Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joseph Janes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Swansea University

The route a drug takes into the body can matter as much as the drug itself – and rectal use brings risks that are rarely talked about openly.

Often called “boofing”, “booty bumping” or “plugging”, the practice involves taking drugs via the rectum rather than swallowing, snorting or injecting.

In health settings, this route is familiar through suppositories and enemas, especially when patients cannot take medication by mouth. Outside clinical contexts, however, rectal drug use brings a distinct set of dangers that are widely misunderstood. What matters from a public health perspective is not what people call it but how it affects the body.

Boofing itself isn’t new. Alcohol enemas were documented in early 20th-century medical journals. Opium and herbal preparations were used rectally in ancient China, Egypt and Greece. What is new is the way today’s drug markets intersect with this type of administration.

First, modern illicit drugs are often stronger and less predictable. High-potency MDMA or ecstasy, synthetic stimulants and adulterated cocaine mean people may seek faster or more intense effects from smaller amounts.

Second, boofing is sometimes presented as a way to avoid the perceived harms of snorting or injecting. Third, social media and nightlife networks have made it easier for different drug-taking practices to spread quickly, often without the medical context needed to understand the risks.

What happens when drugs are taken rectally?

The rectum has a dense network of blood vessels. Substances absorbed there can enter the bloodstream rapidly, often bypassing parts of the liver that would normally reduce a drug’s potency when swallowed.

The result can be effects that arrive faster and feel stronger than expected. That also means there is less room for error. A dose that feels manageable when taken orally or nasally may become overwhelming when absorbed rectally, increasing the risk of irritation, injury or potential overdose.

While dangers vary by substance, several risks apply broadly to rectal administration. Overdose risk is higher because absorption can be rapid and unpredictable. People may re-dose too quickly, assuming nothing has happened, only for delayed effects to arrive suddenly.

The lining of the rectum is delicate and easily damaged by caustic substances or repeated irritation. Small tears and inflammation increase vulnerability to infection. There is also a risk of transmitting HIV, hepatitis C and other infections, particularly if equipment is shared or hygiene is poor. Micro-abrasions can make transmission more likely too.

And unlike injecting, rectal drug use leaves no obvious external marks, which can delay recognition of harm when someone is in trouble.

Read more:
When did humans start experimenting with alcohol and drugs?

Different substances also carry different dangers. Stimulants such as cocaine, methamphetamine and synthetic cathinones or “bath salts” are commonly linked to boofing-related harms. Rapid absorption can put severe strain on the heart and nervous system, raising the risk of overheating, agitation, stroke or cardiac events.

MDMA brings concerns around dehydration and dangerous changes in body temperature, especially when faster onset of effects leads to repeated dosing. Opioids, including heroin and synthetic variants, can suppress breathing. Rectal absorption may still be fast enough to cause fatal overdose, particularly when combined with alcohol or sedatives.

Alcohol enemas are especially risky. Because alcohol bypasses the stomach, the body loses its natural warning system – vomiting – dramatically increasing the chance of alcohol poisoning.

There are also growing concerns around GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate), a powerful depressant with a very narrow margin between intoxication and overdose. In a 2019 Channel 4 documentary, a Prison and Probation Service safeguarding professional warned about cases involving GHB absorbed rectally when mixed with lubricant. The effects can be sudden and hard to detect, raising serious risks of unconsciousness and breathing suppression, and, in non-consensual contexts, drug-facilitated sexual assault.

Who does it and why context matters

There is no single “type” of person who engages in this practice. Research is limited, but people may experiment for different reasons including curiosity, faster onset or avoiding damage to the nose or veins.

Because boofing is highly stigmatised, open discussion is rare. That makes reliable information harder to find. This is a problem from a harm reduction perspective. Non-judgemental, evidence-based advice helps people make safer choices, whatever their circumstances.

Online, boofing is sometimes described as safer than injecting or snorting. That comparison is misleading. While it avoids needle injuries and nasal damage, the lack of visible harm can also create a false sense of security.

Much of the danger does not come from the route alone, but from unknown drug strength, contaminants and inconsistent supply. In illicit markets, changing how a drug is taken can increase risk.

Reducing harm

From a public health perspective, the goal is not to sensationalise this practice, but to reduce preventable harm. The University of Pittsburgh developed a safer boofing guide in 2023 to offer harm reduction advice.

Hygiene also matters. Rectal drug use can interact with sexual health. Invisible injuries can raise the risk of infection, including sexually transmitted infections, particularly if drugs are taken shortly before anal sex. Condoms, regular testing and HIV prevention tools remain central to reducing harm.

Boofing reflects a much older human tendency to experiment with different substances. What has changed is the context. Today’s drugs are often stronger, more adulterated and less predictable. At the same time, practices circulate rapidly online, frequently stripped of medical or public health advice.

Understanding rectal drug use, rather than sensationalising it, allows for more honest conversations about risk. This is not about encouraging drug use, but about recognising reality and reducing preventable harm in an increasingly volatile drug market.

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. Boofing: why taking illicit drugs rectally is so risky – https://theconversation.com/boofing-why-taking-illicit-drugs-rectally-is-so-risky-274690

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Svensson, Lecturer in Sport Management, Malmö University

In 1958, Brazil won the men’s Fifa World Cup in Sweden. The team, which included a 17-year-old Pelé, stayed in a modest country hotel and travelled by train or bus to small stadiums in cities such as Uddevalla and Göteborg.

Fan attendance was fairly low for that 16-team tournament. And so too was the the ecological impact of the event – especially compared to the 2026 World Cup which will see 48 teams and millions of supporters travel to and across North America.

For while football’s global reach is often highlighted as a positive thing that brings the world together, the beautiful game risks having a rather ugly impact on the planet.

This is partly down to ambitious plans to expand almost every aspect of elite football – more money, more matches, more tournaments, more fans – that have accelerated over recent decades. This could be seen as a positive development for anyone who enjoys football, but it also has some problematic consequences.

The expansion of international competitions for example, has led to increasing carbon dioxide emissions from football-related travel as teams, supporters and media representatives fly around the globe following the game.

A recent study estimated that as part of the growing ecological footprint of international sport, global football now has a carbon footprint similar to that of Austria.

So the high number of international matches, as seen in the remodelled Fifa men’s Club World Cup, the expanded men’s Euros of 2024 and the forthcoming men’s World Cup in 2026 challenges both the health of the players and the health of the planet.

These issues all point in the same direction – prioritising profit and growth over people and planet, and developing a dependence on the fossil-fuel economy.

There are plenty of examples. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia for instance, is often accused of sportswashing, but was named as host for the 2034 World Cup and continues to invest in the English Premier League. The 2022 Fifa World Cup in oil-rich Qatar was criticised for the environmental impact of new stadiums, new infrastructure and the use of cooling systems in the extreme heat.

Then there’s Fifa’s sponsorship deal with Aramco, a company estimated to be responsible for 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1965. All of these are strong signs that fossil-fuelled growth in the economics of football has been normalised.

Some supporters and campaign groups have been criticising this development for a while now. But how is football responding?

Hope and glory?

Well, recently Fifa announced the creation of its own “peace prize” to recognise those who “unite people, bringing hope for future generations”. But while that ambition may sound admirable, the actions of global football suggest the opposite.

For instead of bringing hope, football is accelerating climate change through its a problematic dependence on fossil-fuel sponsorship. Research suggests that the sport also displays a distinct lack of support for those countries that are most severely affected by climate change.

There are though, some clubs doing their best to take environmental sustainability seriously. FC Porto, Real Betis and Malmö FF are all involved in the “Free Kicks” project, which requires clubs to assess their environmental performance in terms of things like energy savings and use of resources.

Their work shows that it is possible to combine top-level football with sustainable practices and good governance. And if Fifa is serious about bringing hope to future generations, it may want to learn from some of the people who have done precisely that.

Reducing the size and frequency of large international events would be a good start. So too would organising fixtures in such a way as to minimise their carbon footprint.

If all of this means accepting a deceleration in the expansion of global football in a bid to become more sustainable, would that really be so bad?

After all, those who saw a 17-year-old Pelé in Sweden in 1958 did not know about the coming climate crisis. But the football they followed back then was a lot more compatible with sustainable development than the sport is today.

Daniel Svensson is affiliated with The Sport Ecology Group. He receives funding from The Swedish Research Council for Sport Science.

– ref. Football has a real fossil fuel problem – and it’s not sustainable – https://theconversation.com/football-has-a-real-fossil-fuel-problem-and-its-not-sustainable-270400

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ioannis Zabetakis, Associate Professor, Food Chemistry, University of Limerick

Cholesterol has long been seen as a key culprit in cardiovascular disease. While it’s true that cholesterol does play a role, not all cholesterol is bad for us.

There are two main types of cholesterol.

The first type is low-density lipoprotein or LDL cholesterol. This is often referred to as the “bad” cholesterol because it causes fat to collect in the arteries as plaques. This makes it harder for blood to pump throughout the body, leading to greater risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The second type is high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol — often referred to as “good” cholesterol.

HDL cholesterol has two key roles in the body. It removes excess bad cholesterol from the tissues and arteries and returns it to the liver so it can be removed from the body. HDL cholesterol also protects the artery walls so there’s less risk of a blockage forming.

Boosting HDL

The ratio of LDL to HDL in a person’s body is related to their cardiovascular disease risk. If you have a higher ratio of HDL to LDL, your cardiovascular disease risk will be lower. But if you have a lower ratio of HDL to LDL, you’ll have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

Fortunately, it’s possible to shift this ratio and increase HDL cholesterol levels. This can be achieved by exercising, quitting smoking and managing your weight, for example.

Certain foods can also improve HDL ratios.

The main way that diet helps boost HDL ratios is by reducing inflammation. Inflammation is a key problem in cardiovascular disease.

Inflammation makes it possible for blood platelets to stick together in our arteries at a much higher rate. This makes it difficult for the HDL cholesterol to do its job, which increases risk of blood clots forming and raises likelihood of heart disease.

By eating anti-inflammatory foods, it makes it easier for HDL cholesterol to do its job of sweeping away excess LDL cholesterol. Here are four examples you can include in your diet:

1. Fruits and vegetables

Research shows that people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables have higher HDL cholesterol levels and a better total cholesterol ratio. They also have lower blood pressure and healthier blood sugar levels, all of which can be supportive to heart health.

Fruits and vegetables exert their positive effects by trapping free radicals.

Free radicals are highly reactive, unstable molecules that can cause damage to cells and trigger inflammation in the body. By preventing inflammation, this makes it possible for HDL cholesterol to continue doing its job of removing bad cholesterol and protecting the arteries.

2. Oily fish and olive oil

Oily fish (such as salmon, sardines and tuna) and olive oil are rich in a type of fat called “polar lipids”.

These lipids are able to reach the bloodstream more quickly compared to other types of fat, allowing them to reduce inflammation and prevent the aggregation of platelets more effectively.

Cell and animal studies have shown that a diet rich in the polar lipids from oily fish is effective in preventing blood clots from forming. This effect can help cholesterol ratios stay balanced, meaning cardiovascular disease risk is lower.

3. Fermented dairy

Fermented dairy products, such as yoghurt, kefir and cheese, can all have a positive effect on HDL levels.

During fermentation, the lipids are broken down into smaller compounds that have a greater anti-inflammatory effect than milk. They can also be metabolised faster by the body.

Fermented dairy products are also rich in polar lipids, which means that they can considerably reduce cardiovascular risk.

Research found that for every 20g of fermented dairy products people consumed each day, there was a modest reduction in cardiovascular disease risk.

4. Red wine

Finally, red wine is completely misunderstood. According to the latest research, moderate consumption of red wine (the equivalent of one to two small glasses per day) is linked with better HDL ratios.

Wine reduces inflammation when consumed in small quantities because it contains polar lipids. However, if wine intake is high, the negative, pro-inflammatory effect of alcohol outstrips the positive effect of the lipids.

This is why it’s important only to drink small amounts and in moderation – otherwise, alcohol can have many negative effects on the body. Indeed, the World Health Organization has said there is no safe level of alcohol consumption as the negatives, such as increased cancer risk even from light drinking, outweigh any positives.

Non-alcoholic wines also contain polar lipids. Research suggests that polar lipid extracts from non-alcoholic beverages have comparable benefits on preventing the formation of blood clots as their alcoholic counterparts.

Inflammation is a key factor in heart disease. By eating foods that reduce inflammation in the body, it’s possible to look after your heart health and lower cardiovascular disease by improving the ratio of HDL to LDL in the body.

Ioannis Zabetakis 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. Four foods that can help improve your cholesterol and boost heart health – https://theconversation.com/four-foods-that-can-help-improve-your-cholesterol-and-boost-heart-health-274583

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew McInnes, Reader in Romanticisms, Edge Hill University

Wuthering Heights is back in the news and racing up the bestseller lists, thanks to a new film version by the provocative director Emerald Fennell, starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi. The film is marketing Wuthering Heights as “the world’s greatest love story”.

However, if this encourages you to read the novel for the first time and you’re expecting a boy-meets-girl romance, you might be in for a shock. Wuthering Heights is less happy ever after and more girl is already dead at the start of the novel, boy is haunted by girl, and then another boy is told the whole story by the girl’s old housekeeper.

But as an expert in Romantic period literature, I would argue Wuthering Heights is actually a perfect read on Valentine’s Day because it celebrates the head-spinning, hair-raising, all-consuming experience of falling in love.

“Love isn’t all chocolate boxes and roses / It’s dirtier than that”, Emily Brontë never wrote but might have, had she been alive in the 1990s and a fan of Jarvis Cocker, the lanky lead singer of Pulp. Brontë shares with Cocker an appreciation of the darker side of romance. Both Cocker and Brontë answer the question, “What is this feeling called love?” by characterising the emotion as violent, destabilising and disorienting.

Some Brontë scholars and readers of the book have expressed some scepticism about the film’s marketing as a perfect date movie, with one commentator arguing that Halloween would be a better release date for a tale of brooding revenge, toxic relationships and even potential necrophilia.

On the one hand, yes, Wuthering Heights follows Heathcliff from a foundling in Liverpool of uncertain origins to a gentleman of just-as-uncertain means. He’s intent on the destruction of his childhood home and neighbouring Thrushcross Grange, which stole away his childhood sweetheart, Catherine Earnshaw.

At one point, he threatens his own son and Catherine’s daughter (both confusingly called Linton): “Had I been born where laws are less strict and tastes less dainty, I should treat myself to a slow vivisection of those two, as an evening’s amusement.” This is not a man who is joking.

On the other hand, Brontë’s novel explores what it means to feel inseparably connected to another person. It involves almost all the messiness of last year’s horror film, Together, in which a couple find themselves literally melting into one another, which was indeed released for Halloween.

Trying to explain how she feels to Nelly Dean, her old housekeeper, Catherine tells her: “My great miseries in the world have been Heathcliff’s miseries, and I have watched and felt each from the beginning; my great thought in living is himself. If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and, if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn a mighty stranger. I should not seem part of it.”

Emily Brontë is a great poet as well as a powerful novelist, and passages like this are poetry too. Wuthering Heights is essentially a love poem – a poem which takes love as something to be experienced rather than explained. Love is experienced in a way that threatens the boundaries between self and other, male and female, nature and culture, life and death, reason and madness, heaven and hell.

Catherine’s attempt to explain her relationship with Heathcliff to Nelly ends in inarticulacy, with Nelly declaring herself unable to “make any sense of your nonsense”.

Before she trails off, Catherine provides a key to the puzzle box of the novel when she says: “Nelly, I am Heathcliff – he’s always, always in my mind, not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself but, as my own being.” For Catherine, her relationship with Heathcliff is one of necessary union, mental, physical and spiritual.

After her death in childbirth, Catherine continues to haunt Heathcliff, who seeks his own union with her corpse in ordering his own coffin to be laid next to hers and opened up so they can rot together – a scene Fennell riffed on in her last film Saltburn as a naked Oliver graphically “grieves” over Felix’s grave.

Heathcliff hopes their bodies will literally become one in death. Their love may not have ended in a legal and religious union, but neither could death part them. As Jarvis Cocker once sang: “This is hardcore!”

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.

Andrew McInnes received funding from AHRC for his Early Career Researcher Leadership Fellow project, “The Romantic Ridiculous”, which ran from 2020-2022.

– ref. Don’t fall in love this Valentine’s Day – read Wuthering Heights – https://theconversation.com/dont-fall-in-love-this-valentines-day-read-wuthering-heights-275600

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Mycock, Chief Policy Fellow, University of Leeds

The UK government has unveiled plans to lower the voting age to 16 for general elections, heralding the delivery of a Labour pledge first made in 2010.

The intent of the UK government’s electoral reform is understandable. Faith in politicians and democracy is at an all time low. Keir Starmer’s election promise to restore trust in politics has been compromised by recent events. The introduction of the bill offers an opportunity to refresh Labour’s election promise and respond to public support for reforming the electoral system.

The three-decade campaign for the universal lowering of the voting age to 16 might not have a smooth passage through parliament, though. Labour’s support for the policy has proven lukewarm and sporadic, reflecting concerns over public opinion and also division on the policy itself.

The public has long been resolute in its opposition to such a change. And while young people have, historically, proven largely supportive of votes at 16, recent survey evidence suggests they are evenly divided. Many say they feel “unprepared” for the responsibility of voting.

Some within an already divided parliamentary Labour party will question why the government is focusing on electoral reform.

The strength of opposition to the bill in parliament will be key both in determining the nature of its passage and public acceptance of votes at 16. The Conservatives and Reform both formally oppose voting age reform. The Conservatives claim Labour is “hopelessly confused on whether 16 year olds are adults or not”. For them and many other opponents, the age of maturity, adulthood, and therefore enfranchisement still coalesce at 18.

But depicting 16 and 17-year-olds as too immature and lacking sufficient cognitive development runs the risk of politically alienating young people and fracturing the cohesion of the electorate. As votes at 16 advocates note, voting rights are not denied or taken away from those who have disabilities or deteriorating cognitive abilities (particularly in old age) which might limit their cognition, competency and comprehension.

The Conservatives also appear just as confused as they accuse Labour of being on this point. They empowered both the Scottish and Welsh governments to lower the voting age. And they allowed under-18s to choose three prime ministers in the past decade via party membership ballots.

There’s contradiction in Reform’s position too – and its actions from here will be interesting to watch. Recent polling indicates a growing number of young men support Reform above all other parties, and in more numbers than their older male counterparts. The party may have been opposed up until now, but a pragmatic U-turn may well be on the horizon. That in turn will likely defuse some of the political and public opposition to the bill.

Quantity over quality?

Ultimately, votes at 16 is likely to be passed into law due to Labour’s huge parliamentary majority. But how the government and supporters of the change decide to frame its success will be important. A focus on the numbers of young people signing on the electoral register and voting will tell us much about the quantity of participation but not its quality.

Evidence from Scotland indicates that the modest increases in voting of 16-to-17-year-olds when compared with 18-to-24-year-olds does not translate into more extensive political engagement. Lowering the age of enfranchisement has had no significant impact on the low numbers of young people who join political parties, trade unions, or who participate in their communities.

In Scotland, votes at 16 has had little impact on how party politics is conducted or how politicians engage and represent young people. Most young people do not believe politicians prioritise their needs. A growing number express disillusionment with democracy.

Lowering the voting age to 16 is, on its own, no panacea to the complex causes of youth political disengagement and is unlikely to strengthen the resilience of democracy in the UK. The government’s bill also sets out plans to improve youth democratic education and make electoral registration easier. Such measures will not create the drivers for young people to vote or participate in party politics.

Indeed, there is a collective failure of political parties of all hues to accept that they are in part responsible for the current youth democratic crisis. They need to look past a potentially divisive passage of votes at 16 in parliament and accept that now is the time to collectively improve the responsiveness of the current political system to younger voters and the public more widely.

Andrew Mycock has received funding from the Leverhulme Trust (2019-2021) in the past to support research into lowering the voting age.

– ref. Votes at 16: the UK government has a fight on its hands – but are politicians all missing the point? – https://theconversation.com/votes-at-16-the-uk-government-has-a-fight-on-its-hands-but-are-politicians-all-missing-the-point-275476

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

Elections need periodic reform to ensure that they have integrity and fulfil their role in line with the times, and the British government has unveiled its proposals for doing just that.

Britain was widely regarded as one of the pioneers of such democratic electoral reforms. In the late 19th and early 20th century, reform acts extended the franchise to enable more people to vote. Anti-corruption and bribery rules prevented election candidates offering food and liquor for votes.

However, new threats have emerged to elections which means that further changes are needed to ensure that elections fully empower people. Threats can come from from overseas more easily these days – disinformation can spread online and algorithms can be manipulated to support candidates and parties. Money is more easily siphoned around the world into campaigns war chests.

What’s more, millions of people stayed at home at the 2024 general election – which recorded the lowest turnout in years. An estimated 7 million to 8 million people are not on the electoral register.

The weight of these challenges means that UK elections are therefore in urgent need of reform. The government’s representation of the people bill is the legislation that the government is proposing to improve the situation.

What will change?

The biggest proposed change is to allow around 1.7 million 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. This is historic. Governments come and go but changing who can vote in elections will be a lasting part of the political landscape – and something a future government will find difficult to repeal.

When it comes to new threats to electoral integrity, the government is making a change that will probably be welcomed by the public – the move towards automatic voter registration. Surveys show people support the idea idea and it will see many citizens added to the electoral roll without them having to do anything.

It’s a time saver but it also means people won’t end up being turned away on election day because they’ve not managed to register properly. Automatic and assisted forms of voter registration have been shown to increase the accuracy and completeness of the register. Like votes at 16, this will benefit young people most, as only 16% of 16-17s are registered.

The relatively new – and widely criticised – rules on voter ID are also being changed, arguably for the better. People will now be able to use their bank cards as ID rather than being expected to produce photo ID. A change of this kind should make voting much easier. The rules on photo ID have been shown to be discriminatory and a barrier to voting.

There will also be a pilot to try out voting at supermarkets and train stations rather than only at traditional polling stations.

There are also plans to strengthen the rules around political donations. The Electoral Commission will have greater powers to enforce rules and issue sanctions to those who break them. Powers are proposed to allow the commission to issue fines of up to £500,000 when people break the rules – a significant increase on the current £20,000 limit. There will also be tougher sentences for people convicted of intimidation during the electoral period.

What’s missing?

Despite the changes being proposed, the government has failed to address some key problems.

The rules on political finance, in particular, may not go far enough. Companies can currently make donations to political parties, provided that they operate in some way in the UK. The Electoral Commission has warned that foreign money could still be channelled through UK companies into political parties – unless loopholes are closed.

The government has also not taken steps to restore the independence of the Electoral Commission itself, a body which plays a key role in overseeing elections and referendums. It was stripped of its independence by Boris Johnson, in contrast to international best practice. But the bill promises no action on this.

And maybe foremost, Britain’s age-old first-past-the-post electoral system remains untouched. This may not be a surprise – few parties tinker with the rules that bring them to power. But the era of two-party politics that justified first-past-the-post has now gone and support for change is high.

The bill will shortly receive scrutiny within parliament, and detail will need to be fleshed out on how electoral officials implement the changes. These will provide opportunities to further strengthen the bill. But as it currently stands, its passing looks set to take its place as a historic moment for strengthening UK elections.

Toby James has previously received funding from the AHRC, ESRC, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust, Electoral Commission, Nuffield Foundation, the McDougall Trust, Unlock Democracy, International IDEA and the Canadian SSHRC.

– ref. Voting in supermarkets, bank cards as ID and £500,000 fines for breaking the rules – how British elections could be about to change – https://theconversation.com/voting-in-supermarkets-bank-cards-as-id-and-500-000-fines-for-breaking-the-rules-how-british-elections-could-be-about-to-change-275885