Category: Academic Reportage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What could Democrats do differently?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EV sales are racing ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the heat pump tipping point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactical wins, strategic ambiguity

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

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

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

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

Israel’s vulnerabilities

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

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

What happens now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How it affects the brain

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

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

Uses and misuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to avoid a repeat incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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