NewzIntel.com

Category: Reportage

  • MIL-OSI Global: A basic income support grant can address extreme poverty and inequality in South Africa – economic model shows how

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Carolyn Chisadza, Associate professor, University of Pretoria

    South Africa remains one of the most unequal countries in the world. The country’s per-capita expenditure Gini coefficient, a measure of how spending from income is distributed, stands at 0.65. This puts it among countries with the most unequal distribution of spending globally.

    Nearly 55% of the population were living in poverty in 2023. The country also has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world: 33.5% in the second quarter of 2024. To compound these issues, economic growth has stagnated since 2008.

    Ending extreme poverty, unemployment and inequality requires economic growth that includes more people. To get that result, there must be a set of interventions that work together. One intervention being considered in South Africa is basic income support to relieve poverty among unemployed citizens.

    Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, basic income support had been on the policy agenda in South Africa for at least two decades, since the Taylor Committee in 2001. The pandemic made existing inequalities worse through job losses. A “social relief of distress” grant was introduced in 2020 to support the unemployed.

    The grant targeted those affected by sudden income loss, including unemployed working-age individuals who did not qualify for other grants. The introduction of the grant renewed interest in the concept of a universal basic income, or a more comprehensive form of income support. It highlighted the welfare potential for a more permanent basic income support system.

    Very few cases of universal basic income support pilots exist in developing countries. Where they do exist, studies point to the vital benefits a basic income grant system might provide. Examples include evidence from a pilot in Namibia, nine villages in India, and rural Kenya.

    In a recently published paper, a team of economists explored the possible effects of introducing permanent basic income support to:

    • all individuals aged between 18 and 59

    • only those who are unemployed

    • only unemployed individuals in extremely poor households, defined by the food poverty line.

    The economic modelling exercise demonstrates that a basic income grant targeting all individuals aged between 18 and 59 could significantly reduce poverty and inequality. These gains would, however, require carefully targeted and implemented interventions over a multi-year period.

    Our approach

    The study identifies which socio-economic groups would benefit the most from the grant, and sheds light on the impact of basic income support on the welfare and livelihoods of individuals and their households. We used market income or pre-transfer income as the starting point to see how public spending changed poverty or income inequality.

    We used data from the 2017 Quarterly Labour Force Survey, a measure of employment and unemployment based on the country’s working population. Using the three scenarios, we calculated the likely effects.

    The first scenario was based on the universal grant being paid to all those aged 18 to 59. In the second, only those aged 18-59 who were unemployed received it. Lastly, only those who lived in extremely poor households and were unemployed in 2017 were included.

    Some form of support exists for children under 18 (child grant) and for adults aged 60 and over (pension). That’s why we allocated the grant only for adults from 18 to 59.

    In all the scenarios, the income support transfer is assumed to be R595 (US$38) per individual per month in 2021, equivalent to what it cost to provide a basic basket of food (that is, the food poverty line). We use R595 as it closely aligns with the COVID social relief of distress grant extension and reflects the grant amount for the 2021/22 financial year.

    Main findings

    The main findings show that in general, a basic income support grant has the potential to reduce poverty and inequality in South Africa. However, the effect varies based on the targeting mechanism used to identify beneficiaries. Absolute poverty, its gap (the ratio by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) and income inequality fall the most when the transfer is universal or targets the unemployed and the extreme poor.

    In the first scenario (support for all individuals aged 18 to 59) and the third scenario (the unemployed and extremely poor), both poverty headcount (the percentage of the population living below the national poverty line) and the poverty gap (the ratio by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) decrease more than in the second scenario (targeting only the unemployed). The income inequality reduction is also larger in the first and third scenarios compared to the second scenario.

    Significance of findings

    The significance of these findings is that better targeting makes basic income support more pro-poor and progressive, and reduces the leakage of the benefit to the non-poor.

    In countries such as South Africa, where poverty and inequality are extensive and public resources are limited, the case for targeting is attractive. But it’s important to recognise that effective targeting entails higher administrative costs. Conversely, while a universal basic income grant may be more expensive in terms of total disbursement, it has the greatest potential to reduce poverty and overall inequality.

    The government can make the best use of its resources by focusing on vulnerable populations, such as those who are extremely poor and unemployed.

    Finding the right criteria to identify the poor, and running the grant properly, largely determines the programme’s success in improving welfare.

    Concluding remarks

    South Africa is currently saddled with high poverty and inequality. Our study brings the debate on the potential welfare benefits of expanding existing social grants back to the forefront of social policy.

    Eleni Abraham Yitbarek is affiliated with Partnership for Economic Policy (Research Fellow)

    Carolyn Chisadza, Kehinde Oluwaseun Omotoso, Margaret Chitiga-Mabugu, Nicky Nicholls, and Ramos Emmanuel Mabugu 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. A basic income support grant can address extreme poverty and inequality in South Africa – economic model shows how – https://theconversation.com/a-basic-income-support-grant-can-address-extreme-poverty-and-inequality-in-south-africa-economic-model-shows-how-247954

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

    Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators all over the world have pointed out the parallels.

    In both countries, centre-left governments looked like they were in serious trouble not long ago.

    On February 23, a Resolve Strategic poll found the Coalition leading Labor 55-45% on a two-party-preferred basis. An Angus Reid poll in December found voting intention for Canada’s Liberals dropping to just 16%, compared to 45% for the Conservatives.

    Yet, both governments are now celebrating historic victories. And in both countries, the conservative opposition leaders, Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, lost their own seats.

    US President Donald Trump was undoubtedly a factor in both elections. Even Trump’s most ardent Australian fans admit the reversal of the Coalition’s fortunes in the polls seems to have been precipitated by Trump’s actions, particularly his chaotic tariff announcements and his White House humiliation of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

    In Canada, Trump cheerfully presented himself as an existential threat to the country.

    But if anything, Labor’s landslide win in the Australian election on Saturday highlights just how poorly the Coalition fared under Dutton compared to Canada’s Conservatives. The Coalition bottomed out, while the Tories fared reasonably well in the face of difficult circumstances.

    A painful but respectable loss for Conservatives in Canada

    So, why the huge difference between the two parties? This is largely because of the differences between the Canadian and Australian electoral systems.

    Unlike Australia, Canada does not have preferential voting – a vote for one party is a vote against another. The Liberals’ rise in the polls came mostly at the expense of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) rather than the Conservatives.

    Back in December, 21% of voters preferred the NDP, compared to 16% for Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular Liberals. But when Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney became the party’s new leader, the threat posed by Trump unified centre-left Canadian voters behind the Liberals, who had the best chance of winning.

    This is the strategic voting that is necessary in winner-take-all systems. The NDP has never won the largest share of seats in a national election, and it never had a chance of winning this one.

    The NDP was left with seven seats in last week’s election and under 7% of the vote, losing their party status in parliament and their leader. This was the most significant “Trump effect” on the Canadian election.

    Canada’s Conservatives ended up with 41.3% of the vote. This was only a few points down from their December high of 45% in the Angus Reid poll. They also won the greatest share of the national vote by any centre-right party since 1988, and expanded their share of seats in the parliament.

    The Liberals, meanwhile, barely won the popular vote and fell three seats short of a majority.

    Poilievre was rightly criticised for failing to respond effectively to the challenge posed by Trump’s bullying, instead continuing to campaign as if the election were still a referendum on Trudeau.

    That may have cost him a victory that seemed certain months earlier, especially considering Carney made his campaign all about standing up to Trump.

    Yet, the Conservatives still performed well enough for Poilievre to retain his position as opposition leader despite losing his seat. Another Conservative sacrificed his own seat to let Poilievre back into parliament.

    Dutton’s mistakes were bigger

    It’s hard to imagine any member of Dutton’s party doing the same. Dutton handed Labor a staggeringly high two-party-preferred vote and (likely) the most seats it has ever had. Labor won 86 seats in 1987, while Anthony Albanese’s party will have at least 86, with the count continuing.

    Dutton’s campaign has been widely described as “shambolic”. But it wasn’t just the last five weeks that doomed the Coalition.

    From the moment he became leader, it was clear Dutton had little interest in winning back the former Liberal heartland seats that fell to Teal independents in 2022. Instead, he held out the promise the outer suburbs would become the new heartland.

    Following the patterns established by John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, he believed the loss of middle-class women, once the backbone of the Liberal vote, could be compensated by gains among working-class men.

    This was always a pipe dream, given the flimsiness of the culture war issues that have been Dutton’s preferred terrain. But it drove urban voters further away from the Liberal Party.

    The Liberals should have been alarmed that in state elections and byelections last year, they were making almost no gains in metropolitan seats, whether inner suburban or outer suburban.

    The Coalition should resist seeing Trump as a natural disaster over which they had no control. Dutton consciously positioned himself as part of the global populist right that Trump leads. Voters recognised this, even when Dutton half-heartedly tried to distance himself from Trump.

    Not all right-wing populists are the same. Poilievre and Dutton have their own brands of populism they have spent decades cultivating, as have other right-wing populists like Javier Milei in Argentina. But in the suffocating global environment created by Trump, there is limited room for brand differentiation. He is the unavoidable reference point of right-wing politics.

    Last November, many right-wing figures thought this would benefit them. One of them is now a spectacular political casualty.

    David 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. Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton – https://theconversation.com/blaming-donald-trump-for-conservative-losses-in-both-canada-and-australia-is-being-too-kind-to-peter-dutton-255599

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Wildfire smoke and extreme heat can occur together: Preparing for the combined health effects of a hot, smoky future

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Stephanie Cleland, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University

    In recent years, Canadians have been subjected to both severe wildfire smoke and extreme heat events, as evidenced by the record-breaking 2023 wildfire season and the 2021 heat dome. Western Canada in particular has a long history of wildfires and heat waves, and with climate change, communities have experienced an increasing number of days per year affected by wildfire smoke or extreme temperatures.

    It’s well understood that exposure to either wildfire smoke or extreme heat poses a significant threat to health. For example, there is substantial evidence linking wildfire smoke to an increased risk of hospitalizations for lung or heart complications, with emerging evidence that exposure may also affect birth outcomes and cognitive function. Similarly, we know that extreme heat can increase the risk of illness or death from conditions related to our lungs, hearts and brains.

    However, most available research has focused on the effects of these climate hazards in isolation, without considering what the health risks might be when wildfire smoke and extreme heat happen at the same time. We live in a complex world where we’re rarely exposed to one hazard at a time, and wildfire season overlaps with the warmest months of the year, making it essential to consider the potential risks of concurrent exposure to heat and smoke.

    While only a handful of studies have explored the effects of co-occurring wildfire smoke and extreme heat events, early evidence indicates that simultaneous exposure may actually amplify the adverse health effects, leading to worse respiratory, cardiovascular and birth outcomes than either exposure on their own.

    This emerging evidence of amplified effects, paired with expected increases in Canadians’ exposure to both wildfire smoke and extreme heat, prompted me and my colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control to explore how often, and where, these climate hazards are co-occurring in Canada. In doing so, we aimed to identify priority communities to guide public health communication and adaptation planning in the face of hotter and smokier summers.

    When wildfire smoke and extreme heat co-occur

    To understand how often communities are simultaneously exposed to wildfire smoke and extreme heat, we analyzed 13 years of temperature and air pollution data across British Columbia. We calculated the number of days affected by both wildfire smoke and extreme heat in each dissemination area (small, government-defined geographic regions that have an average population of 400-700 people). We also assessed if the frequency and intensity of these simultaneous climate hazards has changed over time.

    The number of days with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat between 2010-2022. The number of days are calculated for each community (dissemination area) in British Columbia.
    (Cleland et al., 2025), CC BY-NC-ND

    We found that wildfire smoke and extreme heat frequently co-occur in British Columbia, with all communities experiencing at least seven, and upwards of 65, days with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat between 2010 to 2022.

    We also identified that the frequency and intensity of these events has escalated over time, with 42.5 per cent of communities (approximately 1.9 million people) experiencing significant increases in their exposure. For example, between 2018 to 2022, communities on average experienced 4.5 days per year with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat, compared with only one day per year between 2010 to 2014.

    Trends in the number of days with simultaneous exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat between 2010-2022. The left figure illustrates which communities (dissemination areas) experienced significant increases in their exposure, and the right figure illustrates the number of days with simultaneous exposure during each year of the study period.
    (Cleland et al., 2025), CC BY-NC-ND

    We also found that communities across the province were not equally affected by these co-occurring wildfire smoke and extreme heat events. Those in the northeastern and south-central regions of British Columbia tended to experience more frequent and intense exposure.

    When we dug a bit more into the characteristics of these highly exposed communities, we found that they were primarily located in rural and remote regions of the province, often with lower socioeconomic status and a higher proportion of susceptible populations, such as older adults.

    These types of communities tend to have lower resilience and adaptability to climate hazards, with reduced access to the resources necessary to follow public health guidance and reduce their exposure to wildfire smoke and extreme heat.

    Preparing for hotter and smokier summers

    Our findings, together with evidence of amplified health risks, make it clear that Canada needs to prepare for hotter and smokier summers. There is also a clear need to increase the resilience and adaptive capacity of rural and remote communities in certain regions of British Columbia.

    To do so, we need to invest in strategies that account for the unique ways in which a community experiences wildfire smoke and extreme heat as well as their specific needs and susceptibilities.

    While Health Canada and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control provide guidance on actions to take when exposed to wildfire smoke and extreme heat together, a recent review of public health guidance on simultaneous exposure to smoke and heat found that the current messaging is often incomplete and inconsistent. This unclear messaging can make it difficult for communities to adequately plan and prepare for these recurrent and intense climate hazards.

    Additionally, a lot of the strategies that cities currently rely on to reduce exposure to smoke or heat do not account for the complex world of multiple hazards. For example, cities often open cooling centres during periods of extreme heat to provide access to air conditioning, but these centres don’t always have air filtration.

    Similarly, cities often designate cleaner air spaces during periods of wildfire smoke to provide access to clean indoor air, but these spaces don’t always have air conditioning.

    Moving forward, Canada needs to invest in co-ordinated public health guidance and adaptation strategies that serve multiple purposes and account for the numerous climate hazards that communities face each year. In doing so, we can better protect the health and well-being of the communities that are experiencing increasingly frequent and intense wildfire smoke and extreme heat events.

    Stephanie Cleland receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

    – ref. Wildfire smoke and extreme heat can occur together: Preparing for the combined health effects of a hot, smoky future – https://theconversation.com/wildfire-smoke-and-extreme-heat-can-occur-together-preparing-for-the-combined-health-effects-of-a-hot-smoky-future-252245

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Lady Gaga acts as a custodian of hope

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By M. Tina Dacin, Stephen J.R. Smith Chaired Professor of Strategy & Organizational Behaviour, Queen’s University, Ontario

    In an age of cynicism and despair, Lady Gaga’s recent Coachella performance “The Art of Personal Chaos” brings audiences hope.

    Over two weekends, audiences were treated to a visually lavish set, flawless choreography and strong vocals. Gaga’s performance in five acts — staged for fans as an opera house set in the Indio, California desert — was a self-reflexive event exploring many influences upon the singer.

    Gaga’s performance paid homage to past greats such as Michael Jackson and Prince as well as her different past selves. From donning armour and crutches from her “Paparazzi” persona to her Fame-era look, Gaga showed that where she is today follows and emerges from every iteration of her artistic identity over the years.

    The evocation and embodiment of her different selves suggested not only a journey of mixed emotions and struggles regarding fame, but her negotiation and resolution of these struggles as pathways into a promising future.

    In a recent interview, Gaga highlights that for her, despite emotional struggles and pain, reflexiveness, acceptance and forward thinking can yield eventual peace and happiness.

    For me as scholar who researches organizations, Gaga’s performance is an allegory of the need for stewarding change and transition in today’s world.

    Allegory of the need to steward change

    In my work with organizational scholars Peter Dacin and Derin Kent, we suggest that people involved in stewarding change and transition in organizations are “custodians” — people with a vested interest in protecting traditions, while also re-imagining and renewing them over time.

    Lady Gaga, ‘Vanish Into You,’ Coachella 2025 Livestream Feed.

    As our work argues, custodians are agents of maintaining the best aspects of cultural continuity, as well as change. Such custodians in workplaces or social organizations facing disruption take valued remnants from the past and curate them to be accessible and relevant for the future.

    Gaga’s performance reminds us how artists may be understood to serve this role for society at large. This leads us to view Gaga as an architect of future possibility, a “custodian of hope.”

    Cultivating expectations, visions

    Custodians of hope are deliberately prospective — meaning, they cultivate expectations and concrete visions for the future.

    They craft futures that are worth preserving. They do this by translating current and past practices through renewal and reinvention and by keeping things continually refreshed. Gaga did this by reimagining her past hits during her performance and by injecting them with a new and renewed sense of energy and style.

    As writer Coleman Spilde’s brilliant review in Salon noted, Gaga’s performance reminds us that in a world where it is easy to feel defeated, “beauty is not lost; its just harder to find.”

    Throughout several of the numbers performed during her Coachella set, Gaga showed that existing in the present is not so simple. Battles are fought and choices must be made. By embodying resilience, Gaga gives us hope and inspiration that in a world full of volatility and despair, small acts of resistance and emotional contagion can craft and re-craft the future.

    The past is a resource for renewal

    According to recent research by organizational studies scholars Matthias Wenzel, Hannes Krämer, Jochen Koch and Andreas Reckwitz, people can work to make alternative futures that are not strictly bound to the past but still align with their values. We shouldn’t just passively allow the future to unfold: we need to be intentional about crafting truly desirable futures, as suggested by organizational scholars Ali Aslan Gümüsay and Juliane Reinecke.

    As my research with entrepreneurship scholar Nico Klenner examines, custodians of hope care for the past while projecting the past into futures they and others desire.

    Yet Gaga goes beyond merely preserving tradition. As a custodian, Gaga curates the past, showing us that tradition is not simply the weight or remnant of the past. Bits of the past are reworked and recrafted as she selectively incorporates past styles of Prince and Michael Jackson into her performance as well as nods to fashion moments of her varied personas.

    As expressed by a fan on Tik Tok, dance moves choreographed during “Shadow of a Man” are reminiscent of Michael Jackson. The past becomes a valuable resource for renewal and re-invention moving us towards what might be.

    Evoke emotion to enlist others

    However, invoking the past is not enough. To realize change, custodians need to evoke emotion to enlist others. As sociologist Ann Mische suggests, hope is ultimately an emotion of possibility.

    As a custodian of hope, Gaga takes audiences through an emotionally laden and inclusive journey that reminds us how struggles can be overcome through acts of confrontation, defiance and resilience. For example, during her performance of “Poker Face” performed on a chess board, Gaga confronts a blond figure, an earlier version of her past self.

    Early on in her second performance at Coachella, Gaga experienced a wireless microphone failure and grabbed a connected mic and exclaimed “I’m sorry my mic was broken for a second; At least you know I sing live; And I guess all we can do is our best; I’m definitely giving you my best tonight; I love you so much,” sending the crowd into an uproar.

    The audience experienced a collective sense of resilience or effervescence, in what seemed to be a public celebration of generosity and improvisation above perfection.

    Collective sense of care

    Through interactivity with the audience via the live performance and livestream, fans are drawn in to co-imagine the future not through Lady Gaga but with her. Asking the crowd to raise their “monster paws” signals encouragement and support highlighting the importance of a sense of collective care.

    In addition to evoking emotion, Gaga reminded us of the importance of anchoring her vision for the future in the collective sense of care embedded in the Born This Way Foundation. For example, her #BeKind365 platform has logged millions of acts of kindness since its inception. This shows how value can be generated through structured supports or programs that link positive emotion with specific and concrete acts.

    Gaga curates as well as extends the past through renewal and reinvention to enlist new believers into a plausible path forward. Her performance underscores that hope is not a one-off moment but rather, an ongoing custodial effort of curating and reconciling the past towards a kinder and more authentic future.

    M. Tina Dacin 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 Lady Gaga acts as a custodian of hope – https://theconversation.com/how-lady-gaga-acts-as-a-custodian-of-hope-255209

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Stress, not identity, drives riskier cannabis use among sexually diverse youth, new study finds

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kira London-Nadeau, Postdoctoral Pediatric Research Fellow, Université de Montréal

    Cannabis is undoubtedly a polarizing substance. On one side: a century of restrictive laws made cannabis illegal. This was based on little science. On the other side: a torrent of wellness claims encourage consumers to buy cannabis products. These claims are also based on little science.

    With cannabis discourse evolving so rapidly, informed decisions about its use can be challenging. These questions are important for 20- to 24-year-olds, one in three of whom report using cannabis in the past year.

    Are there risks involved for these cannabis users?

    The good news is that an increasing amount of research is available to guide both individuals and policymakers. Our new study, which examines cannabis use among young adults, contributes to this body of information. We provide insights into what may increase risk, and which young people are more likely to experience this risk.

    What makes cannabis use risky?

    First, using cannabis doesn’t necessarily lead to problems for those who use. In fact, many people experience different benefits from their cannabis use — that’s why they use it in the first place.

    At the same time, about five per cent of people who use cannabis in Canada are at risk for addiction and other harms.

    Why, then, do some people develop these problems while others don’t?

    Cannabis use can look very different from person to person depending on aspects like frequency, reasons for use, social contexts (whether you’re using alone or with others) and quantity. In our recent study, we found that certain characteristics tend to be linked to cannabis use problems.

    These include:

    • Using alone

    • Using multiple times per week

    • Using more than two grams per session

    • Using to cope with negative feelings

    • Using to make activities more pleasurable

    • Using to have new experiences

    Our findings echo other research, especially when it comes to frequency, using to cope and using alone. This highlights how cannabis use problems don’t happen in a vacuum: they’re part of a more complex pattern of use.

    The impact on sexually diverse youth

    To complicate things further, various groups of young people may be more or less at risk of falling into these patterns. Of particular interest are sexually diverse youth (for example, lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer youth), as they are more likely both to use cannabis, and to develop problems linked to their use.

    Our analysis revealed a striking difference: sexually diverse youth were three times more likely than heterosexual youth to have riskier patterns of cannabis use.

    This does not reflect any inherent differences between these groups. Rather, sexually diverse youth also reported higher stress levels, and this is what explained their riskier cannabis use.

    We also explored other explanations.

    For instance, sexually diverse youth also experience more depression and anxiety, and this has been linked to cannabis use. However, even when taking depression and anxiety into consideration — which were higher among sexually diverse youth in our study — stress stood out as the key association with risky cannabis use.

    Recognizing the role of stress in cannabis use disparities among sexually diverse youth is not new.

    In fact, the most prominent reason put forward to explain these disparities is that sexually diverse youth face an additional challenge in their lives identified as “minority stress.” Minority stress refers to the collection of health consequences resulting from marginalization, ranging from outright discrimination to internalizing negative messages about oneself.

    Minority stressors have been linked to cannabis use among sexually diverse youth. However, our study reveals something a bit different. We found that more general sources of stress — like not feeling in control of one’s life or being overwhelmed by unexpected events — were key in predicting riskier use.

    Better mental health support is key

    The bottom line is that sexually diverse youth are facing more challenges and stress than their heterosexual counterparts.

    With growing sociopolitical violence against LGBTQ+ people in the United States and increasing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments in Canada, these disparities are likely to become even more pronounced.

    Marginalization spreads in insidious ways. For sexually diverse youth, this means not only having more stress to cope with, but also fewer adequate, safe mental health resources. Indeed, sexually diverse youth face many barriers when it comes to accessing mental health services.

    What our study underscores then, is that cannabis use can become a key way of coping when stress is high and other options for support are unavailable.

    There are lots of ways that cannabis use can be lower risk: using less often, using with others rather than alone, using less at a time, and having other methods aside from cannabis to cope with negative feelings.

    However, these options must be available to sexually diverse youth. The implication therefore becomes clear: if we want to tackle disparities around cannabis use problems, we must improve mental health support for sexually diverse youth.

    It’s essential we don’t lose sight of the uneven terrain young people are navigating — especially those already facing elevated stress due to social marginalization. Risk isn’t inherent to cannabis, but it emerges in context. Our findings underscore the need for accessible, affirming mental health resources that can offer real alternatives to coping through substance use.

    Kira London-Nadeau receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. She is affiliated with project Voxcann.

    Charlie Rioux received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Quebec Health Research Fund, and Research Manitoba.

    Natalie Castellanos-Ryan receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé.

    – ref. Stress, not identity, drives riskier cannabis use among sexually diverse youth, new study finds – https://theconversation.com/stress-not-identity-drives-riskier-cannabis-use-among-sexually-diverse-youth-new-study-finds-255206

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Donald Trump’s tariffs threaten Canadians’ access to prescription drugs

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joel Lexchin, Professor Emeritus of Health Policy and Management, York University, Canada

    If the United States imposes 25 per cent tariffs on exports from Canada, nearly all economists agree a recession is inevitable. Estimates are that between 600,000 to 2.4 million jobs are at risk.

    Based on previous recessions, the unemployment rate could rise to 10 per cent and stay stuck at that level for some time.

    Adding insult to injury, about 55 per cent of Canadians are covered by employer-sponsored drug plans, which means that when these workers get laid off, they also lose their health benefits, including prescription drug insurance tied to their jobs.

    Affordability of prescription drugs

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Statistics Canada, about one-fifth of the population reported not having insurance to cover prescription medications. This coincided with a soaring unemployment rate that peaked at 13.7 per cent in May 2020. The problem of not having insurance for prescription medications was especially acute among immigrants and racialized people. These are the same groups of people that will be at the highest risk of any recession-linked job losses.

    Unsurprisingly, 23 per cent of those without insurance spent more than $500 out-of-pocket in 2022 on prescription drugs compared to 10 per cent for those with insurance. Canadians in the lowest income quintile spent more money on prescription drugs in absolute terms than those in the highest income quintile ($296 versus $268) in 2009, and it’s unlikely this disparity has significantly changed.

    Already there are estimates that the lack of access to prescription drugs leads to 370 to 640 premature deaths due to ischemic heart disease, 550 to 670 premature deaths from all causes among people 55-64 years of age and avoidable deterioration in health status in 70,000 people age 55 and over.

    When Canadians must choose between buying prescription drugs and paying for food and rent, it’s often no contest; patients skip their medications and suffer the consequences. The result is additional physician visits, more visits to already overcrowded emergency departments and more admissions to hospitals.

    Tariffs and drug prices

    Added to the threat of losing prescription drug coverage with job loss is the very real possibility that drug prices will increase. Thirty-two per cent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients that go into the medicines that North Americans take originate in China. U.S President Donald Trump has now threatened to slap U.S. tariffs on Chinese drugs and drug ingredients that were previously exempt.

    Canada already imports $8.76 billion annually in prescription drugs from the U.S. To the extent that tariffed drugs go from China to the U.S. to Canada, the cost of both publicly and privately funded drug plans will increase.

    Those people at the bottom of the income scale who pay out-of-pocket — and can least afford to pay more — will be saddled with those higher prices. If Canada follows the U.S. in imposing tariffs on drugs made in China, as we have done with electric vehicles, then the price of generic drugs made in Canada from Chinese ingredients will also rise.

    We can hope that any tariffs — on Canada or China — will be only temporary and we can avoid the ongoing effects on both access to prescription drugs and their price. But given Trump’s volatility and unpredictability, we can’t rely on that outcome.

    With the passage in October 2024 of Canada’s new Pharmacare Act, the government of Canada committed to “making sure that you can get the medications you need, no matter where you live or your ability to pay.” We need to expand Canada’s federal pharmacare plan to cover all Canadians for all medically necessary drugs. Indeed, the need has never been as acute.

    So far, only three provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba and Price Edward Island) and one territory (Yukon) have signed agreements with the federal government to cover contraceptives and diabetes drugs and devices — the only products currently covered under Bill C-64. The remaining provinces and territories urgently need to sign on. Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberals must decisively commit to expanding the range of drugs that is covered by pharmacare.

    All the provincial, territorial and federal leaders have pledged to protect Canadians from U.S. tariffs. Expanding pharmacare is part of that protection.

    Between 2022-2025, Joel Lexchin received payments for writing a brief for a legal firm on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions, for being on a panel about pharmacare and for co-writing an article for a peer-reviewed medical journal. He is a member of the Boards of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Canadian Health Coalition. He receives royalties from University of Toronto Press and James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. for books he has written. He has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the past.

    – ref. How Donald Trump’s tariffs threaten Canadians’ access to prescription drugs – https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trumps-tariffs-threaten-canadians-access-to-prescription-drugs-255581

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Yale scholars’ move to Canada can prompt us to reflect on the rule of law

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jeffrey B. Meyers, Instructor, Legal Studies and Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

    In the most non-controversial and basic sense, the rule of law means formal legality. The law binds citizens and governments. When it comes to nation states, law is enacted by democratically elected legislatures; legal statutes are openly available and sufficiently clear to follow. State actions can be judicially reviewed for compliance with a constitution.

    In its more ambitious conceptualization, the rule of law can also be understood to include substantive human rights and equity. In Canada, The Constitution Act of 1982 references the rule of law in its preamble.

    The modern Canadian iteration of the rule of law — which includes substantive ideas about human rights as well as Indigenous treaty rights — is based on liberal ideas shared by many countries, including, historically, the United States. What distinguishes a rule-of-law state from an authoritarian one to a large extent is whether state actions can be judicially reviewed for compliance with a constitution.

    Although rule of law scholars debate the parameters of the concept of the rule of law, few would debate that what is happening during U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term presents anything other than a wholesale attack on the rule of law both domestically in the U.S and internationally.

    I am a rule of law researcher, educator and lawyer. Since Trump was elected to his first term in 2016, I’ve relied on American scholars, from a variety of disciplines, to understand what is happening.

    These include two prominent Yale professors, philosopher Jason Stanley and historian Timothy Snynder, both of whom have recently announced they’re moving to the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto.

    Authoritarian impulse

    In their scholarship, Stanley and Snyder have sought to explain the authoritarian impulses of the first Trump administration and how to resist it.

    Stanley’s father, a German Jew who fled Germany for America in 1939, carries the remembrance of fascism.

    Both Stanley and Snyder explore the similarities between what is occurring in Trump’s America, Viktor Orban’s Hungary, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and, equally chillingly, between Trump’s America and Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Even prior to the first Trump presidency, Stanley already asked in his 2015 book, How Propoganda Works, whether the U.S., “the world’s oldest liberal democracy,” might already have become a liberal democracy “in name only?”



    Read more:
    Why the radical right has turned to the teachings of an Italian Marxist thinker

    Examination of propaganda, rhetoric

    In his 2018 book, The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Snyder described Trump as a “sado-populist, whose policies were designed to hurt the most vulnerable people of his own electorate.”

    Stanley’s focus on propaganda and rhetoric were especially useful for framing the politics of Trump.

    Similarly, Snyder’s focus on the similarities between Trump and other authoritarian leaders, through their attachment to extreme illiberal ideologies, helped frame public discourse in the U.S. during the first Trump presidency. “Illiberal” does not imply conservative in opposition to “being liberal” (with the resonance of “leftist”); rather, it denotes a repudiation of liberal democracy, in the words of political scientist Thomas J. Main.

    Both Stanley and Snyder are on the public record explaining their decision to immigrate to Canada, on the basis that they can no longer continue their scholarly activities in an American university, even a premier one like Yale.

    Jason Stanley speaks with Amanpour and Company.

    Improper interference

    This is an admission by important thinkers that civil society, intellectuals and critical scholars, in particular, are under assault.

    It comes as no surprise given other developments. Trump’s executive orders, threats to some university funding and crackdowns on activists and academics — as well as the attempted deportations of those without U.S. citizenship — have used the idea of combatting campus antisemitism as cover for an attack on free expression, academic independence and student activism.

    From my perspective as a Jewish person, a post-secondary teacher and as someone with a legal education, all of these developments have hit hard, especially alongside accounts of some of America’s most prestigious law firms caving to improper interference by the Trump administration.

    What ‘fascism’ means

    In the introduction to his bestselling 2020 book, How Fascism Works, Stanley wrote: “In recent years, multiple countries across the world have been overtaken by a certain kind of far-right nationalism; the list includes Russia, Hungary, Poland, India, Turkey and the United States.”

    He explains the choice of the word “fascism” to speak about each of these countries, despite their differences of degree and context:

    “I have chosen the label ‘fascism’ for ultra nationalism of some variety (ethnic, religious, cultural), with the nation represented in the person of an authoritarian leader who speaks on its behalf. As Donald Trump declared in his Republican National Convention speech in July 2016, ‘I am your voice.’”

    In his similarly bestselling book, On Tyranny, published in 2017, Snyder wrote: “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is not basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.”

    Now that Trump is back in office, Stanley and Snyder, as well as Snyder’s Yale colleague and spouse, Marie Shore, the celebrated author of The Ukrainian Night, are leaving Yale for Canada with good reason.

    Author Timothy Snyder speaks about Democracy and the Risk of Tyranny with Public Policy Forum.

    Shared mutual concern

    While the departure of a handful of prominent academics is hardly a trend, it raises questions about whether there will be an accelerated academic “brain drain”, or more American students in Canada.

    As a Canadian, I would like to say America’s loss is our gain, and I wish these scholars well. I am also aware that narratives of flight to Canada as refuge have historically bolstered national myths while obscuring Canadian inequities. My hope is that Canadians will not observe the arrival of U.S. scholars with smugness, but instead with shared concern.

    We should not be blind to this unique moment in which Canada is called to revisit why we care about Canada and keep watch on the rule of law. Yet, we must also recognize our own profound historical blind spots.

    For example, while an overt threat to sovereignty is new for some Canadians, it is nothing new for Canada’s Indigenous Peoples. Today it’s important to understand the distinctively Canadian importance of Indigenous law to any reaffirmation of the rule of law tradition in Canada in the 21st century.



    Read more:
    Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief is ‘prisoner of conscience’ after failure of Delgamuukw ruling 25 years ago

    Too much cynicism might prevent us from acknowledging the importance of these three scholars’ decisions to leave their country and come to ours at this particular time in history. However, my hope is also that we are also inspired by their considerable truth-telling skills to demand Canada also do better.

    Jeffrey B. Meyers 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. Yale scholars’ move to Canada can prompt us to reflect on the rule of law – https://theconversation.com/yale-scholars-move-to-canada-can-prompt-us-to-reflect-on-the-rule-of-law-254434

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Reform or retreat? The Catholic church in Africa after Pope Francis

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stan Chu Ilo, Research Professor, World Christianity and African Studies, DePaul University

    The Catholic church faces a fundamental question as it prepares to elect a new pope. That is, whether to go back to a monarchical papacy with its pomp and pageantry, or to build on the momentum begun by Pope Francis. He focused on the poor and proffered a humble lifestyle and message of hope.

    I am a theologian who has studied the development of Catholicism in Africa, especially under the leadership of Pope Francis. In my view, the church after him will be defined by two forces, which will be at play during the process of choosing a new pope.

    First, those who embrace Pope Francis’ wide-ranging, modernising changes in the Catholic church. The reform-minded pope made it possible to advance a new church culture that respected the voice and agency of the non-ordained. He pushed for a servant leadership, and a more pastoral, missionary, and accountable exercise of authority.

    In the second camp are those Catholics who oppose the reforms introduced by Pope Francis. They see cultural evolution and social change as destroying the traditions and teachings of the church. They would like to restore the Latin Mass with its ancient church rituals and male clerical culture.



    Read more:
    How the next pope will be elected – what goes on at the conclave

    These camps are entrenched in their positions. The 138 cardinals (18 of whom are Africans) who will elect the new pope will voice their views at meetings held ahead of the conclave. These processes will determine who will be elected.

    The 18 African cardinal-electors will be fully aware that the divisive issues in contemporary Catholicism often neglect the concerns and needs of Africa. These concerns include a continued colonial structure, and racialised thinking and mentality that sees Africa as one country rather than a continent of diversity and pluralism.

    My hope is that the cardinals will find among their ranks someone in the mould of Pope Francis who has a far-reaching vision. Someone with the courage to continue reforming the ecclesial systems and structures to meet this moment with the gospel of love.

    Catholicism in Africa

    Pope Francis often pointed to Africa, which is seeing the highest growth in population in the Catholic church, as the continent of joy and hope. A continent where the world can see how religious faith can bring about a different attitude to human relationship, communal resilience, solidarity, and global fraternity.

    But African Catholicism has been severely affected by the polarisation in the broader church. This is particularly true on issues of marriage and family life. Other polarising issues include same-sex marriages, climate change, the place of women in leadership in a patriarchal church, and the autonomy of local African Catholic dioceses from the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The Catholic bishops of Africa need to be united in addressing these issues. In particular, there is a growing consensus that the most pressing challenge facing African Catholicism is how to wean itself from being dependent on resources from the west.

    The Catholic church in Africa – despite its exponential growth – is still treated as a “mission territory”, in need of institutional, theological, pastoral and material support from Rome. As a result, it receives financial support for its activities, and the running of schools and social agencies, from the Roman Church and other western Catholic charities.

    This dependency has affected the growth and autonomy of African Catholics and churches in setting forth and implementing priorities and projects that address the unique situation of Africa. As mission churches, African Catholic churches are “under the protection” of the Roman agency in charge of evangelisation. As a result, there are limits to what African churches can do on their own without the permission and supervision of the Roman office.

    A self-reliant Catholic church in Africa that’s free from the control of Rome would be able to stand strong in world Catholicism. A less dependent African Catholic church could be an alternative staging ground for new forms of faith that meet the spiritual hunger of today’s world. This would mean providing vibrancy of worship and a sense of community through the social and spiritual bonds that exist in African churches.



    Read more:
    Pope Francis: why his papacy mattered for Africa – and for the world’s poor and marginalised

    Given the changing demographics in the world church – where a majority of the 1.4 billion Catholics live outside Europe – it’s clear that Africa and the rest of the global south can no longer accept being dominated by Eurocentric Catholicism. Catholicism cannot be reduced to a single cultural or ecclesial form. It is not a western prototype that has to be replicated in Africa and the rest of the global south without regard to the social, spiritual and cultural contexts of churches in these regions.

    Viewed in this light, the future of Catholicism in Africa must be built on the agency of African cultures, religious values and traditions. Not on a rigid centralisation of power that reduces African dioceses, institutions and congregations to outposts of Rome.

    The Catholic church in Africa must take the lead in promoting human rights, good governance and the empowerment of women. It needs to reflect the values of inclusion through its leadership, structures and priorities.

    Renewed focus

    Pope Francis’ attention to the poor and the victims of history, and his commitment to global solidarity and fraternity, captured the imaginations of many. In my view, the power that the Catholic church or the next pope will wield won’t arise from the power of position or a rigid doctrinal formula. It will come from the power of non-transactional and self-effacing love through gospel non-violence. This promotes reconciliation, justice and compassion.

    Catholicism suffers when it narrows what it means to be Catholic to rituals and repetitive communal practices and devotions, without attention to people’s personal experience and encounters with God, nature and others. Or when it interprets as normative and divine revelation those traditions, laws or structures that are the product of history, culture and human attempts to meet the challenges of a bygone age.

    Stan Chu Ilo 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. Reform or retreat? The Catholic church in Africa after Pope Francis – https://theconversation.com/reform-or-retreat-the-catholic-church-in-africa-after-pope-francis-255452

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation case is more about individual rights than the Trump administration’s foreign policy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chimene Keitner, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis

    U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia in San Salvador, El Salvador, on April 17, 2025. Photo by Sen. Van Hollen’s office via Getty Images

    Trump administration officials have repeatedly claimed that judges who order the administration to take action to bring deported Venezuelans back from the El Salvador prison where the U.S. sent them are meddling in the conduct of foreign policy.

    “The foreign policy of the United States is conducted by President Donald J. Trump − not by a court − and no court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on April 14.

    His comments refer to cases including that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran man who was deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, without any due process. The Trump administration says it will not bring him back to the U.S., despite a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.

    A reporter on April 30 asked Rubio about whether he has been in touch with El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia’s potential release from a maximum security prison there.

    “Well I would never tell you that and you know who else I would never tell? A judge. Because the conduct of our foreign policy belongs to the president,” Rubio said.

    Rubio made a similar point on April 14, posting on X, “No court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. It’s that simple. End of story.”

    The legal cases of Abrego Garcia and other noncitizens deported to El Salvador are far from simple. Chimène Keitner, a scholar of international law and civil litigation, answers a few key questions about the power that U.S. judges actually have in these wrongful deportation cases.

    The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2025, with construction scaffolding on the facade.
    Brendan Śmiałowski/AFP via Getty Images

    Are these cases really about foreign policy or something else?

    These wrongful deportation cases aren’t primarily about foreign policy, despite what Trump officials have said − they’re about the protection of individual rights, including the right to due process.

    The Trump administration is arguing that courts cannot grant relief to individuals challenging their deportation and detention if those individuals are sent to another country and imprisoned there. Under that argument, even a wrongfully detained and deported U.S. citizen would be out of luck. That can’t, in my understanding, be right.

    In Reid v. Covert, a foundational case from 1957, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot deprive U.S. citizens of due process by entering into an agreement with a foreign country.

    Now, noncitizens are being detained in El Salvador under arrangements concluded between Rubio and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in February 2025.

    So far, the relevant agreements have not been disclosed to Congress, arguably in violation of U.S. law. They also have not been disclosed to courts that have sought answers about relevant details.

    Following an April trip to El Salvador, U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said that the U.S. will pay El Salvador $15 million to imprison the deported noncitizens − and that El Salvador is imprisoning these men only because the U.S. is paying for it.

    What are other important elements to understand about these cases?

    The Trump administration is arguing that a judge or the Supreme Court cannot order it to return noncitizens to the U.S., because detention operations in El Salvador, a sovereign country, are beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

    However, the U.S. decisions to arrest, detain and deport noncitizens to El Salvador, and to pay for their incarceration there with U.S. taxpayer dollars, are not foreign policy decisions that cannot be reviewed by any judge.

    They are, I would argue, governmental deprivations of the individual right to due process.

    A U.S. court does not have power over the government of El Salvador. However, it can order the U.S. government to request an individual’s return. The Supreme Court has ordered the government to “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.

    The government has argued that “facilitate” in this context simply requires removing domestic U.S. legal obstacles. However, given that Abrego Garcia is being detained in El Salvador, any effective remedy would require the U.S. government to request his return under the detention agreement between the two countries.

    Another federal judge made this clear in an April order requiring the government to make a “good faith request” to El Salvador to release a different wrongfully deported 20-year-old.

    Meanwhile, Trump has stated that his administration is exploring the idea of extending the El Salvador detention agreement to encompass U.S. citizens. Judges have already expressed concern that U.S. citizens, including children, are being removed from the country “with no meaningful process.”

    These actions cannot be shielded from judicial review on the grounds that they involve foreign policy.

    President Donald Trump shakes hands with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele at the White House on April 14, 2025.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    Could the Trump administration legitimately claim that judges cannot rule on its foreign policy decisions?

    The Constitution gives foreign affairs powers to both the executive and legislative branches. Judges can’t conduct foreign policy. They can, however, decide cases that may affect foreign policy, especially when individual rights are at stake.

    Another country’s involvement in a case doesn’t prevent U.S. courts from protecting individual rights.

    Can these court orders to bring back wrongfully deported individuals be enforced?

    The Trump administration is currently trying to portray judges as spreading “lawlessness” with these court orders, in the words of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. But I would argue that the opposite is true. If the White House disagrees with an order by a district court or court of appeals, it can seek review by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, it is obliged to obey lower court orders absent a stay, or pause, of their implementation.

    Courts can do their part to reject claims that the executive branch is entitled to act without regard for legislative or judicial limits by issuing strongly worded orders and even holding officials in contempt. At the end of the day, however, only Congress is empowered to remove a president who refuses to comply with the law.

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

    – ref. Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation case is more about individual rights than the Trump administration’s foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/kilmar-abrego-garcias-wrongful-deportation-case-is-more-about-individual-rights-than-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-255067

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Labor routs the Coalition as voters reject Dutton’s undercooked offering

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    In a dramatic parallel, what happened in Canada at the beginning of this week has now been replicated in Australia at the end of the week.

    An opposition that a few months ago had looked just possibly on track to dislodge the government, or at least run it close, has bombed spectacularly. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has lost his Queensland seat of Dickson, as did the Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in Canada.

    Far from being forced into minority government, as most observers had been expecting, Labor has increased its majority, with a substantial swing towards it.

    Its strong victory reflects not just the the voters’ judgement that the Coalition was not ready to govern. It was worse than that. People just didn’t rate the Coalition or its offerings.

    Multiple factors played into this debacle for the Coalition.

    A first-term government historically gets a chance of a second term.

    The Trump factor overshadowed this election. It made people feel it was best to stick with the status quo. People also were very suspicious of Dutton, whom they saw (despite disclaimers) as being too like the hardline US president.

    After the last election, Dutton was declared by many to be unelectable, and that proved absolutely to be the case, despite what turned out to be a misleading impression when the polls were so bad for Labor.

    Even if they’d had a very good campaign, the Coalition would probably not have had a serious chance of winning this election.

    But its campaign was woeful. The nuclear policy was a drag and a distraction. Holding back policy until late was a bad call. When the policies came, they were often thin and badly prepared. The ambitious defence policy had no detail. The gas reservation scheme had belated modelling.

    The forced backflip on working from home, and the late decision to offer a tax offset, were other examples of disaster in the campaign.

    Dutton must wear the main share of the blame. He kept strategy and tactics close to his chest.

    But the performance of the opposition frontbench, with a few exceptions, has been woeful. Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor and finance spokeswoman Jane Hume have been no match for their Labor counterparts Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor ran a very disciplined campaign. Albanese himself performed much better than he did in 2022.

    Labor was helped by an interest rate cut in February and the prospect of another to come later this month.

    Albanese transformed himself, or was transformed, from last year to this year.

    The cost of living presented a huge hurdle for Labor, but the government was able to point to relief it had given on energy bills, tax and much else. The Coalition had opposed several of Labor’s measures and was left trying to play catch-up at the end.

    The Liberal Party now has an enormous task to rebuild. The “target the suburbs” strategy has failed. At the same time, the old inner-city Liberal heartland is deeply teal territory.

    Hume said, in an unfortunately colourful comment, on Friday, “You do not read the entrails until you have gutted the chicken”.

    The chicken has now been gutted. There will be a much more bitter post mortem than in 2022. The leadership choices are less than optimal for the party: Angus Taylor? Andrew Hastie? Sussan Ley?

    An interesting thought: if Josh Frydenberg had held his seat in 2022, and led the Liberal party to this election, would be result have been better? One thing is clear: Frydenberg took the right decision in not recontesting Kooyong, which teal Monique Ryan has held.

    Anyway, who would want to lead the Liberals at this moment?

    Michelle Grattan 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. Labor routs the Coalition as voters reject Dutton’s undercooked offering – https://theconversation.com/labor-routs-the-coalition-as-voters-reject-duttons-undercooked-offering-255617

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: UK local elections delivered record-breaking fragmentation of the vote

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hannah Bunting, Senior Lecturer in Quantitative British Politics and Co-director of The Elections Centre, University of Exeter

    If there were such a thing as landslide victories for local elections, Reform could easily claim to have won one in 2025. Out of the 1,641 seats available, Nigel Farage’s party came away with 677 – that’s more than 41%. The Liberal Democrats came second with 370 (a net gain of 163). Overall, only a quarter of seats went to the two main parties combined – the Conservatives on 319 (down 677) and Labour 98 (down 189).

    Looking at the ward-level results shows that the voting patterns in 2025 were very different to those seen at any other local election. It’s clear that this election broke records for the extent of fragmentation – a significant movement away from the dominance of the two parties that have dominated British politics for the past century.

    There are several ways to measure this. One method is by looking at the two-party vote share, this is because fragmentation occurs when voters have a greater number of parties to choose from and opt for parties other than Conservative and Labour when casting their ballots. Analysis of 1,282 wards in the 2025 local election shows the average two-party vote share was just 36.8%. That’s the lowest it’s ever been since Labour established itself as a main party. In fact, it’s never before been lower than 50% – and the 2025 figure is a full 20 points below the previous record of 56.9%, set in 2013 when UKIP did well.

    Conservative + Labour vote share across 80 years of local elections

    How the combined vote share of the Conservatives and Labour has fluctuated across 80 years.
    The Elections Centre, CC BY-SA

    Another method is by looking at the vote share that the winning party received in each ward. If that’s high, it means most people rallied around a single party with their votes, whereas a low winner’s vote share means a person was elected with low levels of support from the electorate. Remember, the first-past-the-post electoral system only requires a plurality of votes, and not a majority.

    Winning vote shares across 80 years of local elections

    The vote share taken by the winning party in local elections across 80 years.
    The Elections Centre, CC BY-ND

    Again, 2025 is the lowest in comparable history. The average winner’s vote share was just 40.7%, meaning three in five people did not vote for the party who won. The most similar years were during the height of UKIP’s popularity, in 2013 and 2014, before the announcement that the Brexit referendum would take place if the Conservatives won the 2015 general election. Whereas for the locals it was Reform who won most of the seats, at the 2024 general election it was Labour. However, in July 2024, it was the first time that the average winning party’s vote share fell below 40% in 30 years of general elections.

    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.

    We can also observe fragmentation using the majorities secured by winning parties – if they are decisive victories, there’ll be a greater majority. The average winning majority was just 11.6% at the 2025 local election. It breaks another record, being the lowest since 1914, with 2005 and 2013 being the closest comparable years.

    Majority size across 80 years of local elections

    Majorities secured by the winning party across 80 years of local elections.
    The Elections Centre, CC BY-ND

    A final method considers the “effective number of electoral parties” (ENEP) at the ward level. This measure calculates how many political parties made an impact on a result, meaning that a high figure shows multiple parties received significant vote share, and a low figure denotes most people voting for a single party.

    It’s no surprise that 2025 saw the highest ever average ENEP at a local election, coming in at 3.35. Only twice has this figure been above three, as in 2013 it was 3.02.

    Effective number of parties across 80 years of local elections

    The number of parties making an electoral impact in local elections across 80 years.
    The Elections Centre, CC BY-ND

    Long-term trends

    I’ve been talking about the fragmentation of British electoral politics for a long time. It was the topic of my PhD thesis, which I started writing (at least in earnest) seven years ago. It’s not a new phenomenon. Its shape, however, along with its impact, has morphed over the years. We know it’s driven by a weakened attachment to political parties and that it’s exacerbated by electoral shocks. We know that it makes elections more competitive but that it decreases turnout.



    Read more:
    Low turnout in the 2024 election may have been due to undecided voters being overwhelmed by choice

    The British electoral system is meant to produce decisive governments – at any level – and this tends to be centred around two main parties. This meant that for a long time the Conservatives and Labour received the overwhelming majority of all votes cast, subsequently also winning almost every seat. Those days appear to be over. First came the fragmented general election, and now it’s at the local level too.

    Hannah Bunting receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

    – ref. UK local elections delivered record-breaking fragmentation of the vote – https://theconversation.com/uk-local-elections-delivered-record-breaking-fragmentation-of-the-vote-255841

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is the biggest gaffe, blooper or blunder that a recent president has made? It may depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, Indiana University

    Lots of presidents have said things they regret. Or most of them have. Carol Yepes/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump was asked during a press conference on April 30, 2025, about the possible impact of his tariff policies and trade war with China.

    Trump answered that American children should prepare to make sacrifices at Christmas.

    “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know,” he said, “and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

    The New York Times reported that Trump appeared to be telling kids they would have to manage with fewer toys this year for the sake of his economic agenda.

    Jane Mayer, a reporter with The New Yorker, called it “Trump’s Marie Antoinette moment.”

    This was not the first − or last − time Trump said something that left many Americans with mouths open and heads shaking.

    Hours after his Marie Antoinette moment, Trump, whose first 100 days back in office have been characterized as chaotic and damaging to democracy, was asked during a phone interview at a town-hall broadcast on NewsNation what the biggest mistake he’d made thus far in his second presidency.

    “I don’t really believe I’ve made any mistakes,” Trump replied.

    The audience, representing a cross section of Americans, burst out laughing.

    Trump’s gaffes aren’t just part of his presidency; gaffes are part of the storied tradition of the American presidency. Some of those comments have clung to presidents and even affected history.

    Here are examples from each president over the past 50 years or so of statements that at least some of them were embarrassed by or came to regret. Each was made when the president was serving in the White House. The quotes are organized chronologically.

    Donald Trump auditions for Grinch-who-stole-Christmas role.

    Richard Nixon is a law-abiding guy

    On Nov. 17, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon, in the midst of the Watergate scandal that would end his presidency, defended himself against charges of corruption.

    “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook,” Nixon said. “Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.”

    Instead of quelling the scandal, as Nixon hoped, his words produced the opposite reaction. He resigned from the presidency nine months later in August 1974.

    Gerald Ford forgets the Cold War

    Gerald Ford, Nixon’s vice president who became president after Nixon’s resignation, subsequently ran for election in 1976.

    During one of his televised debates against Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter, Ford inexplicably claimed the Soviet Union did not control Eastern Europe.

    “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” Ford said, “and there never will be under a Ford administration.”

    To which the moderator, New York Times editor May Frankel, said, “I’m sorry, what?”

    Ford’s remark was so outrageously incorrect that it may have contributed to his defeat in the tight presidential election.

    Gerald Ford says it’s really a Warm, not Cold, War.

    Jimmy Carter gets advice from his teen

    Carter defeated Ford and was elected in 1976. He ran for reelection against Republican nominee Ronald Reagan in 1980. During one of their debates, Carter said he sought the advice of his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, on what was the most important issue facing America.

    “She said she thought it was nuclear weaponry,” Carter said, “and the control of nuclear arms.”

    Carter tried to show that arms control was a subject that had great resonance to even 13-year-olds. Instead, it left viewers puzzled why he had inserted his daughter into the debate. A wire service story at the time summarized the response by saying that reporters covering the debate winced and others groaned.

    Jimmy Carter has a smart 13-year-old daughter.

    Ronald Reagan attacks Russia

    Reagan, a former television and movie actor who defeated Carter in the 1980 presidential election, was known as “the Great Communicator” for his eloquence.

    A well-known anti-Communist, Reagan was not always careful about what he said.

    Before a speech on Aug. 11, 1984, Reagan joked during a sound check, “I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

    The joke on the open mic, which was not broadcast live but leaked later, resulted in a Soviet red alert − and temporarily moved the U.S. and Soviet Union toward war.

    George H.W. Bush eats word salad

    Reagan’s successor, his vice president, George H.W. Bush, by comparison was no great communicator. His words came out of his mouth and appeared to go in separate ways.

    “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions,” Bush said, “but I don’t always agree with them.”

    Bill Clinton is or isn’t, maybe

    Democrat Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election.

    Clinton’s presidency was dogged with accusations of unethical behavior and extramarital affairs. Clinton, in testimony before a grand jury investigating his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, was asked whether he was lying when he told aides that “there’s nothing going on” between him and Lewinsky.

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” Clinton responded. “If the − if he − if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not − that is one thing.”

    Slate magazine said that this response may have been the “defining moment” of his presidency and, in doing so, captured his contribution to semantics. As Time magazine pointed out,
    “Until then, America hadn’t been sure there was more than one definition of ‘is.’”

    George W. Bush’s shame

    George W. Bush, the son of George H.W. Bush, succeeded Clinton in the White House. Americans learned that Bush had more in common with his father than just the same last name.

    “There’s an old saying in Tennessee − I know it’s in Texas,” Bush said, “probably in Tennessee, that says, fool me once, shame on − shame on you. Fool me − you can’t get fooled again.”

    Barack Obama strikes out

    Barack Obama, like Reagan, was known for his sense of humor. And like Reagan, Obama learned that not everything was a joking matter.

    While appearing on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno in 2009, Obama said he had improved his bowling by practicing at the White House bowling alley. He told Leno he had bowled a pedestrian score of 129, provoking a sarcastic response from Leno.

    Obama then made the following joke: “It’s like the Special Olympics or something.”

    Obama quickly apologized to the Special Olympics, the athletic competition for people with intellectual disabilities.

    Obama made a bad joke about the Special Olympics during an interview with Jay Leno; he quickly apologized for it.
    Mandel Ngan / AFP/Getty Images

    Joe Biden’s bad day

    Trump was first elected president in 2016 but was defeated by Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Trump and Biden faced each other again in 2024.

    During a television debate on June 27, 2024, CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Biden why voters should trust him to solve the immigration crisis. Biden said he changed a law that allowed Trump and his administration to separate immigrant families and put children in cages.

    Biden’s train of thought then jumped the tracks.

    “And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the − the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers,” Biden said.

    “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence,” Trump said, “and I don’t think he did, either.”

    The same could be said for much of what Biden said during the debate.

    Biden withdrew from the presidential race three weeks after his poor debate performance.

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

    – ref. What is the biggest gaffe, blooper or blunder that a recent president has made? It may depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-biggest-gaffe-blooper-or-blunder-that-a-recent-president-has-made-it-may-depend-on-what-your-definition-of-is-is-255755

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What are the biggest gaffes, bloopers and blunders that recent presidents have made? It may depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, Indiana University

    Lots of presidents have said things they regret. Or most of them have. Carol Yepes/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump was asked during a press conference on April 30, 2025, about the possible impact of his tariff policies and trade war with China.

    Trump answered that American children should prepare to make sacrifices at Christmas.

    “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know,” he said, “and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

    The New York Times reported that Trump appeared to be telling kids they would have to manage with fewer toys this year for the sake of his economic agenda.

    Jane Mayer, a reporter with The New Yorker, called it “Trump’s Marie Antoinette moment.”

    This was not the first − or last − time Trump said something that left many Americans with mouths open and heads shaking.

    Hours after his Marie Antoinette moment, Trump, whose first 100 days back in office have been characterized as chaotic and damaging to democracy, was asked during a phone interview at a town-hall broadcast on NewsNation what the biggest mistake he’d made thus far in his second presidency.

    “I don’t really believe I’ve made any mistakes,” Trump replied.

    The audience, representing a cross section of Americans, burst out laughing.

    Trump’s gaffes aren’t just part of his presidency; gaffes are part of the storied tradition of the American presidency. Some of those comments have clung to presidents and even affected history.

    Here are examples from each president over the past 50 years or so of statements that at least some of them were embarrassed by or came to regret. Each was made when the president was serving in the White House. The quotes are organized chronologically.

    Donald Trump auditions for Grinch-who-stole-Christmas role.

    Richard Nixon is a law-abiding guy

    On Nov. 17, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon, in the midst of the Watergate scandal that would end his presidency, defended himself against charges of corruption.

    “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook,” Nixon said. “Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.”

    Instead of quelling the scandal, as Nixon hoped, his words produced the opposite reaction. He resigned from the presidency nine months later in August 1974.

    Gerald Ford forgets the Cold War

    Gerald Ford, Nixon’s vice president who became president after Nixon’s resignation, subsequently ran for election in 1976.

    During one of his televised debates against Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter, Ford inexplicably claimed the Soviet Union did not control Eastern Europe.

    “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” Ford said, “and there never will be under a Ford administration.”

    To which the moderator, New York Times editor May Frankel, said, “I’m sorry, what?”

    Ford’s remark was so outrageously incorrect that it may have contributed to his defeat in the tight presidential election.

    Gerald Ford says it’s really a Warm, not Cold, War.

    Jimmy Carter gets advice from his teen

    Carter defeated Ford and was elected in 1976. He ran for reelection against Republican nominee Ronald Reagan in 1980. During one of their debates, Carter said he sought the advice of his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, on what was the most important issue facing America.

    “She said she thought it was nuclear weaponry,” Carter said, “and the control of nuclear arms.”

    Carter tried to show that arms control was a subject that had great resonance to even 13-year-olds. Instead, it left viewers puzzled why he had inserted his daughter into the debate. A wire service story at the time summarized the response by saying that reporters covering the debate winced and others groaned.

    Jimmy Carter has a smart 13-year-old daughter.

    Ronald Reagan attacks Russia

    Reagan, a former television and movie actor who defeated Carter in the 1980 presidential election, was known as “the Great Communicator” for his eloquence.

    A well-known anti-Communist, Reagan was not always careful about what he said.

    Before a speech on Aug. 11, 1984, Reagan joked during a sound check, “I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

    The joke on the open mic, which was not broadcast live but leaked later, resulted in a Soviet red alert − and temporarily moved the U.S. and Soviet Union toward war.

    George H.W. Bush eats word salad

    Reagan’s successor, his vice president, George H.W. Bush, by comparison was no great communicator. His words came out of his mouth and appeared to go in separate ways.

    “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions,” Bush said, “but I don’t always agree with them.”

    Bill Clinton is or isn’t, maybe

    Democrat Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election.

    Clinton’s presidency was dogged with accusations of unethical behavior and extramarital affairs. Clinton, in testimony before a grand jury investigating his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, was asked whether he was lying when he told aides that “there’s nothing going on” between him and Lewinsky.

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” Clinton responded. “If the − if he − if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not − that is one thing.”

    Slate magazine said that this response may have been the “defining moment” of his presidency and, in doing so, captured his contribution to semantics. As Time magazine pointed out,
    “Until then, America hadn’t been sure there was more than one definition of ‘is.’”

    George W. Bush’s shame

    George W. Bush, the son of George H.W. Bush, succeeded Clinton in the White House. Americans learned that Bush had more in common with his father than just the same last name.

    “There’s an old saying in Tennessee − I know it’s in Texas,” Bush said, “probably in Tennessee, that says, fool me once, shame on − shame on you. Fool me − you can’t get fooled again.”

    Barack Obama strikes out

    Barack Obama, like Reagan, was known for his sense of humor. And like Reagan, Obama learned that not everything was a joking matter.

    While appearing on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno in 2009, Obama said he had improved his bowling by practicing at the White House bowling alley. He told Leno he had bowled a pedestrian score of 129, provoking a sarcastic response from Leno.

    Obama then made the following joke: “It’s like the Special Olympics or something.”

    Obama quickly apologized to the Special Olympics, the athletic competition for people with intellectual disabilities.

    Obama made a bad joke about the Special Olympics during an interview with Jay Leno; he quickly apologized for it.
    Mandel Ngan / AFP/Getty Images

    Joe Biden’s bad day

    Trump was first elected president in 2016 but was defeated by Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Trump and Biden faced each other again in 2024.

    During a television debate on June 27, 2024, CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Biden why voters should trust him to solve the immigration crisis. Biden said he changed a law that allowed Trump and his administration to separate immigrant families and put children in cages.

    Biden’s train of thought then jumped the tracks.

    “And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the − the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers,” Biden said.

    “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence,” Trump said, “and I don’t think he did, either.”

    The same could be said for much of what Biden said during the debate.

    Biden withdrew from the presidential race three weeks after his poor debate performance.

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

    – ref. What are the biggest gaffes, bloopers and blunders that recent presidents have made? It may depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-biggest-gaffes-bloopers-and-blunders-that-recent-presidents-have-made-it-may-depend-on-what-your-definition-of-is-is-255755

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is the stupidest thing a recent president has said? It may depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chris Lamb, Professor of Journalism, Indiana University

    Lots of presidents have said things they regret. Or most of them have. Carol Yepes/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump was asked during a press conference on April 30, 2025, about the possible impact of his tariff policies and trade war with China.

    Trump answered that American children should prepare to make sacrifices at Christmas.

    “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know,” he said, “and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

    The New York Times reported that Trump appeared to be telling kids they would have to manage with fewer toys this year for the sake of his economic agenda.

    Jane Mayer, a reporter with The New Yorker, called it “Trump’s Marie Antoinette moment.”

    This was not the first − or last − time Trump said something that left many Americans with mouths open and heads shaking.

    Hours after his Marie Antoinette moment, Trump, whose first 100 days back in office have been characterized as chaotic and damaging to democracy, was asked during a phone interview at a town-hall broadcast on NewsNation what the biggest mistake he’d made thus far in his second presidency.

    “I don’t really believe I’ve made any mistakes,” Trump replied.

    The audience, representing a cross section of Americans, burst out laughing.

    Trump’s gaffes aren’t just part of his presidency; gaffes are part of the storied tradition of the American presidency. Some of those comments have clung to presidents and even affected history.

    Here are examples from each president over the past 50 years or so of statements that at least some of them were embarrassed by or came to regret. Each was made when the president was serving in the White House. The quotes are organized chronologically.

    Donald Trump auditions for Grinch-who-stole-Christmas role.

    Richard Nixon is a law-abiding guy

    On Nov. 17, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon, in the midst of the Watergate scandal that would end his presidency, defended himself against charges of corruption.

    “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook,” Nixon said. “Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.”

    Instead of quelling the scandal, as Nixon hoped, his words produced the opposite reaction. He resigned from the presidency nine months later in August 1974.

    Gerald Ford forgets the Cold War

    Gerald Ford, Nixon’s vice president who became president after Nixon’s resignation, subsequently ran for election in 1976.

    During one of his televised debates against Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter, Ford inexplicably claimed the Soviet Union did not control Eastern Europe.

    “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” Ford said, “and there never will be under a Ford administration.”

    To which the moderator, New York Times editor May Frankel, said, “I’m sorry, what?”

    Ford’s remark was so outrageously incorrect that it may have contributed to his defeat in the tight presidential election.

    Gerald Ford says it’s really a Warm, not Cold, War.

    Jimmy Carter gets advice from his teen

    Carter defeated Ford and was elected in 1976. He ran for reelection against Republican nominee Ronald Reagan in 1980. During one of their debates, Carter said he sought the advice of his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, on what was the most important issue facing America.

    “She said she thought it was nuclear weaponry,” Carter said, “and the control of nuclear arms.”

    Carter tried to show that arms control was a subject that had great resonance to even 13-year-olds. Instead, it left viewers puzzled why he had inserted his daughter into the debate. A wire service story at the time summarized the response by saying that reporters covering the debate winced and others groaned.

    Jimmy Carter has a smart 13-year-old daughter.

    Ronald Reagan attacks Russia

    Reagan, a former television and movie actor who defeated Carter in the 1980 presidential election, was known as “the Great Communicator” for his eloquence.

    A well-known anti-Communist, Reagan was not always careful about what he said.

    Before a speech on Aug. 11, 1984, Reagan joked during a sound check, “I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

    The joke on the open mic, which was not broadcast live but leaked later, resulted in a Soviet red alert − and temporarily moved the U.S. and Soviet Union toward war.

    George H.W. Bush eats word salad

    Reagan’s successor, his vice president, George H.W. Bush, by comparison was no great communicator. His words came out of his mouth and appeared to go in separate ways.

    “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions,” Bush said, “but I don’t always agree with them.”

    Bill Clinton is or isn’t, maybe

    Democrat Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential election.

    Clinton’s presidency was dogged with accusations of unethical behavior and extramarital affairs. Clinton, in testimony before a grand jury investigating his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, was asked whether he was lying when he told aides that “there’s nothing going on” between him and Lewinsky.

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” Clinton responded. “If the − if he − if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not − that is one thing.”

    Slate magazine said that this response may have been the “defining moment” of his presidency and, in doing so, captured his contribution to semantics. As Time magazine pointed out,
    “Until then, America hadn’t been sure there was more than one definition of ‘is.’”

    George W. Bush’s shame

    George W. Bush, the son of George H.W. Bush, succeeded Clinton in the White House. Americans learned that Bush had more in common with his father than just the same last name.

    “There’s an old saying in Tennessee − I know it’s in Texas,” Bush said, “probably in Tennessee, that says, fool me once, shame on − shame on you. Fool me − you can’t get fooled again.”

    Barack Obama strikes out

    Barack Obama, like Reagan, was known for his sense of humor. And like Reagan, Obama learned that not everything was a joking matter.

    While appearing on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno in 2009, Obama said he had improved his bowling by practicing at the White House bowling alley. He told Leno he had bowled a pedestrian score of 129, provoking a sarcastic response from Leno.

    Obama then made the following joke: “It’s like the Special Olympics or something.”

    Obama quickly apologized to the Special Olympics, the athletic competition for people with intellectual disabilities.

    Obama made a bad joke about the Special Olympics during an interview with Jay Leno; he quickly apologized for it.
    Mandel Ngan / AFP/Getty Images

    Joe Biden’s bad day

    Trump was first elected president in 2016 but was defeated by Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Trump and Biden faced each other again in 2024.

    During a television debate on June 27, 2024, CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Biden why voters should trust him to solve the immigration crisis. Biden said he changed a law that allowed Trump and his administration to separate immigrant families and put children in cages.

    Biden’s train of thought then jumped the tracks.

    “And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the − the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers,” Biden said.

    “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence,” Trump said, “and I don’t think he did, either.”

    The same could be said for much of what Biden said during the debate.

    Biden withdrew from the presidential race three weeks after his poor debate performance.

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

    – ref. What is the stupidest thing a recent president has said? It may depend on what your definition of ‘is’ is – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-stupidest-thing-a-recent-president-has-said-it-may-depend-on-what-your-definition-of-is-is-255755

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Britain’s nuclear future? What small reactors, fusion and ‘Big Carl’ mean for net zero

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tomas Martin, Associate Professor in Materials Physics, University of Bristol

    Former UK prime minister Tony Blair recently argued nuclear power is an “essential part of the answer” to net zero. Writing in the foreword of a report by his thinktank, the Tony Blair Institute, he claimed small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies can help lower the emissions of the electricity sector.

    It’s worth looking at what these technologies involve, and how far off the UK is from integrating them into its electricity system. But we should first recognise great progress in the electricity sector in the past 15 years, and how dramatic reductions in the cost of wind and solar have led to huge increases in renewable capacity across the globe.

    The UK completely removed all coal-fired power in 2024, largely replaced by offshore wind and gas. However, relying on any one technology makes an electricity grid less resilient, and nuclear is zero-carbon and can help stabilise the grid when so much electricity comes from intermittent renewables.

    Historically, nuclear has contributed around 15% to 25% of the UK’s electricity supply, however most reactors have closed or are approaching the end of their life. The fleet of 26 Magnox reactors built in the 1960s finished operation by 2015 and are now being decommissioned.

    Over the past three years three other sites have also closed, with the remainder currently anticipated to run until 2028-2030. At this point, what was once 41 reactors will have shrunk to just Sizewell B, a power plant operational on the Suffolk coast since 1995.

    Replacing this drop in electricity production must be a big priority. The construction of two new reactors at Hinkley Point C in south-west England started in 2016 but won’t finish until at least 2029. Significant planning has taken place for an identical site at Sizewell C in Suffolk, and a final decision is expected shortly.

    The pressurised water reactor design at these two sites produces significantly more electricity than past UK designs, and these four reactors will together produce 6.4GW of electricity, replacing all 14 of the reactors that are retiring.

    Supporting the construction of new reactors at Hinkley Point and Sizewell is essential for maintaining the UK’s electricity supply, but basically returns the country to the status quo. Beyond, there are number of exciting new developments.

    SMRs

    Small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced modular reactors (AMRs) have frustratingly similar names, but have become the main way to categorise the two options. The “small” in SMRs is because they produce between 30MW and 300MW of electricity, compared to 1,600MW for each reactor at Hinkley Point C.

    The “modular” is driven by a desire to produce multiple identical reactors at once in a factory, rather than constructing on site. This can dramatically reduce manufacturing and installation time, potentially making them much cheaper.

    A combination of new SMRs and one or two new Hinkley C-sized reactors would enable UK nuclear capacity to expand beyond the status quo in the 2030s, further reducing the carbon emissions of the electricity sector.

    The next generation

    Further into the future, exciting research is taking place on the next “generation IV” nuclear designs: advanced modular reactors (AMRs).

    Some AMRs can run at much higher temperatures, which could help decarbonise tricky industries like steelmaking or produce hydrogen for energy storage or low-carbon plane fuel. Some designs can even reuse nuclear waste, reducing how long it needs to be stored safely.

    Even further in the future, nuclear fusion – the same process that powers the sun – could offer clean electricity without producing long-lasting radioactive waste. The UK is supporting this by building a demonstration fusion plant called STEP which aims to start operating by 2040.

    One of the biggest criticisms of nuclear is the cost. Building a nuclear plant is a massive project that can take many years or even decades. Hinkley Point C, for example, has up to 10,000 workers and more than 100 cranes on site, including the world’s biggest crane “Big Carl”.

    Because plants take so long to build, the money is borrowed years before any electricity is generated, gathering significant interest in the meantime. These interest payments can ultimately make up as much as two-thirds of the total cost.

    A new funding model, similar to that used for big infrastructure projects like Crossrail, should lower costs.

    But once a nuclear plant is built and paid off, it’s one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity – especially as modern reactors can run for up to 80 years. That’s why government support to cover upfront construction costs can pay off in the long run.

    The previous UK government ambition was to build 24GW of new nuclear power by 2050 – about four times more than the country has today. However, the current government has not confirmed it will stick to this target.

    To get there, the UK would need to approve several new nuclear projects every few years starting in 2030, which will require major investment in skills, resources and collaborations.

    We urgently need to decarbonise our energy system, and future nuclear reactors can play an important role in that alongside renewables and other technologies.

    Tomas Martin receives funding from EDF and the Royal Academy of Engineering as part of the Royal Academy of Engineering Senior Research Fellowship scheme. His research work includes projects sponsored by EDF, UKAEA and UKNNL.

    – ref. Britain’s nuclear future? What small reactors, fusion and ‘Big Carl’ mean for net zero – https://theconversation.com/britains-nuclear-future-what-small-reactors-fusion-and-big-carl-mean-for-net-zero-255797

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Want to walk the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage? Leave your phone at home

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Una Cunningham, Professor emerita, Department of Teaching and Learning, Stockholm University

    The yellow shell symbol that marks the path of the Camino de Santiago. Armando Oliveira/Shutterstock

    Pilgrimage offers a chance to disengage from the everyday and think deeply about what is important. Leaving home and spending some time on the move with no concerns other than putting one foot in front of the other can be life-changing.

    Pilgrimage has been described as a liminal experience, which means you are neither at home nor at your destination, caught between two existential levels. Many people return home feeling transformed.

    Since the mid-1990s, the numbers of people walking the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage route to what the faithful believe to be the tomb of Saint James the Apostle in northwestern Spain have rocketed. And they continue to rise, probably approaching the numbers who made the pilgrimage in the middle ages, when up to 2 million people are believed to have walked each year.

    Medieval pilgrims prepared for pilgrimage by setting their financial and spiritual affairs in order: writing a will and going to confession. Pilgrimage was seen as a rite of passage, or an individual quest where social status and networks were traded for anonymity and poverty in constant mobility. Arrival conveyed salvation, or perhaps a cure or a mystical revelation.

    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.

    Contemporary, postsecular pilgrimage on the Camino de Santiago is often undertaken at turning points in the pilgrim’s life, for psycho-existential motives. Pilgrimage allows you to take time out from your life. Authenticity and simplicity are valued and will show you that you actually need very little. Slow mobility facilitates introspection and may have transformative effects.

    At the same time, you can prepare for a pilgrimage as for any other activity, using the digital tools at your fingertips to gather information from official apps and online communities, possibly to learn some Spanish, and to make decisions in the planning of the route, accommodation, equipment and training. It is possible to arrange everything in advance, but you risk becoming hyper-informed, losing the opportunities for discovery, wonder and surprise that are part of pilgrimage.

    Technology during your pilgrimage

    I research online Camino forums. They are divided on the use of technology (such as smartphones) while actually on pilgrimage.

    Unbroken digital interaction with family and friends at home will thwart some of the goals of your journey. Instead of being fully in the moment you will remain socially present in a symbolic world somewhere else, with all the worries of that world close at hand.

    You’ll also miss opportunities to trust your intuition, and the community of pilgrims you meet on the Camino. You don’t need a map. The trail is blazed with yellow arrows and stylised scallop shells. Without a phone you can plan your next day’s walk using a guidebook and if you want to book a bed for the next day, the albergue (pilgrim hostel) staff can help.

    The Camino path is well signposted.
    Soloviova Liudmyla/Shutterstock

    Many see a Camino pilgrimage as an opportunity for a digital detox and attempt to at least regulate the amount of time spent with a smartphone. But even if you keep your phone in your backpack during the day and concentrate tech time to the evening, you will be interrupting the separation from your life at home that is necessary if your pilgrimage is to be a liminal experience. When you catch up on news, email and family, you step back into the everyday.

    Live blogging and vlogging from the Camino is encouraged by prospective pilgrims lurking in the Camino forums. Those who have already completed one or more Caminos comment to relate and vicariously relive their own Camino experiences. Live turn-by-turn reports are also appreciated by those undertaking virtual pilgrimage.

    After your return home you can join the ranks of veterans who retell their pilgrimage to the online community and contribute with advice to prospective pilgrims. But doing this while on the Camino focuses your attention to other people and places rather than the here and now.

    The liminal experience that was supposed to bring the pilgrim to insight does not always happen, due, at least partly, to digital distraction and incomplete extraction from the everyday environment. In the words of Camino anthropologist Nancy Frey, use the Camino as a chance for disconnection. If you must take a phone, keep it turned off in your backpack – strictly for emergencies.

    Una Cunningham 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. Want to walk the Camino de Santiago pilgrimage? Leave your phone at home – https://theconversation.com/want-to-walk-the-camino-de-santiago-pilgrimage-leave-your-phone-at-home-252676

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can drinking champagne reduce your risk of sudden cardiac arrest? Here’s why it’s only a small part of the story

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David C. Gaze, Senior Lecturer in Chemical Pathology, University of Westminster

    Lomb/Shutterstock

    “My only regret in life is that I didn’t drink enough champagne,” the English economist and philosopher John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) is reported to have said. As it turns out, there may be a surprising ounce of truth to that quote.

    Picture this: a glass of champagne – bubbly, crisp and, for many, reserved for toasts and celebrations. Now imagine it being mentioned in the same sentence as a way to help prevent sudden cardiac arrest: a condition where the heart abruptly stops beating, killing tens of thousands each year, often without warning. Sounds too good to be true, right?

    Yet, a Canadian study has uncovered a curious link. Using data from over half a million people in the health research database the UK Biobank, researchers found that those who consumed moderate amounts of white wine or champagne had a lower risk of experiencing sudden cardiac arrest. Surprising, especially given the widely held belief that red wine, not white, is what benefits the heart.

    To rule out coincidence, the researchers double-checked their findings using genetic data – and the connection seemed to hold firm. This suggests there might be more to the story than chance alone.

    The study didn’t stop at wine. It explored more than 100 lifestyle and environmental factors tied to sudden cardiac arrest, including diet, exercise, air pollution, emotional wellbeing, body composition and education levels – all of which have been independently associated with risk. The conclusion? Up to 63% of sudden cardiac arrest cases could potentially be prevented by addressing these risk factors.

    Among all the protective factors identified, a few stood out: fruit consumption, regular computer use (yes, really) and moderate drinking of white wine or champagne were all linked to a reduced risk of sudden cardiac arrest. Why? That remains uncertain.

    One theory is that white wine contains antioxidants that may support heart health. Another possibility is that people who drink these types of beverages may also be more affluent and more likely to engage in other healthy behaviour, such as eating well, exercising regularly – and have access to better healthcare.



    Read more:
    Wealth, wellness and wellbeing: why healthier ageing isn’t just about personal choices

    But before you pop a cork in celebration, a word of caution: alcohol remains a complex and often contradictory player in heart health. Other large-scale studies suggest a U-shaped relationship between alcohol and cardiovascular disease. Non-drinkers may have a certain level of risk, moderate drinkers of one glass of wine a day may see some benefit, but heavy drinking sharply increases the risk of high blood pressure, stroke and heart failure.

    One observational study involving over 400,000 participants even found that moderate drinking could raise the risk of arrhythmias, which in some cases can lead to sudden death.

    So while champagne may offer a hopeful glimmer, it’s no magic bullet. The study’s broader message was clear: it’s the overall lifestyle that matters most. Better sleep, regular physical activity and a balanced diet significantly reduced the risk of sudden cardiac arrest – and could prevent nearly one in five cases.

    On the flip side, obesity, high blood pressure and chronic stress were among the strongest risk factors, along with lower education levels and exposure to air pollution. These findings underscore that preventing sudden cardiac arrest isn’t just about personal habits: it’s also about the environments we live in and the policies that shape them. Cleaner air, better education and easier access to nutritious food could all play a role.

    Sudden cardiac arrest is not entirely random. Many of the contributing factors are within our control. Managing stress, staying active, maintaining a healthy weight, getting quality sleep – and yes, perhaps enjoying the occasional glass of white wine – can all help. But the real power lies in stacking small, healthy choices over time. Prevention is rarely about a single change; it’s about the cumulative effect of many.

    And in case you were wondering: Keynes suffered a series of heart attacks in 1946, beginning during negotiations for the Anglo-American loan in Savannah, Georgia. He described the process as “absolute hell”. A few weeks after returning to his farmhouse in Firle, East Sussex, he died of a heart attack at the age of 62.

    Maybe he was right about drinking more champagne after all.

    David C. Gaze 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. Can drinking champagne reduce your risk of sudden cardiac arrest? Here’s why it’s only a small part of the story – https://theconversation.com/can-drinking-champagne-reduce-your-risk-of-sudden-cardiac-arrest-heres-why-its-only-a-small-part-of-the-story-255708

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From vigorous brushing to clear aligners, here’s what might be causing your gums to recede

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Flavio Pisani, Senior Clinical Lecturer in Periodontology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Central Lancashire

    sruilk/Shutterstock

    One of the most common concerns patients bring to the dental chair is receding gums. Often, the immediate assumption is: “I must have gum disease.” While this can be true, gum recession isn’t always a clear-cut sign of disease. In fact, many people don’t notice any problem until they begin to experience tooth sensitivity to cold, hot, or sweet foods – or they notice their smile changing, with more visible tooth surfaces or small gaps appearing between the teeth.

    Dentists often respond to this concern with a quick fix: applying white composite fillings near the gum line. While this may help with sensitivity in the short term, it can make the problem worse over time by contributing to further gum recession.

    Gum disease – also known as periodontitis – is a serious condition. Symptoms such as bleeding when brushing, drifting teeth, persistent bad breath, or tooth mobility should always be investigated. However, gum recession can have other causes, too.

    Even ex-fiances of Jennifer Lopez can develop gum disease.

    Perhaps surprisingly, one of the biggest culprits behind receding gums is actually overzealous brushing. Using too much force or brushing with the wrong tools – like a hard-bristled toothbrush – can gradually wear away gum tissue. Electric toothbrushes can help by reducing pressure, especially newer models that light up when you brush too hard. But in reality, many people focus more on how long they brush than how they brush. Even the smart apps that pair with these toothbrushes usually highlight brushing time in each area, rather than pressure applied.

    That’s why teaching proper brushing technique is so important. The best method will vary depending on a patient’s individual tooth and gum structure – and it should always aim to remove plaque effectively while using gentle, consistent pressure. If someone is doing well with a manual toothbrush and has a solid technique, there’s no reason to switch to an electric one.

    Another growing cause of gum recession is cosmetic tooth straightening with clear aligners. While aligners are effective for aligning teeth quickly, they’re often paired with fixed retainers – wires bonded behind the teeth to hold them in place. Over time, this can cause the roots to drift outside the natural bone housing of the jaw, resulting in gum tissue shrinking away from the teeth.

    Solutions

    The good news is that there are solutions. Every case is unique, but with the right knowledge and techniques, dentists can help patients restore both gum health and appearance.

    For cases where the gum tissue has receded significantly, there are several surgical options depending on the patient’s needs and goals.

    For functional concerns, a technique called the free gingival graft is commonly used. This involves transplanting a thin layer of tissue – usually taken from the roof of the mouth (the palate) – to create a band of tough, pink gum around the base of the teeth. This helps patients brush comfortably without irritating the soft tissue of the gum. While this procedure can slightly reduce recession, the main goal is improving durability and comfort, not aesthetics. The graft is often visibly different in colour and texture.

    For cosmetic concerns, more advanced “plastic surgery” techniques are available. One popular method involves carefully lifting the local gum tissue, inserting a tissue graft beneath it (again, typically taken from the palate), and stitching it in place. This “sandwich” approach thickens the gums and gives them a healthier appearance. The graft acts as a scaffold for the existing gum tissue to grow back over, improving both form and function.

    These procedures are safe, effective and minimally invasive. They’re typically performed under local anaesthetic in a dental practice and require only a few days of recovery with over-the-counter pain relief. For anxious patients, conscious sedation can also be used – a technique where medications are used to relax a patient during a medical procedure, allowing them to remain awake and alert while feeling less nervous and potentially less aware of what’s happening.

    Long-term studies show these techniques to be reliable, with a success rate of up to 93% and minimal relapse even five years after surgery.

    The most important step in managing gum recession is a comprehensive patient assessment. While cosmetic concerns matter, the real priority is making sure gum disease isn’t being overlooked. Periodontitis is a silent and progressive condition, leading to chronic inflammation, bone loss and eventually tooth loss.

    More importantly, research links periodontal disease to systemic health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and even dementia. Protecting our gums isn’t just about maintaining a nice smile – it’s about safeguarding our overall health.

    Flavio Pisani 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. From vigorous brushing to clear aligners, here’s what might be causing your gums to recede – https://theconversation.com/from-vigorous-brushing-to-clear-aligners-heres-what-might-be-causing-your-gums-to-recede-255123

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who gets to be called an astronaut? Private space travel has reignited debate over use of prestigious title

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ian Whittaker, Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University

    Copyright: Blue Origin

    The recent all-women spaceflight carried out on Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin vehicle has raised discussion of who gets to be called an astronaut. Sean Duffy, Donald Trump’s transportation secretary, disputed the astronaut title given to those on the flight, including singer Katy Perry and journalist Gayle King.

    The term astronaut was only rarely disputed until the first “celebrity” suborbital flight in 2021. In the 1960s, pilots flying the experimental, rocket-powered X-15 jet were awarded astronaut status by the US Air Force if they flew above 50 miles (80km).

    Sir Richard Branson’s 2021 flight aboard his Virgin Galactic vehicle reached 53 miles (85km) – an altitude recognised by some experts as being within outer space. Bezos followed a few days later, travelling on his Blue Origin New Shepard vehicle. This flight reached about 68 miles (106km) in altitude.

    Bezos has focused on reaching an altitude of about 62.1 miles (100km), one proposed boundary of space known as the Kármán line, named after the early 20th-century polymath Theodore von Kármán.

    A 2021 post on social media by Bezos’s Blue Origin capitalised on the fact that his New Shepard vehicle reached the higher boundary. The suggestion from the post was that those who travelled to the lower boundary on rival Virgin Galactic flights could have their “space traveller” status questioned, whereas those who travelled with Blue Origin could not.

    This particular post did not mention the question of who is an “astronaut”. However, this is how Blue Origin currently describes those who travel on New Shepard.

    Indeed, some definitions of “astronaut” simply state that it is a person who has been to space. Therefore, another implication of the post – intentional or not – might be that those who travel with Bezos’s company are more eligible for such a designation than those who have been to lower altitudes.

    While Blue Origin calls the Kármán line an “internationally recognised boundary” of space, it is far from universally accepted. Theodore von Kármán wanted to separate out aeronautics (the science of flying aircraft) and astronautics (the science of space travel).

    As a byproduct, he calculated the maximum altitude that an aircraft could go without reaching orbital velocity (where it would start orbiting the Earth) to be around 52 miles (84km).

    A researcher and associate of von Kármán called Andrew Haley was interested in space law. He established von Kármán’s calculation as the boundary of space. This was later raised to 62.1 miles (100km) by the world governing body for air sports, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.

    The Kármán line has very little scientific rationale, however. If you ask a geologist, an atmospheric scientist and a space physics expert where the definition of space is, you will get vastly different answers.

    For example, as somebody who specialises in magnetospheric physics and solar influence, I would say space properly starts at the plasmapause. This is a boundary around the Earth that’s based on differences in the charged particles that exist on either side of the division. The plasmapause sits at an altitude of around 35,000 miles (57,000km).

    Who is an astronaut?

    The recent Blue Origin flight understandably made a strong positive impression on the passengers. Gayle King compared the flight to the historic launch in 1961 that made Nasa astronaut Alan Shepard the first American in space.

    The effusive reactions from the passengers, along with King’s and Blue Origin’s use of the term “astronaut” to describe the team members prompted a backlash online. King noted that men on similar flights hadn’t been subjected to such criticism, and Katy Perry says she felt “battered and bruised” by the reaction.

    Among the critics was the US transport secretary, Sean Duffy, who stated that the participants could not be astronauts as they failed to meet the FAA astronaut criteria. The FAA requirements for an astronaut are for them to be a member of crew, to contribute to spaceflight safety and to demonstrate activities essential to public safety. Their minimum altitude for “space” is the 50 mile (80km) limit.

    As New Shepard is fully automated, none of the passengers could really be considered “crew members”. Similarly, if you buy a ticket on a plane, you are not crew unless employed by the airline to do a job.

    Would it be different if private space travellers were able to carry out scientific research during their journey? This might make them more than just passengers and potentially qualify them for the “crew” designation. Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are actually not suited for any sort of weightlessness research. Passengers experience around 3-4 minutes of weightlessness.

    By contrast, a flight on the Airbus A310 zero-G plane gives 25-30 seconds of weightlessness. When this is repeated 25-30 times, you get between 10 and 15 minutes of weightlessness in total. This avenue for carrying out research in microgravity is also open to anybody with a sensible scientific idea to test rather than just members of the rich elite.

    Why it matters

    Does it matter what space travellers actually call themselves? The FAA designation of “astronaut” is not the only one. Some dictionary definitions simply define an astronaut as a person trained to go into space or, as mentioned, a person who has flown in space. The passengers on Blue Origin’s New Shepard flights would probably qualify under both of these definitions.

    But let’s consider the legal dimension. Star Trek actor William Shatner flew with Blue Origin on a New Shepard vehicle in 2021. If Shatner had experienced a health-related incident during the flight, who would have been at fault?

    If Shatner was an “astronaut”, could it be argued that he held a greater level of responsibility for any adverse effects from the flight? If he was simply a passenger, might the company share more responsibility?

    Thankfully, such a situation has not yet occurred, which means that any associated legal arguments remain hypothetical. But as more paying passengers travel on flights to space, the chances of adverse incidents increase.

    Ultimately, everyone can have an opinion about whether just going into space – wherever the boundary may lie – makes you an astronaut. But there may be more to consider than a nice title.

    Ian Whittaker 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. Who gets to be called an astronaut? Private space travel has reignited debate over use of prestigious title – https://theconversation.com/who-gets-to-be-called-an-astronaut-private-space-travel-has-reignited-debate-over-use-of-prestigious-title-255630

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can vitamin D help prevent colorectal cancer? The science is promising – but not straightforward

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

    Yulia Furman/Shutterstock

    The potential role of vitamin D in preventing and treating colorectal cancer (CRC) has attracted growing research interest – especially as CRC rates are rising, particularly among younger adults. This isn’t a new area of study. Low vitamin D levels have long been linked to a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer.

    One large study involving over 12,000 participants found that people with low blood levels of vitamin D had a 31% greater risk of developing CRC compared to those with higher levels. Similarly, another study reported a 25% lower CRC risk among individuals with high dietary vitamin D intake.

    Data from the Nurses’ Health Study – a long-term investigation of American nurses – showed that women with the highest vitamin D intake had a 58% lower risk of developing colorectal cancer compared to those with the lowest intake.

    Now, a review highlights vitamin D’s promise in colorectal cancer prevention and treatment – but also underscores the complexity and contradictions in current research.

    While observational data, which follow people’s use of vitamin D, and mechanistic studies, to investigate how vitamin D works in the laboratory, suggest protective effects, this isn’t confirmed by larger trials.

    In fact, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in which some people receive vitamin D and others don’t, the gold standard by which treatments are judged, reveal inconsistent outcomes. This highlights the need for a balanced approach to its integration into public health strategies.

    Vitamin D is synthesised in the skin in response to sunlight and exerts its biological effects through vitamin D receptors (VDRs) found throughout the body, including in colon tissue. When activated, these receptors help regulate gene activity related to inflammation, immune response and cell growth – processes central to cancer development and progression.

    Preclinical studies have shown that the active form of vitamin D (calcitriol) can suppress inflammation, boost immune surveillance (the immune system’s ability to detect abnormal cells), inhibit tumour blood vessel growth and regulate cell division – a key factor in cancer development, as demonstrated in my recent research.

    Epidemiological studies, which track health outcomes across large populations over time, consistently find that people with higher blood levels of vitamin D have a lower risk of developing CRC. This paints a hopeful picture, suggesting that something as simple as getting more vitamin D – via sun exposure, diet, or supplements – could lower cancer risk.

    But the story gets more complicated.

    Mixed results

    When it comes to medical decision-making, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard. These studies randomly assign participants to receive either a treatment (like vitamin D) or a placebo, helping eliminate bias and isolate cause-and-effect relationships.

    Unfortunately, RCTs on vitamin D and CRC have produced mixed results.

    For example, the VITAL trial – a major RCT involving over 25,000 participants – found no significant reduction in overall colorectal cancer incidence with 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplementation over several years.

    However, a meta-analysis of seven RCTs did show a 30% improvement in CRC survival rates with vitamin D supplements, suggesting potential benefits later in the disease course rather than for prevention.

    On the other hand, the Vitamin D/Calcium Polyp Prevention Trial found no reduction in the recurrence of adenomas (pre-cancerous growths) with supplementation, raising questions about who benefits most, and at what dosage.

    Adding to the uncertainty is the question of causation. Does low vitamin D contribute to cancer development? Or does the onset of cancer reduce vitamin D levels in the body? It’s also possible that the observed benefits are partly due to increased sunlight exposure, which itself may have independent protective effects.

    The big picture

    These discrepancies highlight the importance of considering the “totality of evidence” – treating each study as one piece of a larger puzzle.

    The biologic plausibility is there. Observational and mechanistic studies suggest a meaningful link between vitamin D and lower CRC risk. But the clinical evidence isn’t yet strong enough to recommend vitamin D as a standalone prevention or treatment strategy.

    That said, maintaining sufficient vitamin D levels – at least 30 ng/mL – is a low-risk, cost-effective health measure. And when combined with other strategies like regular screening, a healthy diet, physical activity, and personalised care, vitamin D could still play a valuable role in overall cancer prevention.

    Vitamin D is not a miracle cure – but it is part of a much broader picture. Its role in colorectal cancer is promising but still being defined. While it’s not time to rely on supplements alone, ensuring adequate vitamin D levels – through sun exposure, diet, or supplements – remains a smart choice for your health.

    Colorectal cancer is a complex disease, and tackling it requires an equally nuanced approach. For now, that means focusing on evidence-based lifestyle changes, regular screenings, and staying informed as new research unfolds.

    Justin Stebbing 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. Can vitamin D help prevent colorectal cancer? The science is promising – but not straightforward – https://theconversation.com/can-vitamin-d-help-prevent-colorectal-cancer-the-science-is-promising-but-not-straightforward-255025

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump’s tariffs could hit developing economies – even those not involved in the trade war

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Selim Raihan, Professor of Economics, University of Dhaka

    The world has witnessed a resurgence of protectionism since Donald Trump returned to the White House. So-called “reciprocal” tariffs, imposed on all US trading partners at varying degrees based on the tax they charge on American goods, have been one of the hallmark features of Trump’s economic policy. They aim to correct what he perceives as “unfair” trade practices.

    In early April, Trump said many countries had “ripped us off left and right” and declared “now it’s our turn to do the ripping”. His administration swiftly imposed sweeping tariff increases, with some of the highest rates falling on poorer countries like Laos and Lesotho.

    A 90-day suspension was eventually made for most of these tariffs, and Trump has now softened duties on imported cars and car parts. But the danger remains high. No one can be certain that the initial reciprocal tariffs will not be reinstated.

    Developing countries, many of which rely heavily on the export of manufactured goods to the US, will be keeping a keen eye on what happens next.

    We employed the Global Trade Analysis Project model to analyse the possible effects of US tariffs on trade and economic growth. The model captures interactions and feedback among economic agents (households, firms and governments), markets, sectors and regions in the world economy.

    It can be used to forecast the effect of trade reforms on various indicators such as production, welfare, income, prices and trade flows. Based on certain assumptions, the changes are likely to be seen in between two and three years.

    We used simulations to compute the effects of Trump’s tariff regime under two alternative scenarios. In the first, which reflects the global trade situation at the time of writing, baseline tariffs are levied on all countries at 10%. The duties are 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, and 145% on China. Retaliatory duties by China on US goods are set at 125%.

    In the second, across-the-board reciprocal tariffs are imposed on countries at the levels Trump declared in his initial plan on April 2. This is in addition to the 145% tariff on Chinese goods, 25% on those from Canada and Mexico and a 125% duty by China on imports from the US.

    Winners and losers

    As shown by the graph below, our simulations suggest the US tariff regime will distort export patterns worldwide. The most painful effects will fall on China and the US itself.

    Chinese exports would shrink by 10.8% in the first scenario and 10.9% in the second. The US would suffer an even larger loss of 11.7% and 14.9%, respectively.

    The model suggests that other major US trading partners such as Canada and Mexico would also experience deep export declines of over 5% in both scenarios. Roughly 75% of Canada’s exports head south towards the US.

    Among the developing Asian economies, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines would experience substantial export declines. This is particularly the case in the second scenario, with losses ranging from 2% to 4.4%. These countries are particularly vulnerable to reciprocal tariffs because they rely heavily on exports and are deeply tied to global supply and production chains.

    Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam may benefit in the first scenario due to a possible diversion of trade. These countries, which are known for having some of the lowest labour costs in the world, offer cheap alternatives for goods that US importers would previously have sourced from China.

    But they are expected to lose the majority of these benefits in the second scenario under a full reciprocal tariff regime. The exceptions are Cambodia and Indonesia, which our simulations suggest will retain positive export growth – albeit reduced to 1.6% from 4% for Cambodia and unchanged at 0.7% for Indonesia.

    This may be because Cambodia and Indonesia have slightly more diversified export baskets than countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and trade with more partners. However, these gains are likely to be short lived if global uncertainties continue.

    Major advanced economies such as Japan, the UK and EU will lose exports by a moderate amount. And the Middle East, north Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (excluding Brazil) will see similar declines.

    The second graph presents a concerning picture of how trade disruption could affect GDP, which economists use to measure the size of a country’s economy. The US and China are again set to suffer the steepest GDP losses, of 0.3% in the US and 1.9% in China under the second scenario. This confirms the well-established economic consensus that trade wars are mutually destructive.

    Under the second scenario, most emerging and developing economies would suffer modest GDP declines between 0.3% and 1%. Thailand (1%), Malaysia (0.9%), Brazil (0.9%) and Vietnam (0.9%) are the worst hit countries in this category.

    Like most of the developing countries in Asia, which are not directly involved in the trade war, many countries in Latin America, the Middle East, north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa would still face hits to their GDP. This underscores the global interconnectedness of trade and investment flows.

    The simulations confirm what economists have been asserting for years: trade wars do not have winners. While some countries do benefit in the short term by way of trade diversion, the total losses are high and developing countries are not immune from the damage.

    However, there are strategies developing countries can employ to improve their resilience to global trade disruptions. This includes diversifying their export markets by, for example, establishing stronger trade ties in regional blocs.

    One example is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a free trade agreement between the Asia-Pacific nations of Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Such ties can be strengthened further.

    Developing countries should also use this turbulent period to streamline customs, upgrade port infrastructure and improve logistics. This can reduce costs, enhance competitiveness and help developing economies engage more deeply in international trade.

    No country is exempt from disruptions to global trade. But those with diversified economies, strong regional linkages and resilient trade infrastructure will weather the turbulence more successfully.

    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. How Trump’s tariffs could hit developing economies – even those not involved in the trade war – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-tariffs-could-hit-developing-economies-even-those-not-involved-in-the-trade-war-255435

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Glitter’s sparkle hides a darker side – it can change the chemistry of our oceans

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Juan Diego Rodriguez-Blanco, Ussher Associate Professor in Nanomineralogy, Trinity College Dublin

    Glitter is festive and fun – a favourite for decorations, makeup and art projects. But while it may look harmless, beautiful even, glitter’s sparkle hides a darker side. Those shimmering specks often end up far from party tables and greeting cards. You can even spot them glinting on beaches, washed in with the tide.

    In our recent research, we discovered that glitter – specifically, the kind made from a common plastic polymer called polyethylene terephthalate (PET) – is not merely polluting the ocean. It could actively interfere with marine life as it forms shells and skeletons, which is a much bigger deal than it might sound.

    Put simply: glitter helps the formation of crystals that nature did not plan for. And those crystals can break the glitter into even smaller pieces, making the pollution problem worse and more long-lasting.

    We tend to think of microplastics as tiny beads from face scrubs or fibres from clothes, but glitter is in its own special category. It is often made of layered plastic film with metal coatings – the same stuff found in craft supplies, cosmetics, party decorations and clothing. It is shiny, colourful and durable – and extremely tiny. That makes it hard to clean up and easy for marine animals to eat, because it looks tasty.

    New research reveals that PET-based glitter microplastics in the sea can actively influence a process known as biomineralisation.

    However, our research paper in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe suggests that what really sets glitter apart from other microplastics is the way it behaves once it enters the ocean. It actively interacts with its surroundings; it’s not drifting passively.

    In our lab, we recreated seawater conditions and added glitter to the mix to explore whether glitter would affect how minerals – like the ones marine animals use to make their shells – form. What we saw was surprisingly fast and incredibly consistent: the glitter was kickstarting the formation of minerals such as calcite, aragonite and other types of calcium carbonates in a process known as “biomineralisation”.

    These minerals are the building blocks that many marine creatures – including corals, sea urchins and molluscs – use to make their hard parts. If glitter is messing with that process, we could be looking at a serious threat to ocean life.

    A crystal-growing machine

    Under the microscope, we saw that glitter particles acted like little platforms for crystal growth. Minerals formed all over their surfaces, especially around cracks and edges. It was not a slow build-up – crystals appeared within minutes.

    This can complicate natural processes. Marine creatures use very precise conditions to make their shells the right shape and strength. When something like glitter comes along and changes the rules – speeding up crystal growth, changing the types of crystals that form – it could mess with those natural processes. Like baking a cake and suddenly having the oven heat up to 1,000ºC, you might still get a cake – but it will not be the one you intended to cook.

    Worse still, as the crystals grow, they push against the layers of glitter, causing it to crack, flake and break apart. That means the glitter ends up turning into even smaller pieces, known as nanoplastics, which are more easily absorbed by marine life and nearly impossible to remove from the environment.

    Microplastics are eaten by marine life, from fish and turtles to oysters and plankton. This affects how animals feed, grow and survive. When we eat seafood, these microplastics become part of our own diet.

    But our findings show that glitter does not just get eaten. It changes the chemistry of the ocean in tiny but important ways. By promoting the wrong kind of mineral growth, glitter might interfere with how ocean animals form their shells or skeletons in the first place.

    This problem does not stop with wildlife. The ocean plays a key role in regulating Earth’s climate, and mineral formation is part of that equation. If calcium carbonate formation in the ocean changes, it could also affect how carbon moves through the planet.

    So, the next time you see glitter on a birthday card or in a makeup palette, remember this: it might look like harmless sparkle, but in the ocean, it behaves more like a flashy chemical troublemaker. What seems small and shiny to us could be a big, silent disruptor for the marine world.

    And once it is out there, it is not going away.

    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.

    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. Glitter’s sparkle hides a darker side – it can change the chemistry of our oceans – https://theconversation.com/glitters-sparkle-hides-a-darker-side-it-can-change-the-chemistry-of-our-oceans-255155

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Historical films and TV shows are embracing diversity – but real historical voices are still overlooked

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Éadaoin Agnew, Senior lecturer in English literature, Kingston University

    In the Disney+ television series, A Thousand Blows, Malachi Kirby plays Hezekiah Moscow, a Jamaican immigrant in London who is part of an underground boxing ring in the 1880s.

    The character, like many in the show, is based on a real-life figure. However, as historian David Olusoga recently explained in a comment to the Radio Times, Moscow is typical of many people who have come from the Caribbean or Africa in that we only have a fractured biography in the British historical records. We get flashes of information before he disappears.

    In recent years, there have been increasing creative efforts to fill these historical gaps. This suggests there is a willingness, at least in some spheres, to acknowledge the long history of multiculturalism in Britain and to see people of colour in 19th-century histories (see also 2019’s David Copperfield starring Dev Patel and the multicultural cast of Bridgerton).

    These costume dramas build on decades of scholarly work. There are now many excellent historical studies that document the various ways in which the Atlantic slave trade and imperialism produced routes and reasons for travel to Britain.

    Most people who arrived here from the colonies in the 18th and 19th centuries did not have the means to write their own stories, so we glance their lives through incomplete historical records. But, there were also British subjects of colour who were educated in English with a degree of relative privilege and who produced compelling and popular accounts of their experiences in Britain or life in the colonies. They also wrote fascinating fiction and beautiful poetry.

    These narratives directly challenge the general perception that multiculturalism emerged in Britain after the Windrush (Caribbean immigrants who arrived in Britain after the second world war to rebuild the nation) and that 19th-century English literature emerged only from Britain. Yet, there remains an unwillingness to centre these stories and to allow diverse voices to speak for themselves.

    My own work on the AHRC-funded Victorian Diversities Research Network seeks to recuperate and promote these stories.

    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.

    Historical writers of colour and writers from other marginalised communities are continually excluded from school curricula, literary anthologies and TV adaptations. This is a kind of cultural gate-keeping that reinforces imperialist ideas about literary value.

    One example of this literary exclusion is Mary Seacole (1805-1881). Born in Jamaica to a Creole mother and Scottish father, she is now remembered in Britain for her contributions to nursing during the Crimean War. She is commemorated for her work by a statue at St. Thomas’ Hospital in London and by John Aagard’s wonderful poem Checking Out Me History (2019).

    Even so, there is a notable neglect of her fantastic memoir. Published in 1857, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands is a funny, insightful and interesting account of her fulsome life. It clearly shows an affinity for Britain, while also acknowledging the difficulties she experienced there.

    One of two known photographs of Mary Seacole, taken circa 1873.
    Wiki Commons

    Another example is Ham Mukasa (1870-1956), who penned an account of his travels to England as part of an official African delegation in 1902 titled Uganda’s Katikiro in England. Written in a light and lively manner, his travelogue offers a fascinating picture of London at the turn of the century, as seen from a unique perspective.

    When Mukasa visited the British Museum not long after arriving in the metropolis, he admired the displays of “wonderful things of long ago”. He explains to his readers that these items are stored behind glass so visitors cannot touch them. It’s a fact that becomes particularly pertinent when he comes across several Ugandan artefacts donated to the museum by British travellers:

    We saw different articles from our country; some had been brought by Sir H. H. Johnston, who had given a great many things, and others by other Englishmen … the Rev. R. P. Ashe had given a great many, and others too had given things from our country of Uganda.

    It is a powerful image: the Ugandan men standing in a British institution looking at their own indigenous culture through a glass. The encounter speaks directly to contemporary debates about museum collections and the need for inclusive cultural spaces.

    Both Mukasa and Seacole, as people of colour and colonial subjects, articulate feelings of belonging and unbelonging in the metropolitan centre. They find much to admire in British culture and society while also acknowledging the fact of racial marginalisation.

    As such, they give historical and literary expression to the affects of mobility, migration and multiculturalism. As professor of global literatures Ruvani Ranasinha argues, current debates on citizenship rights, migration policy, what constitutes “Englishness” and multiculturalism were prompted and anticipated by the presence of colonial subjects within Britain over a century ago.

    Ignatius Sancho by Thomas Gainsborough (1768).
    National Gallery of Canada

    In a 2019 paper, he explains that “Britain was always ‘multicultural’ even before multiculturalism was theorised: multicultural in terms of a sense of (un)belonging, a redrawing of culturally and racially defined borders and remapping of British identities”. And so, Ranashina notes, we must do more than simply acknowledge the historical presence of marginalised people and start engaging with diverse cultural contributions.

    This is vital because an inclusive canon more accurately represents the multiple stories that make up English literary history.

    It also makes important critical and cultural contributions to the creation of an inclusive society today. This is acknowledged by actor and writer Paterson Joseph who recently fictionalised the letters of Ignatius Sancho, a writer and composer, who was born on a slave ship crossing the Atlantic Ocean:

    “I was once timid about my place here in the UK, but researching Sancho’s story … has given me a deep sense of belonging, of a shared history with a nation that sometimes ignores, sometimes rejects, my people’s right to an equal role in its storytelling.”

    Éadaoin Agnew receives funding from AHRC for the Victorian Diversities Research Network https://victoriandiversities.co.uk

    – ref. Historical films and TV shows are embracing diversity – but real historical voices are still overlooked – https://theconversation.com/historical-films-and-tv-shows-are-embracing-diversity-but-real-historical-voices-are-still-overlooked-253191

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Three strategies to help European carmakers regain their edge

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

    sylv1rob1/Shutterstock

    Even before US president Donald Trump announced a 25% tariff on all imported cars, European automakers had been facing a multitude of challenges. Sales have slumped and manufacturers face rising costs, while Chinese rivals have rapidly been gaining market share.

    The day before the tariffs announcement, the combined market capitalisation of Europe’s five major automakers (Volkswagen, Stellantis, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Renault) stood at around US$212 billion (£159 billion). This total is less than a quarter of the value of Tesla alone.

    Yet the five European giants sell 25 million vehicles annually, accounting for a third of all cars purchased worldwide. Tesla, despite losing half of its market value since the beginning of the year, only just makes the top 15 automakers. It sells less than a third of what Stellantis alone delivers.

    This essentially means that financial markets no longer believe that European carmakers can make money out of a business they have been dominating for almost a century.

    The crisis does, in fact, stem from the obsolescence of the technology upon which the entire industrial model of the car was built.

    The invention of German engineer Karl Benz, later made widely accessible to millions of consumers by American entrepreneur Henry Ford, was far more than just a product.

    Cars enabled people to go anywhere whenever they wanted. This fuelled the last industrial revolution and one of the greatest leaps in human prosperity.

    However, more than 100 years after the first assembly lines appeared in Detroit, the dream has stalled. In a world where economic and environmental resources are increasingly scarce, an entire industrial model looks unsustainable.

    Why? Because it became inefficient.

    A privately owned car is used for only 5% of its potential lifetime. It remains idle and occupying valuable parking space for the other 95%. It carries an average of just 1.2 passengers, utilising only a quarter of its capacity.

    If an alien were to observe human civilisation, it might conclude that humans have lost that special ability that made them so different from all other species: to do more with less.

    Additionally, around 80% of cars are still powered by fossil fuels that cost significantly more than electricity per mile. This is despite economies of scale that are bringing down the price of purchasing a plug-in electric vehicle (EV).

    These issues have hit the European – and also the US – automotive industries hard. These regions were the birthplace of the industry itself. For CEOs and policymakers, who often belong to a generation (and a gender) steeped in traditional automotive culture, finding solutions has proven difficult. However, there could be a clear path forward.

    Here are three ideas to bring the European automotive industry in the 21st century.

    1. Become more competitive by attracting EV rivals

    China has already secured a technological advantage in this field – similar to the dominance once held by Volkswagen when it first established factories in Shanghai.

    In the same week when BYD announced that it has surpassed Tesla in terms of revenues of electric cars, the Chinese automaker also revealed that it had developed a system to charge an electric car with 400km (249 miles) of range in five minutes.

    BYD and other Chinese manufacturers export less than 10% of their products to the EU. They will survive any import duty that the EU imposes on them. Instead of fearing Chinese automakers, the EU should entice them to establish production facilities in the bloc, encouraging competition and innovation within its borders.

    2. Sell services and symbols

    New business models should focus on selling services as well as objects. This trend is prevailing in many industries, and carmakers should embrace it to develop partnerships with organisations that can make driving a less wasteful experience. Autonomous driving technology, for example, offers the chance to take vehicle-sharing to a much wider customer base.

    And European automakers should trade on their history as a symbol of expertise and longevity. This is not so different to what camera-maker Kodak has done to survive to the digital revolution. It is notable that Ferrari is now worth more than its bigger sister company Stellantis.

    3. Governments must get involved

    For the transformation to succeed, governments must play a role. It is not about propping up the European industry with subsidies or treating cars as the new steel industry. Rather, it is about designing and implementing the infrastructure that the future of mobility requires.

    The Fiat Topolino brought private transport to the masses.
    Dan74/Shutterstock

    A century ago, European cities were completely restructured to transition from horse-drawn carriages to the first Fiat Topolinos rolling out of the Mirafiori factory.

    Today, we need new charging networks and dedicated lanes for electric and autonomous vehicles. This is already happening in China clearly showing that without a significant modernisation of infrastructure innovation does not happen.

    The impact of tariffs

    Trump’s tariffs will hurt – badly. Volkswagen, which exports two thirds of its production outside western Europe, will suffer most after assuming that its “people’s cars” could be sold indiscriminately to different populations.

    However, the era of tariffs should serve as a wake-up call rather than a death sentence. The European automotive sector must use this challenge to reinvent itself, just as it did in the post-war era.

    In the 1960s, countries like Italy and France combined industrial strategy of the likes of Fiat and Renault with a vision of the future. This alignment of industrial ambition and pragmatic policymaking was a key part of post-war reconstruction.

    Now European leaders must embrace the same spirit of bold, forward-thinking innovation to build a transport system that is capable of setting global standards. The automotive crisis is not just an industry-specific issue. It demands a revival of both vision and pragmatism.

    Francesco Grillo is affiliated with Vision, an independent European Think Tank. Vision is the convenor of two global conferences: on “the Europe of the Future” (in Siena) and on “global governance of climate change” (in Trento).

    – ref. Three strategies to help European carmakers regain their edge – https://theconversation.com/three-strategies-to-help-european-carmakers-regain-their-edge-255259

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How dogs and cats are evolving to look alike and why it’s humans’ fault – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Grace Carroll, Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and Welfare, School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast

    Africa Studio/Shutterstock

    Domestication has made cats and dogs more diverse, but also curiously alike – with serious implications for their health and welfare, new research shows.

    At first glance, Persian cats and pugs don’t seem like they’d have much in common. One’s a cat, the other’s a dog, separated by 50 million years of evolution. But when evolutionary biologist Abby Grace Drake and her colleagues scanned 1,810 skulls of cats, dogs and their wild relatives, they found something strange. Despite their distant histories, many breeds of cats and dogs show striking similarity in skull shape.

    In evolutionary biology, divergence is a common process. In simple terms, divergence is where two organisms that share a common ancestry become increasingly different over time, while convergence means becoming more similar. As populations of animals split and adapt to different environments, they gradually develop new traits, a process known as divergent evolution.

    This is one of the main ways new species form different traits, causing populations to evolve along separate paths. But sometimes, evolution can take a different direction. Convergence happens when unrelated species, shaped by similar pressures, independently evolve similar features.

    In the case of domestic cats, dogs and many other domesticated species, intentional and unintentional selection by humans seems to have created convergence, accidentally steering different species toward similar traits.

    Despite a long history of evolutionary separation, flat-faced breeds like the Persian cat and pugs share similar skull structures.

    Persian cats have a similar skull structure to pugs.
    Zanna Pesnina/Shutterstock

    To investigate how far domestication has reshaped skull structure, Drake and her colleagues analysed 3D scans of skulls from museum specimens, veterinary schools and digital archives. Their dataset included domestic cats such as Siamese, Maine coon and Persian breeds, as well as over 100 dog breeds from short-muzzled dogs like pugs, to long-muzzled breeds like collies.

    Their findings showed that domestication has not only increased skull shape diversity beyond that of wolves and wildcats, but also led some cat and dog breeds to resemble one another, with convergence towards either long or flat faces. Wild canids (the group of animals that includes dogs, wolves, foxes and jackals) tend to share a similar elongated skull, while wild felids (the group of animals that includes domestic cats, lions, tigers and jaguars) show more natural variation.

    Yet domestic breeds of both species now span a more extreme range at both ends of the scale. This trend can be seen in the emergence of cats bred to resemble XL bully dogs.

    Domestication has long shown that when humans intervene, even distantly related species can end up looking, and sometimes suffering, in similar ways.

    Selective breeding has exaggerated traits across species. Many other human-made changes can push animals beyond what their bodies can naturally support. For instance, some chickens bred for their meat carry 30% of their body weight in breast muscle, which often results in heart and lung problems.

    The human preference for flat-faced pets taps into some of our most fundamental instincts. Humans are hard-wired to respond to infant features like rounded heads, small noses and large, low set eyes. These traits, which are exaggerated in many flat-faced cat and dog breeds, mimic the appearance of human babies.

    Of all species, humans are among the most altricial, meaning that we are born helpless and dependent on caregivers for survival, a trait we share with puppies and kittens. In contrast, precocial animals are able to see, hear, stand and move shortly after birth. Because human infants rely so heavily upon adult care, evolution has shaped us to be sensitive to signals of vulnerability and need.

    These signals like the rounded cheeks and wide eyes of babies, are known as social releasers. They trigger caregiving behaviour in adults, from speaking in higher-pitched tones to offering parental care.

    Herring gulls (a type of seagull) are an example of this in non-human animals. Their chicks instinctively peck at a red spot on the parent’s beak, which triggers the adult to regurgitate food. This red spot acts as a social releaser, ensuring the chick’s needs are met at the right time. In a similar way, domesticated animals have effectively hijacked ancient caregiving mechanisms evolved for our own offspring.

    These traits may give pets an advantage in soliciting human care and attention, but they come at a cost.

    The UK government commissions its Animal Welfare Committee to provide independent expert advice on emerging animal welfare concerns. In reports they produced in 2024, the committee raised serious concerns about the effect of selective breeding in both cats and dogs.

    The reports highlighted that breeding for extreme physical traits, like flat faces and exaggerated skull shapes, has led to widespread health problems, including breathing difficulties, neurological conditions and birth complications.

    The committee argues that animals with severe hereditary health issues should no longer be used for breeding, and calls for tougher regulation of breeders. Without these reforms, many popular breeds will continue to suffer from preventable, life-limiting conditions.

    Selective breeding has shown how easily humans can bend nature to their preferences, and how quickly millions of years of evolutionary separation can be overridden by a few decades of artificial selection.

    In choosing pets that mimic the faces of our own infants, we have, often unwittingly, selected for traits that harm the animals. Understanding the forces that drive convergence between species is a reminder that we play a powerful and sometimes dangerous role in shaping it.

    Grace Carroll 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 dogs and cats are evolving to look alike and why it’s humans’ fault – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-dogs-and-cats-are-evolving-to-look-alike-and-why-its-humans-fault-new-research-255260

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Reform enters local government for the first time with UK mayoral election wins

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Nurse, Reader in Urban Planning, University of Liverpool

    The UK now has two regional mayors representing the Reform party, following English local elections on May 1. This is the first time anyone from the party has held a government position at any level.

    Andrea Jenkyns, formerly a Conservative government minister, is now the mayor of Greater Lincolnshire following an election win on May 1. She becomes the first Reform and Luke Campbell is now mayor of Hull and East Yorkshire. Both are new mayoralities, created as part of the government’s developing devolution plans.

    The creation of more mayoralties meant that, perhaps inevitably, the near-monopoly that Labour held on mayors after the 2024 local elections has ended. But with an unproven track record, it’s reasonable to ask what we might expect from the new reform mayors as they take office.

    Since the first devolution deals were signed back in 2014, English devolution has always been about the ability of local governments to convince Westminster to let go of power. The result has been that devolution deals have varied in strength across the country.

    In broad terms, city regions have tended to get more powers, while others get slightly less. This means that not every new regional (also known as metro) mayor will be a budding Andy Burnham – though in practice most can expect to have core powers of housing, transport and education. Over time we have seen how the existing mayors have sought to inhabit those powers in their own way, and bring about their own priorities.

    So, we now wait to see what that means for the new mayors as they take power. We already know that Jenkyns’ election manifesto touched upon the key powers the mayor will hold (transport, education and the economy) but her agenda on these was painted only in the broadest of brush strokes.

    For example, there were promises to upgrade major roads, and to secure more funding for transport – although achieving both would require a willing Labour government to play nice. More realistic promises include more frequent buses which better serve parts of what is a large rural area, and creating skills bodies to work with local employers.

    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.

    Elsewhere, however, the manifesto delved into the realm of memes and bogeymen. For example, Jenkyns has proposed creating “DOGE Lincolnshire”, mirroring Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency in the US.

    This promises to cut government waste and “ensure efficiency”. Yet, given the combined authority she heads was only constituted in February, it’s not quite clear what inefficiencies Jenkyns is referring to.

    Another pledge is to push back against net zero – something that Reform seems to be using as their protest lodestar now that Brexit is no longer fertile feeding ground. Here, the policies seem to be to fight against national government policy on net-zero rather than anything really specific.

    Playing nicely with central government

    A regional mayor’s fate often hinges on their ability to interact effectively with central government – either by trying to secure concessions from it, or resisting it. Here, it will be very interesting to watch how Jenkyns, Campbell and the new Conservative mayor of Cambridge and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, assimilate.

    They are now members of the Council of the Regions – which for the last 12 months has been largely a cosy cabal of Labour mayors (and Tory Ben Houchen).

    How will Reform mayors – and Jenkyns in particular do business with the others? She is known as a disruptor so it could change the dynamic significantly.

    English local government is littered with examples of national government visiting retribution on local authorities for perceived transgressions. For example, most famously, Margaret Thatcher’s government abolished the Metropolitan Councils in 1986 for getting a bit too big for their boots. While there is no suggestion that will happen this time, current devolution deals are heavily premised on trust and ability to work with government.

    The other issue will be how what started as a protest party deals with the minutiae of governing. Mario Cuomo, a former governor of New York, once famously said that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Sometimes, however, local government can be about the grammar – dealing with those minor details.

    I remember interviewing a local councillor who once told me most of the time people want to talk about dog poo and bins. Equally, things like potholes are shown to be what residents want to see fixed.

    From now on, Jenkyns and other reform-led councils will have a record that they will have to defend. Ultimately, while a manifesto that is half-built on memes might grab attention on election day, it probably isn’t going to make the buses run on time.

    Alex Nurse receives funding from the ESRC.

    – ref. Reform enters local government for the first time with UK mayoral election wins – https://theconversation.com/reform-enters-local-government-for-the-first-time-with-uk-mayoral-election-wins-255731

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Bingeable comedy, a Jim Crow-era vampire thriller and William Morris mania – what to watch, read and do this week

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naomi Joseph, Arts + Culture Editor

    I recently bought a Now TV subscription because we are in prime prestige TV season and I needed it to watch The White Lotus and The Last of Us. Deep into those big, confronting shows (which are brilliant but, let’s be honest, a lot), I was looking for something that was comforting and easy. If this is what you are also craving right now, I could not recommend Hacks more.

    Hacks is a whip-smart and hilarious show with 30-minute episodes. It follows Ava Daniels (Hannah Einbinder), an edgy comedy writer who isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, and spiky Las Vegas comedy veteran Deborah Vance (Jean Smart). This pair are shoved together by their shared manager when Ava is fired from a writing gig for making an off-colour joke on social media, and Deborah loses her headline slot on the Vegas strip as the city moves on without her.

    The trailer for season four of Hacks.

    Since its first season, Hacks has provided insightful commentary on the male-dominated world of comedy. The push and pull relationship between Ava and Deborah is hilarious as they clash over generational differences on everything from comedy to sexuality. The show has been rightly lauded for its brilliant writing, which manages to go all the way up to the line without being hateful – a skill many comedians who argue that it’s hard to make comedy in our politically correct age could learn from.

    Now in its fourth season, our reviewer, Jacqueline Ristola, an expert in the media industry and comedy, says Hacks has managed to maintain the quality (and hilarity) while finding new ground to explore women’s precarious place in the entertainment industry.



    Read more:
    Hacks season four tackles late-night TV – and is as funny and perceptive as ever

    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.

    If you are in the mood for something a bit moodier and serious, then Sinners might be for you. The film follows twin brothers Smoke and Stack (both played by Michael B. Jordan) who have returned home to Mississippi in an attempt to leave their troubles behind. What they find waiting for them, however, is much worse.

    Sinners is set in Jim Crow-era Mississippi, a time of harsh segregation and racial injustice. While the horrors of this period are certainly enough to scare anyone, director Ryan Coogler has decided to tell a story grounded in supernatural evil. Vampires aside, there is a lot of history in Sinners too. Criminology expert Rachel Stuart found it interesting how the real stories of Irish and Choctaw oppression informed the film.



    Read more:
    Sinners: how real stories of Irish and Choctaw oppression inform the film

    The trailer for Sinners.

    If you’re looking for something to read, we recommend the memoir Red Pockets. In this piece, Alice Mah, a professor in urban and environmental studies, writes about why she was inspired to create this book after a personal detour to her ancestral village she took while on a research trip.

    In Red Pockets, Mah chronicles her journey from the rice villages of south China back to postindustrial England. Her research on pollution leads to growing eco-anxiety, and paired with this trip leaves her in spiritual crisis. Part memoir, part cultural history and environmental exploration, this book explores what we owe our ancestors and also future generations.



    Read more:
    Travelling to my ancestral home in China unearthed tragedy tinged by the climate crisis – it inspired me to write Red Pockets

    Inky worlds and popular patterns

    Also moody and brilliant is the Victor Hugo exhibition at the Royal Academy in London. I did not know that the French writer was an avid artist, and this exhibition is a wonderful and rare opportunity to gaze into the dark and surreal world of the mind behind Les Misérables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

    Hugo’s inky paintings and drawings of townscapes and watery underworlds invoke a sort of nightmarish and apocalyptic reality. The low lighting in which these extremely fragile works must be kept adds to the whole foreboding atmosphere. The exhibition’s title comes from Van Gogh’s opinion of Hugo’s work as “astonishing things”, and they really are. Our review, expert in fine art Martin Lang, found “the sense of uncertainty to feel oddly relevant to today”.



    Read more:
    Astonishing Things: The Drawings of Victor Hugo at the Royal Academy is dark and brilliant

    Another man whose art has had enduring appeal is designer William Morris. Most people probably have or know of someone who owns something adorned with one of his hypnotising patterns. His work has remained incredibly popular since he first started producing it in the 1860s. A new exhibition at the William Morris exhibition, Morris Mania: How Britain’s Greatest Designer Went Viral, explores how his work proliferated to such a degree.

    While you may be able to spot a Morris, you might not know much about the man. He was a fervent socialist who championed a principle of handmade production that didn’t chime with the Victorian era’s focus on industrial “progress”. These ideals sit in opposition to how his work has come to be used today.

    Our reviewer, an expert in applied art, found that the exhibition was sensitive to this, championing “ethical and bespoke production, while confronting the darker currents that move objects around our world”.



    Read more:
    William Morris: new exhibition reveals how Britain’s greatest designer went viral

    – ref. Bingeable comedy, a Jim Crow-era vampire thriller and William Morris mania – what to watch, read and do this week – https://theconversation.com/bingeable-comedy-a-jim-crow-era-vampire-thriller-and-william-morris-mania-what-to-watch-read-and-do-this-week-255742

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Perfect storm of tech bros, foreign interference and disinformation is an urgent threat to press freedom

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Felle, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Galway

    Media freedom has long been essential to healthy democracy. It is the oxygen that fuels informed debate, exposes corruption and holds power to account. But around the world, that freedom is under sustained attack.

    The actions of populist political elites, tech billionaires and foreign disinformation campaigns are reinforcing one another. This is weakening independent journalism and reshaping the global public sphere.

    This convergence was on full display at US president Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration. The presence of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg signalled that the tech elite are no longer simply disruptors. They are increasingly aligned with populist politics, a project openly hostile to independent journalism and democratic accountability.

    Nowhere is this clearer than on X (formerly Twitter). Musk’s takeover has transformed the platform into a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and misinformation, while systematically undermining the credibility of established media outlets. Meta’s decision to abandon factchecking political content in the US also marks a dangerous retreat from even the minimal efforts once made to curb disinformation.

    At its core, journalism’s role is simple but essential: to inform the public and hold power to account. Independent media – outlets free from government, political, or corporate control – are essential to democracy. They play a critical role in exposing corruption, amplifying marginalised voices, scrutinising government decisions and challenging abuses of power.

    When media organisations are weakened, this essential accountability collapses – allowing governments, politicians and corporations to operate unchecked. Minorities and vulnerable groups suffer most when no one is left to shine a light on abuse or discrimination. Human rights violations go unreported. Misinformation and rumour fill the void.

    That is precisely what is happening, not just in fragile states but in established democracies. Populist leaders have attacked journalists as enemies of the people and smeared media outlets that challenge them.

    Donald Trump infamously branded critical coverage as “fake news”. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro vilified journalists who investigated corruption and environmental crimes. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has systematically dismantled media independence. Slovakia’s Robert Fico called journalists “bloodthirsty bastards” and “possessed by the devil”.

    These leaders know that controlling the narrative is key to holding power. Discrediting the media is the first step.

    One of the clearest recent examples is the Trump administration’s shuttering of Voice of America (VOA). This move to silence a broadcaster that had promoted press freedom for over 80 years has been celebrated by authoritarian regimes. China’s state media mocked VOA as “discarded like a dirty rag”.

    Foreign threats

    What makes this moment uniquely dangerous is that these political attacks are now supercharged by technology platforms retreating from accountability, and exploited by hostile foreign powers.

    The latest European External Action Service (EEAS) Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Threat Report paints a stark picture of how disinformation is used as a strategic weapon to weaken democracies from within.

    In 2024, the EEAS – the diplomatic service of the European Union – detected
    record levels of foreign manipulation, particularly from Russia and China. The EEAS recorded more than 500 coordinated manipulation campaigns targeting 90 countries.

    These included AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating European politicians, such as a fabricated video of Moldova’s president endorsing a pro-Russian party.

    Bot networks were deployed to amplify false narratives about migration and inflation, distorting online discourse and inflaming social divisions. Impersonation tactics cloning legitimate news websites like Le Monde and German media were used to disseminate pro-Kremlin disinformation. All these efforts were aimed at undermining trust in democratic institutions, inflaming social divisions and creating confusion.

    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.

    Disinformation has become a standard geopolitical weapon, often used as a precursor to military or economic action. In the lead-up to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia conducted a sustained disinformation campaign. Fabricated videos and false flag operations portrayed Ukraine as the aggressor to justify military action.

    Similarly, during the 2020-21 border clashes with India, China spread disinformation downplaying its military build-up while casting India as the instigator.

    Russia has also used disinformation to pursue economic goals, notably by spreading falsehoods about European renewable energy and gas supply stability, to influence energy policy and sow public doubt about the EU’s energy independence strategy.

    While this happens, platforms like Meta and X are retreating from content moderation and fact-checking. The result is a perfect storm where domestic populism, platform failure and foreign manipulation reinforce one another. Platforms like X have become the key battleground, accounting for 88% of detected disinformation activity.

    What’s at stake – and what must change

    As these threats grow, the traditional media model is collapsing. Advertising revenue – once the lifeblood of newspapers, radio, and television – has shifted almost entirely to digital platforms. Local newsrooms are closing, while investigative journalism is increasingly rare, expensive and risky.

    In the UK, more than 320 local papers have closed since 2009. Titles like the Evening Standard ended daily print in 2024 due to plummeting ad revenues. Across Europe, rising news deserts and newsroom cuts are weakening media’s democratic role.

    In the US, things are even worse – 3,200 newspapers have closed since 2005. More than half of all counties now have little or no local news coverage.

    As social media platforms abandon even basic content moderation, they create vast, ungoverned digital spaces where bad actors dominate the conversation.

    Into this gap flood social media influencers, partisan outlets and state-backed propaganda. The result is a fractured, polarised information ecosystem. Facts struggle to compete with viral misinformation and coordinated disinformation campaigns.

    News consumers must navigate a sea of misinformation and propaganda.
    Olezzo/Shutterstock

    In the end, it is citizens who pay the price, bombarded by propaganda and adrift in a sea of misinformation. This is not just a media problem, it is a fundamental threat to democracy itself. Without independent journalism, there is no one left to ask difficult questions, expose wrongdoing or defend the public interest.

    Protecting media freedom must now be treated as a democratic priority, as essential as free and fair elections or an independent judiciary. Governments need to regulate tech platforms effectively, enforcing transparency over algorithms and bringing in meaningful protections against disinformation.

    Public investment in journalism is critical to ensure the press can survive and hold power to account. Democracies must coordinate efforts to counter foreign information manipulation, and protect journalists facing harassment and threats from authoritarian regimes.

    The future of democratic accountability now depends on whether governments, regulators and the media can reclaim this space before it is lost entirely. Above all, this means recognising that journalism is not a luxury or a relic. It is a vital public good.

    Tom Felle 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. Perfect storm of tech bros, foreign interference and disinformation is an urgent threat to press freedom – https://theconversation.com/perfect-storm-of-tech-bros-foreign-interference-and-disinformation-is-an-urgent-threat-to-press-freedom-252986

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Reform enters government for the first time with mayoral election wins

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Nurse, Reader in Urban Planning, University of Liverpool

    The UK now has two regional mayors representing the Reform party, following English local elections on May 1. This is the first time anyone from the party has held a government position at any level.

    Andrea Jenkyns, formerly a Conservative government minister, is now the mayor of Greater Lincolnshire following an election win on May 1. She becomes the first Reform and Luke Campbell is now mayor of Hull and East Yorkshire. Both are new mayoralities, created as part of the government’s developing devolution plans.

    The creation of more mayoralties meant that, perhaps inevitably, the near-monopoly that Labour held on mayors after the 2024 local elections has ended. But with an unproven track record, it’s reasonable to ask what we might expect from the new reform mayors as they take office.

    Since the first devolution deals were signed back in 2014, English devolution has always been about the ability of local governments to convince Westminster to let go of power. The result has been that devolution deals have varied in strength across the country.

    In broad terms, city regions have tended to get more powers, while others get slightly less. This means that not every new regional (also known as metro) mayor will be a budding Andy Burnham – though in practice most can expect to have core powers of housing, transport and education. Over time we have seen how the existing mayors have sought to inhabit those powers in their own way, and bring about their own priorities.

    So, we now wait to see what that means for the new mayors as they take power. We already know that Jenkyns’ election manifesto touched upon the key powers the mayor will hold (transport, education and the economy) but her agenda on these was painted only in the broadest of brush strokes.

    For example, there were promises to upgrade major roads, and to secure more funding for transport – although achieving both would require a willing Labour government to play nice. More realistic promises include more frequent buses which better serve parts of what is a large rural area, and creating skills bodies to work with local employers.

    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.

    Elsewhere, however, the manifesto delved into the realm of memes and bogeymen. For example, Jenkyns has proposed creating “DOGE Lincolnshire”, mirroring Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency in the US.

    This promises to cut government waste and “ensure efficiency”. Yet, given the combined authority she heads was only constituted in February, it’s not quite clear what inefficiencies Jenkyns is referring to.

    Another pledge is to push back against net zero – something that Reform seems to be using as their protest lodestar now that Brexit is no longer fertile feeding ground. Here, the policies seem to be to fight against national government policy on net-zero rather than anything really specific.

    Playing nicely with central government

    A regional mayor’s fate often hinges on their ability to interact effectively with central government – either by trying to secure concessions from it, or resisting it. Here, it will be very interesting to watch how Jenkyns, Campbell and the new Conservative mayor of Cambridge and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, assimilate.

    They are now members of the Council of the Regions – which for the last 12 months has been largely a cosy cabal of Labour mayors (and Tory Ben Houchen).

    How will Reform mayors – and Jenkyns in particular do business with the others? She is known as a disruptor so it could change the dynamic significantly.

    English local government is littered with examples of national government visiting retribution on local authorities for perceived transgressions. For example, most famously, Margaret Thatcher’s government abolished the Metropolitan Councils in 1986 for getting a bit too big for their boots. While there is no suggestion that will happen this time, current devolution deals are heavily premised on trust and ability to work with government.

    The other issue will be how what started as a protest party deals with the minutiae of governing. Mario Cuomo, a former governor of New York, once famously said that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Sometimes, however, local government can be about the grammar – dealing with those minor details.

    I remember interviewing a local councillor who once told me most of the time people want to talk about dog poo and bins. Equally, things like potholes are shown to be what residents want to see fixed.

    From now on, Jenkyns and other reform-led councils will have a record that they will have to defend. Ultimately, while a manifesto that is half-built on memes might grab attention on election day, it probably isn’t going to make the buses run on time.

    Alex Nurse receives funding from the ESRC.

    – ref. Reform enters government for the first time with mayoral election wins – https://theconversation.com/reform-enters-government-for-the-first-time-with-mayoral-election-wins-255731

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump and many GOP lawmakers want to end all funding for NPR and PBS − unraveling a US public media system that took a century to build

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Josh Shepperd, Associate Professor of Media Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

    Cast members of the children’s television show ‘Sesame Street’ pose with Big Bird, Cookie Monster, Grover, Ernie, Bert and Oscar the Grouch in 1969. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

    The Trump administration’s drive to slash government spending on everything from the arts to cancer research also includes efforts to carry through on the Republican Party’s long-standing goal of ending federal funding for NPR, the nation’s public radio network, and PBS, its television counterpart.

    Across the country, 1,500 independent stations affiliated with NPR and PBS air shows such as “Morning Edition,” “Marketplace,” “PBS NewsHour,” “Frontline” and “Nova.” Some 43 million people tune into public radio every week, and over 130 million watch PBS every year, according to the networks.

    Public media stations air local news and, when necessary, emergency information. Most also feature regional, national and global coverage of arts and culture. With commercial media divesting from local news reporting, audiences that have long relied on public media to inform their communities are even more dependent now on that service, as are audiences that got their local news from commercial sources.

    Investigating public media

    Public media is also under attack from the Republican majority in Congress and facing scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates media.

    Brendan Carr, whom President Donald Trump appointed to lead the FCC, helped draft Project 2025. That’s the conservative blueprint that Trump distanced himself from during the 2024 campaign but has since embraced.

    As proposed in Project 2025, the FCC is examining NPR’s approach to underwriting. Through underwriting, financial support from sponsors is acknowledged on air without asking audiences to form an opinion about a product or make a specific purchase.

    The FCC is investigating whether those messages on NPR and PBS “cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”

    The top executives of NPR and PBS have denied that their underwriting practices violate any regulations or laws.

    At the same time, House Republicans are holding hearings regarding what they say is public media’s “liberal bias.” Their attention is primarily directed at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the nonprofit corporation that stewards federal money that Congress appropriates for NPR and PBS.

    And in a separate move, Trump demanded that CPB “cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law” and “decline to provide future funding” in an executive order issued on May 1, 2025. Trump’s order accused NPR and PBS of bias in its “portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

    I’m a media historian who wrote a book about the origins of public media in the U.S. and how NPR and PBS contribute to democratic participation. Both networks are designed to provide equal access to information for every listener and viewer.

    In my view, as these efforts to investigate and end the funding of public media proceed, it’s worth revisiting why the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was founded in the first place and to understand how it contributes to equal access to information today.

    Beginning with education

    U.S. public media took root in the 1920s, when public universities built radio stations so that rural communities could receive better access to the kind of education available in cities.

    The first programs consisted of professors and radio hosts giving lectures about history, finance and other subjects such as cooking, quilting and music appreciation.

    Some of those professors believed so strongly in democratic access to media that they built radio stations with their own hands, including one at the University of Wisconsin. In other cases, professors experimented with performing live drama. Ohio State University broadcast the first educational radio Shakespeare performances in the late 1920s.

    Many people liked the programming enough to tune in, but the quality of early educational broadcast experiments was inconsistent. Some professors didn’t understand how to talk with audiences and were criticized for their monotone deliveries.

    Amid threats to its federal funding, PBS reports on the history of U.S. public media.

    Running the ‘bicycle network’

    Interest in improving the quality of educational radio grew once radio ownership became more widespread. Over 500 U.S. stations were on the air in 1940. By 1945, when World War II ended, over 95% of families owned radio receivers.

    Every listener could take correspondence classes. And educators started to research how to make learning through the radio more compelling and fun.

    By the late 1940s, colleges and universities started to pay better attention to making education on the radio both entertaining and informative. They traded their best programs all around the country, through a system they called the “bicycle network.”

    Once national distribution was in place, producers of educational radio and TV shows came to an agreement about their best programs through a group called the National Association of Educational Broadcasters. They landed on formulas now associated with NPR and PBS. Home economics instruction evolved into cooking shows. Interviews with professors became public affairs programs.

    Radio stations started to combine different kinds of programs that spanned an entire school day. A half-hour children’s comedy show now weaved math, storytelling, music and civics. This format laid some of the groundwork for “Sesame Street.”

    In the 1950s a philosophy of public media emerged.

    The National Association of Educational Broadcasters’ members believed that everyone should have equal access to education no matter where they lived. They argued that information they presented should be held to rigorous standards, such as fact-checking and even peer review, the academic practice of verifying research validity.

    Educational broadcasters aired programs for all kinds of audiences, including in communities not served by commercial media.

    To stay focused on their mission, educational broadcasters decided to bar taking money from corporate advertisers. This meant that most money came from state and local governments instead of businesses.

    State authorities were able to make public announcements, quickly report emergencies and provide free airtime for political candidates. State lawmakers also thought that these media outlets could help their constituents learn trades at their own pace.

    Phasing in government funding

    Using broadcasting to provide equal access to education required a lot of new infrastructure.

    By the late 1950s the federal government started to fund the construction of radio towers, transmitters and buildings so that every person could access educational programs via broadcasts. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a law in 1958 that funded educational access because it could contribute to national defense.

    Nearly a decade later, in 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act. That law guaranteed a permanent stream of government funding for educational radio and television. Congress had pivoted from “education” to “public” broadcasting as the medium incorporated a wider array of programs, including BBC shows from the U.K.

    PBS first went live in 1970, and NPR’s first broadcast aired in 1971.

    To buffer NPR and PBS from the influence of political parties and commercial sponsors, the law called for the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

    In addition to receiving and then disbursing to NPR and PBS the federal funds that Congress appropriates for public media, the CPB provides additional grants to stations across the country. Notably, federal funds help to pay for maintaining equipment and studios where public media programs are taped. That is, most government funding for public media is dedicated to maintaining the technology necessary to continue with its mission to provide equal access.

    The rest of the federal money supports the same program development and audience engagement research that started with the National Association of Educational Broadcasters’ “bicycle network.”

    NPR has gotten more sophisticated since it first went on the air in 1971, as CBS News reports.

    Establishing a strong track record

    The CPB model has succeeded by many measures. About 99% of Americans have access to public media through their television sets, car radios, computers and other devices.

    The CPB received $535 million in government funding in the 2025 fiscal year, equal to roughly $1.60 per American. About 70% of that money supports local radio and television stations. Public media costs taxpayers far more elsewhere. A 2022 study found that Germany spends around $142 per person, the U.K. spends $81, and Canada spends over $26 per year.

    The U.S. system is also unusual in that the local affiliates are nonprofits that have to pay for the NPR and PBS programs they run. Like the CPB, NPR and PBS are independent nonprofits, not government agencies.

    Rather than having the federal government foot the whole bill, in the U.S. public media also relies on $1.3 billion in annual charitable donations from viewers, listeners, corporations and foundations. Of that, public media receives $170 million in underwriting, according to a 2023 report.

    But should the federal government end all federal funding for the CPB, their NPR- and PBS-affiliated stations would have more trouble buying, repairing and replacing the transmitters, antennas and websites required to broadcast their programs.

    Losing access to local news

    The CPB has already sued the Trump administration over its attempt to oust three of its board members. The CPB asserts that because it is an independent organization and not a federal agency, the federal government can’t dictate who serves on its board. Trump’s executive order could also be challenged in court. And, as is the case with all executive orders, any future administration could rescind it.

    Most likely, the original target audience of educational radio − rural communities − would feel the biggest impact if the Trump administration does end federal funding of NPR and PBS. That’s because rural areas have few alternatives now that local journalism has been hit hard by corporate cuts to newsrooms.

    Public media’s first century inspired an alternative approach to media other than producing programs that tobacco companies, automakers and other businesses would want to sponsor. How Congress, the FCC and the courts proceed today will influence public media’s reach and practices for the next century.

    Josh Shepperd is under contract to co-author an update of the history of public broadcasting for Current, public media’s trade journal, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Josh is not a paid employee or vendor of either institution.

    – ref. Trump and many GOP lawmakers want to end all funding for NPR and PBS − unraveling a US public media system that took a century to build – https://theconversation.com/trump-and-many-gop-lawmakers-want-to-end-all-funding-for-npr-and-pbs-unraveling-a-us-public-media-system-that-took-a-century-to-build-253206

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –