NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Can you spot a ‘fake’ accent? It will depend on where you’re from

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan R. Goodman, Research Associate, Public Health, University of Cambridge


     Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

    We all need to learn how to place trust in others. It’s easy to be misled. Someone who doesn’t deserve trust can appear a lot like someone who does – and part of growing up in a society is developing the ability to tell the difference.

    An important part of this is learning about the signals people give about themselves. These might be a smile, a style of dressing or a way of speaking. In particular, we use accents to make decisions about others – especially in the UK.

    But what if people adapt or change their accents to fit into a certain social group or geographical area? Our past research has shown that native speakers are pretty good at spotting such speech. We’ve now published a follow-up study that supports and further strengthens our original results.

    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.

    We associate accents with places, classes and groups. Research shows that even infants use accents to determine whether they think someone is considered trustworthy. This can be a problem – studies have demonstrated that accents can affect someone’s odds of getting a job – and potentially the likelihood of being found guilty of a crime.

    As with most topics in the social sciences, evolutionary theory has a lot to say about this process. Scientists are interested in understanding how people send and receive signals like accents, how those signals affect relationships between people and how, in turn, those relationships affect us.

    But because accents can affect how we treat each other, we’d expect some people to try to change them for personal gain. A social chameleon who can pretend to be a member of any social class or group is likely to win trust within each – assuming they are not caught.

    If that’s true, though, then we’d expect people to also be good at detecting when someone is “faking” it – what we call mimicry – setting up a kind of arms race between those who want to deceive us into trusting them and those who try to catch deceivers out.

    Over the last few years, we’ve looked into how well people detect accent mimicry. Last year we found that generally speaking, people in the UK and Ireland are strong at this, detecting mimicked accents in the UK and Ireland better than we’d expect by chance alone.

    What was more interesting, though, was that native listeners from the specific places of the imitated accent – Belfast, Glasgow and Dublin – were a lot better at this task than were non-natives or native listeners from further away in the UK, like Essex.

    Beyond the UK

    Our new findings went further, though. Of the roughly 2,000 people that participated, more than 1,500 were this time based in English-speaking countries outside the UK, including the US, Canada and Australia. And on average, this group did a lot worse at detecting mimicked accents from seven different regions in the UK and Ireland than did people from the UK.

    In fact, people from places other than the UK barely did better than we’d expect by chance, while people who were native listeners were right between about two-thirds and three-quarters of the time.

    As we argued in our original article, we believe it’s local cultural tensions — tribalism, classism or even warfare — that explain the differences. For example, as someone commented to me some time ago, people living in Belfast in the 1970s and 80s – a time of huge political tension – needed to be attuned to the accents of those around them. Hearing something off, like an out-group member’s accent, could signal an imminent threat.

    This wouldn’t have put the same pressures on people living in a more peaceful regions. In fact, we found that people living in large, multicultural and largely peaceful areas, such as London, didn’t need to pay much attention to the accents of those around them and were worse at detecting mimicked accents.

    The further you move out from the native accent, too, the less likely a listener is to place emphasis on or notice anything wrong with a local accent. Someone living in the US is likely to pay even less attention to an imitation Belfast accent than is someone living in London, and accordingly will be worse at detecting mimicry. Likewise, someone growing up in Australia would be better at spotting a mimicked Australian accent than a Brit.

    So while accents, and our ability to detect differences in accents, probably evolved to help us place trust more effectively at a broad level, it’s the cultural environment that shapes that process at the local level.

    Together, this has the unfortunate effect that we sometimes place a lot more emphasis on accents than we should. How someone speaks should be a lot less important than what is said.

    Still, accents drive how people treat each other at every level of society, just as other signals, be they tattoos, smiles or clothes, that tell us something about another person’s background or heritage.

    Learning how these processes work and why they evolved is critical for overcoming them – and helping us to override the biases that so often prevent us from placing trust in people who deserve it.

    Jonathan R. Goodman receives funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant no. 220540/Z/20/A).

    – ref. Can you spot a ‘fake’ accent? It will depend on where you’re from – https://theconversation.com/can-you-spot-a-fake-accent-it-will-depend-on-where-youre-from-260238

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Pets get hay fever too – how to spot it and manage it

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jacqueline Boyd, Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, Nottingham Trent University

    alexei tm/Shutterstock.com

    Summer often brings with it the unmistakable sniffles and sneezes of hay fever. As plants and trees release pollen into the air, many of us start to feel the effects – itchy eyes, runny noses and general discomfort. But hay fever doesn’t just affect people – our pets can suffer too.

    Like us, dogs, cats, horses and even small animals like rabbits and guinea pigs can struggle during pollen season. So how can you spot the signs – and more importantly, how can you help?

    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.

    What is hay fever?

    Hay fever is an allergic reaction to airborne pollen. Grass pollen is considered the most common trigger, though pollen from trees and weeds can also play a part. Normally, the immune system protects us from harmful invaders like bacteria and viruses. But sometimes, it becomes oversensitive and reacts to things that aren’t dangerous.

    Allergies like hay fever happen when the immune system mistakenly treats harmless substances – such as dust or pollen – as threats. When exposed again, the body tries to defend itself, triggering a cascade of reactions including itching, sneezing, congestion, watery eyes and coughing. These symptoms, although frustrating, are the body’s attempt to shield itself – just against the wrong enemy.

    What are the signs of hay fever in pets?

    Humans with hay fever usually experience an itchy throat, sneezing, watery eyes and a runny nose. Pets show many of the same symptoms: sneezing, nasal discharge and eye irritation are all common.

    Dogs and cats often show signs through their skin, rubbing or scratching at itchy areas and sometimes chewing their paws or belly. These parts of the body are more likely to come into contact with pollen when outdoors. In more severe cases, pets can develop dermatitis – an intensely itchy and inflamed skin condition that may require veterinary care.

    If you think your pet might be suffering, it’s important to speak with your vet. Many people with hay fever learn to tell the difference between colds, flu and pollen allergies. But our pets can also catch colds and other infections, which may look similar. To treat the problem properly, it’s best to get a clear diagnosis.

    How to help your pet with hay fever

    If you or your pet are dealing with hay fever, there are steps you can take to make things more manageable.

    Start by keeping a diary of symptoms – it might help you connect flare-ups with particular plants or trees. In the UK, tree pollen tends to peak in April and May, while grass pollen is highest in June and July. If grass seems to be the culprit, keeping lawns short can help. You might also need to remove problem plants from your garden or restrict access to them.

    Regular grooming and washing your pet – along with cleaning their bedding – can reduce the amount of pollen they’re exposed to. Less pollen means fewer symptoms.

    Pollen forecasts are also a helpful tool. On days when pollen levels are particularly high – usually during warm, dry spells – you can take extra precautions.

    Pollen tends to be most concentrated during the day, especially when it’s hot and humid. Try walking your dog early in the morning or later in the evening when levels are lower, which also helps protect them from dangerously high temperatures.

    Keeping cats indoors and ensuring horses have appropriate shelter and rugging can also reduce exposure.

    While antihistamines are a common remedy for people, don’t be tempted to use them on pets unless prescribed by your veterinary surgeon. Many over-the-counter options are not safe for animals and could cause harm. Your vet can recommend safe alternatives and help create a management plan tailored to your pet.

    Don’t use over-the-counter antihistamines to treat your pet. Speak to your vet about the correct treatment.
    Juice Flair/Shutterstock.com

    Pollen allergies are expected to become more common, with climate change and pollution both playing a role. Higher temperatures prompt plants to release more pollen, and pollution can make our immune systems more reactive to it. Even thunderstorms can worsen hay fever by breaking pollen into smaller particles that are more easily inhaled.

    Spotting the signs early and taking steps to limit your pet’s exposure can make a big difference, helping them stay comfortable, healthy and happy during the pollen-heavy months.

    In addition to her academic affiliation at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and support from the Institute for Knowledge Exchange Practice (IKEP) at NTU, Jacqueline Boyd is affiliated with The Kennel Club (UK) through membership and as advisor to the Health Advisory Group. Jacqueline is a full member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT #01583). She also writes, consults and coaches on canine matters on an independent basis.

    – ref. Pets get hay fever too – how to spot it and manage it – https://theconversation.com/pets-get-hay-fever-too-how-to-spot-it-and-manage-it-259155

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Mr. Nobody Against Putin gives an insight into the propaganda in Russian schools

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colin Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University

    A remarkable documentary is providing insight into the propaganda found within Russian schools. Mr. Nobody Against Putin, directed by David Borenstein, premiered at the 2025 Sundance film festival in January, where it won the world cinema documentary special jury award.

    The film was recorded over two years by Pavel “Pasha” Talankin, an events coordinator and videographer at a high school in Karabash, a heavily polluted town in central southern Russia. The documentary records the intensification of Kremlin-directed ultra-nationalist and pro-war propaganda within the Russian schooling system, which has intensified since the escalation of the war against Ukraine in February 2022.

    Talankin makes clear his view that this approach to “education” represents a moral wrong, and he is very much on point with the writings of the key ethicists on the subject. American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, wrote that “education is both a tool of propaganda in the hands of dominant groups, and a means of emancipation for subject classes”.

    Niebuhr was writing about the education system in the US during the 1920s, when there was a widespread understanding that education was used in these two ways. Talankin’s concern is that Russia has moved to a position of imbalance, where the “dominant groups” have too much influence and are using their power to corrupt the minds of children through disingenuous narratives about national servitude, sacrifice and conformity, coupled with the unsubtle threat that those who are not patriots are “parasites”.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    In their highly respected book Propaganda & Persuasion (1986), propaganda experts Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell state that “to analyse propaganda, one needs to be able to identify it”. This is a difficult task because propaganda thrives through symbols, the subliminal and in fictional works precisely because the audience is not conscious of it.

    However, the creation of an environment that uses propaganda is also dependent upon who is given the oxygen of publicity and who is marginalised. These are the conditions under which ideological indoctrination occurs and power is achieved or maintained.

    As such, a critical analyst of propaganda must assess the linguistic strategy, the information strategy, the eminence strategy (how to ensure that the target audience are watching, reading or listening to the desired content) and the staging strategy of the communicator. This can be remembered through the helpful L.I.E.S. mnemonic.

    The trailer for Mr. Nobody versus Putin.

    Talankin’s footage shows how Russian schools now promote distorted versions of European history. The well-trodden narrative that Ukraine has been taken over by neo-Nazis is referred to several times in lessons. Russian flags appear with greater frequency around the school as time goes on, and assembly time becomes an exercise in pledging allegiance to the fatherland.

    Teachers are expected to read from scripts prepared for them by the ministry of education. Pupils then respond with choreographed answers – some even glancing down at notes under their desks. The children are told about how dreadful life in France and the UK is because of their reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

    Interestingly, the Kremlin has asked that all of this be videoed and uploaded to a central database to ensure compliance with national regulations on what is taught in schools. Indeed, Talankin complains at one point that much of his time is now spent uploading the videos rather than actually teaching the students and helping them to be creative – as his job previously was.

    Shared humanity

    Talankin takes us on a tour of his city. He shows a pro-war rally that is broadly supported by the townsfolk. Or at least those in opposition dare not say anything or engage in an equivalent demonstration. He takes us to the civic library, theoretically a site of independent learning but which has been hijacked by these propaganda efforts.

    Perhaps the most important moments of the documentary though are the snippets of critique and the sense of “knowing” that Talankin is keen to show. The young girl who jokingly tells her teacher to “blink twice if you’re lying”, and to which all her class then laugh. His interactions with other teachers who confide in him that they know that the propaganda is bullshit, but, worried for their status and prosperity, go along with it.

    The propaganda is pretty poor though. It is clunky and obvious, and, while it might generate some short-term influence, it smacks of both arrogance and desperation on the part of the Kremlin. Indeed, it shows that there is no desire on the part of central government for Russian people to thrive intellectually.

    This scenario is reminiscent of the end of the Soviet era, when communist propaganda continued to prevail, but few still believed it. Nevertheless, without a clear alternative to follow, or obvious alternative leader to guide them, most people continued to abide.

    The most harrowing part of the documentary comes towards the end when Talankin provides an audio recording of the funeral of a local lad who has been killed in Ukraine. He did not dare film the funeral as this is a cultural faux pas, but the screams and wails of the mother as her son is laid to rest are piercing. The scene seems intended to bring our shared humanity to bare.

    Talankin is a nice guy with intelligence and ethical fortitude. The kids are funny, charming and talented. The mother is doing what we would all do if we had lost a child to a violent death. As such, Mr. Nobody Against Putin might better be called Mr. Everybody Against Putin, as it should be of grave concern to everyone that Russia’s education system is resorting to such techniques.

    Colin Alexander 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. Mr. Nobody Against Putin gives an insight into the propaganda in Russian schools – https://theconversation.com/mr-nobody-against-putin-gives-an-insight-into-the-propaganda-in-russian-schools-260162

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • 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 mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

    Labour MPs have forced a major government climbdown over disability benefit cuts, in an embarrassing turn of events for Keir Starmer. The prime minister has blown a hole in his budget by agreeing to scrap plans to tighten eligibility criteria for disability benefits via the universal credit and personal independence payment bill.

    In return, MPs passed what was left of the bill – although 49 of them still rebelled, voting against the government. The bruising encounter bodes poorly for the future. Starmer’s Number 10 operation has been shown to be unable to communicate effectively with MPs. The team was neither able to win MPs over when the bill was being developed, nor bring them into line when agreement could not be reached.

    The question now must be whether Starmer will ever be able to push through any difficult legislation in the future. He now needs to give serious attention to his relationship with MPs.

    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.

    The government has insisted that welfare costs are becoming unsustainable. Back in March, it unveiled plans to cut sickness and disability benefits in order to save £5 billion a year from the welfare budget by 2030. However, the government’s own figures suggested that 250,000 people could be pushed into poverty because of the changes, which led to criticism from many Labour MPs and disability charities.

    The threat of rebellion forced a partial u-turn by the government which appeased the vast majority of rebels. Although the remaining rebels failed to pass their wrecking amendment in the end, the fact the government was continuing to negotiate and offer concessions well into the debate on the night of the vote shows that the whips still felt there was a prospect of defeat. This behaviour during the debate is highly unusual and could all have been prevented.

    Labour MPs on the night of the vote.
    UK Parliament/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Whenever there is disagreement between the government and its own backbench MPs, the role of the whips becomes even more vital. The whips have an important role in informing backbench MPs of which way the party leadership expects them to vote during divisions in the House of Commons.

    However, this is in fact a two-way channel of communication. Whips are also responsible for reporting concerns and dissension among MPs to the chief whip, who then has a duty to report such issues to the prime minister and cabinet.

    There has clearly been a breakdown in this two-way channel of communication in the case of the disability benefits cuts. Reports suggest that whips were warning that trouble was brewing to ministers but were being ignored.

    How to avoid a repeat incident

    A key complaint among Labour backbenchers was that they were not consulted on the proposals before they were announced. As the potential consequences of the changes became clearer, more MPs raised concerns about them.

    A lesson for the government here is that adequate groundwork is needed to get MPs on side with policies. That might mean allowing select committees to have more insight into the government’s thinking. It’s notable that select committee chairs were leading figures in this rebellion.

    It might also mean making greater use of departmental groups within the Parliamentary Labour Party to allow backbench MPs to feed into discussions at an earlier stage. Crucially, it also means more one-to-one, informal conversations.

    All this helps MPs feel like they have a vested interest in the policy and have had their voices heard. If you implement such a safety valve early on, the need for views and frustrations to be expressed so publicly later on in the process is reduced. Instead, in this case, we’ve had Labour backbenchers revealing to the media that, a year into office, they’ve still never even met Starmer.

    We have seen a trend in recent years of MPs becoming more focused on their constituency role. This, combined with the large rise in the number of MPs who hold marginal seats (meaning they are at greater risk of losing those seats at the next election) means that they prioritise constituents concerns over the party line. MPs who are worried about holding their seat at the next election have little to lose from threats about losing the whip.

    Labour’s position in the polls over recent months has exacerbated this problem. An analysis by the Disability Poverty Campaign Group in April suggested that for dozens of Labour MPs, the number of people claiming the benefits that were to be cut in their constituencies was greater than the size of their majority. In other words, there was a direct line to be drawn between voting for the bill and election loss.

    An additional factor that must be considered is that the sheer number of Labour MPs currently in parliament means that the usual incentives for loyalty don’t necessarily apply. Loyalty is often negotiated with promises of ministerial office in the future, but Starmer doesn’t turn over his team often and, in any case, there simply aren’t enough such carrots to dangle in front of everyone when a party has more than 400 MPs.

    Labour would also have to win a second term for such promises to be meaningful and that is currently in jeopardy. All this means there are fewer incentives for MPs to play the long game.

    What is clear is that Starmer’s approach to party management is not working. Given how the changing nature of politics in the UK, MPs are likely to get a taste for rebellion – particularly if, as happened in this case, rebellions deliver results. This is something any government should seek to avoid.

    Clearly there is a need for more groundwork to give MPs a sense of ownership over policy. There is also an argument for the prime minister and senior members of the cabinet to spend more time doing the rounds in the House of Commons tearooms, speaking to the parliamentary party at large and listening to their concerns directly. This might improve parliamentary party relations and keep the lid on future rebellions.

    Thomas Caygill is currently in receipt of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for research on post-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. The mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment – https://theconversation.com/the-mistakes-keir-starmer-made-over-disability-cuts-and-how-he-can-avoid-future-embarrassment-260254

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

    Labour MPs have forced a major government climbdown over disability benefit cuts, in an embarrassing turn of events for Keir Starmer. The prime minister has blown a hole in his budget by agreeing to scrap plans to tighten eligibility criteria for disability benefits via the universal credit and personal independence payment bill.

    In return, MPs passed what was left of the bill – although 49 of them still rebelled, voting against the government. The bruising encounter bodes poorly for the future. Starmer’s Number 10 operation has been shown to be unable to communicate effectively with MPs. The team was neither able to win MPs over when the bill was being developed, nor bring them into line when agreement could not be reached.

    The question now must be whether Starmer will ever be able to push through any difficult legislation in the future. He now needs to give serious attention to his relationship with MPs.

    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.

    The government has insisted that welfare costs are becoming unsustainable. Back in March, it unveiled plans to cut sickness and disability benefits in order to save £5 billion a year from the welfare budget by 2030. However, the government’s own figures suggested that 250,000 people could be pushed into poverty because of the changes, which led to criticism from many Labour MPs and disability charities.

    The threat of rebellion forced a partial u-turn by the government which appeased the vast majority of rebels. Although the remaining rebels failed to pass their wrecking amendment in the end, the fact the government was continuing to negotiate and offer concessions well into the debate on the night of the vote shows that the whips still felt there was a prospect of defeat. This behaviour during the debate is highly unusual and could all have been prevented.

    Labour MPs on the night of the vote.
    UK Parliament/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Whenever there is disagreement between the government and its own backbench MPs, the role of the whips becomes even more vital. The whips have an important role in informing backbench MPs of which way the party leadership expects them to vote during divisions in the House of Commons.

    However, this is in fact a two-way channel of communication. Whips are also responsible for reporting concerns and dissension among MPs to the chief whip, who then has a duty to report such issues to the prime minister and cabinet.

    There has clearly been a breakdown in this two-way channel of communication in the case of the disability benefits cuts. Reports suggest that whips were warning that trouble was brewing to ministers but were being ignored.

    How to avoid a repeat incident

    A key complaint among Labour backbenchers was that they were not consulted on the proposals before they were announced. As the potential consequences of the changes became clearer, more MPs raised concerns about them.

    A lesson for the government here is that adequate groundwork is needed to get MPs on side with policies. That might mean allowing select committees to have more insight into the government’s thinking. It’s notable that select committee chairs were leading figures in this rebellion.

    It might also mean making greater use of departmental groups within the Parliamentary Labour Party to allow backbench MPs to feed into discussions at an earlier stage. Crucially, it also means more one-to-one, informal conversations.

    All this helps MPs feel like they have a vested interest in the policy and have had their voices heard. If you implement such a safety valve early on, the need for views and frustrations to be expressed so publicly later on in the process is reduced. Instead, in this case, we’ve had Labour backbenchers revealing to the media that, a year into office, they’ve still never even met Starmer.

    We have seen a trend in recent years of MPs becoming more focused on their constituency role. This, combined with the large rise in the number of MPs who hold marginal seats (meaning they are at greater risk of losing those seats at the next election) means that they prioritise constituents concerns over the party line. MPs who are worried about holding their seat at the next election have little to lose from threats about losing the whip.

    Labour’s position in the polls over recent months has exacerbated this problem. An analysis by the Disability Poverty Campaign Group in April suggested that for dozens of Labour MPs, the number of people claiming the benefits that were to be cut in their constituencies was greater than the size of their majority. In other words, there was a direct line to be drawn between voting for the bill and election loss.

    An additional factor that must be considered is that the sheer number of Labour MPs currently in parliament means that the usual incentives for loyalty don’t necessarily apply. Loyalty is often negotiated with promises of ministerial office in the future, but Starmer doesn’t turn over his team often and, in any case, there simply aren’t enough such carrots to dangle in front of everyone when a party has more than 400 MPs.

    Labour would also have to win a second term for such promises to be meaningful and that is currently in jeopardy. All this means there are fewer incentives for MPs to play the long game.

    What is clear is that Starmer’s approach to party management is not working. Given how the changing nature of politics in the UK, MPs are likely to get a taste for rebellion – particularly if, as happened in this case, rebellions deliver results. This is something any government should seek to avoid.

    Clearly there is a need for more groundwork to give MPs a sense of ownership over policy. There is also an argument for the prime minister and senior members of the cabinet to spend more time doing the rounds in the House of Commons tearooms, speaking to the parliamentary party at large and listening to their concerns directly. This might improve parliamentary party relations and keep the lid on future rebellions.

    Thomas Caygill is currently in receipt of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for research on post-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

    – ref. The mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment – https://theconversation.com/the-mistakes-keir-starmer-made-over-disability-cuts-and-how-he-can-avoid-future-embarrassment-260254

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Motion sickness drug linked to cases of robbery and assault – here’s what you need to know about ‘devil’s breath’

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

    Scopolamine is extracted from brugmansia MaCross-Photography/Shutterstock

    Scopolamine, more chillingly known as “devil’s breath,” is a drug with a dual identity. In medicine, it’s used to prevent motion sickness and nausea. But in the criminal underworld, particularly in parts of South America, it has gained a dark reputation as a substance that can erase memory, strip away free will and facilitate serious crimes. Now, its presence may be sparking fresh concerns in the UK.

    While most reports of devil’s breath come from countries like Colombia, concerns about its use in Europe are not new. In 2015, three people were arrested in Paris for allegedly using the drug to rob victims, turning them into compliant “zombies”.

    The UK’s first known murder linked to scopolamine was reported in 2019 when the Irish dancer Adrian Murphy was poisoned by thieves attempting to sell items stolen from him. In a more recent case in London, a woman reported symptoms consistent with scopolamine exposure after being targeted on public transport.

    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.

    Scopolamine, also known as hycosine, is a tropane alkaloid, a type of plant-derived compound found in the nightshade family (Solanaceae). It has a long history: indigenous communities in South America traditionally used it for spiritual rituals due to its potent psychoactive effects.

    In modern medicine, scopolamine (marketed in the UK as hyoscine hydrobromide) is prescribed to prevent motion sickness, nausea, vomiting and muscle spasms. It also reduces saliva production before surgery. Brand names include Kwells (tablets) and Scopoderm (patches).

    As an anticholinergic drug, scopolamine blocks the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which plays a vital role in memory, learning, and coordination. Blocking it helps reduce nausea by interrupting signals from the balance (vestibular) system to the brain. But it also comes with side effects, especially when used in high doses or outside a clinical setting.

    How it affects the brain

    Scopolamine disrupts the cholinergic system, which is central to memory formation and retrieval. As a result, it can cause temporary but severe memory loss: a key reason it’s been weaponised in crimes. Some studies also suggest it increases oxidative stress in the brain, compounding its effects on cognition.

    The drug’s power to erase memory, sometimes described as “zombifying”, has made it a focus of forensic and criminal interest. Victims often describe confusion, hallucinations and a complete loss of control.

    Uses and misuses

    In clinical settings, scopolamine is sometimes used off-label for depression, excessive sweating, or even to help quit smoking. But outside these uses, it’s increasingly associated with danger.

    Recreational users are drawn to its hallucinogenic effects – but the line between tripping and toxic is razor thin.

    In Colombia and other parts of South America, scopolamine, also known as burundanga, has been implicated in countless robberies and sexual assaults. Victims describe feeling dreamlike, compliant, and unable to resist or recall events. That’s what makes it so sinister – it robs people of both agency and memory.

    The drug is often administered surreptitiously. In its powdered form, it’s odourless and tasteless, making it easy to slip into drinks or blow into someone’s face, as some victims have reported. Online forums detail how to make teas or infusions from plant parts, seeds, roots, flowers – heightening the risk of DIY misuse.

    Once ingested, the drug works quickly and exits the body within about 12 hours, making it hard to detect in routine drug screenings. For some people, even a dose under 10mg can be fatal.

    Devil’s Breath documentary trailer, Journeyman Pictures.

    Signs of scopolamine poisoning include rapid heartbeat and palpitations, dry mouth and flushed skin, blurred vision, confusion and disorientation, hallucinations and drowsiness.

    If you experience any of these, especially after an unexpected drink or interaction, seek medical attention immediately.

    Dipa Kamdar 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. Motion sickness drug linked to cases of robbery and assault – here’s what you need to know about ‘devil’s breath’ – https://theconversation.com/motion-sickness-drug-linked-to-cases-of-robbery-and-assault-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-devils-breath-259720

    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: ‘Gas station heroin’: the drug sold as a dietary supplement that’s linked to overdoses and deaths

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Sahai, Computational Biochemist, Brunel University of London

    US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Health Fraud Branch

    The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an urgent warning about tianeptine – a substance marketed as a dietary supplement but known on the street as “gas station heroin”.

    Linked to overdoses and deaths, it is being sold in petrol stations, smoke shops and online retailers, despite never being approved for medical use in the US.

    But what exactly is tianeptine, and why is it causing alarm?

    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.

    Tianeptine was developed in France in the 1960s and approved for medical use in the late 1980s as a treatment for depression.

    Structurally, it resembles tricyclic antidepressants – an older class of antidepressant – but pharmacologically it behaves very differently. Unlike conventional antidepressants, which typically increase serotonin levels, tianeptine appears to act on the brain’s glutamate system, which is involved in learning and memory.

    It is used as a prescription drug in some European, Asian and Latin American countries under brand names like Stablon or Coaxil. But researchers later discovered something unusual, tianeptine also activates the brain’s mu-opioid receptors, the same receptors targeted by morphine and heroin – hence it’s nickname “gas station heroin”.

    As a prescription drug, tianeptine is sold under various brand names, including Stablon.
    Wikimedia Commons

    At prescribed doses, the effect is subtle, but in large amounts, tianeptine can trigger euphoria, sedation and eventually dependence. People chasing a high might take doses far beyond anything recommended in medical settings.

    Despite never being approved by the FDA, the drug is sold in the US as a “wellness” product or nootropic – a substance supposedly used to enhance mood or mental clarity. It’s packaged as capsules, powders or liquids, often misleadingly labelled as dietary supplements.

    This loophole has enabled companies to circumvent regulation. Products like Neptune’s Fix have been promoted as safe and legal alternatives to traditional medications, despite lacking any clinical oversight and often containing unlisted or dangerous ingredients.

    Some samples have even been found to contain synthetic cannabinoids and other drugs. According to US poison control data, calls related to tianeptine exposure rose by over 500% between 2018 and 2023. In 2024 alone, the drug was involved in more than 300 poisoning cases. The FDA’s latest advisory included product recalls and import warnings.

    Users have taken to the social media site Reddit, including a dedicated channel, and other forums to describe their experiences, both the highs and the grim withdrawals. Some report taking hundreds of pills a day. Others struggle to quit, describing cravings and relapses that mirror those seen with classic opioid addiction.

    Since tianeptine doesn’t show up in standard toxicology screenings, health professionals may not recognise it. According to doctors in North America, it could be present in hospital patients without being detected, particularly in cases involving seizures or unusual heart symptoms.

    People report experiencing withdrawal symptoms that resemble those of opioids, like fentanyl, including anxiety, tremors, insomnia, diarrhoea and muscle pain. Some have been hospitalised due to seizures, loss of consciousness and respiratory depression.

    UK legality

    In the UK, tianeptine is not licensed for medical use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and it is not classified as a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That puts it in a legal grey area, not formally approved, but not illegal to possess either.

    It can be bought online from overseas vendors, and a quick search reveals dozens of sellers offering “research-grade” powder and capsules.

    There is little evidence that tianeptine is circulating widely in the UK; to date, just one confirmed sample has been publicly recorded in a national drug testing database. It’s not mentioned in recent Home Office or Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs briefings, and it does not appear in official crime or hospital statistics.

    But that may simply reflect the fact that no one is looking for it. Without testing protocols in place, it could be present, just unrecorded.

    Because of its chemical structure and unusual effects, if tianeptine did show up in a UK emergency department, it could easily be mistaken for a tricyclic antidepressant overdose, or even dismissed as recreational drug use. This makes it harder to diagnose and treat appropriately.

    It’s possible, particularly among people seeking alternatives to harder-to-access opioids, or those looking for a legal high. With its low visibility, online availability and potential for addiction, tianeptine ticks many of the same boxes that once made drugs like mephedrone or spice popular before they were banned.

    The UK has seen waves of novel psychoactive substances emerge through similar routes, first appearing online or in head shops, then spreading quietly until authorities responded. If tianeptine follows the same path, by the time it appears on the radar, harm may already be underway.

    Michelle Sahai 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. ‘Gas station heroin’: the drug sold as a dietary supplement that’s linked to overdoses and deaths – https://theconversation.com/gas-station-heroin-the-drug-sold-as-a-dietary-supplement-thats-linked-to-overdoses-and-deaths-259194

    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: Hope for a ceasefire in Gaza (but not much)

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

    Each day that has passed recently has brought another report of mass killings in Gaza. Today’s headline was as grim as any: according to reports from Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, another 118 people were killed in the past 24 hours, including 12 people trying to get aid supplies. This is a particularly unpalatable feature of a wretched conflict: the number of people being killed as they queue for food.

    A bulletin carried on the United Nations website bore the headline: “GAZA: Starvation or Gunfire – This is Not a Humanitarian Response.” It said that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and almost 4,000 injured just trying to access or distribute food.

    There are, however, hopes of a hiatus in the violence. Donald Trump announced on July 2 that Israel had accepted terms for a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas is reportedly reviewing the conditions. Donald Trump on his TruthSocial platform wrote: “I hope… that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better – IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.”

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    For his part, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said: “There will be no Hamas [in postwar Gaza]”. This doesn’t bode well for the longevity of any deal, writes Julie M. Norman.

    Norman, an expert in international security at UCL who specialises in the Middle East, says we’ve been here before. The ceasefire deal negotiated with great fanfare as the Biden presidency passed over to Trump’s second term in January, fell to bits after phase one of a mooted three-phase deal, with accusations of bad faith on both sides.

    Further talk of a new deal in May never got any further than the drawing board. And the two sides’ positions seem to remain utterly irreconcilable. Hamas wants the ceasefire to end in a permanent peace deal and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel wants Hamas dismantled, out of Gaza and out of the picture, full stop.

    Netanyahu is due to visit Washington next week, for the third time in less than six months. Whether the US president can bring pressure to bear on Netanyahu to compromise remains to be seen.

    As Norman points out after the 12-day war against Iran, which both Trump and Netanyahu have been trumpeting as a huge success, the Israeli prime minister may have the political clout to defy his more hardline colleagues in pursuit of a deal. Trump, meanwhile, having done everything he can to help Netanyahu, can call in some big favours in his quest to play dealmaker. Hamas is seriously weakened and its main ally in the region, Iran, seems unlikely to intervene after its recent conflict with Israel and the US.

    So while recent history makes a cessation of violence in Gaza seem as far off as ever, there is at least some reason for hope.



    Read more:
    A new Gaza ceasefire deal is on the table – will this time be different?

    As noted higher up, one of the more terrible features of this wretched conflict of late has been the number of people being killed as they queue to get food. The death toll at aid distribution centres has mounted steadily since Israel, with US backing, introduced a new system run by an American company: Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This organisation replaced more than 400 aid points (previously run by a UN agency) with just four, mainly in the south of the Gaza Strip.

    This was always going to cause problems, writes Leonie Fleischmann of City St George’s, University of London, who specialises in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. While Israel says the new system is designed to prevent Hamas taking control of aid supplies, all reports are that the scenes around the four distribution centres are descending into anarchy. According to a UN report, “Thousands [of people] released into chaotic enclosures to fight for limited food supplies … These areas have become sites of repeated massacres in blatant disregard for international humanitarian law.”

    “Arguably, this chaos and violence is inbuilt in the new aid delivery system,” writes Fleischmann, who concludes that the new system should be seen as a “a mechanism of forced displacement” which is part of a plan by the Netanyahu government “relocate Palestinians to a ‘sterile zone’ in Gaza’s far south” as it continues to clear the north of the Gaza strip.



    Read more:
    Chaotic new aid system means getting food in Gaza has become a matter of life – and often death

    The 12-day war

    But if Trump and Netanyahu think the recent short war will lead to a complete reset in the region, leaving a crippled Iran licking its wounds, they way well have miscalculated. That’s the assessment of the situation by Bamo Nouri, a Middle East specialist at City St George’s, University of London. He believes that the 12-day war may prove to have been a strategic blunder by Israel and the US.

    For a start, he writes, one outcome of the conflict is that Iran suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ending inspections and giving Tehran the freedom to expand its nuclear programme with no oversight. And its response to Israel’s airstrikes, involving more than 1,000 missiles and drones, breached the country’s “iron dome” defensive system, causing considerable damage and inflicting a serious psychological blow against Israel.

    Tehran has also deepened its relationships with both Moscow and Beijing. And far from prompting regime change, the war appears to have prompted an upsurge in nationalist sentiment in Iran.

    Nouri concludes: “Israel emerges militarily capable but politically shaken and economically strained. Iran, though damaged, stands more unified, with fewer international constraints on its nuclear ambitions.”



    Read more:
    The US and Israel’s attack may have left Iran stronger

    It’s hard to get a clear picture of what was achieved, which isn’t surprising when you consider that there remains considerable doubt, even in this information age, what was achieved by the US bombing raid against Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear installations.

    First they were “completely obliterated”. Or at least that was what Donald Trump posted on the night of the raid. Then it seemed that they may not have been as obliterated as first thought. In fact an initial assessment prepared by the US Office of Defense Intelligence thought that the damage may only have hindered Iran’s nuclear programme by a few months.

    Cue outrage from the US president and his senior colleagues, amplified by their friends in the US media. There followed some new intelligence which seemed to favour Trump’s position. Then the head of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, weighed in, saying Iran could be enriching uranium again in a “matter of months”. The latest contribution was from the Pentagon which is saying that timescale is actually closer to “one to two years”. Clear as mud then.

    But as Rob Dover reminds us, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once pronounced: “If it was a fact it wouldn’t be called intelligence.” Dover, who is an intelligence specialist at the University of Hull, explains that intelligence almost always has a political dimension and should be viewed through that prism.

    “The assessment given to the public may well be different from the one held within the administration,” writes Dover. This is not necessarily a bad thing, he concludes as “security diplomacy is best done behind closed doors”. Or at least it used to be. Now the US president seems happy to discuss sensitive information in public.



    Read more:
    Row over damage to Iran’s nuclear programme raises questions about intelligence

    The medium is the message

    But then, as Sara Polak observes, Donald Trump’s use of social media is changing the way government is conducted in the US. Polak is a specialist in US politics at Leiden University with a particular interest in the way politics and media intersect.

    As she writes, for more than a century since Teddy Roosevelt cultivated print journalists, through FDR’s adept use of radio and JFK’s mastery of television, each new media platform has its master. For Trump it is social media. And he is using it to remake politics.



    Read more:
    How Trump plays with new media says a lot about him – as it did with FDR, Kennedy and Obama

    Nowhere has Trump’s mastery of art of issuing simple messages which make for effective soundbites been displayed so clearly than in the name of his landmark tax-cutting legislation still being wrangled over in the US Congress at the time of writing: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    While undoubtedly big – it runs to 940 pages – its beauty is what the US House of Representatives has been debating fiercely for 24 hours or more, after it passed the Senate with the help of a casting vote from US president J.D. Vance when three Republican senators voted against it.

    Dafydd Townley from the University of Portsmouth, who writes regularly for The Conversation about US politics, has written this incisive analysis of the politics around the legislation which appears set to continue for some time to come.



    Read more:
    Trump wins again as ‘big beautiful bill’ passes the Senate. What are the lessons for the Democrats?

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. Hope for a ceasefire in Gaza (but not much) – https://theconversation.com/hope-for-a-ceasefire-in-gaza-but-not-much-260460

    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: A brief history of the slogan T-shirt

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Liv Auckland, Lecturer in Fashion Communication and Creative Direction and Curation for Fashion, Nottingham Trent University

    You probably have a drawer full of T-shirts. They’re comfy, easy to style, cheap and ubiquitous. But the T-shirt is anything but basic. For 70 years, they’ve been worn as a tool for self-expression, rebellion and protest. And in 2025, the slogan T-shirt is as powerful as it has ever been.

    Previously worn as an undergarment, the T-shirt became outerwear after the second world war. Snugly dressed on the bodies of physically fit young men, it came to signify heroism, youth and virility.

    The T-shirt was adopted by sub-cultural groups such as bikers and custom car fanatics. And it was popularised by Hollywood stars, including Marlon Brando and James Dean. By the mid-1950s, it had become a symbol of rebellion and cool.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    From the 1960s onwards, slogan T-shirts gained momentum in America and Britain, and women began wearing them as the fashions became more casual. In the postmodern era, language became less about function and more about individualistic expression and exploration. This playful approach to words, combined with an emphasis on design and social commentary, made the T-shirt an ideal canvas for the championing of individual thought.

    Anti-war messaging dominated slogans in the US during the Vietnam war and amid the increasing threat of nuclear war. Perhaps the most recognised slogan featured the artwork from John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s famous 1969 “War is Over” campaign, a T-shirt which is still being replicated today. Messages of peace on clothing, whether featuring words or symbols, have stayed in our collective wardrobe ever since, from high fashion to high street.

    In the 1970s, the New York Times called T-shirts the “the medium of the message”, and the message itself was becoming ever more subversive. Slogan tees sought to provoke, whether through humour or controversy.

    Punks were especially good at it. They constructed what subculture theorist Dick Hebdige called a “guttersnipe rhetoric” in his 1979 study Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Designers Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren paved the way for a DIY approach where slogans were often scrawled, expressive and upended social codes.

    The slogan shirt in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights

    Manufacturing and printing advancements in the postmodern era also meant that more designs could be printed en masse – a development used by the LGBTQ+ community and its allies.

    Some of the most memorable slogan T-shirts in history were created in response to the Aids epidemic in the 1980s. The most poignant simply read “Silence = Death”. Originally a poster, the design was printed on T-shirts by the Aids Coalition to Unleash Power (known as “Act Up”) for protesters to wear.

    Those affected by Aids were demonised and largely ignored, so the queer community was reliant on activism to incite action from government and their fellow citizens.

    In After Silence: A History of Aids through Its Images (2018), author Avram Finkelstein describes the grassroots activism of the time as an “act of call and response, a request for participation” for the lives at stake. In a pre-internet world, T-shirts provided a platform to make the fight visible.

    The 80s also saw slogan T-shirts enter pop cultural spaces as well as political ones, most notably with designs from Katharine Hamnett. Known for their oversized fit, their politically charged messages adorned the torsos of celebrities including George Michael and Debbie Harry. In 1984, Hamnett made fashion history when she met then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher while wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with “58% Don’t Want Pershing”, referencing her anti-nuclear sentiment.

    That same year, Hamnett’s “Choose Life” design gained icon status when it was worn in a music video by Wham!. Originally a reference to the central teachings of Buddhism, “Choose Life” took on complex meaning when read in the context of the Aids epidemic, Thatcherism and economic instability.

    The Choose Life shirt featured in Wham!‘s video for Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go.

    The slogan was later used in the opening monologue of the cult film Trainspotting (1996), which is set in an impoverished and drug-fuelled Edinburgh. The design has been reworked countless times, including by Hamnett herself for the refugee charity Choose Love.

    In author Stephanie Talbot’s 2013 book Slogan T-shirts: Cult and Culture, she explains that slogan tees can move through time to achieve iconic status. While the Choose Life tee has transcended time and generations, it also shows how the intended message of a slogan can change depending on the wearer and the observer, and the environment within which it’s worn.

    Today, to Hamnett’s consternation, Choose Life has been co-opted by pro-life campaigners, not only taking on a different meaning but flipping across the political spectrum.

    Who gets to wear a slogan shirt?

    When we wear a slogan T-shirt, we are transferring our internal self to an external, public self, creating an extension of ourselves that invites others to perceive us. This creates opportunities for conflict as well as connection and community, putting our bodies (particularly those that are marginalised) at risk.

    In 2023 for example, numerous peaceful protesters were arrested for wearing Just Stop Oil T-shirts, highlighting how unsafe – and potentially unlawful – it can be to wear a slogan T-shirt.

    Actor Pedro Pascal wears the ‘Protect the Dolls’ shirt by Connor Ives.
    Fred Duval/Shutterstock

    However, the LGBTQ+ community is continuing to seize the power of the slogan T-shirt – not in spite of law changes, but because of them.

    Designer Connor Ives closed his 2025 London Fashion Week show wearing a T-shirt that read “Protect the Dolls”, during a time of increasing politicisation of trans lives and gender healthcare. The term “dolls” is one of endearment in queer spaces that refers to those who identify as feminine, including trans women.

    After receiving a “groundswell” of support, the T-shirt went into production to raise money for American charity Trans Lifeline. Numerous celebrities have since worn the design, including actor Pedro Pascal and musician Troye Sivan, to show their support in the face of multiple law changes.

    In a world that increasingly feels like it’s in turmoil, for many, the humble T-shirt still feels like a space where we can express how we truly feel.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Liv Auckland 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 brief history of the slogan T-shirt – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-the-slogan-t-shirt-258766

    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: More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let’s stop it from being loved to death

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Darla Hatton MacDonald, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Tasmania

    VCG via Getty Images

    The number of tourists heading to Antarctica has been skyrocketing. From fewer than 8,000 a year about three decades ago, nearly 125,000 tourists flocked to the icy continent in 2023–24. The trend is likely to continue in the long term.

    Unchecked tourism growth in Antarctica risks undermining the very environment that draws visitors. This would be bad for operators and tourists. It would also be bad for Antarctica – and the planet.

    Over the past two weeks, the nations that decide what human activities are permitted in Antarctica have convened in Italy. The meeting incorporates discussions by a special working group that aims to address tourism issues.

    It’s not easy to manage tourist visitors to a continent beyond any one country’s control. So, how do we stop Antarctica being loved to death? The answer may lie in economics.

    Future visitor trends

    We recently modelled future visitor trends in Antarctica. A conservative scenario shows by 2033–34, visitor numbers could reach around 285,000. Under the least conservative scenario, numbers could reach 450,000 – however, this figure incorporates pent-up demand from COVID shutdowns that will likely diminish.

    The vast majority of the Antarctic tourism industry comprises cruise-ship tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula. A small percentage of visitors travel to the Ross Sea region and parts of the continent’s interior.

    Antarctic tourism is managed by an international set of agreements together known as the Antarctic Treaty System, as well as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO).

    The Treaty System is notoriously slow-moving and riven by geopolitics, and IAATO does not have the power to cap visitor numbers.

    Pressure on a fragile continent

    About two-thirds of Antarctic tourists land on the continent. The visitors can threaten fragile ecosystems by:

    • compacting soils
    • trampling fragile vegetation
    • introducing non-native microbes and plant species
    • disturbing breeding colonies of birds and seals.

    Even when cruise ships don’t dock, they can cause problems such as air, water and noise pollution – as well as anchoring that can damage the seabed.

    Then there’s carbon emissions. Each cruise ship traveller to Antarctica typically produces between 3.2 and 4.1 tonnes of carbon, not including travel to the port of departure. This is similar to the carbon emissions an average person produces in a year.

    Global warming caused by carbon emissions is damaging Antarctica. At the Peninsula region, glaciers and ice shelves are retreating and sea ice is shrinking, affecting wildlife and vegetation.

    Of course, Antarctic tourism represents only a tiny fraction of overall emissions. However, the industry has a moral obligation to protect the place that maintains it. And tourism in Antarctica can compound damage from climate change, tipping delicate ecosystems into decline.

    Some operators use hybrid ships and less polluting fuels, and offset emissions to offer carbon-neutral travel.

    IAATO has pledged to halve emissions by 2050 – a positive step, but far short of the net-zero targets set by the International Maritime Organization.

    Can economics protect Antarctica?

    Market-based tools – such as taxes, cap-and-trade schemes and certification – have been used in environmental management around the world. Research shows these tools could also prevent Antarctic tourist numbers from getting out of control.

    One option is requiring visitors to pay a tourism tax. This would help raise revenue to support environmental monitoring and enforcement in Antarctica, as well as fund research.

    Such a tax already exists in the small South Asian nation of Bhutan, where each tourist pays a tax of US$100 (A$152) a night. But while a tax might deter the budget-conscious, it probably wouldn’t deter high income, experience-driven tourists.

    Alternatively, a cap-and-trade system would create a limited number of Antarctica visitor permits for a fixed period. The initial distribution of permits could be among tourism operators or countries, via negotiation, auction or lottery. Unused permits could then be sold, making them quite valuable.

    Caps have been successful at managing tourism impacts elsewhere, such as Lord Howe Island, although there are no trades allowed in that system.

    Any cap on tourist numbers in Antarctica, and rules for trading, must be based on evidence about what the environment can handle. But there is a lack of precise data on Antarctica’s carrying capacity. And permit allocations amongst the operators and nations would need to be fair and inclusive.

    Alternatively, existing industry standards could be augmented with independent schemes certifying particular practices – for example, reducing carbon footprints. This could be backed by robust monitoring and enforcement to avoid greenwashing.

    Looking ahead

    Given the complexities of Antarctic governance, our research finds that the most workable solution is a combination of these market-based options, alongside other regulatory measures.

    So far, parties to the Antarctic treaty have made very few binding rules for the tourism industry. And some market-based levers will be more acceptable to the parties than others. But doing nothing is not a solution.

    The authors would like to acknowledge Valeria Senigaglia, Natalie Stoeckl and Jing Tian and the rest of the team for their contributions to the research upon which this article was based.

    Darla Hatton MacDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Forest and Wood Innovations Centre, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the Soils CRC. She has received in-kind support from Antarctic tour operator HX.

    Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, and DFAT. She also receives in-kind support and occasional funding from Antarctic tourism operator HX and in-kind support from other tour operators.

    – ref. More and more tourists are flocking to Antarctica. Let’s stop it from being loved to death – https://theconversation.com/more-and-more-tourists-are-flocking-to-antarctica-lets-stop-it-from-being-loved-to-death-258294

    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: How Europe dropped the ball on its own defence and was left fawning over Donald Trump – podcast

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    The language from European leaders was fawning and obsequious. At one point, the head of Nato, Mark Rutte, even called Donald Trump “daddy”. But when the US president left the Nato summit in late June, there was a sigh of relief that he had not made any more angry criticism of the alliance.

    After months of American pressure, Nato members – with the exception of Spain – agreed to increase their spending on defence to 5% of GDP by 2035. Trump called it “very big news”, and even reconfirmed his commitment to Nato’s article 5, which means an attack on one Nato country is an attack on them all.

     How did Europe become so unable to defend itself that it was forced to resort to outright flattery of an American president?

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we report from the recent Siena Conference on the Europe of the Future in Italy about how the EU dropped the ball on its own defence and what its options are now.

     The European Commission, the executive branch of EU government, only appointed its first commissioner for defence in December 2024. There is no EU army, and no consensus as to whether democratic nations could ever allow one to be built.

    But in the period after the second world war, ambitions for a united European defence policy were much grander, as Ana Juncos Garcia, professor of European politics at the University of Bristol in the UK, explains:

    There was this idea to establish a European Defence Community which would pool competencies at the national level in defence to the European level, creating a supranational organisation with its own minister of defence, its own military committee.

    That failed in 1954 when the French national assembly rejected ratification of the treaty and progress on a pan-European defence strategy stalled. Nato, founded in 1949, became the core military alliance organising Europe’s defence, with the US as its main guarantor.

    Ever since, the EU has tried to balance the need for maintaining that transatlantic relationship, and figuring out a way to organise, and procure, its own defence capabilities in a joined up way.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly podcast, which includes interviews with Francesco Grillo, academic fellow in political science at Bocconi University in Italy, and François Lafond, former assistant professor at  Sciences Po University in Paris and former advisor to the Western Balkans on European integration.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Katie Flood and Mend Mariwany. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    Newsclips in this episode from National Defence, NBC News, CNBCtelevision, Forbes Breaking News, CBS News and Critical Past.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

    Ana Juncos Garcia has received UKRI funding for a MSCA Doctoral Network and funding from Horizon Europe, ESRC IAA and WUN. She is also a visiting professor at the College of Europe.

    Francesco Grillo is associated to VISION think tank.

    – ref. How Europe dropped the ball on its own defence and was left fawning over Donald Trump – podcast – https://theconversation.com/how-europe-dropped-the-ball-on-its-own-defence-and-was-left-fawning-over-donald-trump-podcast-260152

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How the myth of ‘Blitz spirit’ defined and divided London after 7/7

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Darren Kelsey, Reader in Media and Collective Psychology, Newcastle University

    The “Blitz spirit” is one of Britain’s most enduring national myths – the stories we tell ourselves about who we were, and who we still believe we are today. Growing up among football fans, I heard constant nostalgic refrains about England and Germany, wartime bravery and national pride.

    Chants about “two world wars and one World Cup” or “ten German bombers in the air” were cultural rituals, flexes of a shared memory that many had never experienced themselves.

    Blitz spirit refers to the resilience, unity and stoic determination of civilians during the German bombing raids (the Blitz) of the second world war. It has reemerged time and again, symbolising a collective pride in facing adversity with courage, humour and a “keep calm and carry on” attitude.

    After the July 7 bombings in 2005, which killed 52 people and injured more than 700, I noticed how quickly the Blitz spirit reappeared. British newspapers reached into the past and pulled the myth forward.

    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 Independent on July 8 said, “London can take it, and it can do so because its stoicism is laced as it always has been with humour.” The Daily Mail evoked images of “London during the Blitz… with everyone dancing through the bombs”.

    Tony Parsons opened his Daily Mirror column with “07/07 war on Britain: We can take it; if these murderous bastards go on for a thousand years, the people of our islands will never be cowed”, alongside an image of St Paul’s Cathedral during the Blitz.

    The spirit of working-class wartime London was, ironically, even applied to bankers and City traders who “kept the economy alive” after the attacks. A July 8 Times article claimed: “A Dunkirk spirit spread through London’s financial districts as Canary Wharf and City workers vowed they would not be deterred.”

    The use of river transport to evacuate workers reinforced the analogy. The Times described how “bankers and lawyers in London’s riverside Canary Wharf complex experienced their own version of the Dunkirk-style evacuations”, assisted by a “flotilla of leisure vessels and little ships”.

    I was fascinated: why this story, and why now? That question became the heart of a book I published in 2015 – one that explored how a myth born in 1940 was reborn in 2005, repurposed for a very different London.

    What I found was that the “Blitz spirit” wasn’t a lie, but it was a myth in the academic sense: a simplified, selective story built from the most comforting parts of the past.

    Wartime Britain was not uniformly united, stoic and proud. There were deep class divides. Looting occurred. Morale was rock-bottom in many cities and communities. Evacuees weren’t always welcomed with open arms. Government censorship and transnational propaganda masked social unrest.

    Understandably, these messy realities were left out of the postwar narrative. But what happens when we bring that myth into the present?

    The myth of the ‘Blitz spirit’

    Londoners did come together after the 7/7 bombings – there were undoubtedly examples of communities and strangers supporting each other and maintaining a sense of resilience that enabled them to continue their lives undeterred.

    But it was not one single unified message. Hate crimes against British Muslim communities in the weeks after the 2005 attacks exposed cracks in the narrative of national unity.

    Some used the Blitz spirit to support Tony Blair and George W. Bush, casting them as Churchillian leaders standing firm against a new fascism in the form of global terrorism. For others, the same figures represented a betrayal of British values.

    They were evoked instead to shame Blair and Bush. The Express made its feelings clear when it said: “It was throw up time when Blair was compared to Churchill by some commentators. What an insult!”

    The Blitz spirit also became a weapon in anti-immigration discourse. Some argued that Britain, unlike in 1940, had become a “soft touch” – compromised by EU human rights laws, welfare handouts and multiculturalism. The underlying message: today’s London could never be as brave or unified as wartime London.

    Writing in The Sun, Richard Littlejohn said: “War office memo. Anyone caught fighting on the beaches will be prosecuted for hate crimes.”

    An article in the Express condemning human rights laws said: “What a good thing these people weren’t running things when Hitler was doing his worst. Would the second world war have been more easily won if we had spent more time talking about freedom of speech than bombing Nazi Germany?”

    Multicultural resilience

    And yet, another narrative emerged – one that saw London’s multicultural identity as a strength, not a weakness. Here, the Blitz spirit wasn’t just a historical relic, but a kind of transcendental force. The city’s soul, it was said, remained resilient – passed down across generations, regardless of race, class or religion. For some, this was proof that Britain had evolved and still held fast to its best values.

    A letter to the Daily Mirror (July 17) invoked the Blitz spirit through a cross-cultural lens: “Colour, creed and cultures forgotten, black helping white and vice versa… We stood firm in the Blitz and we’ll do so again, going about our business as usual.”

    The Sunday Times quoted Michael Portillo, who framed London’s resilience as multicultural continuity: “Fewer than half the names of those killed on the 7th look Anglo-Saxon… Today’s Londoners come in all colours and from every cultural background. Yet they have inherited the city’s historic attitudes of nonchalance, bloody-mindedness and defiance.”

    The Blitz spirit, as my research revealed, is not a single story. It is a narrative tool used for many different – often opposing – purposes. It can bring people together, or be used to divide. It can inspire pride, or be weaponised in fear.

    National myths don’t just reflect who we were – they shape who we think we are. They’re never neutral. They’re always curated, always contested. If we want to be genuinely proud of our country – and we should – then we also have to be honest about the stories we cling to. We must ask: what’s left out, and who decides?

    Darren Kelsey 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. How the myth of ‘Blitz spirit’ defined and divided London after 7/7 – https://theconversation.com/how-the-myth-of-blitz-spirit-defined-and-divided-london-after-7-7-259948

    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: The ‘Mind’ diet is good for cognitive health – here’s what foods you should put on your plate

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aisling Pigott, Lecturer, Dietetics, Cardiff Metropolitan University

    The ‘Mind’ diet is very similar to the Mediterranean diet, but emphasises consuming nutrients that benefit the brain. Svetlana Khutornaia/ Shutterstock

    There’s long been evidence that what we eat can affect our risk of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline as we age. But can any one diet actually keep the brain strong and lower dementia risk? Evidence suggests the so-called “Mind diet” might.

    The Mind diet (which stands for the Mediterranean-Dash intervention for neurocognitive delay) combines the well-established Mediterranean diet with the “Dash” diet (dietary approaches to stop hypertension). However, it also includes some specific dietary modifications based on their benefits to cognitive health.

    Both the Mediterranean diet and Dash diet are based on traditional eating patterns from countries which border the Mediterranean sea.

    Both emphasise eating plenty of plant-based foods (such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds), low-fat dairy products (such as milk and yoghurts) and lean proteins including fish and chicken. Both diets include very little red and processed meats. The Dash diet, however, places greater emphasis on consuming low-sodium foods, less added sugar and fewer saturated and trans-fats to reduce blood pressure.

    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.

    Both diets are well-researched and shown to be effective in preventing lifestyle-related diseases – including cardiovascular disease and hypertension. They’re also shown to help protect the brain’s neurons from damage and benefit cognitive health.

    The Mind diet follows many of the core tenets of both diets but places greater emphasis on consuming more foods that contain nutrients which promote brain health and prevent cognitive decline, including:

    Numerous studies have been conducted on the Mind diet, and the evidence for this dietary approach’s brain health benefit is pretty convincing.

    For instance, one study asked 906 older adults about their usual diet — giving them a “Mind score” based on the number of foods and nutrients they regularly consumed that are linked with lower dementia risk. The researchers found a link between people who had a higher Mind diet score and slower cognitive decline when followed up almost five years later.

    Another study of 581 participants found that people who had closely followed either the Mind diet or the Mediterranean diet for at least a decade had fewer signs of amyloid plaques in their brain when examined post-mortem. Amyloid plaques are a key hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. Higher intake of leafy greens appeared to the most important dietary component.

    A systematic review of 13 studies on the Mind diet has also found a positive association between adherence to the Mind diet and cognitive performance and function in older people. One paper included in the review even demonstrated a 53% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk in those that adhered to the diet.

    The Mind diet encourages eating berries, which contain a plant compound thought to be beneficial for the brain.
    etorres/ Shutterstock

    It’s important to note that most of this research is based on observational studies and food frequency questionnaires, which have their limitations in research due to reliabiltiy and participant bias. Only one randomised control trial was included in the review. It found that women who were randomly assigned to follow the Mind diet over a control diet for a short period of time showed a slight improvement in memory and attention.

    Research in this field is ongoing, so hopefully we’ll soon have a better understanding of the diet’s benefits – and know exactly why it’s so beneficial.

    Mind your diet

    UK public health guidance recommends people follow a balanced diet to maintain good overall health. But the Mind diet offers a more targeted approach for those hoping to look after their cognitive health.

    While public health guidance encourages people to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables daily, the Mind diet would recommend choosing leafy green vegetables (such as spinach and kale) and berries for their cognitive benefits.

    Similarly, while UK guidance says to choose unsaturated fats over saturated ones, the Mind diet explicitly recommends that these fats come from olive oil. This is due to the potential neuroprotective effects of the fats found in olive oil.

    If you want to protect your cognitive function as you age, here are some other small, simple swaps you can make each day to more closely follow the Mind diet:

    • upgrade your meals by sprinkling nuts and seeds on cereals, salads or yoghurts to increase fibre and healthy fats
    • eat the rainbow of fruit and vegetables, aiming to fill half your plate with these foods
    • canned and frozen foods are just as nutrient-rich as fresh fruits and vegetables
    • bake or airfry vegetables and meats instead of frying to reduce fat intake
    • opt for poly-unsaturated fats and oils in salads and dressings – such as olive oil
    • bulk out meat or meat alternatives with pulses, legumes chickpeas or beans. These can easily be added into dishes such as spaghetti bolognese, chilli, shepherd’s pie or curry
    • use tinned salmon, mackerel or sardines in salads or as protein sources for meal planning.

    These small changes can have a meaningful impact on your overall health – including your brain’s health. With growing evidence linking diet to cognitive function, even little changes to your eating habits may help protect your mind as you age.

    Aisling Pigott receives funding from Health and Care Research Wales

    Sophie Davies 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 ‘Mind’ diet is good for cognitive health – here’s what foods you should put on your plate – https://theconversation.com/the-mind-diet-is-good-for-cognitive-health-heres-what-foods-you-should-put-on-your-plate-259106

    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: Mr. Nobody Against Putin gives an insight into the propaganda in Russian schools

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colin Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University

    A remarkable documentary is providing insight into the propaganda found within Russian schools. Mr. Nobody Against Putin, directed by David Borenstein, premiered at the 2025 Sundance film festival in January, where it won the world cinema documentary special jury award.

    The film was recorded over two years by Pavel “Pasha” Talankin, an events coordinator and videographer at a high school in Karabash, a heavily polluted town in central southern Russia. The documentary records the intensification of Kremlin-directed ultra-nationalist and pro-war propaganda within the Russian schooling system, which has intensified since the escalation of the war against Ukraine in February 2022.

    Talankin makes clear his view that this approach to “education” represents a moral wrong, and he is very much on point with the writings of the key ethicists on the subject. American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, wrote that “education is both a tool of propaganda in the hands of dominant groups, and a means of emancipation for subject classes”.

    Niebuhr was writing about the education system in the US during the 1920s, when there was a widespread understanding that education was used in these two ways. Talankin’s concern is that Russia has moved to a position of imbalance, where the “dominant groups” have too much influence and are using their power to corrupt the minds of children through disingenuous narratives about national servitude, sacrifice and conformity, coupled with the unsubtle threat that those who are not patriots are “parasites”.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    In their highly respected book Propaganda & Persuasion (1986), propaganda experts Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell state that “to analyse propaganda, one needs to be able to identify it”. This is a difficult task because propaganda thrives through symbols, the subliminal and in fictional works precisely because the audience is not conscious of it.

    However, the creation of an environment that uses propaganda is also dependent upon who is given the oxygen of publicity and who is marginalised. These are the conditions under which ideological indoctrination occurs and power is achieved or maintained.

    As such, a critical analyst of propaganda must assess the linguistic strategy, the information strategy, the eminence strategy (how to ensure that the target audience are watching, reading or listening to the desired content) and the staging strategy of the communicator. This can be remembered through the helpful L.I.E.S. mnemonic.

    The trailer for Mr. Nobody versus Putin.

    Talankin’s footage shows how Russian schools now promote distorted versions of European history. The well-trodden narrative that Ukraine has been taken over by neo-Nazis is referred to several times in lessons. Russian flags appear with greater frequency around the school as time goes on, and assembly time becomes an exercise in pledging allegiance to the fatherland.

    Teachers are expected to read from scripts prepared for them by the ministry of education. Pupils then respond with choreographed answers – some even glancing down at notes under their desks. The children are told about how dreadful life in France and the UK is because of their reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

    Interestingly, the Kremlin has asked that all of this be videoed and uploaded to a central database to ensure compliance with national regulations on what is taught in schools. Indeed, Talankin complains at one point that much of his time is now spent uploading the videos rather than actually teaching the students and helping them to be creative – as his job previously was.

    Shared humanity

    Talankin takes us on a tour of his city. He shows a pro-war rally that is broadly supported by the townsfolk. Or at least those in opposition dare not say anything or engage in an equivalent demonstration. He takes us to the civic library, theoretically a site of independent learning but which has been hijacked by these propaganda efforts.

    Perhaps the most important moments of the documentary though are the snippets of critique and the sense of “knowing” that Talankin is keen to show. The young girl who jokingly tells her teacher to “blink twice if you’re lying”, and to which all her class then laugh. His interactions with other teachers who confide in him that they know that the propaganda is bullshit, but, worried for their status and prosperity, go along with it.

    The propaganda is pretty poor though. It is clunky and obvious, and, while it might generate some short-term influence, it smacks of both arrogance and desperation on the part of the Kremlin. Indeed, it shows that there is no desire on the part of central government for Russian people to thrive intellectually.

    This scenario is reminiscent of the end of the Soviet era, when communist propaganda continued to prevail, but few still believed it. Nevertheless, without a clear alternative to follow, or obvious alternative leader to guide them, most people continued to abide.

    The most harrowing part of the documentary comes towards the end when Talankin provides an audio recording of the funeral of a local lad who has been killed in Ukraine. He did not dare film the funeral as this is a cultural faux pas, but the screams and wails of the mother as her son is laid to rest are piercing. The scene seems intended to bring our shared humanity to bare.

    Talankin is a nice guy with intelligence and ethical fortitude. The kids are funny, charming and talented. The mother is doing what we would all do if we had lost a child to a violent death. As such, Mr. Nobody Against Putin might better be called Mr. Everybody Against Putin, as it should be of grave concern to everyone that Russia’s education system is resorting to such techniques.

    Colin Alexander 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. Mr. Nobody Against Putin gives an insight into the propaganda in Russian schools – https://theconversation.com/mr-nobody-against-putin-gives-an-insight-into-the-propaganda-in-russian-schools-260162

    MIL OSI –

  • 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 –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: 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 –