NewzIntel.com

Category: housing

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Aceh Tsunami: Monuments help to remember disasters – and forget them

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Muzayin Nazaruddin, Dosen Program Studi Ilmu Komunikasi, Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta

    20 years have passed since the Aceh tsunami, leaving deep scars on Indonesia, especially for those directly affected. Aceh was also recovering from a three-decade armed conflict between the Free Aceh Movement and the national government

    Throughout December 2024, The Conversation Indonesia, in collaboration with academics, is publishing a special edition honouring the 20 years of efforts to rebuild Aceh. We hope this series of articles preserves our collective memory while inspiring reflection on the journey of recovery and peace in the land of ‘Serambi Makkah.’

    In the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the Acehnese interpreted the disaster in various ways.

    Initially, the tsunami was interpreted as a punishment or warning from God. Over time, a collective interpretation of the disaster emerged: “The tsunami as a test from God”.

    This later narrative was compelling enough to accelerate the post-tsunami recovery process. People in Aceh moved past the tsunami trauma by believing their deceased family members were martyrs who deserved a place in heaven, while those who survived were given the opportunity by Allah to live better lives.

    The process of forming this narrative is called memory canonisation. It occurs when the government and ruling elites impose a specific interpretation or narrative of a disaster, including what to remember and how to remember it.

    Memory canonisation is evident in the creation of disaster monuments and commemoration events, including in Aceh. Unfortunately, many survivors feel detached from the monuments because they do not evoke personal memories of the tsunami.

    Memory canonisation through monuments

    Constructing permanent memorials after a disaster is a common trend in a modern society. Many tsunami monuments exist in Aceh, and some have even become tourist destinations.

    Tsunami monuments can be divided into two categories based on the construction.

    First, monuments built from tsunami debris that are deliberately maintained, modified, or enhanced with certain elements. Examples include the stranded electric-generator ship (the PLTD Apung), the ship on the top of a house in Lampulo, and the tsunami debris at the Rahmatullah Mosque in Lampuuk.

    Second, monuments intentionally designed and constructed as new buildings after the tsunami, such as the Aceh Tsunami Museum and the Tsunami Poles erected in over 50 locations across Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar.

    The establishment of disaster memorials is always political. Disaster monuments represent how governments and elites promote specific interpretations as dominant. This is achieved through specific architectural designs or curated narratives in the monument.

    However, the memory canonisation process is never final. Once established, each disaster monument becomes a place to form, strengthen, modify, alter, and revise the interpretation of the disaster.

    How monuments affect Acehnese memory – or not

    In a post-disaster situation, the affected community faces ‘push and pull’ between remembering and forgetting the disaster. They must let go of trauma to move forward while preserving disaster memories to honour victims and enhance future preparedness.

    The memory of the disaster resides in the back of their mind, but not constantly remembered in everyday life. It will move to the surface as an active memory only when triggered by certain factors, such as a place, object, or event. This memory closely relates to how the survivors give meaning to the disaster.

    In everyday life, survivors interact with disaster monuments in various contexts –for instance, as a source of income or a place for leisure. Thus, the meaning of a disaster monument can vary, even becoming completely unrelated to its creators’ narratives and original goals.

    Preliminary findings from my ongoing research in Aceh show that among survivors, tsunami memories are often triggered by specific places associated with their experiences. These include the house where they found safety, the coastal area that swept them away, or the ruins of their homes. I refer to these as “the forgotten memories of the tsunami.”

    Since many tsunami monuments were erected without involving local residents, they feel barely connected, let alone have a sense of ownership, towards the monuments. For survivors, the established monuments do not trigger their memories of the tsunami.

    Disaster monument for disaster education

    Today, 20 years after the tsunami, we can still meet survivors who offer valuable and insightful stories about starting over, rebuilding their homes and villages, and cultivating cultural awareness about tsunamis while embracing vulnerability.

    However, once these survivors pass away, future generations will lose access to primary sources of learning about the tsunami. This includes new inhabitants who moved to Aceh after the tsunami and rent houses in coastal areas.

    They will, therefore, depend on the tsunami memorials around them, though many have been neglected.

    To address these risks, I recommend two measures.

    First, we can document the “forgotten tsunami memories” creatively through formats like documentary videos, comics, photos, social media content, or other mediums that highlight stories offering insights into disaster risk reduction and education for younger generations.

    Second, we must encourage sustainable and meaningful interactions between locals and tsunami monuments. Disaster memorials serve their purpose best — preserving the memory of the disaster and educating younger generations — when they remain relevant to residents’ daily activities.

    Locals’ active participation is essential in Aceh, including school visits and involvement in preservation and curation efforts.

    These measures aim to foster a sense of ownership among residents of the tsunami monuments in their neighbourhoods. They encourage voluntary maintenance of the monuments and make them integral to disaster risk reduction efforts.

    The Conversation

    Muzayin Nazaruddin tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

    – ref. Aceh Tsunami: Monuments help to remember disasters – and forget them – https://theconversation.com/aceh-tsunami-monuments-help-to-remember-disasters-and-forget-them-246251

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental and Urban Change, York University, Canada

    Despite provincewide protests, Ontario’s Bill 5 officially became law on June 5. Critics warn of the loss of both environmental protections and Indigenous rights.

    The law empowers the province to create special economic zones where companies or projects don’t have to comply with provincial regulations or municipal bylaws.

    Bill 5, also known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, reduces the requirements for environmental assessment. By doing so, it weakens ecological protection laws that safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples and at-risk species.

    Indigenous rights and Indigenous knowledge are critical for planetary health. But the bill passed into law with no consultation with First Nations. Therefore, it undermines the duty to consult while seemingly favouring government-aligned industries.

    Indigenous Peoples have long stewarded the environment through sustainable practices that promote ecological and human health. Bill 5’s provisions to allow the bypassing of environmental regulations and shift from a consent-based model to one of consultation violate Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Métis lawyer Bruce McIvor has described the shift as a “policy of legalized lawlessness.”

    Compounding environmental threats

    Wildfires that are currently burning from British Columbia to northern Ontario are five times more likely to occur due to the effects of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    On the federal level, Bill C-5, called the Building Canada Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on June 6 by Prime Minister Mark Carney. This bill further compounds the threat to environmental protections, species at risk and Indigenous rights across the country in favour of resource extraction projects.

    It removes the need for the assessment of the environmental impacts of projects considered to be of “national interest.”

    Ring of Fire — special economic zone?

    Ford and Carney want to fast-track the so-called Ring of Fire mineral deposit within Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario by labelling it a “special economic zone” and of “national interest.” The proposed development is often described as a potential $90 billion opportunity.

    But scientists say there are no reliable estimates of the costs related to construction, extraction, benefit sharing and environmental impacts in the Ring of Fire.

    The mining development could devastate traditional First Nations livelihoods and rights. It could also worsen the effects of climate change in Ontario’s muskeg, the southernmost sea ice ecosystem in the world.

    Northern Ontario has the largest area of intact boreal forest in the world. Almost 90 per cent of the region’s 24,000 residents are Indigenous. The Mushkegowuk Anniwuk, the original people of the Hudson Bay lowlands, refer to this area as “the Breathing Lands” — Canada’s lungs. Cree nations have lived and stewarded these lands for thousands of years.

    Journalist Jessica Gamble of Canadian National Geographic says the James Bay Lowlands, part of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, are “traditional hunting grounds” and “the largest contiguous temperate wetland complex in the world.”

    This ecosystem is home to 200 different migratory bird species and plays a critical role in environmental health through carbon sequestration and water retention. The Wildlands League has described the area as “home to hundreds of plant, mammal and fish species, most in decline elsewhere.”

    Northern Ontario, meantime, is warming at four times the global average.

    Jeronimo Kataquapit is a filmmaker from Attawapiskat who is spearheading the “Here We Stand” campaign in opposition to Bill 5 with Attawapiskat residents and neighbouring Mushkegowuk Nations and Neskantaga First Nation. As the spokesperson for Here We Stand, he said: “Ontario’s Bill 5 and Canada’s proposed national interest legislation are going to destroy the land, pollute the water, stomp all over our treaty rights, our inherent rights, our laws and our ways of life.”

    Endangered species — polar bears

    An estimated 900 to 1,000 polar bears live in Ontario, mostly along the Hudson Bay and James Bay coasts.

    But there has been a 73 per cent decline in wildlife populations globally since the 1970s, according to the World Wildlife Fund. In Canada, species of global concern have declined by 42 per cent over the same time. Canada’s Arctic and boreal ecosystems, once symbols of the snow-capped “Great White North,” are now at risk.

    Polar bears, listed as threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act and of “special concern” nationally, are particularly sensitive to human activities and climate change. Polar bears and ringed seals are culturally significant and serve as ecological indicators for ecosystems.

    Melting sea ice has already altered their behaviour, forcing them to spend more time on land.

    Cree First Nations in Northern Ontario’s biodiverse Treaty 9 territory are collaborating with federal and provincial governments and conservationists to protect polar bears. Right now, there is recognition of the importance of Cree knowledge in planning and the management of polar bears.

    The new Ontario law removes safeguards protecting the province’s endangered species, such as the Endangered Species Act. It strips key protections for at-risk wildlife, such as habitat protections, environmental impact assessments and ecosystems conservation.

    Climate change and weaker environmental protections will lead to irreversible damage to our environment and biodiversity. The ecosystem services that each animal, insect and plant provides — like cleaning the air we breathe and water we drink — are essential for a healthy province.

    The impact of Bill 5 and C-5 on these species is likely to be severe.

    Short-term gains at the expense of long-term damage

    Ontario could benefit from improved infrastructure and economic growth, but development requires careful planning and collaboration. It should rely on innovative science-based solutions, especially Indigenous sciences. And it should never infringe on Indigenous rights, bypass environmental assessments or threaten endangered species.

    While Bill 5 commits to the duty to consult with First Nations, it falls short of the free, prior and informed consent required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Since becoming Canadian law in June 2021, the federal government has been obligated to align its laws with UNDRIP.

    With Bill 5 in place, some of Ontario’s major projects may be fast-tracked with minimal safeguards. Both Bill 5 and the proposed C-5 prioritize short-term economic gains that will cause irreversible environmental damage and violate legal obligations under UNDRIP.

    Lawrence Martin, Director of Lands and Resources at the Mushkegowuk Council, contributed to this article.

    The Conversation

    Martina Jakubchik-Paloheimo works in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change (EUC) at York University as a Postdoctoral Fellow, facilitating a collaborative project on human-polar bear coexistence in Hudson Bay and James Bay.

    – ref. ‘Canada is not for sale’ — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-not-for-sale-but-new-ontario-law-prioritizes-profits-over-environmental-and-indigenous-rights-258553

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Why Israel and the U.S. are sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    The United States has apparently answered Israel’s call to to become involved in the war between Israel and Iran.

    President Donald Trump had signalled a willingness for the U.S. to become involved in the conflict. He went so far, in fact, to suggest in social media posts that he could kill Iran’s supreme leader if he wanted to.

    Segment on Trump’s threats against Iran’s leader. (BBC News)

    The American military can certainly make an impact in any air campaign against Iran. The problem from a military standpoint, however, is that the U.S., based on its forces’ deployment, will almost certainly seek to keep its involvement limited to its air force to avoid another Iraq-like quagmire.

    While doing so could almost certainly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program, it will likely fall short of Israel’s goal of regime change.

    In fact, it could reinforce the Iranian government and draw the U.S. into a costly ground war.



    Read more:
    Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here?

    Israel’s need for American support

    The initial stated reason for Israel’s bombing campaign — Iran’s nuclear capabilities — appears specious at best.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued several times in the past, without evidence, that Iran is close to achieving a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence, however, have assessed that Iran is three years away from deploying a nuclear weapon.

    Regardless of the veracity of the claims, Israel initiated the offensive and requires American support.

    Israel’s need for U.S. assistance rests on two circumstances:

    1. While Israel succeeded in eliminating key figures from the Iranian military in its initial strikes, Iran’s response appears to have exceeded Israel’s expectations with their Arrow missile interceptors nearing depletion.

    2. Israel’s air strikes can only achieve so much in disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most analysts note that Israel’s bombings are only likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few months. This is due to the fact that Israeli missiles are incapable of penetrating the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which estimates place close to 300 feet underground.

    The United States, however, possesses munitions that have reportedly destroyed the Fordow facility. Most notably, the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (more commonly known as a bunker buster) has a penetration capability of 200 feet and was reportedly used in the attack.

    Romanticizing air power

    Nonetheless, the efficacy of air power has been vastly overrated in the popular media and various air forces of the world. Air power is great at disrupting an opponent, but has significant limitations in influencing the outcome of a war.

    Specifically, air power is likely to prove an inadequate tool for one of the supposed Israeli and American objectives in the war: regime change. For air power to be effective at bringing about regime change, it needs to demoralize the Iranian people to the point that they’re willing to oppose their own government.

    Early air enthusiasts believed that a population’s demoralization would be an inevitable consequence of aerial bombardment. Italian general Giulio Douhet, a prominent air power theorist, argued that air power was so mighty that it could destroy cities and demoralize an opponent into surrendering.

    Douhet was correct on the first point. He was wrong on the second.

    Recent history provides evidence. While considerable ink has been spilled to demonstrate the efficacy of air power during the Second World War, close examination of the facts demonstrate that it had a minimal impact. In fact, Allied bombing of German cities in several instances created the opposite effect.

    More recent bombing campaigns replicated this failure. The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War did not significantly damage North Vietnamese morale or war effort. NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999, likewise, rallied support for the unpopular Slobodan Milosevic due to its perceived injustice — and continues to evoke strong emotions to this day.

    Iran’s political regime may be unpopular with many Iranians, but Israeli and American bombing may shore up support for the Iranian government.

    Nationalism is a potent force, particularly when people are under attack. The attacks on Iran will rally segments of the population to the government that would otherwise oppose it.

    Few positive options

    The limitations of air power to fuel significant political change in Iran should have given Trump pause about intervening in the conflict.

    Some American support, such as providing weapons, is a given due to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel. But any realization of American and Israeli aspirations of a non-nuclear Iran and a new government will likely require ground forces.

    Recent American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show such a ground forces operation won’t lead to the swift victory that Trump desires, but could potentially stretch on for decades.

    The Conversation

    James Horncastle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why Israel and the U.S. are sure to encounter the limits of air power in Iran – https://theconversation.com/why-israel-and-the-u-s-are-sure-to-encounter-the-limits-of-air-power-in-iran-259348

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: World Refugee Day: Prolonged refugee separation is harming families — and Canada’s economy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christina Clark-Kazak, Professor, Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    As World Refugee Day approaches on June 20, advocates and health experts are calling on the Canadian government to urgently address prolonged family separation for refugees. With wait times for family reunification now averaging more than four years, critics say the delays are causing irreparable harm to refugee families and imposing long-term costs on the health-care system and the Canadian economy.

    The significant health, social and economic costs of prolonged family separation merit urgent action. These costs are borne by refugees and their families as well as municipal, provincial and federal governments.

    People seeking refugee protection whose claims are accepted in Canada receive protected person status and are allowed to apply for permanent residence. They are permitted to include dependent children and spouses who are outside Canada on their permanent residence applications.

    While accepted refugees and their family members are legally eligible for permanent residence in Canada, they must be admitted under the immigration levels for Protected Persons in Canada and Dependants Abroad. Because the number of people applying under these levels exceeds the number of spaces available, family separation currently lasts 50 months.

    In 2024, the government of Canada announced major reductions in immigration levels starting in 2025. These reductions will further delay family reunification, prolonging refugees’ bureaucratic limbo.

    Mental and physical health costs

    Studies document the several mental health consequences of the separation of children from their parent(s), and of spouses from their partner. These challenges intensify as the duration of the separation increases.

    Medical associations around the world say family separation is a traumatic event that can cause developmental regression and higher rates of unexplained illness in children.

    This trauma may stem from the sense of abandonment that children experience while being separated from their parents. In one study from 2005, an interviewee said:

    “It was hard at first … .The children thought that I had abandoned them. They considered me a traitor.”

    Despite the time and efforts invested in long-distance relationships, family breakdown may result from prolonged family separation, necessitating counselling or child protection services.

    These mental health consequences not only have human costs. They also represent a financial burden for the Canadian government through the Interim Federal Health Care (IFHC) Program. After protected people transition away from IFHC, provincial and territorial governments pay for health costs associated with family separation.

    Some children may also require school-based interventions, mental health services and counselling, the costs of which are also borne by provincial governments.

    Economic costs

    Protected people separated from their families also pay to maintain two households: one in Canada and one overseas. In a 2019 study, a refugee said that “sending remittances was more expensive than if they lived together in Canada.”

    Remittances not only represent a financial challenge to refugee families, they also result in indirect economic losses to Canada as funds leave the country instead of being invested in Canada.

    Research shows that family separation also inhibits integration. The inability to find affordable child care in a single-parent household, for example, limits the ability to learn official languages, participate in community groups and find work opportunities.

    For example, one woman from Afghanistan who had been waiting more than six years for reunification with her husband told researchers:

    “In night I sometimes cannot sleep and I just walk and walk around the lobby of my apartment building. […] I can no longer take care of my children when they’re missing all the time their father. They need their father. Even sometimes my family asking ‘where is he?’ and other kids at my children’s schools are asking.”

    This stress caused severe mental and physical health issues for this woman and her family, further limiting her ability to work.

    These integration challenges mean fewer people can work to their full capacity, limiting participation in the Canadian economy. Delayed economic integration due to family separation results in lower tax revenues for all levels of the Canadian government.

    Family unity provides refugees with the necessary support to manage the stresses of resettlement. Family reunification increases flexibility to adjust to a new country and culture without additional challenges.

    As refugees and their families integrate, Canada benefits. They find work, pay taxes and contribute to their communities.

    An easy administrative fix

    The United Nations declared June 20 to be World Refugee Day almost 25 years ago. Although it’s just one day, it reminds us to honour refugees from around the world.

    It is a good time for the Canadian government to work towards issuing temporary visas to eligible family members, allowing them to live in Canada while they await permanent residence.

    The right to family unity is protected by international law. Canada’s reputation as a leader in refugee protection is at risk if family reunification continues to be delayed.

    The social, health and economic costs of family separation are both inhumane and unnecessary.

    Chloé Bissonnette, undergraduate student in Conflict Studies and Human Rights at the University of Ottawa, contributed to this article.

    The Conversation

    Christina Clark-Kazak receives funding from the Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council (SSHRC).

    – ref. World Refugee Day: Prolonged refugee separation is harming families — and Canada’s economy – https://theconversation.com/world-refugee-day-prolonged-refugee-separation-is-harming-families-and-canadas-economy-258441

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Misogyny has become a political strategy — here’s how the pandemic helped make it happen

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Brianna I. Wiens, Assistant Professor of Digital Media and Rhetoric, University of Waterloo

    Since the COVID-19 pandemic, more overt forms of gendered hate have jumped from obscure internet forums into the mainstream, shaping culture and policy.

    Social media doesn’t just reflect sexist, anti-feminist views; it helps to organize, amplify and normalize them.

    Backlash against women and LGBTQ+ communities has become more overt, co-ordinated and is gaining political traction. As the United States rolls back reproductive rights and passes anti-LGBTQ+ laws, it is important to understand how digital culture fuels this regression.

    While these shifts may seem distant, Canadian politics are not immune. Similar rhetoric has emerged in debates over education, gender identity, health care and so-called “parental rights.”



    Read more:
    ‘Parental rights’ lobby puts trans and queer kids at risk

    Our ongoing research maps how the pandemic accelerated the rise of online misogyny, especially through “manosphere” influencers and far-right rhetoric.

    Drawing from more than 21,000 podcast episodes and digital artifacts, we are investigating how everyday online content works to erode women’s and LGBTQ+ rights. This rhetoric normalizes misogynistic, transphobic and homophobic views and repackages gender inequities as common sense.

    How the pandemic fuelled digital misogyny

    COVID-19 lockdowns set the stage for a surge in online radicalization. Isolated men and boys increasingly turned to social media for connection — spaces where manosphere personalities like English-American social media influencer Andrew Tate and American conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro gained momentum.

    These figures blend anti-feminist messaging with broader pandemic-era anxieties, turning gender roles into moral and political battlegrounds.

    Conservative influencers who once focused on vaccine skepticism began pivoting to anti-gender content. Steve Bannon’s podcast, for example, moved from pedalling public health disinformation to pushing narratives that feminism and LGBTQ+ rights are threats to western civilization.

    Before the internet, radicalization usually required personal contact. Now, people can self-radicalize online, engaging with algorithm-driven content and communities that reinforce extremist beliefs, often without ever interacting with a recruiter. This shift coincided with a marked rise in reported online hate speech and offline hate crimes.

    Misogyny as a mobilizing force

    Meanwhile, women’s experiences during the pandemic — over half of whom are caregivers in Canada — involved increased labour at home and in front-line jobs. This left little time or energy for the organizational work necessary to combat the rising tides of sexism and misogyny.

    Instead, public discourse began to increasingly valourize “tradwife” ideals and homemaking. This ensured traditional gender roles were brought back into the mainstream, not just as personal preferences, but as broader cultural expectations.

    Though this misogyny appears to be fringe, it echoes mainstream policies that threaten reproductive health care, restrict gender expression and paint feminism as a threat to national stability.

    Project 2025, the well-known policy platform from U.S. conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lays out an agenda to repeal reproductive rights, undermine LGBTQ+ protections and expand state control over gender and family life.



    Read more:
    How Project 2025 became the blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term

    How misogynist narratives are normalized

    These misogynist ideas are reinforced in popular culture. In May 2024, NFL player Harrison Butker used his commencement address at Benedictine College to tell women graduates that their true calling was to become wives and mothers.

    Such rhetoric serves to re-establish patriarchal hierarchies by narrowing women’s roles to domestic life. But this isn’t about family values, it’s about power. Moves in the U.S. to restrict women’s reproductive autonomy and democratic access to vote make this abundantly clear.

    While feminists pushed back, manosphere podcast influencers rushed to Butker’s defense. American white supremacist Nick Fuentes celebrated the speech as a manifesto, while Shapiro framed it as uncontroversial truth.

    Our analysis of podcast episodes from Shapiro and Fuentes, among others, shows how misogynist and racist narratives are reinforced through repetition and emotional framing. In episodes focused on Butker’s commencement speech, there were significant concentrations of hate speech and misogyny in the episodes.

    Both Shapiro and Fuentes positioned feminism as a threat and framed motherhood as women’s true vocation. Shapiro downplayed the backlash against Butker as liberal outrage through calculatedly mainstream language that used sanitized, “family values” language.

    Fuentes promoted an extreme theocratic vision rooted in white Catholic nationalism. In Episode 1,330 of his America First podcast, he said, “I want women to be veiled. I don’t want them to be seen. I want them to be listening to their husbands.”

    These talking points consistently align with Butker’s original sentiment and reflect broader political efforts to erode gender equity, as seen in political documents like Project 2025.

    Other public figures like Texan megachurch pastor Joel Webbon went even further, advocating for the public execution of women who accuse men of sexual assault — a horrifying example that circulated in manosphere circles.

    From the fringes to the mainstream

    What’s happening online is not just cultural noise; it’s a co-ordinated effort by conservative political organizations, media outlets and right-wing influencers to shape gender norms, undermine equality and roll back decades of feminist progress.

    When misogyny becomes a political strategy, it doesn’t stay confined to podcasts or memes. It seeps into everyday vernacular, court rulings and public policy, and it’s global in scope.

    This isn’t new, either. In 2012, Australia’s then-prime minister, Julia Gillard, called out sexist language in parliament, including being labelled a “witch” and subjected to dismissive catcalls. Her speech highlighted the normalization of misogynistic vernacular in politics, but also triggered public backlash, including having anti-immigration remarks misattributed to her.

    Similarly, in the lead-up to Germany’s 2021 federal election, Greens party candidate Annalena Baerbock faced co-ordinated disinformation and smear campaigns from foreign entities aimed at undermining her credibility and questioning her “maternal suitability” in the public eye. Digitally altered nude photos, fake protest images and disinformation graphics were circulated.

    These campaigns reflect how misogyny is weaponized to influence elections, and how such campaigns can be a threat to national security.

    A 2022 #MeToo litigation analysis showed how, despite increasing awareness around sexual assault and harassment, U.S. courts often use legal language that reinforces victim-blaming by placing victims in the grammatical subject position of sentences. For example, phrases like “the victim failed to resist” or “the victim did not report the incident immediately” shift focus onto the victim’s behaviour rather than the perpetrator’s actions.

    These details continue to affect broader legal narratives and public acceptance.

    Digital platforms are battlegrounds

    Recognizing these connections is crucial. As far-right movements gain ground by repackaging ideas about gender as nostalgic “truth” or “tradition,” we need to recognize that digital platforms are not neutral, nostalgic spaces.

    Rather, they are conversational battlegrounds where power is contested and jokes, tweets and speeches carry real political weight.

    In the fight for gender equity, the internet is not just a mirror that reflects multiple realities. It’s a tool built by the tech industry that was never intended to democratize communication, labour or social roles. Right now, that tool is being weaponized to signal and reassert patriarchal control.

    The Conversation

    Brianna I. Wiens receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    Nick Ruest receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    Shana MacDonald receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    – ref. Misogyny has become a political strategy — here’s how the pandemic helped make it happen – https://theconversation.com/misogyny-has-become-a-political-strategy-heres-how-the-pandemic-helped-make-it-happen-256043

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Brurce Muhammad Mecca, Senior Analyst, Climateworks Centre

    Aerial view of Mangrove forest, Mandalika, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. (Shutterstock)

    Indonesia has signalled it could include blue carbon ecosystems — carbon-rich coastal and marine areas, like mangroves and seagrass — in its new climate targets. This shift follows years of relying heavily on the forestry and land sectors as well as the energy sector.

    This could be a turning point, given Indonesia is one of the most important countries globally for ocean-based climate change mitigation. Indonesia’s blue carbon ecosystems are crucial, housing 22% of the world’s mangroves and 5% of seagrass meadows.

    However, the country is losing its mangroves and seagrass in recent years due to changes in land use. As of 2019, only 16% of mangroves and 45% of seagrass were inside protected areas. Damage to mangrove and seagrass ecosystems can release carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change.

    For that reason, it’s crucial that Indonesia considers establishing more protected areas for its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems as part of its new climate targets. This could shield them from harmful activities like industrial fishing, unsustainable aquaculture, massive infrastructure development and overtourism.

    Two kinds of protected areas

    A 2023 Climateworks Centre study highlighted how Indonesia could prevent up to 60 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2030 – equal to Singapore’s 2030 emissions reduction target – by protecting 39,000 hectares per year of mangroves and 8,600 hectares per year of seagrasses. The combined area of these mangroves and seagrasses is almost three-quarters the size of Jakarta.

    One way to do this is by including both ecosystems inside two kinds of protected areas. The first is marine protected areas (MPAs), which are areas designated by the government to protect essential ecosystems. The other kind — known as other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) – are just as crucial for ecosystem protection.

    Many activities are prohibited in marine protected areas, such as industrial fishing, mass tourism and mining. The government plans to increase Indonesia’s MPA cover from 8% to 10% by 2030, which is an opportunity to prioritise mangroves and seagrass.

    Meanwhile, OECMs can allow Indonesia to target, recognise, and support areas beyond marine protected areas. These other conservation measures can play an important role in protecting blue carbon ecosystems across the country.

    For example, the indigenous community of Rote Ndao in Eastern Indonesia’s traditional marine management system protects the local marine ecosystems – despite not being considered an marine protected area. Research shows that Indonesia has more than 390 potential marine OECMs. Many have conservation measures that have been implemented by local communities for centuries.

    Key places to protect

    While Indonesia still urgently requires broad investment in the collection of high-quality data for mapping blue ecosystems, our findings highlight some key priority locations for mangroves and seagrass to be included in the country’s ocean strategy.

    For mangrove ecosystems, we highlight Kalimantan and Papua as areas of particular importance. Between 2009 and 2019, approximately 19% of mangroves in Kalimantan (58,000 hectares) were deforested due to palm oil and aquaculture. By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation.

    Meanwhile, protection of seagrass is quite tricky because an Indonesian seagrass map has not been completed.

    Before defining specific seagrass areas to be protected, the government can verify the data in provinces such as Maluku, North Maluku, Bangka Belitung Islands, South East Sulawesi, West Papua and South Sulawesi. These areas have the potential for seagrass ecosystems to be included in a protection plan.

    The government could also prioritise seagrass ecosystems in the Riau Islands and West Nusa Tenggara. These regions have extensive seagrass areas lacking marine protected area coverage.

    A new target for mangrove and seagrass protection

    Indonesia can set a clear and measurable area-based target to protect its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems in the upcoming climate targets. This could align the country’s climate actions on ocean and marine to its overall climate ambition. It will also lay the foundation for attracting climate financing, which Indonesia will need to achieve its targets.

    Local participation is also important. Indonesia can design and implement its mangrove and seagrass ecosystems protection target with the involvement and consent of local communities. This would align with Indonesia’s existing targets, such as its Blue Economy Roadmap, to ensure coordinated efforts across government agencies.

    As the world works towards net zero emissions, Indonesia has a huge opportunity to boost its climate leadership. Protecting and restoring more of the country’s carbon-rich mangroves and seagrass meadows can ensure the future thriving of marine ecosystems that so many Indonesians rely on.

    Editor’s Note : In 13 August, 11.57 AM WIB, we made a correction to a sentence in the article’s previous version:

    “By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation, with no indication of this changing.”

    The previous sentence was inaccurate because while the historic rate was low, the implication was deforestation would continue, when in fact there are indications this could change in the future.

    We replaced the sentence with “By comparison, Papua has a large area of carbon-dense mangroves, and a low historic rate of deforestation.”

    The Conversation

    Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

    – ref. Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets – https://theconversation.com/sea-of-opportunity-protecting-mangroves-and-seagrass-could-boost-indonesias-new-climate-targets-229819

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Edy Setyawan, Marine Ecologist, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    The reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) is a tough swimmer. They can travel hundreds of kilometres to feed themselves. The longest recorded movement for an individual reef manta ray was 1,150km, observed in eastern Australia.

    But even though they are able to swim long distances, our study on reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, Southwest Papua, discovered they are more likely to swim short distances. They appear to prefer staying close to their local habitats, strengthening their social bonds and forming distinct populations.

    Our research – involving researchers from Indonesia, New Zealand and Australia and published in the Royal Society Open Science journal in April – increases our understanding of this globally vulnerable species.

    Policymakers can use our findings to enhance conservation efforts for the species in Raja Ampat waters, which currently are facing challenges due to fishing and tourism.

    Why don’t reef manta rays roam far?

    Our study found reef manta rays occupy three distinct habitats within Raja Ampat. As of February 2024, we recorded 1,250 individual manta rays around Waigeo Island’s extensive coral reef ecosystem in the northwest of Raja Ampat; 640 manta rays around the coral reef ecosystem in the southeast of Misool, southern Raja Ampat; and no more than 50 manta rays in the Ayau atoll ecosystem up north.

    Within their own habitat, the manta rays tend to move around from one area to another, sticking to relatively short distances within 12 kilometres. They only occasionally make longer trips to similar areas in other habitats across Raja Ampat.

    We believe there are a few reasons why reef manta rays in Raja Ampat do not often venture far. The first reason is the presence of natural barriers, such as deep waters – over 1,000 metres below sea level – between Ayau Atoll and Waigeo Island, as well as the sea between Misool and Kofiau, which is 800-900 metres deep.

    Travelling through deep waters poses increased risks to reef manta rays due to potential encounters with natural predators, such as killer whales (Orcinus orca) and large sharks, which frequently inhabit deep open water.

    The second reason is that each habitat is well-equipped with sufficient resources, such as food and cleaning stations, reducing the need for the reef manta rays to travel extensively.

    Our previous research has identified dozens of feeding areas and cleaning stations in each habitat occupied by local populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

    Raja Ampat’s ‘small town’ of reef manta rays

    The habits of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat are gradually forming a unique population.

    We have found that they do not form a single large population, but instead split into three local populations, creating a metapopulation. A metapopulation consists of several local populations of the same species, each occupying its own habitat but all situated within the same geographic region.

    Think of a metapopulation as a small town, consisting of three hamlets. When each hamlet has enough food and water, the people prefer to stay in their own settlement. But they still live in the same town and occasionally visit each other.

    We found this movement pattern based on our tracking process from 2016 to 2021 using acoustic telemetry, which functions similarly to office check-in systems.

    In the tracking process, we combined this acoustic tracking with network analysis to map out the movement network of the manta rays, consisting of nodes and links. Nodes represent important areas for the manta rays, like cleaning stations and feeding areas, and links represent the movement between these key areas.

    The metapopulation occurs because individual manta rays migrate between local populations. Based on our observation, the migrating manta rays usually head back to their original area — it is often seasonal – while those that spread out generally do not return.

    This movement pattern means there is less mixing of individuals between local populations compared to within a single local population.

    How to better protect reef manta rays

    Some conservation policies and efforts have successfully increased the populations of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat.

    But increased human activities such as fishing and tourism in eastern Indonesia still pose challenges. While manta rays are not directly caught or hunted, they often get entangled in fishing lines and nets, which may cause harm and sometimes death.

    Additionally, with the increasing popularity of Raja Ampat as a top tourism destination, overcrowding and aggressive behavior by divers and snorkelers in Raja Ampat disrupt manta ray cleaning and feeding, which may affect their health and fitness.

    Conservation strategies for reef manta rays require a more precise and targeted approach to effectively address these growing challenges.

    The recognition of these rays as a metapopulation comprising three distinct local populations can inform a strategy shift in conservation management.

    Recently, we have presented our research findings and recommendations to the authorities responsible for managing the Raja Ampat Marine Protected Area (MPA) network.

    We recommend the MPA management authority in Raja Ampat create and implement three separate management units, each tailored to the specific needs of one of the local manta ray populations.

    Separate units are necessary because each habitat has different demographics and is far apart, making it difficult to manage them as a single unit. This strategy is feasible because local rangers in each habitat already conduct regular patrols and monitoring.

    We also see the urgent need to protect a critical area for various activities of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat called Eagle Rock, which is currently outside existing protected zones. Located in west of Waigeo, Eagle Rock could be effectively safeguarded by expanding the Raja Ampat MPA network to encompass this area.

    Protecting Eagle Rock is crucial, not only because it serves as a vital migration corridor connecting significant areas and habitats within the South East Misool MPA, Dampier Strait MPA, Raja Ampat MPA, and West Waigeo MPA, but also due to the increased threat from nickel mining activities on Kawe Island.

    MPAs prohibit industrial fishing, restrict tourism and all unsustainable activities — including mining — to minimise environmental impact.

    Besides mapping out the movement patterns and networks of key areas and habitats of reef manta rays in Raja Ampat, our research lays the groundwork for future studies, including genetic analysis and satellite tracking.

    These advanced techniques can offer deeper insights into the population structure, home range, and distribution of reef manta rays in the region, helping to enhance management and conservation strategies.

    The Conversation

    Edy Setyawan has received funding from the Manaaki New Zealand Scholarship – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) New Zealand, and the WWF Russell E. Train Education for Nature Program (EFN), United States.

    – ref. We discovered Raja Ampat’s reef manta rays prefer staying close to home – which could help us save more of them – https://theconversation.com/we-discovered-raja-ampats-reef-manta-rays-prefer-staying-close-to-home-which-could-help-us-save-more-of-them-230692

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Andini Pramono, Research officer, Department of Health Economics, Wellbeing and Society, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University

    Research shows that six months of exclusive breastfeeding, and continuing until two years old or beyond, provide multiple benefits for the baby and mother.

    It can prevent deaths both in infants and mothers – including in wealthy nations like the United States. It also benefits the global economy and the enviroment.

    However, after maternity leave ends, mothers returning to paid work face many challenges maintaining breastfeeding. This often leads mothers to stop breastfeeding their children before six months – the duration of exclusive breastfeeding recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others.

    According to the WHO, less than half of babies under six months old worldwide are exclusively breastfed.

    In Indonesia, research shows 83% of mothers initiate breastfeeding, but only 57% are still breastfeeding at around six months. In Australia, 96% of mothers start breastfeeding, but then there is a rapid fall to only 39% by around three months and only 15% by around five months.

    Among the key reasons for low rates of exclusive breastfeeding are the difficult work conditions women face when they return to paid work.

    So how can governments and workplaces – especially in countries that have yet to do enough, like Indonesia and Australia – better support breastfeeding mothers, particularly at work?

    Half a billion reasons to change

    For more than a century, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has set global standards for maternity protection through the Maternity Protection Convention and accompanying recommendations, as well as the ILO Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, aiming to protect female workers’ rights.

    So far, only 66 member states have ratified at least one of the Maternity Protection Conventions, while 43 have ratified the Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention. Unfortunately, Indonesia has not ratified either convention. So far, Australia has only ratified the family responsibilities convention.

    In some countries, protections are aligned with the ILO Conventions. For example, in Denmark and Norway, the governments offer maternity leave of at least 14 weeks. During leave, mothers’ earnings are protected at a rate of at least two-thirds of their pre-birth earnings. Public funds ensure this is done in a manner determined by national law and practice, so the employer is not solely responsible for the payment.

    A Canadian study highlights the proportion of mothers exclusively breastfeeding to six months increased by almost 40% when paid maternity leave was expanded from six to 12 months. At the same time, average breastfeeding duration increased by one month, from five to six months.

    Evidence shows paid maternity leave and providing an adequate lactation room at work both contribute positively to breastfeeding rates.

    Despite this, half a billion women globally still lack adequate maternity protections.

    For example, welfare reforms in the US encouraging new mothers’ return to work within 12 weeks led to a 16–18% reduction in breastfeeding initiation. It also saw a four to six week reduction in the time babies were breastfed.

    Indonesia and Australia aren’t doing enough

    Neither Indonesia or Australia are currently doing enough to meet the ILO’s maternity protection standards.

    In Indonesia, the 2003 Labour Law urges companies to give 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for women workers to support breastfeeding. Furthermore, the 2012 regulation on exclusive breastfeeding obligates workplace and public space management to provide a space or facility to breastfeed and express breast milk. However, the monitoring of its implementation is weak.

    In Australia, paid parental leave (PPL) policy supports parents who take time off from paid work to care for their young children.

    Eligible working mothers or primary carers are entitled to up to 20 weeks (or 22 weeks if the child is born or adopted from 1 July 2024) of government paid parental leave within the first two years of the birth or adoption of a child.

    In the Federal Budget announced on 15 May 2024, the Australian government has added payment of superannuation contributions to the parental leave package for births and adoptions on or after 1 July 2025. However, the PPL is a low amount, paid at the national minimum wage ($882.80 per week)].

    Some mothers can combine the government payment with additional paid leave from their employer. However in 2022-2023, only 63% of Australian employers offered this, leaving nearly half of new mothers with only minimum financial support.

    Unlike Indonesia, Australia has no legal requirement for employers to offer paid breastfeeding breaks in their workplace, so mothers can express and take home their breastmilk. This can badly impact women’s and children’s health.

    While Australia’s support for breastfeeding mothers is welcome, it’s still inadequate to meet the ILO’s international standard – particularly Australia’s low payment rate of government PPL (at the minimum wage, rather than two-thirds of previous earnings) and the lack of legislation for paid breastfeeding breaks.

    How employers and colleagues can help

    Globally, the barriers to maintain breastfeeding include not only lack of maternity leave duration and pay, but also unavailability of breastfeeding and breast pumping facilities at workplaces, sometimes unsupportive colleagues and supervisors, and lack of time at work to breastfeed or expressing breastmilk.

    Breastfeeding a baby should not preclude women from earning a living. In 2022, female workers were 39.5% of total workers globally, while in Australia and Indonesia they made up 47.4% and 39.5% respectively.

    An accessible facility or space for breastfeeding or breast pumping is vital to support breastfeeding working mothers.

    In Indonesia, a 2013 Ministry of Health regulation outlines the procedure for an employer to provide a space and facility for mothers to breastfeed and breast pump.

    The minimum specifications of this facility are described as a lockable, clean and quiet room, with a sink for washing, suitable temperature, lighting and flooring. While these specifications are technically mandatory, monitoring is weak, meaning if employers fail to meet the requirements there are no specific consequences.

    But a breastfeeding space alone is not enough. In many jobs, mothers cannot leave their tasks during working hours, even if there is a lactation room.

    Supportive employers need to regulate time and flexibility to breastfeed and express breastmilk, including providing flexible working arrangements and paid breastfeeding breaks during working hours. Supportive attitudes from co-workers and managers are also important.

    Suitable staff training on breastfeeding and policies supporting mothers, such as providing time and facility to express breastmilk in work hours, are crucial. Training on how to support co-worker can include anything from basic information breastfeeding, to what to say (or not say) with a breastfeeding co-worker.

    Access to supportive childcare is another issue globally.

    For those families who can access childcare, childcare centres can also help by:

    • encouraging and accommodating mothers to visit for breastfeeding
    • having written policies supporting breastfeeding
    • providing parents with resources on breastfeeding
    • and referring parents to community resources for breastfeeding support.

    Practical ways to support more families

    The Australian Breastfeeding Association has an accreditation program that helps workplaces to be breastfeeding-friendly. Workplace policies, including adequate time and space for pumping, are positively associated with longer breastfeeding duration.

    The program assesses workplaces for three aspects: time, space and supportive culture. This means, workplaces are encouraged to provide a special space and time for breastfeeding and breast pumping in a supportive culture and flexible working hours.

    Mothers should consider to prepare how to align breastfeeding with work early – during pregnancy. Start by discussing your breastfeeding goals with healthcare professionals and finding a baby-friendly hospital.

    Discuss your breastfeeding plan with your supervisor at work during your pregnancy, including finding out your maternity leave (paid and unpaid) entitlements. Also consider childcare arrangements that will work best for you with breastfeeding.

    For further information and support, you can find resources from local breastfeeding support groups, such as the Indonesian Breastfeeding Mothers Association and Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    The Conversation

    Julie P. Smith is a qualified breastfeeding counselor and honorary member of the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

    Andini Pramono dan Liana Leach tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

    – ref. Difficult work arrangements force many women to stop breastfeeding early. Here’s how to prevent this – https://theconversation.com/difficult-work-arrangements-force-many-women-to-stop-breastfeeding-early-heres-how-to-prevent-this-211831

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sugary drinks are a killer: a 20% tax would save lives and rands in South Africa

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Susan Goldstein, Associate Professor and Director of the SAMRC/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – PRICELESS SA (Priority Cost Effective Lessons in Systems Strengthening South Africa), University of the Witwatersrand

    Non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular conditions account for over 70% of global deaths annually.

    In South Africa, non-communicable diseases cause more than half of all deaths. Diabetes ranks as the second leading cause after tuberculosis.

    A major contributor to rising diabetes rates is the high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including cooldrinks.

    The World Health Organization recommends a tax of at least 20% on sugary drinks as an effective tool to help reduce consumption and curb related health risks.

    South Africa introduced a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, officially known as the Health Promotion Levy, in 2018.

    The tax applies at R0.0221 ($0.0012) per gram of sugar beyond a 4g/100ml threshold, amounting to an 8% of final selling price. The tax has increased slightly since it was introduced, but not in line with inflation. The Health Promotion Levy therefore falls short of the original 20% target as industry pressure led to a watered-down version of it.

    I lead the South African Medical Research Council/Wits Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science – PRICELESS SA, which has been studying various aspects of the levy for over 10 years.

    PRICELESS SA is still in the process of measuring the health and financial impact of not implementing the Health Promotion Levy at the recommended 20%. A lack of recent data adds to this challenge. But it is worth noting that the World Obesity Report shows that obesity is still a severe problem in South Africa.

    Without interventions, obesity in South Africa is projected to affect 30 million adults and 10 million children by 2035. In 2019 there were 55,238 deaths in South Africa from non-communicable diseases attributable to obesity, and with an annual increase of 2.3% in obesity, deaths are going to increase.

    Taxing sugary beverages is effective

    Despite the sugar industry’s claims that the Health Promotion Levy is ineffective, global evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Countries that have implemented such taxes have seen significant declines in sugar consumption.

    Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes have been implemented in 103 countries and territories globally and have been shown to be effective in many countries.

    In Ireland there was a 30.2% reduction in sugar intake through these beverages.

    In California a study showed a decrease in overweight and obesity among young people living in cities where there was a sugary beverage tax.

    In Mexico, a sugar-sweetened beverages tax at 1 peso ($0.05) per litre was introduced in 2014, and by 2016, sugary drinks sales had dropped by 37%.

    Similarly, in the UK, a tax introduced in 2018 led to a 35.4% reduction in sugar consumption from taxed beverages.

    The levy has had a positive impact in South Africa. Studies show decreased purchasing of these beverages. There were greater reductions in sales among lower socioeconomic groups and in sub-populations with higher sugary drink consumption.

    Mean sugar from taxable beverage purchases fell from 16.25 g/capita per day from the pre-health promotion levy announcement to 10.63 g/capita per day in the year after implementation.

    Lower-income households, which initially purchased more taxable sugary beverages than wealthier households, showed the most significant reductions in consumption after the tax was enforced.

    This is particularly important as non-communicable diseases disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations.

    Stronger taxation on sugary beverages not only decreases consumption but also encourages reformulation by manufacturers, leading to healthier products.

    The levy does not cause job losses

    Sugar-related industries often argue that the tax has led to massive job losses.

    Our research contradicts these claims.

    A recent study carried out by PRICELESS SA, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies through the University of North Carolina and the South African Medical Research Council, showed no significant association between the levy and employment levels. It showed that the levy had not been associated with job creation or job losses in sugar-related industries. These include agriculture, beverage manufacturing and commercial enterprises that sell food and beverages.

    The study suggests several factors that may explain this:

    Firstly, firms may reallocate labour within their operations rather than
    cut jobs.

    Secondly, many beverage producers have responded to the tax by reformulating their products, reducing the sugar content and using non-nutritive sweeteners rather than reducing production.

    Thirdly, demand for taxed sugary drinks has not declined enough to affect employment.

    Finally, consumers often switch to untaxed alternatives produced by the same companies, preventing financial losses to the industry.

    Increasing the levy is beneficial to the public purse

    The recent delay of South Africa’s budget speech, due to disagreements within the government over the proposed value added tax increase of two percentage points, highlights the urgent need for additional and alternative revenue sources.

    South Africa’s health system is experiencing a massive financial burden due to overweight and obesity, costing R33 billion (US$1.78 billion) annually. This expense accounts for 15.38% of the government’s health expenditure and 0.67% of the country’s GDP. On a per-person basis, the annual cost of overweight and obesity is R2,769 (US$150).

    On the other hand, the levy generated R5.8 billion (US$313m) in revenue over its first two fiscal years.

    Beyond raising funds, a higher tax rate would provide public health benefits and savings for health services.

    Based on our research, increasing the levy to 20% in South Africa could reduce obesity rates by 2.4 to 3.8 percentage points, prevent 85,000 strokes, and save 72,000 lives over two decades.

    These improvements potentially save over R5 billion (US$270m) in medical costs.

    Unlike other taxation measures, which affect all consumers equally, the levy primarily targets discretionary purchases, making it a fairer fiscal tool.

    Therefore, government must act – raise the Health Promotion Levy to 20% and cut the sugar-fuelled health crisis at its root.

    Raising the levy to 20% would be a smarter tax for a healthier nation.

    Darshen Naidoo, Legal Researcher and Associate Lecturer at PRICELESS SA, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg contributed to the article.

    The Conversation

    Susan Goldstein on behalf of PRICELESS receives funding from the Bloomberg Foundation, the SAMRC and the National Institutes for Health Research

    – ref. Sugary drinks are a killer: a 20% tax would save lives and rands in South Africa – https://theconversation.com/sugary-drinks-are-a-killer-a-20-tax-would-save-lives-and-rands-in-south-africa-251393

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Pepfar funding to fight HIV/Aids has saved 26 million lives since 2003: how cutting it will hurt Africa

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Eric Friedman, Researcher, Georgetown University

    The US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has been a cornerstone of global HIV/Aids prevention, care and treatment for over two decades. Pepfar has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the US, but its future is now uncertain. Public health scholars Eric A. Friedman, Sarah A. Wetter and Lawrence O. Gostin explain Pepfar’s history and impacts, as well as what may lie ahead.

    The early years

    Many people today have forgotten the sheer devastation that the Aids pandemic wrought on the African continent, first spreading widely in east Africa in the 1980s. By the end of the 20th century, life expectancy in the region had decreased from 64 to 47 years.

    Millions of children were infected and many grew up as orphans, with HIV taking the life of one or both of their parents. Children, especially girls, were taken out of school to nurse sick relatives or because school fees were unaffordable.

    Underfunded health systems were near collapse, as were the economies of many African countries.

    Infection rates in several countries on the continent topped 30% of their adult populations.

    These devastating figures persisted despite the discovery of highly effective antiretroviral therapies in the 1990s. These drugs rapidly became widely available in rich countries, beginning in 1996, leading to an 84% decline in death rates over four years.

    But cost kept the drugs out of reach for African countries.

    Only about 100,000 of the 20 million people infected with HIV in Africa were accessing drug treatment in 2003.

    The turnaround

    A major breakthrough came when US president George W Bush proposed a bold global initiative, Pepfar, in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Pepfar would dedicate US$15 billion over five years with the goals of preventing 7 million new infections, treating 2 million people, and caring for another 10 million infected with HIV or orphaned by the disease.

    By 2005, more than 800,000 people were being treated for HIV in Africa – an eightfold increase from only two years prior. Under Pepfar, the costs of antiretroviral treatment per person per year in low- and middle-income countries fell from US$1,200 in 2003 to just US$58 in 2023.

    Pepfar maintained bipartisan support throughout both Democratic and Republican-led administrations and Congresses. Through 2018, it had been reauthorised three times, each for five years.

    The programme has lived up to its promise. The investment of over US$110 billion since being launched has been transformative, with sub-Saharan Africa benefiting the most.

    Globally, Pepfar has saved 26 million lives and prevented nearly 8 million babies from being born with HIV. In 2024, more than 20 million people were receiving HIV treatment through Pepfar, which was also supporting well over 6 million orphans, vulnerable children and their caregivers, and enabled nearly 84 million people to be tested for HIV that year.

    Its importance extends beyond Aids. The programme directly supports more than 340,000 health workers, a tremendous contribution in Africa especially, given severe health worker shortages in much of the continent.

    Pepfar-supported health services integrate HIV services with tuberculosis care, treatment and prevention. And since 2019, Pepfar has been part of a partnership for screening and treating women with HIV for cervical cancer, focused on 12 high-burden countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

    But the past two years have been ones of political discord and major disruption.

    Troubles begin

    The trouble began in May 2023, with Pepfar due for a five-year reauthorisation.

    A key member of Congress, along with organisations against abortion, raised concerns that Pepfar was supporting abortions, even though there was no such evidence at the time. In fact, by law Pepfar is prohibited from supporting abortions.

    House Republicans sought to include abortion restrictions in the Pepfar reauthorisation. But Congress passed a reauthorisation bill without abortion provisions in March 2024, to last until 25 March 2025.

    Ever since then, the threats posed to a five-year Pepfar reauthorisation have grown.

    The Trump effect

    In January, Pepfar reported to Congress that its own investigators had found that four nurses in Mozambique had used Pepfar funding to perform abortions (which are legal in Mozambique), 21 in all. Pepfar officials froze funds to the four nurses and required staff to attest to understanding that they were prohibited from providing abortion as part of US-funded health services.

    Days later Pepfar, along with most other US foreign assistance programmes, suffered a severe blow. President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing all further disbursements and new obligations of foreign assistance funds for 90 days, pending a sweeping review.

    Four days later, secretary of state Marco Rubio issued a directive that went even further, also requiring organisations to stop work, even those that had already received funds needed to operate.

    By 27 January, virtually all US foreign assistance programmes had come to a halt, including Pepfar programmes.

    Following an outcry, Rubio issued a waiver for lifesaving humanitarian assistance on 28 January. With confusion over what was covered, including whether the waiver encompassed HIV medicines, he issued another waiver on 1 February, covering Pepfar treatment and care programmes, including prevention of and treatment for TB and other opportunistic infections, as well as prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes.

    But organisations receiving US foreign assistance funds needed to get individual approval to resume, and the administration had put much of USAid’s staff on administrative leave. USAid (along with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has a central role in administering Pepfar. Many others, including contractors embedded in USAid operations, have been furloughed or fired.

    Very few people existed to process requests to resume work. Furthermore, USAid’s payment system appeared not to be working.

    The decisions of the Trump administration are being challenged in court in the US on the grounds that they are illegal and unconstitutional because they are usurping Congress’s power to determine how the US government spends funds, among other violations of the law.

    Nonetheless, as of this writing, despite a court order to resume funding, it remains entirely frozen, and most programmes are still shut down. The day after the court ordered the government to pay nearly US$2 billion it owes organisations for work already done, the administration revealed that it had terminated the vast majority of foreign assistance awards, including some for Pepfar. Details have not been made public. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court put a short-term pause on the lower court’s order to immediately pay the money already owed.

    The impact

    The impact has been immediate. People on HIV treatment could not pick up additional medicine, leading to treatment interruption. Pepfar-funded health services had to turn away patients. Health workers supported by Pepfar, among them 40,000 in Kenya, could no longer be paid.

    Many organisations that relied on Pepfar funds also had to lay off staff. Community groups have been affected and many have suspended their services entirely.

    It remains unclear what the future holds – how severe the cuts will be, and to what programmes. In the near term, much depends on the courts and whether the administration implements court orders, as it has yet to do. In the longer term, Congress could seek to resume Pepfar to its former strength, though this would mean acting against the administration’s wishes. Even then, it is not clear whether the administration would spend the money allocated, and the damage already done to Pepfar programmes and trust in the US government will not be repaired quickly.

    Pepfar is currently funded at US$7.5 billion annually. It accounts for over 10% of all US foreign assistance and over half of US global health assistance.

    The separate Pepfar waiver suggests the deepest support for Pepfar is for HIV treatment programmes, as well as others meant to be protected under the waiver. Barring vast cuts to foreign assistance and Pepfar, these programmes are most likely to be at least spared, though the administration has terminated even some grants that had been covered by the waiver.

    Other Pepfar programmes, particularly with respect to HIV prevention, are most vulnerable.

    Rethinking priorities

    The vulnerability of different African countries to Pepfar cuts varies widely. Some fund most of their own HIV programmes. South Africa’s HIV programmes are 74% domestically funded, with the balance coming from Pepfar (17%) and the Global Fund (7%).

    But Pepfar funding accounts for about 90% of all HIV funding in Tanzania and Côte d’Ivoire, and more than half of HIV medicines purchased for the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Zambia are purchased by the US.

    If there are significant Pepfar funding cuts, it is doubtful that other wealthy countries will be able to compensate. And because the US, through Pepfar, is the largest contributor to the Global Fund, it is unlikely that the Global Fund could fill the gap either.

    Under these circumstances, unless countries increase their domestic HIV spending, the dramatic progress in combating HIV/Aids in Africa could begin to become undone.
    The conversation in Africa must focus on ending reliance on foreign assistance and developing resilient financing mechanisms to continue the fight to end Aids.

    The Conversation

    Lawrence O. Gostin is Director of the WHO Collaborating Center on Global Health Law

    Eric Friedman and Sarah Wetter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Pepfar funding to fight HIV/Aids has saved 26 million lives since 2003: how cutting it will hurt Africa – https://theconversation.com/pepfar-funding-to-fight-hiv-aids-has-saved-26-million-lives-since-2003-how-cutting-it-will-hurt-africa-250413

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: TikTok in Egypt: where rich and poor meet – and the state watches everything

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Gabriele Cosentino, Assistant Professor, American University in Cairo

    After being released from detention in 2011, Egyptian engineer and activist Wael Ghonim told the media:

    If you want to liberate a society, all you need is the internet.

    He’d been taken into custody for his role in the revolution that toppled the regime of Hosni Mubarak. Part of the success of this unprecedented popular uprising was due to the role of social media in mobilising citizens around a common political cause.

    In 2025, after a decade under the repressive government of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, it’s fair to say that little has remained of Ghonim’s vision. Social media use in Egypt is closely guarded by the authorities to detect signs of opposition. Citizens are routinely detained, even for the slightest criticism of the government.

    In 2018 Egypt introduced a new law, apparently to curb the problem of online misinformation and disinformation. This law is, in reality, often used to stifle dissent. Egyptians today operate within unclear boundaries of what is permissible to say online. The result is widespread self-censorship for fear of arrest.

    As a scholar of political communication and new media I’ve written books on global social media. I teach students about the social and political impact of digital and social media in Egypt. The video sharing platform TikTok is a frequent subject in my classes because it reveals both the liberating and the repressive effects of social media use in Egypt.

    TikTok stands out for its ability to create viral videos and sudden micro-celebrities. This has made it a lightning rod for government crackdowns. But it has also connected people across socio-economic divides and bred a lively new cultural and political debate – one that’s not as easy for the government to police.

    TikTok in Egypt

    Since 2020, TikTok has become immensely popular in Egypt, with an estimated 33 million users over 18 years old.

    While TikTok hasn’t taken on the explicit political dimension that Facebook or Twitter did over a decade ago, it has already become the theatre of a series of incidents that have landed its users in the crosshairs of the authorities. This has exposed political rifts and tensions.

    Most of the incidents are related to the ability of TikTok to work as a “virality engine” – even users with few followers can gain a sudden and sometimes problematic celebrity.

    But while Egyptian authorities have evidently been cracking down on TikTok users, there have been no concrete plans to ban the platform. In fact, some government branches have used it to advance their own initiatives. The Ministry of Youth and Sports, for example, signed an agreement with TikTok to launch the Egyptian TikTok Creator Hub, designed to educate youth on using social media responsibly.

    Women targeted

    Since 2020, Egyptian authorities have arrested TikTok users under charges ranging from the violation of family values to the spread of false information and allegations of belonging to terrorist organisations. Most of these TikTokers didn’t post explicit sexual or political content, making the charges against them appear exaggerated. These cases suggest the authorities are closely monitoring the platform, following strict moral and political considerations.

    The most high profile cases have involved young women, most notably Haneen Hossam and Mawada Eladham, who were arrested in 2020 for violating family values. Article 25 of Egypt’s anti-cybercrime law states that content “violating the family principles and values upheld by Egyptian society may be punished by a minimum of six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine”. It leaves the definition of family values purposefully vague.

    Observers have noted that this vagueness has allowed the law to be applied in a range of different cases. More than a dozen women have faced similar charges, endured pretrial detention and been handed lengthy prison sentences.

    The arbitrary nature of many of the charges suggests a possible deeper motive: policing the presence of young women in digital spaces where they can gain influence and financial independence outside traditional family or work structures.

    TikTok has given ordinary users in Egypt unprecedented visibility, in some cases allowing them to challenge social norms, often through humour. This appears to have unsettled authorities, who appear to have sought to send a message to the broader population.

    Arrests

    TikTok-related arrests have not been limited to family values. In 2022, three users were arrested for criticising rising food prices. They were charged with spreading fake news, despite the fact that inflation in Egypt was rising sharply.

    In 2023, a parody skit of a fake jail visit by a TikToker went viral. The creators were arrested and charged with belonging to a terror organisation, spreading fake news and misusing social media.



    Read more:
    Why some governments fear even teens on TikTok

    Such arrests indicate that TikTok content that touches on politically sensitive matters, even in jest, is posing a new type of challenge for the Egyptian government. The state is particularly concerned with viral content that might bring attention to its poor human rights record. This includes notoriously bad conditions in jails.

    ‘Egypt’ and ‘Masr’

    At the same time, the platform is proving able to connect people from very different social and economic backgrounds, as it is seen to do globally.

    Egypt is very hierarchical. Small, affluent elite groups live in a separate and secluded socio-economic reality from the majority of the population. Thirty percent of Egyptians live under the poverty line.

    On TikTok, the more privileged, cosmopolitan section of society is referred to as “Egypt”. The poor and disenfranchised are “Masr” (مصر), the Arabic word for Egypt.

    TikTok is aimed at generating viral content more than it is a networking site, like Facebook, that’s based on pre-existing social connections. The result is a virtual common space where the two sides can interact in new ways. This engenders unique social and cultural dynamics also observed in other countries.



    Read more:
    TikTok in Kenya: the government wants to restrict it, but my study shows it can be useful and empowering

    “Egypt” watches “Masr” create all kinds of content – from singing and dancing routines to live begging. “Masr” gets to peek into the otherwise inaccessible world of the wealthy.

    In the current climate of an economic crisis, this divide can be glaring. While most Egyptians are struggling with inflation, the cost of living and unemployment, the wealthy flaunt their lifestyles on TikTok.

    When wealthy TikTokers post content complaining about relatively petty issues like a long wait for valet parking at a luxury restaurant or boast about their weekly allowance, it reveals their disconnect from the everyday hardships faced by the less privileged.

    Users are able to comment freely on each other’s videos, sharing their unvarnished opinions. A student boasting about their weekly allowance of 3,000 EGP (US$60) might be told, “This is some people’s monthly salary.”

    Political consequences

    Since it first appeared in 2020, TikTok in Egypt has evolved from a platform mainly geared towards silly and entertaining content by teenagers. It’s become an outlet for people of all ages interested in gathering information, keeping abreast of current trends and events, and also a space for political engagement, especially on the issue of Palestine.



    Read more:
    Young Nigerians are flocking to TikTok – why it’s a double-edged sword

    There hasn’t been an obvious politicisation of TikTok in Egypt yet and there might never be, given the strict policing by authorities. But TikTok’s ability to expose divisions in Egyptian society and connect citizens across demographic cleavages could potentially have unexpected political consequences in the near future.

    Shahd Atef contributed to the research for this article

    The Conversation

    Gabriele Cosentino does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. TikTok in Egypt: where rich and poor meet – and the state watches everything – https://theconversation.com/tiktok-in-egypt-where-rich-and-poor-meet-and-the-state-watches-everything-253278

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Colonial-era borders create conflict in Africa’s oceans – how to resolve them

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood, Lecturer in Sustainable Futures, University of St Andrews

    Africa has 38 coastal and island nations. Their maritime industries – including energy, tourism, maritime transport, shipping and fishing – play a crucial role in developing these nations.

    Key to harnessing these resources are Africa’s maritime boundaries – lines on a map showing the legal divisions of the ocean between neighbouring coastal states.

    Some of these boundaries were created by colonial powers and kept after independence. Their purpose was to achieve territorial security and ensure the exclusive exploitation of resources and to maintain navigational freedom.

    But Africa’s maritime boundaries sometimes lead to conflict, prevent cooperation on resource management and create room for maritime crimes, like illegal fishing. This is because they are often contested. Countries have overlapping claims and varying interests in resource exploration. This is common in maritime areas rich in oil, gas and fisheries, and deep seabed resources.

    In our recent paper we found that using international law to resolve maritime boundaries does not always bring peace, especially when it results in ceding the disputed area to one party. It can result in animosity between countries and breed room for continued distrust among peoples.

    Today, Africa has the most unresolved maritime boundary disputes in the world and the lowest number of settled boundary disputes.

    As more ocean resources are discovered, climate change may heighten disputes. Rising sea levels can gradually submerge maritime zones, potentially affecting the baselines from which these zones are measured. This could create uncertainty or trigger new conflicts.

    In our paper, we suggest a collaborative approach to resolving maritime disputes. We hope that this will help prevent many African countries from missing out on the benefits of their oceans.

    Price of disputed boundaries

    Disagreements over maritime boundaries can have many negative effects.

    Research has shown that criminal activities tend to increase in disputed maritime boundaries. For instance, illegal fishers are aware that because there is dispute over a border, there will also be enforcement gaps.

    Countries in dispute will also not work together and will not be sending patrols to contested areas. For instance, in 2016, a Chinese vessel escaped into Sierra Leone to avoid capture. When Guinean naval forces boarded the vessel for enforcement, there was an exchange of fire and 11 Guineans were detained by Sierra Leone.

    When boundaries are disputed, it also means that local fishers are likely to encroach into neighbouring waters, often unknowingly, in search of better catches. Given the significance of fisheries to coastal livelihoods and the extent of depletion, this threatens peace and security. It fuels tension between communities and countries over access to dwindling resources.

    Disagreements over maritime boundaries also diminish maritime security cooperation, complicate joint patrols, and divert attention from tackling shared threats such as piracy.

    Colonialism never ended

    Unfortunately, resolving maritime boundary disputes is complicated by a principle in international law known as uti possidetis juris – “as you possess under law”.

    The principle says that when countries argue over borders, international law, built around colonial-era boundaries, is used to decide who gets what. This creates a “winner-takes-all” approach – one side gains control over the disputed area and resources. International courts, like the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, follow the provisions of law reinforcing uti possidetis.

    Our examination of maritime boundary disputes in west and central Africa found that the principle of uti possidetis juris had failed to alleviate maritime boundary tensions. In some cases, it has exacerbated them.

    One example is a maritime dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria decided in 2002. The dispute was over who had control of Bakassi, an oil-rich region, and its maritime frontier.

    The uti possidetis juris principle upheld the lines drawn at the time of Nigeria’s independence and resulted in the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon. The impact of the resolution lingers. To date, thousands of displaced Bakassi people that returned to Nigeria have yet to be resettled and reintegrated. Disputes also continue between fishers from Nigeria and Cameroonian law enforcement agents. In extreme cases, it results in death, like the alleged killing of 97 Nigerian fishers by Cameroonian marine police.

    The way forward

    In our paper, we recommend that courts, tribunals or disputing countries consider joint management agreements to resolve maritime disputes. Under such agreements, countries share and manage disputed maritime resources.

    These agreements will allow for the joint management of shared resources. It will also encourage cooperation and collaboration in other areas, such as joint operations to combat illegal fishing and piracy. While international courts may apply uti possidetis juris as required by law, countries should be encouraged to negotiate special arrangements – such as joint development agreements – as part of the resolution process. Especially in cases where livelihoods and longstanding community ties risk being disrupted by unilateral decisions or the ceding of disputed areas to one party.

    While not perfect, this approach has already improved cooperation on security and resource use at sea. It has worked in places like Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire also have a joint management framework in place for their shared boundaries to avoid future disputes.

    Prolonged boundary disputes only enable criminal actors to exploit Africa’s resources, undermining collective progress. A shift towards collaborative solutions is essential for achieving a sustainable and prosperous future for the continent.

    The Conversation

    Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood receives funding from the PEW Charitable Trust and the Research Council of Norway. The St Andrews Research Internship Scheme (StARIS) supported the initial peer-reviewed research.

    Elizabeth Nwarueze does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Colonial-era borders create conflict in Africa’s oceans – how to resolve them – https://theconversation.com/colonial-era-borders-create-conflict-in-africas-oceans-how-to-resolve-them-248577

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: New CT unit will boost diagnostic services in Palmerston North

    Source: New Zealand Government

    A $12.7 million investment in a new modular CT unit at Palmerston North Regional Hospital will double scanning capacity and significantly improve access to diagnostic services across the region, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.
    “This is a major step forward for Palmerston North and the surrounding communities. It means faster diagnoses, shorter wait times, and earlier treatment for people with serious conditions like cancer,” Mr Brown says.
    The new modular facility will house two state-of-the-art CT scanners – one replacing an ageing machine, and a second to expand the hospital’s capacity by around 3,000 additional scans per year.
    “This is about delivering better health outcomes, sooner. Doubling CT capacity means more timely scans and less stress for patients, with workforce planning already underway to support the expanded diagnostic service.”
    The hospital currently relies on a single loaned CT scanner with limited capability, which is contributing to delays in emergency, inpatient, and elective care. In some cases, patients must be transferred to other hospitals or private providers for scans.
    “With greater scanning capacity, we’ll ease pressure across the system – reducing ED delays, supporting planned surgeries, and enabling faster diagnoses for time-critical conditions. It will also reduce the need to outsource scans, ensuring patients are seen sooner and closer to home.”
    The modular CT unit will begin operating in February 2026 and provide care for up to eight years, while a permanent imaging hub is developed as part of the hospital’s wider redevelopment.
    “Modular facilities are faster to deliver, more cost-effective, and flexible – helping us expand critical services sooner while hospital upgrades are underway.
    “This is exactly the kind of smart infrastructure our health system needs. It strengthens frontline services, supports our health workforce, and ensures people get the care they need, when and where they need it,” Mr Brown says. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI: Flexi-View Lending Celebrating Freedom and Financial Empowerment This Independence Day

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOS ANGELES, July 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — As we gather with loved ones this July 4th to enjoy fireworks, barbecue, and community spirit, we at Flexi-View Lending want to take a moment to honor the heart of what Independence Day means: freedom, opportunity, and the courage to build a better future.

    For 248 years, Americans have celebrated our nation’s birth with pride and purpose. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence marked more than a break from colonial rule—it sparked a national identity rooted in resilience, self-determination, and the pursuit of prosperity for all.

    At Flexi-View Lending, these values inspire everything we do.

    Financial Freedom Is Modern Independence

    In today’s world, financial stability plays a crucial role in personal independence. Whether you’re buying a home, consolidating debt, funding a small business, or simply managing life’s unexpected expenses, access to the right financial solutions can make all the difference.

    That’s why at Flexi-View Lending, we’re committed to offering flexible, transparent, and responsible lending options designed around you. Just like the patriots who believed in building a country from the ground up, we believe everyone deserves a chance to build a stronger financial future—one decision at a time.

    A Time to Reflect and Renew

    As we celebrate this historic day, it’s also a moment to reflect. The freedom we enjoy today was hard-won and must never be taken for granted. The same applies to financial freedom. It’s not always easy—it requires education, smart planning, and the right support.

    Our mission is to empower every client with the tools and insights they need to take control of their financial path. We believe that lending isn’t just about numbers—it’s about people, dreams, and the everyday steps toward lasting independence.

    Our Promise to You

    As Executive Director of Flexi-View Lending, I am deeply proud of the role we play in helping individuals and families achieve their financial goals. On this Independence Day, I want to reaffirm our commitment to:

    • Integrity in every interaction
    • Innovation in our services and solutions
    • Inclusion in making lending accessible to more Americans
    • Independence by supporting our clients’ long-term financial wellness

    Whether you’re new to credit or navigating a complex financial decision, our team is here to guide you—because we believe that true independence means having the freedom to choose your future with confidence.

    Honoring Those Who Make It Possible

    Today, we also salute the brave men and women in uniform—past and present—who protect our freedoms at home and abroad. Your service allows us to pursue our dreams, speak our minds, and live in a nation where opportunity remains within reach.

    To our military families, veterans, and first responders: we thank you. Your sacrifice reminds us that independence is a gift and a responsibility.

    Let Freedom Ring

    As the fireworks light up the sky and we sing the national anthem with pride, let us also remember that every act of responsibility, every goal achieved, and every community strengthened adds to the legacy of freedom in this country.

    This July 4th let’s celebrate not only the founding of a nation—but the individual victories that keep the American dream alive, every day.

    From all of us at Flexi-View Lending, we wish you and your loved ones a safe, joyful, and meaningful Independence Day.

    Happy 4th of July!

    Media Contact:
    James McDonough
    Email: info@flexi-viewlending.com
    Phone: (209) 782-8062
    Website: www.flexi-viewlending.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Low turnout and an unfair voting system: UK elections ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Toby James, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of East Anglia

    The UK has historically been held up as leading democracy with free and fair elections. However, our new report shows election quality in the UK is now ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe.

    The Global Electoral Integrity Report provides scores for election quality around the world. It defines electoral integrity as the extent to which elections empower citizens.

    Iceland received the highest score for an election that took place in 2024, the “year of elections” during which 1.6 billion people went to the polls, according to Time Magazine. This was an unprecedented concentration of democratic activity in a single year. Iceland has a successful system of automatic voter registration and an electoral system that is judged to be fair to smaller parties.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Countries that scored highly based on their most recent election include Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Finland and Lithuania. Those at the opposite end of the scale include Syria, Belarus, Egypt, and Nicaragua. The UK is ranked 24th out of 39 countries in Europe. It is below Estonia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Austria, Luxembourg and Slovakia. It is ranked 53rd out of 170 countries overall.

    The US also saw a decline. The beacons for electoral democracy are therefore now found in mainland Europe (most notably Scandinavia), Australasia, South America and the southern parts of Africa – rather than the UK and US. The centre of global democratic authority has shifted away from Westminster.

    Electoral Integrity in most recent national election up to the end of 2024.
    Electoral Integrity Project, CC BY-ND

    The weaknesses in the UK system

    There remain many areas of strength in UK elections. UK electoral officials show professionalism and independence and there is no concern about the integrity of the vote counting process. There is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud.

    A major weakness is in the fairness of the electoral rules for small parties. The electoral system generated a very disproportional result in 2024. Labour took nearly two-thirds of the seats in parliament, a total of 412, with less than 10 million votes (only 34% of votes cast). Labour won a massive majority in terms of parliamentary arithmetic but the the government did not enter office with widespread support.

    By contrast, Reform and the Greens received 6 million votes between them, but only nine MPs. The electoral system may have worked when Britain had a two-party system – but the two-party system no longer holds. Today’s Britain is more diverse, and political support is more distributed.

    The UK also scores poorly on voter registration. It is estimated that there are around 7 million to 8 million people not correctly registered or missing from the registers entirely. This is not many less than the 9.7 million people whose votes gave the government a landslide majority. The UK does not have a system of automatic voter registration, which is present in global leaders such as Iceland, where everyone is enrolled without a hiccup.

    Another problem is participation. Turnout in July 2024 was low – with only half of adults voting. Voting has been made more difficult as the Elections Act of 2022 introduced compulsory photographic identification for the first time at the general election. This was thought to have made it more difficult for many citizens to vote because the UK does not have a national identity card which all citizens hold.

    Meanwhile, there are further swirling headwinds. The spread of disinformation by overseas actors in elections has become a prominent challenge around the world and there was evidence of disinformation in this campaign too. Violence during the electoral period was thought to have been removed from British elections in Victorian times. But more than half candidates experience abuse and intimidation during the electoral period.

    Action needed

    One year into its time in office, the government is yet to act on this issue. The word “democracy” was missing from the prime minister’s strategic defence review, despite the emphasis on protecting the UK from Russia, a country known for electoral interference and other forms of attack on democracies.

    This was a sharp contrast to the former government’s 2021 review, which emphasised that a “world in which democratic societies flourish and fundamental human rights are protected is one that is more conducive to our sovereignty, security and prosperity as a nation”.

    In its election manifesto, Labour promised to “address the inconsistencies in voter ID rules”, “improve voter registration” and give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections. There needs to be firm action on electoral system change, automatic voter registration, campaign finance reform, voter identification changes and other areas.

    The Reform party is ahead in the polls and has consistently promised proportional representation. If Labour doesn’t make the reforms, another party might do so instead – and reap the benefits.

    There are a complex set of challenges facing democracy and elections. New technological challenges, change in attitudes, international hostility and new emergencies are combining to batter the door of democracy down.

    International organisations are increasingly stressing that political leaders need to work together and take proactive action to protect elections against autocratic forces. This means not only supporting democracy in their messages on the world stage – but also introducing reforms to create beacons of democracy in their own countries.

    Toby James has previously received funding from the AHRC, ESRC, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust, Electoral Commission, Nuffield Foundation, the McDougall Trust and Unlock Democracy. His current research is funded by the Canadian SSHRC.

    Holly Ann Garnett receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Defence Academy Research Programme. She has previously received funding from: the British Academy, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, the American Political Science Association Centennial Centre, and the Conference of Defence Associations.

    – ref. Low turnout and an unfair voting system: UK elections ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe – https://theconversation.com/low-turnout-and-an-unfair-voting-system-uk-elections-ranked-in-the-bottom-half-of-countries-in-europe-260396

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: US Supreme Court ponders the balance of power – and sides with President Trump

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Stanton, Reader in Law, City St George’s, University of London

    Since his second inauguration in January, Donald Trump has issued more than 160 executive orders. These orders permit the US president to make directives concerning the workings of the federal government without the need to pass laws in Congress. All US presidents have used them, including George Washington, but Trump has issued his orders at an unprecedented rate.

    A number of these have courted controversy. But one stands out in particular: executive order 14160. This was signed on the day of his inauguration, January 20, and seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US where the parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

    The purpose of this order was to redefine the scope of the 14th amendment to the constitution. This states that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s executive order sets limits on that principle.

    Due to the order’s conflict with the constitution, various district courts have issued what are known as “universal injunctions”, blocking the order. In response to these injunctions, the government brought a case in the Supreme Court: Trump v Casa. The Trump administration argues that district judges should not have the power to issue such wide-ranging injunctions which effectively limit the president’s power.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    On June 27 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. It found in favour of the government, holding that: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The court stopped short of banning them outright – but it effectively limited the extent to which courts could issue a universal block on the president’s executive orders.

    The judgment did not decide on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, but focused solely on the limits of judicial power to block presidential actions more broadly. So the question of birthright citizenship remains unresolved.

    People affected can bring personal lawsuits and there is also the avenue of “class action suits” in which a number of people who have grouped together with common cause and been have been ruled by a judge to constitute a “class” can seek legal relief. The New York Times has reported that plaintiffs are how preparing to refile suits to challenge executive order 14160.

    But the issue raises questions about the Supreme Court. In the US, the nine Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, and inevitably bring a corresponding political outlook to their work. Currently, there are six conservative judges – three of whom were appointed by Trump in his first term of office – and three liberal judges.

    In Trump v Casa, the court divided on ideological lines. The six conservative judges supported the majority view, while the three liberal judges dissented. This was not entirely unexpected. But the ruling raises the more fundamental question about the vital constitutional role that courts play in acting as a check on government power.

    Cornerstone of democracy

    In democracies around the world, constitutional principles ensure that power is exercised according to law and that the various holders of legislative, executive, and judicial power do not exceed their authority. Central to these arrangements is the role of the courts. While judges must be careful not to involve themselves in the policy decisions of government, or the law-making deliberations of a legislature, it is their duty to ensure the executive does not act unlawfully or the legislature unconstitutionally.

    Case reports across the world are littered with examples of judges reviewing and, on occasion, striking down government or legislative action as unlawful. In the US, the seminal case of Marbury v Madison (1803) which established, for the first time, that the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, has served as a beacon of this principle for over 200 years. In the UK, the Supreme Court’s finding in R(Miller) v Prime Minister that the government’s 2019 prorogation of parliament was unlawful provides a notable example of the continued importance of this role.

    The balance that the courts must strike in not interfering in the policy decisions of government on the one hand, and their fundamental role in acting as a check on the lawful use of power on the other is at the heart of Trump v Casa. In the Supreme Court’s written majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the use of “universal injunctions” by the district courts was an example of judicial overreach. She wrote that federal judges were going beyond their powers in seeking to block the universal application of the executive order.

    The dissenting three liberal justices issued a minority opinion saying that this finding was at odds with the rule of law. Indeed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling in Trump v Casa “cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Courts has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive actions is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”

    The finding of the Supreme Court, in other words, has arguably limited the extent to which the courts in America can serve as a check on the exercise of executive power. Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a “giant win”, while attorney general Pam Bondi said it would “stop the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump”.

    Here’s the nub of the affair: while courts must be able to act as a check on the lawfulness of government action, at the same time, a government must be able to govern without too frequent or too onerous obstructions from the judiciary and this finding potentially gives the Trump administration greater room for manoeuvre.

    But there is a further issue. As mentioned, US Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president. With the justices of the court being divided on political lines in Trump v Casa, questions can fairly be asked about the propriety of this arrangement – and whether it was always inevitable that one day there would be a Supreme Court in which the people might lose faith because they felt that it was more beholden to ideology than the law.

    This is a potentially dangerous moment in the US. The independence of the judiciary has long been a bulwark against abuses of power – and has been regarded as such by the US people. Having judges nominated by those holding political office arguably hinders that independence – and, as the judgment in this case suggests, could throw into jeopardy the invaluable role that the courts play in keeping the exercise of government power in check.

    John Stanton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. US Supreme Court ponders the balance of power – and sides with President Trump – https://theconversation.com/us-supreme-court-ponders-the-balance-of-power-and-sides-with-president-trump-260258

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The US and Israel’s attack may have left Iran stronger

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London

    Israel’s attack on Iran last month and the US bombing of the country’s nuclear facilities, the first-ever direct US attacks on Iranian soil, were meant to cripple Tehran’s strategic capabilities and reset the regional balance.

    The strikes came after 18 months during which Israel had effectively dismantled Hamas in Gaza, dealt a devastating blow to Hezbollah in Lebanon, weakened the Houthis in Yemen, and seen the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria – a longstanding and key Iranian ally.

    From a military standpoint, these were remarkable achievements. But they failed to deliver the strategic outcome Israeli and US leaders had long hoped for: the collapse of Iran’s influence and the weakening of its regime.

    Instead, the confrontation exposed a deeper miscalculation. Iran’s power isn’t built on impulse or vulnerable proxies alone. It is decentralised, ideologically entrenched and designed to endure. While battered, the Islamic Republic did not fall. And now, it may be more determined – and more dangerous – than before.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Israel’s attack – dubbed “operation rising lion” – began with attacks on Iranian radar systems, followed by precision airstrikes on Iranian enrichment facilities and senior military officers and scientists. Israel spent roughly US$1.45 (£1.06 billion) billion in the first two days and in the first week of strikes on Iran, costs hit US$5 billion, with daily spending at US$725 million: US$593 million on offensive operations and US$132 million on defence and mobilization.

    Iran’s response was swift. More than 1,000 drones and 550 ballistic missiles, including precision-guided and hypersonic variants. Israeli defences were breached. Civilian infrastructure was hit, ports closed, and the economy stalled

    The day after the US strikes, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke with Donald Trump about a ceasefire. He and his generals were reportedly keen to bring the conflict to a speedy end. Reports suggest that Netanyahu wanted to avoid a lengthy war of attrition that Israel could not sustain, and was already looking for an exit strategy.

    Crucially, the Iranian regime remained intact. Rather than inciting revolt, the war rallied nationalist sentiment. Opposition movements remain fractured and lack a common platform or domestic legitimacy. Hopes of a popular uprising that might topple the regime expressed by both Trump and Netanyahu were misplaced.

    In the aftermath, Iranian authorities launched a sweeping crackdown on suspected dissenters and what it referred to as “spies”. Former activists, reformists and loosely affiliated protest organisers were arrested or interrogated. What was meant to fracture the regime instead reinforced its grip on power.

    Most notably, Iran’s parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ending inspections and giving Tehran the freedom to expand its nuclear programme – both civilian and potentially military – without oversight.

    Perhaps the clearest misreading came from Israel and the US treating Syria as a template. The 2024 fall of Bashar al-Assad was hailed as a turning point. His successor, Ahmed al-Sharaa – a little-known opposition figure, former al-Qaeda insurgent and IS affiliate – was rebranded as a pragmatic reformer, who Trump praised as “attractive” and “tough”.

    For western and Israeli strategists, Syria offered both a way to weaken Iran and a blueprint of how eventual regime change could play out: collapse the regime, install cooperative leadership in a swift reordering process. But this analogy was dangerously flawed. Iran’s stronger institutions, military depth, resistance-driven identity and existence made it a fundamentally different and more resilient state.

    Tactical wins, strategic ambiguity

    While Iran’s regional network has taken significant hits over the past year –Hamas dismantled, Hezbollah degraded, the Houthis depleted, and the Assad regime toppled – Tehran recalibrated. It deepened military cooperation with Russia and China, secured covert arms shipments, and accelerated its nuclear ambitions.

    Both Israel and Iran, however, came away with new intelligence. Israel learned that its missile defences and economic resilience were not built for prolonged, multi-front warfare. Iran, meanwhile, gained valuable insight into how far its arsenal – drones, missiles and regional proxies – could reach, and where its limits lie.

    Most of Iran’s drones and missiles were intercepted — up to 99% in the cases of drones — exposing critical weaknesses in accuracy, penetration, and survivability against modern air defenses. Yet the few that did break through caused significant damage in Tel Aviv, striking residential areas and critical infrastructure.

    This war was not only a clash of weapons but a real-time stress test of each side’s strategic depth. Iran may now adjust its doctrine accordingly – prioritising survivability, mobility and precision in anticipation of future conflicts.

    Israel’s vulnerabilities

    Internally, Israel entered the war politically fractured and socially strained. Netanyahu’s far-right coalition was already under fire for attempting to weaken judicial independence. The war has temporarily united the country, but the economic and human toll have reignited deeper concerns.

    Israel’s geographic and demographic constraints have become clear. Its high-tech economy, tightly integrated with global markets, could not weather prolonged instability. And critically, the damage inflicted by the US bombing was more limited than hoped for. While Washington joined in the initial strikes, it resisted deeper involvement, partly to avoid broader regional escalation and largely because of the lack of domestic appetite for war and high potential for energy inflation, if Iran was to close the Strait of Hormuz.

    What happens now?

    The war of 2025 did not produce peace. It produced recalibration. Israel emerges militarily capable but politically shaken and economically strained. Iran, though damaged, stands more unified, with fewer international constraints on its nuclear ambitions. Its crackdown on dissent, withdrawal from IAEA oversight, and deepening ties to rival powers suggest a regime preparing not for collapse, but for survival, perhaps even confrontation.

    The broader lesson is sobering. Regime change cannot be engineered through precision strikes. Tactical brilliance does not guarantee strategic victory. And the assumption that Iran could unravel like Syria was not strategy, it was hubris.

    Both sides now better understand each other’s strengths and limits, a clarity that could deter future war – or make the next one more dangerous. In a region shaped by trauma and shifting power, mistaking resistance for weakness or pause for peace remains the gravest miscalculation.

    Bamo Nouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The US and Israel’s attack may have left Iran stronger – https://theconversation.com/the-us-and-israels-attack-may-have-left-iran-stronger-260314

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: UK may be on verge of triggering a ‘positive tipping point’ for tackling climate change

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kai Greenlees, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Futures, University of Exeter

    Nrqemi/Shutterstock

    The UK is now more than halfway (50.4%) to achieving a net zero carbon economy, which means it has reduced its national emissions significantly compared to 1990.

    We should even celebrate that 0.4%. Why? Because every tonne of carbon saved from the atmosphere and every fraction of a degree celsius of warming avoided saves lives and leaves more life-sustaining ecosystems intact for our children and grandchildren.

    It also reduces the risk of triggering irreversible, devastating tipping points in the Earth system. We absolutely do not want to go there. Though, it may already be too late to save 90% of warm-water coral reefs, on which hundreds of millions of people depend for food and protection from storms.

    Luckily, tipping points can also work in our favour. Researchers like us call them positive tipping points, which kickstart irreversible, self-propelling change towards a more sustainable future.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Solar energy has already crossed a tipping point, having become the cheapest source of power in most of the world. Because it is quick to deploy widely and in a variety of formats and settings, solar is expanding exponentially, including to the roughly 700 million people who don’t have electricity.

    Electric vehicle sales have also crossed tipping points in China and several European markets, as evidenced by the abrupt acceleration of their shares in national vehicle fleets. The more people buy them, the cheaper and better they get, which makes even more people buy them – a self-propelling change towards a low-carbon road transport system.

    Recent findings from the Climate Change Committee, independent advisers to the UK government on climate policy, show that the UK too may be on the cusp of a positive tipping point for electric vehicles (EVs), but that further work is needed to reach a tipping point for heat pumps.

    EV sales are racing ahead

    According to the CCC, more than half of the UK’s success in decarbonising its economy since 2008 can be attributed to the energy sector. Here, the transition from electricity generated by coal to gas and, increasingly, renewable sources like solar and wind, has occurred “behind the scenes”, without much disruption to daily life.

    However, over 80% of the greenhouse gas emission cuts needed between now and 2030 (the UK aims to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030) need to come from other sectors that require the involvement and support of the public and businesses.

    The adoption of low-carbon technologies by households, including the buying of EVs and installing of heat pumps, is a critical next step to determining the success or failure of the UK’s ability to achieve net zero. Cars account for about 15% of the UK’s emissions and home heating a further 18%.

    Encouragingly, and despite concerted misinformation campaigns to discredit EVs, sales in the UK accounted for 19.6% of all new cars in 2024, which puts this sector close to the critical 20-25% range for triggering the phase of self-propelling adoption, according to positive tipping points theory.

    This rise in EV sales is happening for two main reasons. First, the UK has a rule that bans the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, which gives carmakers and buyers a clear deadline to switch.

    Second, they are becoming a better choice all round. They’re getting cheaper (some are expected to cost the same as petrol cars between 2026 and 2028), more appealing (with longer ranges and faster charging), and easier to use (thanks to more charging points and better infrastructure).

    If this positive trend continues, emissions saved by EV adoption will be sufficient to achieve the UK road transport sector’s 2030 emissions target.

    Where is the heat pump tipping point?

    Heat pumps have been slower on the uptake in the UK, leading the CCC to identify their deployment as one of the biggest risks to achieving the 2030 emissions target.

    Heat pumps use electricity to pump warmth from outside into a home (like a reverse refrigerator) and can be between three and five times more efficient than gas boilers, with approximate emissions savings of 70%.

    The UK government has set a target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028. But despite 90% of British homes being suitable for a heat pump, only 1% have one.

    There are signs that installations are picking up pace, however. In 2024, 98,000 heat pumps were installed – an increase of 56% from 2023. Deployment will need to be increased more than six times its current rate over the next three years to reach the installation target. In other words, we urgently need to trigger a positive tipping point in this sector.

    The triggering of self-propelling change depends on the relative strength of feedbacks that either resist change (damping or negative feedback) or drive it forward (positive feedback).

    One important negative feedback highlighted by the CCC is the UK’s high electricity-to-gas price ratio, which increases the running costs of a heat pump on top of the high upfront cost of buying and installing one. Addressing this issue has been at the top of the CCC’s policy recommendations for the last two years.

    One positive feedback that needs to be strengthened is the perception among installers of household demand for heat pumps. When installers perceive demand, they are more likely to invest in the training and certifications needed to meet it.

    Two ways the CCC suggests the government could encourage installer confidence are to extend the boiler upgrade scheme (which provides grants to households to install heat pumps) and clean heat mechanism (which obliges manufacturers and installers to prioritise heat pumps) and to reinstate the 2035 phase-out rule for new fossil fuel boilers.

    An understanding of positive tipping points helps us identify key leverage points where intervention can be most effective in tackling the remaining half of the UK’s emissions. When implemented as part of a coherent national strategy, positive change can be accomplished at the pace and scale required. There is no time to lose.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Kai Greenlees receives funding from the Economic Social Research Council, through the South West Doctoral Training Partnership.

    Steven R. Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. UK may be on verge of triggering a ‘positive tipping point’ for tackling climate change – https://theconversation.com/uk-may-be-on-verge-of-triggering-a-positive-tipping-point-for-tackling-climate-change-260212

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Can the NHS shift from treatment to prevention? What healthcare bosses think

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lisa Knight, Head of External Engagement & Professional Programmes, Liverpool John Moores University

    PongMoji/Shutterstock

    Imagine a healthcare system where preventing illness is just as important as treating it. This is the vision for the English NHS – but right now, it’s still far from reality. To become more sustainable and better serve patients in the long run, the NHS needs to shift its focus from reactive care to proactive, preventative support.

    On July 3 2025, the UK government published its Fit for the Future: Ten-Year Health Plan for England, laying out a blueprint to rebalance the health service toward prevention, digital transformation and localised care. The plan includes:

    • expanding up to 300 neighbourhood health centres to bring preventative services closer to communities

    • digitising services with 24/7 access through the NHS app, AI triage – the use of artificial intelligence to help prioritise and assess patients more efficiently, particularly in high-demand areas like emergency departments, GP surgeries and outpatient care – and robot-assisted surgery

    • tackling chronic illness earlier, including more support for obesity, smoking cessation and mental health

    • integrating prevention into everyday care, with a shift in national performance targets to better reflect long-term health outcomes.

    Prime minister Keir Starmer described it as a shift “from a sickness service to a health service,” marking a deliberate move away from crisis response toward early intervention and community-based support.

    But making this vision real won’t be easy.

    System still isn’t built for prevention

    In my research, I’ve looked at what good leadership should look like in the NHS – especially within England’s new integrated care systems (ICSs). A key part of these systems is place-based partnerships.

    These are local collaborations between NHS services, councils, charities and community groups, all working together to improve people’s health. The idea is to better join up care in each area and tackle the broader issues that affect health, such as housing, education and access to support.

    I spoke to NHS leaders, including chief executives of major health organisations, on the basis of anonymity, who agree that the system needs to change. But many of them say it will face major obstacles – especially financial constraints and fragmented funding models that continue to reward reactive care, such as A&E. As one NHS leader put it:

    All the things that come down from NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care respond to the now, rather than where we are going.

    While the ten-year plan lays out ambitions for rebalanced funding, existing financial mechanisms won’t support this shift. The NHS can overspend during emergencies, but local authorities – who fund most social care and public health – must stay within strict budgets.

    This undermines integration and creates unequal footing between services. One senior leader noted”

    Local authorities will never consider us as a partner until we get our act together on finance… you’ve got to sit back and look at what impression that gives them – that we’re not equals.

    The ten-year plan acknowledges these disparities but offers limited detail on how to resolve them. Without concrete reform of funding flows and accountability structures, prevention may remain a priority in name only.

    In 2024, the health and social care secretary, Wes Streeting, described the NHS as “broken” and called for a review to expose the “hard truths” needed to fix it. He has been outspoken in championing both prevention and better integration with social care, viewing these as key to reforming a system overwhelmed by rising demand and worsening outcomes.

    Improving housing, social care, education, and jobs can reduce reliance on costly hospital treatments and significantly enhance overall health. In 2022, the NHS took a structural step toward this by merging health and social care services into “integrated care systems”, aiming to better coordinate services across sectors.

    However, it has now been more than a decade since key targets for emergency care, hospital waiting times, or cancer services were met – raising questions about whether structural changes alone are enough.

    The COVID pandemic deepened these pressures. Waiting lists for treatment surged, while NHS staff faced soaring stress levels. Many healthcare leaders describe the current moment as a perfect storm, in which long-term planning is increasingly difficult while trying to meet immediate needs.

    Why risk and measurement matter

    Preventative services, new technologies and integrated care models carry uncertainty. Leaders are understandably hesitant to shift resources away from acute services when “hospitals get the headlines.” One told me:

    We’re shuffling public service delivery cash around and not thinking through how we develop something fundamentally different.

    National performance frameworks also reinforce this inertia. Most targets still focus on wait times, emergency response, and treatment outcomes. As one executive put it:

    We manage what’s measured… If we were made to look at deprivation figures and elective recovery figures based on postcode and ethnicity, that might change the conversation.“

    The ten-year plan promises new indicators and better data sharing, but it remains to be seen whether these tools will actually shift behaviour at scale.

    Listening to communities?

    An effective shift to prevention requires more than structural reform – it needs genuine community engagement. One of the aims of integrated care systems was to involve local people in decisions about their health. Most leaders I have interviewed support this principle, but many admit that public involvement remains limited: “We’re not doing enough to listen… We’re not giving people opportunities.”

    The ten-year plan reiterates the importance of local voices and promises a stronger focus on “co-produced care,” but delivery will depend on time, trust and cultural change within the system.

    My research suggests that the NHS won’t be fixed by continuing to treat illness after it happens. It must evolve into a service that prevents poor health at its root – in homes, schools, workplaces and local communities.

    The government’s ten-year plan offers a renewed opportunity to make this shift. But if the plan is to succeed, it will require more than bold promises. It demands redesigned funding, rebalanced risk, shared power with communities – and, above all, the political will to change the system before it collapses under its own weight.

    Lisa Knight is affiliated with Mersey and West Lancashire NHS Trust as a Non-Executive Director

    – ref. Can the NHS shift from treatment to prevention? What healthcare bosses think – https://theconversation.com/can-the-nhs-shift-from-treatment-to-prevention-what-healthcare-bosses-think-234601

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    Each is the main political subject in their country, and one is the main political subject in the world. Each rode the populist wave in 2016, campaigning for the other. In 2024 the tandem surfers remounted on to an even greater breaker. Yet, though nothing has happened to suggest that bromance is dead, neither Donald Trump nor Nigel Farage publicly now speak of the other.

    Trump’s presidential campaign shared personnel with Leave.eu, the unofficial Brexit campaign. Farage was on the stump with Trump, and his “bad boys of Brexit” made their pilgrimage to Trump Tower after its owner’s own triumph in the US election. Each exulted in the other’s success, and what it portended.

    Trump duly proposed giving the UK ambassadorship to the United States to Farage. Instead, Farage became not merely MP for Clacton, but leader of the first insurgent party to potentially reset Britain’s electoral calculus since Labour broke through in 1922.

    Then, Labour’s challenge was to replace the Liberals as the alternative party of government. It took two years. Reform UK could replace the Conservatives in four.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Trump, meanwhile, has achieved what in Britain has either been thwarted (Militant and the Labour party in the 1980s) or has at most had temporary, aberrant, success (Momentum and the Labour party in the 2010s): the takeover of a party from within. Farage has been doing so – hitherto – from without.

    At one of those historic forks in a road where change is a matter of chance, after Brexit finally took place, Farage considered his own personal leave – to go and break America.

    The path had been trodden by Trump-friendly high-profile provocateurs before him: Steve Hilton, from David Cameron’s Downing Street, via cable news, now standing to be governor of California; Piers Morgan, off to CNN to replace the doyen of cable news Larry King, only to crash, but then to burn on, online. Liz Truss, never knowingly understated, has found her safe space – the rightwing speaking circuit.

    But Farage remained stateside. He knew his domestic platform was primed more fully to exploit the voter distrust that his nationalist crusade had done so much to provoke.

    The Trump effect

    Genuine peacetime transatlantic affiliations are rare, usually confined to the leaders of established parties: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. One consequence of the 2016 political shift is that the US Republicans and the British Conservatives, the latter still at least partially tethered to traditional politics, have become distanced.

    During the first Trump administration, and even in the build up to the second, it was Farage who was seen as the UK’s bridge to the president. But today, at the peak of their influence, for Farage association can only be by inference, friendship with the US president is not – put mildly – of political advantage. For UK voters, Trump is the 19th most popular foreign politician, in between the King of Denmark and Benjamin Netanyahu.

    There is, moreover, the “Trump effect”. Measuring this is crude – circumstances differ – but the trend is that elections may be won by openly criticising, rather than associating with, Trump. This was the case for Mark Carney in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, and Nicușor Dan in Romania.

    Trump’s second state visit to the UK will certainly be less awkward for Farage than it will be Starmer, the man who willed it. Farage will likely not – and has no reason to – be seen welcoming so divisive a figure.

    Starmer has no choice but to, and to do so ostentatiously. It is typical of Starmer’s perfect storm of an administration that he will, in the process, do nothing to appeal to the sliver of British voters partial to Trump while further shredding his reputation with Labour voters. Farage would be well served in taking one of his tactical European sojourns for the duration. Starmer may be tempted too.

    Outmanoeuvring the establishment

    Reflecting the historic cultural differences of their countries, Trump’s prescription is less state, Farage’s is more. The Farage of 2025 that is. He had been robustly Thatcherite, but has lately embraced socialist interventionism, albeit through a most Thatcherite analysis: “the gap in the market was enormous”.

    Reform UK now appears to stand for what Labour – in the mind of many of its voters – ought to. Eyeing the opportunity of smokestack grievances, Farage called for state control of steel production even as Trump was considering quite how high a tariff to put on it. Nationalisation and economic nationalism: associated restoratives for national malaise.

    Aggressively heteronormative, Trump and Farage dabble in the natalism burgeoning in both countries – as much a cultural as an economic imperative. Each has mastered – and much more than their adversaries – social media. Each has come to recognise the demerits in publicly appeasing Putin.

    And Reform’s rise in a hitherto Farage-resistant Scotland can only endear him further to a president whose Hebridean mother was thought of (in desperation) as potentially his Rosebud by British officials preparing for his first administration.

    Given their rhetorical selectivity, Trump and Farage’s rolling pitches are almost unanswerable for convention-confined political opponents and reporters. These two anti-elite elitists continue to confound.

    Unprecedentedly, for a former president, Trump ran against the incumbent; Farage will continue to exploit anti-incumbency, despite his party now being in office. Most elementally, the pair are bound for life by their very public near-death experiences. Theirs is, by any conceivable measure, an uncommon association.

    Farage’s fleetness of foot would be apparent even without comparison with the leaden steps of the leaders of the legacy parties. His is a genius of opportunism. That’s why he knows not to remind us of his confrere across the water.

    Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore? – https://theconversation.com/have-you-noticed-that-nigel-farage-doesnt-talk-about-donald-trump-anymore-258333

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sviatlana Kroitar, Honored Research Visiting Fellow, Labour Studies, University of Leicester

    Goksi/Shutterstock

    Unlike previous economic downturns, the COVID pandemic created a crisis that disrupted both education and employment, abruptly halting young people’s emerging careers and clouding their hopes for the future. It doubly affected those transitioning into adulthood, out of school or university and into work, and it threatened the job security of those embarking on their careers when the pandemic began.

    There has been a disproportionate and often hidden cost borne by young people which has had a lasting impact on their career paths, financial independence and mental wellbeing.

    The pandemic sparked widespread educational disruption. Schools were closed, there was a rapid switch to online learning and exams were cancelled. This hindered young people’s ability to acquire essential knowledge, skills and qualifications.

    This aggravated existing educational gaps, particularly between students from different backgrounds, and those with and without reliable digital access and learning support.

    The cancellation of internships and work placements – vital for practical experience – left many with a gap in their skills. This may have increased the pressure to undertake unpaid work for employability.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Young people are heavily concentrated in precarious, in-person employment sectors such as hospitality and retail. These jobs are characterised by temporary contracts, low wages and limited benefits.

    This instability made them acutely vulnerable during the pandemic. Precarious roles offered few safety nets, leading to immediate job losses or reduced hours. Labour markets contracted sharply, especially in in-person sectors. This affected young people in particular, who faced higher job losses and unemployment.

    Graduate recruitment also plummeted as companies froze or reduced entry-level hiring, creating a bottleneck for university leavers. This convergence of job losses and a shrinking graduate market made securing stable employment exceptionally difficult.

    The pandemic also magnified existing vulnerabilities. It exacerbated hardship and job insecurity for young people who were already marginalised and disadvantaged. Young people already in non-standard employment – such as gig work, zero-hours contracts or temporary roles – experienced disproportionately severe outcomes.

    The situation was the same for young people from lower-income backgrounds, women and disabled young people.

    Less affluent young people often lack financial support from their families. This means deeper financial instability, increased debt and housing insecurity. These issues were exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic on employment.

    Precarity carries elevated long-term risks, including prolonged low wages and stunted career progression. This often delays the achievement of typical adult milestones such as financial autonomy and independent living.

    Young people may have been more inclined to take any available work.
    Raushan_films/Shutterstock

    Economic uncertainty destabilised emerging careers, forcing young people to rethink their options – a situation dubbed “precarious hope”. Many graduates, feeling less prepared, lowered their expectations.

    They may well have prioritised finding any available work, taking jobs that didn’t match their qualifications, leading to lower wages and poorer working conditions.

    Transitions to adulthood

    Research has found that the pandemic created significant disruptions to the typical transition to adulthood. A prominent trend was the rise of “boomerang” trajectories: young adults returning to live with parents due to economic hardship or job loss.

    More broadly, the pandemic contributed to delayed milestones such as leaving home, achieving financial independence and building stable relationships, creating prolonged dependence for many.

    The pandemic also blurred young professional identities. Disrupted final years of study and remote transitions stripped away traditional markers of closure. Cancelled exams, internships and graduations plunged many into prolonged limbo.

    This absence of clear rites of passage and the unexpected conclusion to studies added ambiguity to young people’s ideas of their own identity and life paths. This lack of clear professional selves left young people feeling helpless, their future out of their hands.

    The psychological toll

    The pandemic inflicted a profound psychological burden on young people. The loss of expected life passages, social and professional connections and routines fostered feelings of isolation, stagnation and diminished control. This distress was amplified by relentless uncertainty surrounding disrupted education, altered qualifications and a volatile job market.

    A “COVID echo” continues to resonate for young people. Graduates from the pandemic period may still feel that they lag behind in their careers.

    The early disruptions it caused through lost entry-level job opportunities, fewer chances to build networks and hindered skill development continue to cast a shadow over the further career prospects of these young people.

    Enduring negative consequences like this are termed “scarring”, threatening to affect employment and earning potential for years.

    Addressing these potential long-term scars requires an overhaul of the youth labour market. This means tackling precarious work, enhancing training and re-skilling, and strengthening social safety nets. Robust support, as well as listening to what young people have to say about their futures, will be vital in empowering this generation to overcome the crisis and reach their full potential.

    Sviatlana Kroitar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers – https://theconversation.com/the-pandemic-is-still-disrupting-young-peoples-careers-258768

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Around 250 million years ago, Earth was near-lifeless and locked in a hothouse state. Now scientists know why

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Andrew Merdith, DECRA Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide

    Some 252 million years ago, almost all life on Earth disappeared.

    Known as the Permian–Triassic mass extinction – or the Great Dying – this was the most catastrophic of the five mass extinction events recognised in the past 539 million years of our planet’s history.

    Up to 94% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate families were wiped out. Tropical forests – which served, as they do today, as important carbon sinks that helped regulate the planet’s temperature – also experienced massive declines.

    Scientists have long agreed this event was triggered by a sudden surge in greenhouse gases which resulted in an intense and rapid warming of Earth. But what has remained a mystery is why these extremely hot conditions persisted for millions of years.

    Our new paper, published today in Nature Communications, provides an answer. The decline of tropical forests locked Earth in a hothouse state, confirming scientists’ suspicion that when our planet’s climate crosses certain “tipping points”, truly catastrophic ecological collapse can follow.

    A massive eruption

    The trigger for the Permian–Triassic mass extinction event was the eruption of massive amounts of molten rock in modern day Siberia, named the Siberian Traps. This molten rock erupted in a sedimentary basin, rich in organic matter.

    The molten rock was hot enough to melt the surrounding rocks and release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere over a period as short as 50,000 years but possibly as long as 500,000 years. This rapid increase in carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere and the resulting temperature increase is thought to be the primary kill mechanism for much of life at the time.

    On land it is thought surface temperatures increased by as much as 6°C to 10°C – too rapid for many life forms to evolve and adapt. In other similar eruptions, the climate system usually returns to its previous state within 100,000 to a million years.

    But these “super greenhouse” conditions, which resulted in equatorial average surface temperatures upwards of 34°C (roughly 8°C warmer than the current equatorial average temperature) persisted for roughly five million years. In our study we sought to answer why.

    The forests die out

    We looked at the fossil record of a wide range of land plant biomes, such as arid, tropical, subtropical, temperate and scrub. We analysed how the biomes changed from just before the mass extinction event, until about eight million years after.

    We hypothesised that Earth warmed too rapidly, leading to the dying out of low- to mid-latitude vegetation, especially the rainforests. As a result the efficiency of the organic carbon cycle was greatly reduced immediately after the volcanic eruptions.

    Plants, because they are unable to simply get up and move, were very strongly affected by the changing conditions.

    Before the event, many peat bogs and tropical and subtropical forests existed around the equator and soaked up carbon

    However, when we reconstructed plant fossils from fieldwork, records and databases around the event we saw that these biomes were completely wiped out from the tropical continents. This led to a multimillion year “coal gap” in the geological record.

    These forests were replaced by tiny lycopods, only two to 20 centimetres in height.

    Enclaves of larger plants remained towards the poles, in coastal and in slightly mountainous regions where the temperature was slightly cooler. After about five million years they had mostly recolonised Earth. However these types of plants were also less efficient at fixing carbon in the organic carbon cycle.

    This is analogous in some ways to considering the impact of replacing all rainforests at present day with the mallee-scrub and spinifex flora that we might expect to see in the Australian outback.

    Post-extinction lycopod fossils.
    Zhen Xu

    Finally, the forests return

    Using evidence from the present day, we estimated the rate at which plants take atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it as organic matter of each different biome (or its “net primary productivity”) that was suggested in the fossil record.

    We then used a recently developed carbon cycle model called SCION to test our hypothesis numerically. When we analysed our model results we found that the initial increase in temperature from the Siberian Traps was preserved for five to six million years after the event because of the reduction in net primary productivity.

    It was only as plants re-established themselves and the organic carbon cycle restarted that Earth slowly started to ease out of the super greenhouse conditions.

    Maintaining a climate equilibrium

    It’s always difficult to draw analogies between past climate change in the geological record and what we’re experiencing today. That’s because the extent of past changes is usually measured over tens to hundreds of thousands of years while at present day we are experiencing change over decades to centuries.

    A key implication of our work, however, is that life on Earth, while resilient, is unable to respond to massive changes on short time scales without drastic rewirings of the biotic landscape.

    In the case of the Permian–Triassic mass extinction, plants were unable to respond on as rapid a time scale as 1,000 to 10,000 years. This resulted in a large extinction event.

    Overall, our results underline how important tropical and subtropical plant biomes and environments are to maintaining a climate equilibrium. In turn, they show how the loss of these biomes can contribute to additional climate warming – and serve as a devastating climate tipping point.

    Zhen Xu was the lead author of the study, which was part of her PhD work.

    Andrew Merdith receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award.

    Benjamin J. W. Mills receives funding from UK Research and Innovation.

    Zhen Xu receives funding from UK Research and Innovation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

    – ref. Around 250 million years ago, Earth was near-lifeless and locked in a hothouse state. Now scientists know why – https://theconversation.com/around-250-million-years-ago-earth-was-near-lifeless-and-locked-in-a-hothouse-state-now-scientists-know-why-260203

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Trump wins again as ‘big beautiful bill’ passes the Senate. What are the lessons for the Democrats?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth

    Donald Trump is continuing his run of political wins after his keynote legislation, nicknamed the ‘big beautiful bill’, squeaked through the Senate.

    While the bill, which includes major cuts in tax and government spending, must now go back to the House of Representatives for another vote, passing the upper house is highly significant. Trump lost the support of just three Republican senators, and with the help of a tie-breaking vote from Vice-President J.D. Vance managed to push the bill forward.

    Democrats, the minority in both the House and Senate, have been unable to do anything but sit by and watch as Trump claims victory after victory. These include progress in his attempt to end birthright citizenship, the claimed destruction of significant Iranian nuclear sites (yet to be independently verified) and the convincing of Nato member states to increase defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Trump may even be getting closer to a peace deal between Israel and Hamas.

    And now the Democrats have failed in their desperate attempts to stop this bill. In the Senate, it was felt that there could be enough Republican senators concerned about cuts to Medicaid (the US system that provides essential healthcare to those on low incomes), the closure or reduction of services at rural hospitals, and the increase in national debt to potentially hinder the bill’s progress. However, Democrats were unable to do anything apart from delaying the voting process, and the bill is progressing with some changes but not enough to be severely weakened.

    It had seemed likely that the Democrats could work with the Maga-focused Freedom Caucus group of representatives, whose members include Marjorie Taylor Greene, in the early stages in the House to stop its initial passage. But Speaker Mike Johnson managed to calm most of their fears about the rise in the deficit to get the bill through the House.

    The lack of effective opposition from the Democrats reflects their congressional standing. The Republicans control the Senate 53-47, and they also have a majority of 220-212 in the House, with three vacancies.

    While Democrat numbers in Congress is the primary issue in opposing this bill, their future congressional power will rely on strong leadership within the party and, more importantly, a clear set of policies with appeal that can attract more support at the ballot boxes. Failure to address this will probably allow Republicans to dominate Congress and shape American domestic and foreign policy any way they wish for longer.

    Trump’s agenda has now passed the Senate.

    What could Democrats do differently?

    While Democrat Hakeem Jeffries has been a diligent minority leader in the House, he has attempted to operate as an obstacle to Republican policies with little success, rather than reaching across the political divide to create a consensus with dissenting Republicans.

    Outside of Congress, California governor Gavin Newsom, widely touted as a potential candidate for the next presidential election, has offered some resistance to the Trump administration, particularly over Trump’s assumption of national command over the state-controlled National Guard to deal with protests in California against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. However, Newsom’s reputation is still relatively regional, although it is on the rise.

    Zohran Mamdani has won the Democratic nomination for New York mayor.

    There will be jostling over the next couple of years for the Democratic presidential nomination, and this will have an impact on the platform that the party runs on. Party members and those voting for the next presidential nominee will need to decide whether to continue with the mainly centrist position that the party has adopted since the 1990s or adopt something more left-wing.

    A more radical candidate, such as New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, might offer a substantially different proposal that could seem attractive to Democratic voters and those Trump supporters who may feel dissatisfied with the current Republican administration.

    However, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, recently selected as the Democratic nominee for the New York mayoral election, has already been vilified by some in the Republican party.

    Concerns about such a supposedly “radical” candidate may concern many voters in red states in middle America. However, getting elected is one thing but implementing progressive, left-leaning policies is another thing entirely. They also need to deliver solutions to major issues, such as crime, at all levels, to show their abilities to solve problems.

    It is not just the policies that matter for the Democrats, but who they want to represent. Last year’s election suggested that the Democrats had been ousted as the representatives of the working class. Some significant labour unions, a foundation of Democratic support for the majority of the 20th century, failed to endorse Kamala Harris.

    Mamdani’s success in New York stemmed from the mobilisation of a grassroots campaign that used social media effectively. It targeted young working-class voters disenchanted with the Democratic party. He also resonated with voters in areas that had seen an increase in Republican voters in the 2024 election.

    All this may offer some lessons to the Democrats. They need to reassess their policies, their image and their tactics, and show Americans that they can solve the problems that the public sees as most important, including the high cost of living. While they can expect to gain seats in the House in next year’s midterms, they need to look for a leader and policies that will capture the public’s hearts.

    Dafydd Townley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump wins again as ‘big beautiful bill’ passes the Senate. What are the lessons for the Democrats? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wins-again-as-big-beautiful-bill-passes-the-senate-what-are-the-lessons-for-the-democrats-260038

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Trump is not like other presidents – but can he beat the ‘second term curse’ that haunts the White House?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

    Getty Images

    While he likes to provoke opponents with the possibility of serving a third term, Donald Trump faces a more immediate historical burden that has plagued so many presidents: the “second term curse”.

    Twenty-one US presidents have served second terms, but none has reached the same level of success they achieved in their first.

    Second term performances have ranged from the lacklustre and uninspiring to the disastrous and deadly. Voter dissatisfaction and frustration, presidential fatigue and a lack of sustainable vision for the future are all explanations.

    But Trump doesn’t quite fit the mould. Only one other president, Grover Cleveland in the late 19th century, has served a second nonconsecutive term, making Trump 2.0 difficult to measure against other second-term leaders.

    Trump will certainly be hoping history doesn’t repeat Cleveland’s second-term curse. Shortly after taking office he imposed 50% tariffs, triggering global market volatility that culminated in the “Panic of 1893”.

    At the time, this was the worst depression in US history: 19% unemployment, a run on gold from the US Treasury, a stock market crash and widespread poverty.

    More than a century on, Trump’s “move fast and break things” approach in a nonconsecutive second term might appeal to voters demanding action above all else. But he risks being drawn into areas he campaigned against.

    So far, he has gone from fighting a trade war and a culture war to contemplating a shooting war in the Middle East. His “big beautiful bill” will add trillions to the national debt and potentially force poorer voters – including many Republicans – off Medicaid.

    Whether his radical approach will defy or conform to the second term curse seems very much an open question.

    No kings

    The two-term limit was enacted by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. Without a maximum term, it was feared, an authoritarian could try to take control for life – like a king (hence the recent “No Kings” protests in the US).

    George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all declined to serve a third term. Jefferson was suspicious of any president who would try to be re-elected a third time, writing:

    should a President consent to be a candidate for a 3d. election, I trust he would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views.

    There is a myth that after Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the de facto limit of two terms set by the early presidents, the ghost of George Washington placed a curse on anyone serving more than four years.

    At best, second-term presidencies have been tepid compared to the achievements in the previous four years. After the second world war, some two-term presidents (Eisenhower, Reagan and Obama) started out strong but faltered after reelection.

    Eisenhower extricated the US from the Korean War in his first term, but faced domestic backlash and race riots in his second. He had to send 500 paratroopers to escort nine Black high school students in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce a federal desegregation order.

    Reagan made significant tax and spending cuts, and saw the Soviet Union crumble in term one. But the Iran-Contra scandal and watered down tax reform defined term two.

    Obama started strongly, introducing health care reform and uniting the Democratic voter base. After reelection, however, the Democrats lost the House, the Senate, a Supreme Court nomination, and faced scandals over the Snowden security leaks and Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups.

    Truly disastrous examples of second term presidencies include Abraham Lincoln (assassination), Woodrow Wilson (first world war, failure of the League of Nations, a stroke), Richard Nixon (Watergate, impeachment and resignation), and Bill Clinton (Lewinsky scandal and impeachment).

    Room for one more? Trump has joked about being added to Mount Rushmore.
    Shutterstock

    Monumental honours

    It may be too early to predict how Trump will feature in this pantheon of less-than-greatness. But his approval ratings recently hit an all-time low as Americans reacted to the bombing of Iran and deployment of troops in Los Angeles.

    A recent YouGov poll showed voters giving negative approval ratings for his handling of inflation, jobs, immigration, national security and foreign policy. While there has been plenty of action, it may be the levels of uncertainty, drastic change and market volatility are more extreme than some bargained for.

    An uncooperative Congress or opposition from the judiciary can be obstacles to successful second terms. But Trump has used executive orders, on the grounds of confronting “national emergencies”, to bypass normal checks and balances.

    As well, favourable rulings by the Supreme Court have edged closer to expanding the boundaries of executive power. But they have not yet supported Trump’s claim from his first term that “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President”.

    Some supporters say Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he was only half joking when he asked if there is room for one more face on Mount Rushmore. But such monumental honours may only amount to speculation unless Trump’s radical approach and redefinition of executive power defy the second-term curse.

    Garritt C. Van Dyk has received funding from the Getty Research Institute.

    – ref. Trump is not like other presidents – but can he beat the ‘second term curse’ that haunts the White House? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-not-like-other-presidents-but-can-he-beat-the-second-term-curse-that-haunts-the-white-house-260002

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: A surprisingly effective way to save the capercaillie: keep its predators well-fed – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Sutherland, Reader in Statistical Ecology, University of St Andrews

    A male capercaillie showing off its colours. Rolands Linejs/Shutterstock

    Conserving species can be a complicated affair. Take this dilemma.

    After being hunted to near extinction, numbers of a native predator are recovering and eating more of an endangered prey species, whose own numbers are declining as a result. Should conservationists accept that some successes mean losing other species, or reinstate lethal control of this predator in perpetuity?

    Or perhaps there is a third option that involves new means of managing species in the face of new conditions. This issue is playing out globally, as land managers grapple with predators such as wolves and lynx reclaiming their historic ranges.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    In the ancient Caledonian pine forests of Scotland there are fewer than 500 capercaillie remaining. This grouse is beset by multiple threats, not least shifts in spring weather caused by climate change that are driving its Europe-wide decline, relating to changes in when chicks are reared and available nutrition.

    Additionally, and in common with other ground-nesting birds, capercaillie lose eggs and chicks to carnivores. As such, the recovery of the pine marten (a relative of weasels and otters) from its own near extinction in Scotland is contributing to the decline of capercaillie.

    A capercaillie cock displaying for a hen.
    Jack Bamber

    Internationally, little has been achieved to slow the heating of Earth’s climate, and decades of dedicated conservation efforts have not arrested the decline of capercaillie. Extinction will follow unless new solutions are found.

    Killing pine martens, the capercaillie’s predators, might offer short-term relief, but it is socially and politically contested and scientific evidence on its effectiveness is meagre. Most importantly, it risks undermining the recovery of species conservationists have worked hard to restore. Instead, the challenge is to reduce the effects of predators, not their numbers, and encourage coexistence between species.

    We have tried one such method in Scotland – with incredibly positive results.

    A non-lethal alternative for controlling predators

    Our idea is simple: predators have to be efficient, so when given access to a free meal, they are less likely to hunt for harder-to-find prey like capercaillie nests.

    Taking the bait: a pine marten eating carrion.
    Jack Bamber

    Satiated predators are less likely to kill and eat prey that is of concern to conservationists. This is called diversionary feeding: giving predators something easy to eat at critical times, such as during the time when capercaillie build their ground nests and rear chicks between April and July.

    To test this idea we systematically dumped deer carrion across 600 square kilometres of the Cairngorms national park in north-eastern Scotland, during eight weeks in which capercaillie are laying and incubating eggs. This area is home to the last Scottish stronghold of capercaillie. We also made artificial nests across the same area that contained chicken eggs, to represent capercaillie eggs.

    Through this landscape-scale experiment, we showed that the predation rate of pine marten on artificial nests fell from 53% to 22% with diversionary feeding. This decrease from a 50% chance of a nest being eaten by a pine marten, to 20%, is a massive increase in nest survival.

    A capercaillie brood, with chicks and hen highlighted.
    Jack Bamber

    This was a strong indication that the method worked. But we were unsure whether the effect seen in artificial nests translated to real capercaillies, and the number of chicks surviving to independence.

    Counting chicks in forests with dense vegetation is difficult, and land managers are increasingly reluctant to use trained dogs. Our innovation was to count capercaillie chicks using camera traps (motion-activated cameras which can take videos and photos) at dust baths, which are clear patches of ground where chicks and hens gather to preen.

    We deployed camera traps across the landscape in areas with and without diversionary feeding and measured whether a female capercaillie had chicks or not, and how many she had. Chicks are fragile and many die early in life. The number of chicks in a brood declined at the same rate in the fed and unfed areas.

    However, in areas where predators received diversionary feeding, 85% of the hens we detected had chicks compared to just 37% where predators were unfed. That sizeable difference mirrored the improvement seen in artificial nest survival.

    Fewer nests being predated led to more hens with broods, such that by the end of the summer, we observed a staggering 130% increase in the number of chicks per hen in fed areas – 1.9 chicks per hen were seen compared to half that in unfed areas.

    So, does diversionary feeding provide a non-lethal alternative to managing conservation conflict and promoting coexistence? Our work suggests it does.

    A mature capercaillie brood.
    Jack Bamber

    Diversionary feeding is now a key element of the capercaillie emergency plan, which is the Scottish government’s main programme for recovering the species. Diversionary feeding will probably be adopted across all estates with capercaillie breeding records in the Cairngorms national park by 2026.

    This rapid implementation of scientific evidence is a direct result of working closely, from conception, with wildlife managers and policy makers. For capercaillie, diversionary feeding has real potential to make a difference, a glimmer of hope in their plight (some nicer weather in spring might help too).

    More broadly, for conservationists, land managers, gamekeepers, farmers, researchers and anyone else involved in managing wildlife, this work is testament to the fact that, with the right evidence and a willingness to adapt, we can move beyond the binaries of killing or not killing. Instead, finding smarter ways to promote the coexistence of native predators and native prey.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Jack Anthony Bamber received funding from the SUPER DTP.

    Xavier Lambin would like to credit the academic contribution of Kenny Kortland, environment policy advisor for Scottish Forestry.

    Chris Sutherland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. A surprisingly effective way to save the capercaillie: keep its predators well-fed – new research – https://theconversation.com/a-surprisingly-effective-way-to-save-the-capercaillie-keep-its-predators-well-fed-new-research-259925

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The NHS ten-year health plan is missing a crucial ingredient: nature

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrea Mechelli, Professor of Early Intervention in Mental Health, King’s College London

    mimagephotography/Shutterstock

    The UK government has finally unveiled its much anticipated ten-year Plan for improving England’s health. It contains a long overdue focus on prevention, after years of sidestepping by previous administrations.

    The plan rightly recognises that preventing illness before it begins is the most effective way to improve people’s wellbeing. It should have the added benefit of reducing strain on the NHS and easing the nation’s financial burden.

    Mental health, too, is given the attention it deserves. Recognised as integral to our overall health, its inclusion couldn’t be more timely. A 2023 international study found that one in two people will experience a mental health condition in their lifetime — a much higher figure than previously estimated.

    But one striking omission threatens to undermine the plan’s success: nature. Evidence tells us that it’s one of the most powerful means of supporting physical and mental health. And yet is not mentioned once in the plan’s 168 pages.

    If this plan is about prevention, then nature should be central to it. The science is unequivocal: contact with the natural world supports human health in wide ranging and profound ways. It lowers stress, improves mood, and alleviates symptoms of anxiety.

    For children, time in nature can even aid brain development. Nature helps reduce exposure to air pollution, moderates urban heat, and fosters physical activity and social connection.

    It can also reduce feelings of loneliness, improve the diversity of our gut microbiota – by exposing us to a wider range of environmental microbes that help train and balance the immune system – and support the immune system by reducing inflammation. All of these play a vital role in protecting against chronic disease.



    Read more:
    People feel lonelier in crowded cities – but green spaces can help

    Then there are the intangible yet no less important benefits. Nature provides a sense of awe and wonder – feelings that help us gain perspective, boost emotional resilience and find deeper meaning in everyday life.

    Our own research shows that even small, everyday moments in nature, watching birds from your window, for example, or pausing under a blooming tree on your way to the shop, can significantly boost mental wellbeing.

    Consider this: a Danish study found that growing up near green spaces during the first ten years of life reduces the risk of developing mental health problems in adulthood by a staggering 55%. A UK study similarly showed that people living in greener neighbourhoods were 16% less likely to experience depression and 14% less likely to develop anxiety.

    And as heatwaves become more frequent and intense – with soaring illness and mortality rates – the cooling effects of trees and parks will become more vital than ever for protecting our health.

    Not all green space is equal

    But it’s not just access to green space that matters – it’s also the quality of that space.

    Green areas rich in biodiversity, with a wide variety of plant life, birds, insects and fungi, provide much greater health benefits than sparse or manicured lawns. Biodiversity builds resilience not just in ecosystems, but in our bodies and minds.

    A recent study in The Lancet Planetary Health found that people living in areas with greater bird diversity were significantly less likely to experience depression and anxiety, even after accounting for socioeconomic and demographic factors.

    This research underlines a simple but urgent truth: we cannot talk about human health without talking about biodiversity.



    Read more:
    Why diversity in nature could be the key to mental wellbeing

    To deliver true prevention and resilience, we need a joined-up approach across government: one that aligns health policy with environmental protection, housing, urban design, education and transport. This means rethinking how we plan and build our communities: what kind of housing we develop, how we move around, what we grow and eat and how we live in relationship with the ecosystems that support us.

    There are many ways this vision can be put into action. The Neighbourhood Health Service outlined in the ten-year plan could be tied directly to local, community-led efforts such as Southwark’s Right to Grow campaign, which gives residents the right to cultivate unused land. This kind of initiative improves access to fresh food, promotes physical activity, strengthens community bonds and increases green cover – all of which support long-term health.

    School curricula could be revised to give children the opportunity to learn not just about nature, but also in nature – developing ecological literacy, emotional resilience and healthier habits for life. Health professionals could be trained to understand and promote the value of time outdoors for managing chronic conditions and supporting recovery. Green social prescribing – already gaining ground across the UK – should be fully integrated into standard care, with robust resourcing and cross-sector support.

    Learning from success

    Scotland’s Green Health Partnerships show what’s possible. These initiatives bring together sectors including health, environment, education, sport and transport to promote nature-based health solutions – from outdoor learning and physical activity in parks, to conservation volunteering and nature therapy.

    They don’t just improve health; they strengthen communities, build climate resilience and create cost-effective, scaleable solutions for prevention.

    The ten-year plan is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It could help remove departmental silos and unify national goals across health, climate, inequality and economic recovery, while saving billions in the process. But in its current form, it misses a crucial ingredient.

    By failing to recognise the centrality of nature in our health, the government overlooks one of the simplest and most effective ways to build resilience – both human and ecological. Surely it is not beyond a nation of nature lovers to put nature at the heart of our future health?

    Andrea Mechelli receives funding from Wellcome Trust.

    Giulia Vivaldi, Michael Smythe, and Nick Bridge do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The NHS ten-year health plan is missing a crucial ingredient: nature – https://theconversation.com/the-nhs-ten-year-health-plan-is-missing-a-crucial-ingredient-nature-260508

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Ageing isn’t the same everywhere – why inflammation may be a lifestyle problem

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samuel J. White, Associate Professor & Head of Projects, York St John University

    The Orang Asli age differently. Azami Adiputera/Shutterstock.com

    For years, scientists have believed that inflammation inevitably increases with age, quietly fuelling diseases like heart disease, dementia and diabetes. But a new study of Indigenous populations challenges that idea and could reshape how we think about ageing itself.

    For decades, scientists have identified chronic low-level inflammation – called “inflammaging” – as one of the primary drivers of age-related diseases. Think of it as your body’s immune system stuck in overdrive – constantly fighting battles that don’t exist, gradually wearing down organs and systems.

    But inflammaging might not be a universal feature of ageing after all. Instead, it could be a byproduct of how we live in modern society.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    The research, published in Nature Aging, compared patterns of inflammation in four very different communities around the world. Two groups were from modern, industrialised societies – older adults living in Italy and Singapore.

    The other two were Indigenous communities who live more traditional lifestyles: the Tsimane people of the Bolivian Amazon and the Orang Asli in the forests of Malaysia.

    The researchers analysed blood samples from more than 2,800 people, looking at a wide range of inflammatory molecules, known as cytokines. Their goal was to find out whether a pattern seen in earlier studies – where certain signs of inflammation rise with age and are linked to disease – also appears in other parts of the world.

    The answer, it turns out, is both yes and no.

    Among the Italian and Singaporean participants, the researchers found a fairly consistent inflammaging pattern. As people aged, levels of inflammatory markers in the blood, such as C-reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor, rose together. Higher levels were linked to a greater risk of chronic diseases including kidney disease and heart disease.

    But in the Tsimane and Orang Asli populations, the inflammaging pattern was absent. The same inflammatory molecules did not rise consistently with age, and they were not strongly linked to age-related diseases.

    In fact, among the Tsimane, who face high rates of infections from parasites and other pathogens, inflammation levels were often elevated. Yet this did not lead to the same rates of chronic diseases that are common in industrialised nations.

    Despite high inflammatory markers, the Tsimane experience very low rates of conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and dementia.

    Inflammaging may not be universal

    These results raise important questions. One possibility is that inflammaging, at least as measured through these blood signals, is not a universal biological feature of ageing. Instead, it may arise in societies marked by high-calorie diets, low physical activity and reduced exposure to infections.

    In other words, chronic inflammation linked to ageing and disease might not simply result from an inevitable biological process, but rather from a mismatch between our ancient physiology and the modern environment.

    The study suggests that in communities with more traditional lifestyles – where people are more active, eat differently and are exposed to more infections – the immune system may work in a different way. In these groups, higher levels of inflammation might be a normal, healthy response to their environment, rather than a sign that the body is breaking down with age.

    Another possibility is that inflammaging may still occur in all humans, but it might appear in different ways that are not captured by measuring inflammatory molecules in the blood. It could be happening at a cellular or tissue level, where it remains invisible to the blood tests used in this research.

    Chronic low-level inflammation may be a lifestyle problem.
    Nattakorn_Maneerat/Shutterstock.com

    Why this matters

    If these findings are confirmed, they could have significant consequences.

    First, they challenge how we diagnose and treat chronic inflammation in ageing. Biomarkers used to define inflammaging in European or Asian populations might not apply in other settings, or even among all groups within industrialised nations.

    Second, they suggest that lifestyle interventions aimed at lowering chronic inflammation, such as exercise, changes in diet, or drugs targeting specific inflammatory molecules, might have different effects in different populations. What works for people living in cities might be unnecessary, or even ineffective, in those living traditional lifestyles.

    Finally, this research serves as an important reminder that much of our knowledge about human health and ageing comes from studies conducted in wealthy, industrialised nations. Findings from these groups cannot automatically be assumed to apply worldwide.

    The researchers are clear: this study is just the beginning. They urge scientists to dig deeper, using new tools that can detect inflammation not just in the blood, but within tissues and cells where the real story of ageing may be unfolding. Just as important, they call for more inclusive research that spans the full range of human experience, not just the wealthy, urbanised corners of the world.

    At the very least, this study offers an important lesson. What we thought was a universal truth about the biology of ageing might instead be a local story, shaped by our environment, lifestyle and the way we live.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Ageing isn’t the same everywhere – why inflammation may be a lifestyle problem – https://theconversation.com/ageing-isnt-the-same-everywhere-why-inflammation-may-be-a-lifestyle-problem-260322

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Low turnout and an unfair voting system: UK elections ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Toby James, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of East Anglia

    The UK has historically been held up as leading democracy with free and fair elections. However, our new report shows election quality in the UK is now ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe.

    The Global Electoral Integrity Report provides scores for election quality around the world. It defines electoral integrity as the extent to which elections empower citizens.

    Iceland received the highest score for an election that took place in 2024, the “year of elections” during which 1.6 billion people went to the polls, according to Time Magazine. This was an unprecedented concentration of democratic activity in a single year. Iceland has a successful system of automatic voter registration and an electoral system that is judged to be fair to smaller parties.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Countries that scored highly based on their most recent election include Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Finland and Lithuania. Those at the opposite end of the scale include Syria, Belarus, Egypt, and Nicaragua. The UK is ranked 24th out of 39 countries in Europe. It is below Estonia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Austria, Luxembourg and Slovakia. It is ranked 53rd out of 170 countries overall.

    The US also saw a decline. The beacons for electoral democracy are therefore now found in mainland Europe (most notably Scandinavia), Australasia, South America and the southern parts of Africa – rather than the UK and US. The centre of global democratic authority has shifted away from Westminster.

    Electoral Integrity in most recent national election up to the end of 2024.
    Electoral Integrity Project, CC BY-ND

    The weaknesses in the UK system

    There remain many areas of strength in UK elections. UK electoral officials show professionalism and independence and there is no concern about the integrity of the vote counting process. There is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud.

    A major weakness is in the fairness of the electoral rules for small parties. The electoral system generated a very disproportional result in 2024. Labour took nearly two-thirds of the seats in parliament, a total of 412, with less than 10 million votes (only 34% of votes cast). Labour won a massive majority in terms of parliamentary arithmetic but the the government did not enter office with widespread support.

    By contrast, Reform and the Greens received 6 million votes between them, but only nine MPs. The electoral system may have worked when Britain had a two-party system – but the two-party system no longer holds. Today’s Britain is more diverse, and political support is more distributed.

    The UK also scores poorly on voter registration. It is estimated that there are around 7 million to 8 million people not correctly registered or missing from the registers entirely. This is not many less than the 9.7 million people whose votes gave the government a landslide majority. The UK does not have a system of automatic voter registration, which is present in global leaders such as Iceland, where everyone is enrolled without a hiccup.

    Another problem is participation. Turnout in July 2024 was low – with only half of adults voting. Voting has been made more difficult as the Elections Act of 2022 introduced compulsory photographic identification for the first time at the general election. This was thought to have made it more difficult for many citizens to vote because the UK does not have a national identity card which all citizens hold.

    Meanwhile, there are further swirling headwinds. The spread of disinformation by overseas actors in elections has become a prominent challenge around the world and there was evidence of disinformation in this campaign too. Violence during the electoral period was thought to have been removed from British elections in Victorian times. But more than half candidates experience abuse and intimidation during the electoral period.

    Action needed

    One year into its time in office, the government is yet to act on this issue. The word “democracy” was missing from the prime minister’s strategic defence review, despite the emphasis on protecting the UK from Russia, a country known for electoral interference and other forms of attack on democracies.

    This was a sharp contrast to the former government’s 2021 review, which emphasised that a “world in which democratic societies flourish and fundamental human rights are protected is one that is more conducive to our sovereignty, security and prosperity as a nation”.

    In its election manifesto, Labour promised to “address the inconsistencies in voter ID rules”, “improve voter registration” and give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections. There needs to be firm action on electoral system change, automatic voter registration, campaign finance reform, voter identification changes and other areas.

    The Reform party is ahead in the polls and has consistently promised proportional representation. If Labour doesn’t make the reforms, another party might do so instead – and reap the benefits.

    There are a complex set of challenges facing democracy and elections. New technological challenges, change in attitudes, international hostility and new emergencies are combining to batter the door of democracy down.

    International organisations are increasingly stressing that political leaders need to work together and take proactive action to protect elections against autocratic forces. This means not only supporting democracy in their messages on the world stage – but also introducing reforms to create beacons of democracy in their own countries.

    Toby James has previously received funding from the AHRC, ESRC, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust, Electoral Commission, Nuffield Foundation, the McDougall Trust and Unlock Democracy. His current research is funded by the Canadian SSHRC.

    Holly Ann Garnett receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Defence Academy Research Programme. She has previously received funding from: the British Academy, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, the American Political Science Association Centennial Centre, and the Conference of Defence Associations.

    – ref. Low turnout and an unfair voting system: UK elections ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe – https://theconversation.com/low-turnout-and-an-unfair-voting-system-uk-elections-ranked-in-the-bottom-half-of-countries-in-europe-260396

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: US Supreme Court ponders the balance of power – and sides with President Trump

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Stanton, Reader in Law, City St George’s, University of London

    Since his second inauguration in January, Donald Trump has issued more than 160 executive orders. These orders permit the US president to make directives concerning the workings of the federal government without the need to pass laws in Congress. All US presidents have used them, including George Washington, but Trump has issued his orders at an unprecedented rate.

    A number of these have courted controversy. But one stands out in particular: executive order 14160. This was signed on the day of his inauguration, January 20, and seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US where the parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

    The purpose of this order was to redefine the scope of the 14th amendment to the constitution. This states that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s executive order sets limits on that principle.

    Due to the order’s conflict with the constitution, various district courts have issued what are known as “universal injunctions”, blocking the order. In response to these injunctions, the government brought a case in the Supreme Court: Trump v Casa. The Trump administration argues that district judges should not have the power to issue such wide-ranging injunctions which effectively limit the president’s power.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    On June 27 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. It found in favour of the government, holding that: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The court stopped short of banning them outright – but it effectively limited the extent to which courts could issue a universal block on the president’s executive orders.

    The judgment did not decide on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, but focused solely on the limits of judicial power to block presidential actions more broadly. So the question of birthright citizenship remains unresolved.

    People affected can bring personal lawsuits and there is also the avenue of “class action suits” in which a number of people who have grouped together with common cause and been have been ruled by a judge to constitute a “class” can seek legal relief. The New York Times has reported that plaintiffs are how preparing to refile suits to challenge executive order 14160.

    But the issue raises questions about the Supreme Court. In the US, the nine Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, and inevitably bring a corresponding political outlook to their work. Currently, there are six conservative judges – three of whom were appointed by Trump in his first term of office – and three liberal judges.

    In Trump v Casa, the court divided on ideological lines. The six conservative judges supported the majority view, while the three liberal judges dissented. This was not entirely unexpected. But the ruling raises the more fundamental question about the vital constitutional role that courts play in acting as a check on government power.

    Cornerstone of democracy

    In democracies around the world, constitutional principles ensure that power is exercised according to law and that the various holders of legislative, executive, and judicial power do not exceed their authority. Central to these arrangements is the role of the courts. While judges must be careful not to involve themselves in the policy decisions of government, or the law-making deliberations of a legislature, it is their duty to ensure the executive does not act unlawfully or the legislature unconstitutionally.

    Case reports across the world are littered with examples of judges reviewing and, on occasion, striking down government or legislative action as unlawful. In the US, the seminal case of Marbury v Madison (1803) which established, for the first time, that the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, has served as a beacon of this principle for over 200 years. In the UK, the Supreme Court’s finding in R(Miller) v Prime Minister that the government’s 2019 prorogation of parliament was unlawful provides a notable example of the continued importance of this role.

    The balance that the courts must strike in not interfering in the policy decisions of government on the one hand, and their fundamental role in acting as a check on the lawful use of power on the other is at the heart of Trump v Casa. In the Supreme Court’s written majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the use of “universal injunctions” by the district courts was an example of judicial overreach. She wrote that federal judges were going beyond their powers in seeking to block the universal application of the executive order.

    The dissenting three liberal justices issued a minority opinion saying that this finding was at odds with the rule of law. Indeed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling in Trump v Casa “cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Courts has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive actions is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”

    The finding of the Supreme Court, in other words, has arguably limited the extent to which the courts in America can serve as a check on the exercise of executive power. Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a “giant win”, while attorney general Pam Bondi said it would “stop the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump”.

    Here’s the nub of the affair: while courts must be able to act as a check on the lawfulness of government action, at the same time, a government must be able to govern without too frequent or too onerous obstructions from the judiciary and this finding potentially gives the Trump administration greater room for manoeuvre.

    But there is a further issue. As mentioned, US Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president. With the justices of the court being divided on political lines in Trump v Casa, questions can fairly be asked about the propriety of this arrangement – and whether it was always inevitable that one day there would be a Supreme Court in which the people might lose faith because they felt that it was more beholden to ideology than the law.

    This is a potentially dangerous moment in the US. The independence of the judiciary has long been a bulwark against abuses of power – and has been regarded as such by the US people. Having judges nominated by those holding political office arguably hinders that independence – and, as the judgment in this case suggests, could throw into jeopardy the invaluable role that the courts play in keeping the exercise of government power in check.

    John Stanton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. US Supreme Court ponders the balance of power – and sides with President Trump – https://theconversation.com/us-supreme-court-ponders-the-balance-of-power-and-sides-with-president-trump-260258

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    Each is the main political subject in their country, and one is the main political subject in the world. Each rode the populist wave in 2016, campaigning for the other. In 2024 the tandem surfers remounted on to an even greater breaker. Yet, though nothing has happened to suggest that bromance is dead, neither Donald Trump nor Nigel Farage publicly now speak of the other.

    Trump’s presidential campaign shared personnel with Leave.eu, the unofficial Brexit campaign. Farage was on the stump with Trump, and his “bad boys of Brexit” made their pilgrimage to Trump Tower after its owner’s own triumph in the US election. Each exulted in the other’s success, and what it portended.

    Trump duly proposed giving the UK ambassadorship to the United States to Farage. Instead, Farage became not merely MP for Clacton, but leader of the first insurgent party to potentially reset Britain’s electoral calculus since Labour broke through in 1922.

    Then, Labour’s challenge was to replace the Liberals as the alternative party of government. It took two years. Reform UK could replace the Conservatives in four.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Trump, meanwhile, has achieved what in Britain has either been thwarted (Militant and the Labour party in the 1980s) or has at most had temporary, aberrant, success (Momentum and the Labour party in the 2010s): the takeover of a party from within. Farage has been doing so – hitherto – from without.

    At one of those historic forks in a road where change is a matter of chance, after Brexit finally took place, Farage considered his own personal leave – to go and break America.

    The path had been trodden by Trump-friendly high-profile provocateurs before him: Steve Hilton, from David Cameron’s Downing Street, via cable news, now standing to be governor of California; Piers Morgan, off to CNN to replace the doyen of cable news Larry King, only to crash, but then to burn on, online. Liz Truss, never knowingly understated, has found her safe space – the rightwing speaking circuit.

    But Farage remained stateside. He knew his domestic platform was primed more fully to exploit the voter distrust that his nationalist crusade had done so much to provoke.

    The Trump effect

    Genuine peacetime transatlantic affiliations are rare, usually confined to the leaders of established parties: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. One consequence of the 2016 political shift is that the US Republicans and the British Conservatives, the latter still at least partially tethered to traditional politics, have become distanced.

    During the first Trump administration, and even in the build up to the second, it was Farage who was seen as the UK’s bridge to the president. But today, at the peak of their influence, for Farage association can only be by inference, friendship with the US president is not – put mildly – of political advantage. For UK voters, Trump is the 19th most popular foreign politician, in between the King of Denmark and Benjamin Netanyahu.

    There is, moreover, the “Trump effect”. Measuring this is crude – circumstances differ – but the trend is that elections may be won by openly criticising, rather than associating with, Trump. This was the case for Mark Carney in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, and Nicușor Dan in Romania.

    Trump’s second state visit to the UK will certainly be less awkward for Farage than it will be Starmer, the man who willed it. Farage will likely not – and has no reason to – be seen welcoming so divisive a figure.

    Starmer has no choice but to, and to do so ostentatiously. It is typical of Starmer’s perfect storm of an administration that he will, in the process, do nothing to appeal to the sliver of British voters partial to Trump while further shredding his reputation with Labour voters. Farage would be well served in taking one of his tactical European sojourns for the duration. Starmer may be tempted too.

    Outmanoeuvring the establishment

    Reflecting the historic cultural differences of their countries, Trump’s prescription is less state, Farage’s is more. The Farage of 2025 that is. He had been robustly Thatcherite, but has lately embraced socialist interventionism, albeit through a most Thatcherite analysis: “the gap in the market was enormous”.

    Reform UK now appears to stand for what Labour – in the mind of many of its voters – ought to. Eyeing the opportunity of smokestack grievances, Farage called for state control of steel production even as Trump was considering quite how high a tariff to put on it. Nationalisation and economic nationalism: associated restoratives for national malaise.

    Aggressively heteronormative, Trump and Farage dabble in the natalism burgeoning in both countries – as much a cultural as an economic imperative. Each has mastered – and much more than their adversaries – social media. Each has come to recognise the demerits in publicly appeasing Putin.

    And Reform’s rise in a hitherto Farage-resistant Scotland can only endear him further to a president whose Hebridean mother was thought of (in desperation) as potentially his Rosebud by British officials preparing for his first administration.

    Given their rhetorical selectivity, Trump and Farage’s rolling pitches are almost unanswerable for convention-confined political opponents and reporters. These two anti-elite elitists continue to confound.

    Unprecedentedly, for a former president, Trump ran against the incumbent; Farage will continue to exploit anti-incumbency, despite his party now being in office. Most elementally, the pair are bound for life by their very public near-death experiences. Theirs is, by any conceivable measure, an uncommon association.

    Farage’s fleetness of foot would be apparent even without comparison with the leaden steps of the leaders of the legacy parties. His is a genius of opportunism. That’s why he knows not to remind us of his confrere across the water.

    Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore? – https://theconversation.com/have-you-noticed-that-nigel-farage-doesnt-talk-about-donald-trump-anymore-258333

    MIL OSI –