will survive another national vote.

In 2018, Trudeau announced plans for the “pan-Canadian climate framework”, modelled after British Columbia’s pioneering carbon tax. Notably, the levy is revenue neutral: the government doesn’t keep any money. Instead, it remits all of it back to taxpayers in the form a quarterly rebate. Any increase in costs from a tax on fuel is offset by a rebate of roughly equal value.

According to the federal government, a family of four in Ontario will receive C$1,120 (£630) this year in rebates. Those living in a rural community receive C$1,344. A rural family of four in the province of Alberta receives C$2,160.

Anyone willing and able to change their behaviour would end up in the black. Economists, political scientists – and the parliamentary budget officer – have found low-income households receive more from the rebate than they pay in additional costs. But the Conservatives, with a significant lead in the polls, are keen to capture mounting frustration with the incumbent government and transform a federal vote into a referendum on Trudeau’s marquee climate policy. Their campaign message, on billboards and T-shirts, has been simple: “axe the tax”. They argue that levy burdens Canadians at a time when rents, groceries and transportation costs have all surged.

Kathryn Harrison, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia, who has spent years studying the effects of carbon levies on behaviour and emissions, laments the “outright falsehoods” peddled for political benefit.

“The current political discourse means a lot of Canadians misunderstand how the policy affects them. They don’t think it works. They think they’re paying more than they are. And that’s a very distressing thing for me, from not just a climate policy perspective, but a democratic perspective,” she said. “This isn’t a debate about how much emphasis to put on one issue or another. The unpopularity of the carbon tax is, to a large degree, driven by voters misunderstanding it and having the facts wrong.”

For Canada’s environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, the fractious debate represents a crossroads for the country in addressing the effects of the climate crisis.

“The reality is, it’s easy to say ‘axe the tax’,” he said. “No one likes to pay taxes. It is more complicated to explain that climate change is real, it’s costing Canadians billions of dollars and carbon pricing is one of many measures we’re putting in place to try and fight climate change. That’s harder to communicate than a slogan.”

But the tenor of the debate – and the misinformation – also suggests something deeper is at stake.

“Climate, and more generally, the environment is now caught into this culture war where facts don’t matter, where the truth has no currency,” said Guilbeault. “This is an issue that speaks to the fundamental elements of our democracies around the world, many of which are being weakened by those campaigns of disinformation.”

Still, the perceived benefits of abandoning the tax have lured in other party leaders. Last month, the New Democratic party leader Jagmeet Singh suggested his support was waning because he doesn’t want a policy that puts the “burden on the backs of working people” – a claim dismissed by experts.

“It is surprising the federal NDP are turning their back on a very progressive policy that both reduces carbon pollution, but also delivers rebates greater than carbon payments for lower income households – the people he purports to be most supportive of,” said Harrison.

Guilbeault admits federal government was “a bit slow” in course-correcting the waves of misinformation surrounding the levy.

“We could have done better, but the 2019 and 2021, and partially, the 2015 elections were fought in part on the issue of carbon pricing – and we won those elections,” he said. “

Initially, the tax was remitted in the form of a tax cut that few people noticed when they filed their taxes. Later, the government began directly depositing the money – but couldn’t get the banks to indicate the money was a rebate from the carbon tax. It took a change to the law that finally compelled banks to label government payments as the “Canada Carbon Rebate” or “CdaCarbonRebate”.

As nations around the world unveil politics to blunt the effects of a rapidly changing climate, recent report from the Canadian Climate Institute found the national carbon levy, which targets both consumers and industry, is projected to reduce emissions by as much as 50% by 2030.

In the event that a Conservative government abandons the national carbon levy, Canada will have “no way” of meeting its 2030 emissions targets,” said Guilbeault, adding it “reduces our credibility” when negotiating with other nations moving ahead with plans to lower emissions.

Most of the debate right now is on the fuel charge the consumer-facing carbon price, with little focus on the industrial carbon tax, said Dale Beugin, vice-president of the Canadian Climate Institute, which “delivers three times the emissions reductions by 2030” than the consumer component of the tax.

Opposition party leaders, including Singh, have vaguely suggested strengthening the industrial part of the carbon tax to make up for the lost benefits of the consumer tax.

“But the reality is, when you remove one policy – in this case, the consumer carbon tax – you’re forced to pushing harder on other levers to go after emissions,” said Beugin. “And there aren’t many sources – buildings, vehicles – that haven’t been looked at yet.”

For Beugin, the debate underscores an uncomfortable reality about policies meant to unwind the sustained environmental damage from unfettered emissions.

“Climate policy isn’t easy. It requires some effort to push against the things that are easy and simple politically, because that’s this transformation that we need,” he said. “Yes, technology is getting cheaper, but climate policy is inevitably hard – and you don’t want to shy away from that.”

Oklahoma’s top education official is seeking to buy 55,000 Bibles for public schools and specifying that each copy contain the Declaration of Independence and US constitution, which are not commonly found in Bibles but are included in one endorsed by former president Donald Trump.

The request is part of Republican state superintendent Ryan Walters’ ongoing efforts to require Bibles in every classroom, which has been met with resistance by some of Oklahoma’s largest school districts.

Walters is seeking to spend $3m in state funds for Bibles that fit a certain criteria, including that the pages are supplemented with US historical materials. The Bibles must also be “bound in leather or leather-like material for durability”, according to state bidding documents posted this week.

The non-profit news outlet Oklahoma Watch first reported on Thursday that the requirements match the God Bless the USA Bible that Trump urged his supporters to begin buying earlier this year on a website that sells the book for $59.99.

Asked Friday if the state’s bid was tailored for the Bible backed by Trump, a spokesperson for Walters said the proposal was open to any vendor.

“There are hundreds of Bible publishers and we expect a robust competition for this proposal,” said Dan Isett, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma state department of education.

Former Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson, a Democrat, said the bid “does not pass the smell test” and said a court could void it if the process was found to limit competition.

“All fingers point to the Trump Bible that does contain all these requirements,” Edmondson said.

Walters in June ordered public schools to incorporate the Bible into lessons for grades five through 12. The bidding documents also specify that the Bibles include both the Old Testament and New Testament, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Bill of Rights.

“We can see there are very few Bibles on the market that would meet these criteria, and all of them have been endorsed by former president Donald Trump,” said Colleen McCarty, executive director of the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice.

The name of the Bible backed by Trump is inspired by country singer Lee Greenwood’s patriotic ballad. Trump takes the stage to the song at each of his rallies and has appeared with Greenwood at events.

The Bible’s website states the product “is not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign”. It says the site “uses Donald J Trump’s name, likeness and image under paid license from CIC Ventures LLC”.

Trump reported earning $300,000 off sales of the Bible, according to financial disclosures released in August. His campaign did not immediately return an email seeking comment on Friday evening.

Walters, himself a former public school teacher who was elected to his post in 2022, ran on a platform of fighting “woke ideology”, banning books from school libraries and getting rid of “radical leftists” who he claims are indoctrinating children in classrooms.

Robert Jenrick will be toppled by the Tory party’s right wing should he attempt to pivot to the centre ground if installed as leader, senior Conservatives have warned.

Jenrick, who remains the frontrunner for the job after the party’s conference in Birmingham, has won support from the right with a series of uncompromising stances. He has said he would welcome Nigel Farage into the party, leave the European convention on human rights and vote for Donald Trump.

Having started life as an MP as a moderate, some believe he has only temporarily adopted a more rightwing stance as part of his efforts to win the leadership. Some allies have suggested he will move back to the centre once in office.

However, senior party figures are already warning Jenrick that if he becomes leader, his fate will be in the hands of rightwing MPs willing to attack those who have attempted to move away from their agenda.

They warned that he had entrusted his fate to the “Braverman right” – a reference to the former home secretary, Suella Braverman. Jenrick was made immigration minister under Braverman in the expectation that he would be a moderating force. However, he is said to have been radicalised by his time in the Home Office on the need for tougher policies.

One shadow minister compared Jenrick to Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader delivered into power by the right, but ultimately unable to widen his appeal to voters. Duncan Smith was removed as leader after just over two years.

“What will happen to him is that he will suffer the fate of IDS,” they said. “He will try to pivot to the centre, but what he’ll find is that the Braverman right won’t let him. They would pull their support and threaten to submit their latest vote of no confidence for a leadership contest. They have got him by the balls. It now only takes 19 letters to prompt a confidence vote in the leader.”

Allies of Jenrick strongly disputed the idea, pointing out that the likes of Victoria Atkins, Ed Argar and John Lamont – Tory figures associated with the liberal, One Nation wing of the party – also backed his leadership bid.

Jenrick bolstered his credentials with the party’s grassroots during the conference by confirming that his daughter’s middle name was Thatcher. He has also appeared in a hoodie emblazoned with the words “Hamas Are Terrorists”.

MPs will whittle down the four remaining candidates to two this week. Those two will then be put forward to a vote of party members. While Jenrick remains favourite, a small number of MPs changing their vote could have a major impact. James Cleverly, shadow home secretary, was thought to have had a good conference after calling on the party to be “more normal”.

However, there are sobering revelations about the party’s relevance to the public in the latest Opinium poll for the Observer. It reveals that more of the public were aware of Phillip Schofield’s return to TV in his programme Cast Away than had heard about the Conservative conference. Labour still leads in most policy areas with the public, though the two main parties are now tied on the economy.

Among those giving a view, Cleverly was deemed to have had a good conference, seeing an improvement in his “acceptability” score and is currently the frontrunner among the wider British public.

Kemi Badenoch has taken the biggest knock to her public perception. She received criticism last week for suggesting maternity pay was “excessive”. Half (49%) of 2019 Conservative voters say Cleverly would be an acceptable leader of the Conservative party, with 41% saying the same of Jenrick, 40% of Tom Tugendhat and 37% of Badenoch.

Adam Drummond, head of political and social research at Opinium, said: “To nobody’s surprise, voters are not paying a great deal of attention to the Conservative leadership contest and it is notable that, as unpopular as the Labour government already is, voters prefer them over the Tories on almost all issues, with the two parties tied on the economy.”