Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jessie Osborne, Research Assistant, RAND Europe

For the first time in half a century, America stands on the threshold of sending astronauts back to the Moon. Slated for launch no earlier than February 2026, Artemis II will not land on the lunar surface, but it will carry four astronauts on a flyby of Earth’s only natural satellite.

The ten day mission will take the crew further from Earth than any human has travelled since the Apollo missions. It’s a crucial test of Nasa’s Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, determining whether the United States can safely push beyond low Earth orbit once again. The stakes are immense: technical risks, billions in financial commitments and an increasingly competitive international race for lunar leadership.

Indeed, even vocal supporters of America’s effort are now expressing doubts that Nasa will be able to beat the Chinese space agency in the race to send humans back to the lunar surface. China has been making great strides in its lunar effort and is targeting a Moon landing by 2030. America’s programme, on the other hand, is beset with problems, including the lack of a working lunar landing system and lunar surface spacesuits that are behind schedule.

Further underlining the US’ now precarious hopes of returning first to the Moon, China completed a critical landing and take off test of its crewed lunar lander in August.

The astronauts aboard Artemis II will test critical systems required to perform in the harsh deep space environment. After separation from the core stage of their rocket, they will confront an extreme environment where deep space rescue is impossible.

During the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022, the Orion crew module sustained unexpectedly high levels of damage to its heat shield, during the return through Earth’s atmosphere. The heat shield protects the occupants of the spacecraft from the superheated gases around the spacecraft during re entry.

Nasa has been working hard to resolve this problem ahead of Orion’s first mission with humans aboard. The problem highlights the complexity of returning to lunar travel after a 50-year hiatus.

Landing challenges

Even if Artemis II is successful, major uncertainties surround the next mission: Artemis III. This is intended to be the first American mission to return to the lunar surface since 1972. The landing vehicle will be based on SpaceX’s Starship vehicle and is known as the Starship Human Landing System (HLS). SpaceX has been carrying out test flights of Starship from its launch site in southern Texas. While the most recent of these was successful, several previous flights resulted in spectacular explosions.

However, Starship faces many further challenges before it can be used to carry astronauts down to the lunar surface. The vehicle must demonstrate that it can refuel in orbit, connecting to another Starship that acts solely as a tanker. The 50 metres tall spacecraft must also be able to land vertically on the Moon. Its ability to act as a lunar habitat for the astronauts creates opportunities for extended missions, but its size and complexity creates risk too.

While these hurdles remain unresolved, Nasa faces the possibility of having to reimagine Artemis III, including the possibility that the mission becomes another lunar flyby rather than the long-awaited return to the surface.

Artemis is ambitious, but also precarious. Each SLS rocket costs US $2 billion (£1.4 billion) to launch. This extraordinary cost has already raised questions in Congress about long term sustainability. As such, some US lawmakers are pushing for a transition to cheaper commercial rockets after Artemis III. For now, funding is secured through the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, but the political consensus may not last.

International competition adds urgency to the financial considerations. The implications of lunar leadership extend beyond national prestige. They include access to lunar resources, such as the water ice locked up at the lunar poles, which could be used to support a Moon base. Nasa’s acting administrator Sean Duffy has asserted that “we are going to beat the Chinese to the Moon” , echoing the cold war narrative 63 years on from John F Kennedy’s “we choose to go to the Moon” speech in 1962.

But Nasa must also demonstrate that Artemis delivers scientific value beyond national prestige. It must justify the massive investment through discoveries that benefit humanity’s understanding of the Moon, Earth and solar system.

Lunar space station

The intended impact of the lunar return extends far beyond individual missions. A space station around the Moon called the The Lunar Gateway represents Nasa’s commitment to a sustained presence rather than Apollo-style flags-and-footprints landings. The Gateway’s first modules, scheduled for a 2027 launch, will create a staging point for future lunar operations and deep space exploration.

The Artemis IV mission will deliver additional Gateway modules in 2028, while Artemis V in 2030 will introduce Blue Origin’s competing lunar lander, reducing dependence on SpaceX as a single contractor. The cargo version of Blue Origin’s lander could be ready long before that, as the company is hoping to launch the uncrewed vehicle on a mission to the lunar surface sometime this year.

Next year’s Artemis II mission is not just another spaceflight, it is the proving ground for America’s return to the Moon. It is the test of whether the United States can sustain its most ambitious exploration program since Apollo. It is also the foundation for future voyages to Mars. Success will reaffirm American leadership in space. Failure could cede it to others.

Jessie Osborne 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. Nasa’s Artemis II mission is crucial as doubts build that America can beat China back to the Moon – https://theconversation.com/nasas-artemis-ii-mission-is-crucial-as-doubts-build-that-america-can-beat-china-back-to-the-moon-266385

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sharon Jagger, Lecturer in Religion, York St John University

As an academic specialising in gender and the church, the news that Bishop Sarah Mullally would be the next archbishop of Canterbury came as a pleasant shock to me. The announcement of a woman as leader of the Church of England and the “first among equals” in the worldwide Anglican communion came as a surprise to others too. One woman priest told me she was “stunned but pleased”.

What is not surprising, though, is the immediate condemnation from church conservatives, many outside the Church of England. Social media naysayers made their views known too – I read comments arguing that a female archbishop makes a “mockery of tradition” and that such “feminist rebellion” spells the death of the church.

This type of abusive commentary has been aimed at women priests for years. My own research explores the gendered abuse faced by women in the church.

The appointment of a woman as archbishop is a welcome show of resistance by the church against such misogyny. But it is by no means a panacea for the sexism and misogyny built into the church’s structure.

Before 1993, women were not permitted to be ordained in the Church of England. The campaign for women’s ordination has a long history, gathering pace from the 1970s. Finally, in 1992, General Synod – the church’s governing council – voted in favour of allowing women to be priests. The vote was close, and many in the church remained opposed to the move.

To accommodate those who could not accept women in the priesthood, the Act of Synod (1993) facilitating the ordination of women established a dual structure, allowing individual parishes to refuse the ministry of women priests and to have pastoral oversight from a bishop who did not ordain women (nicknamed “flying bishops”).

In 2014, legislation was passed to allow women bishops. The House of Bishops agreed on a document detailing Five Guiding Principles. This document paradoxically states the church is unequivocal in its commitment to women’s ordination, while also committing to the continuing provision for those who do not accept women can or should be priests.

The discriminatory structure, with its no-go parishes for women clergy, was maintained. The church can do this because it is exempt from UK equality legislation in matters of belief and conscience.

Today, about 5% of Church of England parishes officially object to women priests, though there are also churches where women’s ministry is unofficially curtailed. The official number of parishes avoiding women’s ministry is a minority, but they have had a disproportionate impact on the structure of the church. The open disavowal of women’s priesthood will erode the authority and status of the next archbishop of Canterbury.

There are currently nearly 600 parishes that officially bar women priests. The Church of England must now deal with an extraordinary situation: the archbishop of Canterbury will not be able to preside over communion in these churches.

In my recent book, Women Priests, Symbolic Violence and Symbolic Resistance, I detail the damage this structural discrimination does to women priests. It affects them materially, emotionally, psychologically, and undermines their status by allowing some to claim they are not priests.

To that end, the historic appointment of a woman as archbishop of Canterbury is a bold and significant move by the church. And it may, to an extent, ameliorate the damage to women’s status and bring the church’s own discriminatory practices against women clergy back onto the agenda.

Structural inequality

With guarded optimism, Martine Oborne, the chair of Women and the Church, an organisation campaigning against the Five Guiding Principles, writes about the church’s need to challenge its institutional misogyny: “Hopefully, the appointment of our first female archbishop of Canterbury will be a big step towards this.” But without the dismantling of the current structure, the misogyny that infects the church will not be tackled.

I think it is unlikely that the new archbishop will instigate the end of the dual structure. Bishop Mullally may describe herself as a feminist, but it remains to be seen whether she will create the conditions for real change that is needed to give women priests dignity and equality.

British professor of theology Linda Woodhead has praised Mullally’s emphasis on unity in the church, saying it is “exactly what the church, and nation, needs right now”.

Yet, unity may still be a tall order for the soon-to-be archbishop. Conservatives and traditionalists within the Church of England and in the worldwide Anglican communion may have trouble dealing with a woman’s authority and leadership, precluding any dramatic structural change. And women in the church may be disappointed that their circumstances will not be improved greatly.

Sharon Jagger has received past funding from Women and the Church.

– ref. First woman archbishop of Canterbury can’t preside over communion in hundreds of churches – https://theconversation.com/first-woman-archbishop-of-canterbury-cant-preside-over-communion-in-hundreds-of-churches-266719

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out a “youth guarantee” aimed at ending long-term unemployment among young people. Under the plan, a young person who has been out of work for 18 months would be offered a temporary job, apprenticeship or college place.

The UK has just under a million young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neet) – thought to be around 13% of the country’s 16- to 24-year-olds.

Under Reeves’ plans, those who refuse the offer could face benefit sanctions. The scheme is being positioned as a way to boost growth while keeping to Labour’s fiscal rules ahead of November’s budget.

The idea has some logic. Long-term youth unemployment has consequences that reach far beyond the individual. Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that young people who are out of work for extended periods often face lower earnings for decades afterwards, as well as poorer health and social outcomes.

Economists sometimes describe this as “scarring” – that is, lasting negative economic effects. By contrast, job losses that come mid-career tend to have less lasting economic impact because these workers have more experience or skills that they can use to get their next job.

So the argument that tackling youth unemployment offers particularly high returns is, in theory, credible.

Long-term future

The difficulty is whether the guarantee, as outlined by Reeves, can deliver anything more than temporary relief. It is not yet clear where the promised jobs will come from.

If the government pays firms to create placements, they will have been specially created for the scheme, rather than representing real gaps that the firms need to fill to grow their business. When the government subsidy ends, the firms may have no reason to keep the young person on. And a short placement may not provide enough skills development to allow the young person to get a job elsewhere.

What’s more, the government is not proposing to pay the full cost of these placements. If the onus falls on businesses to absorb additional young workers in newly created roles at their own expense, the effect may be negligible. This is because Labour’s wider programme – from higher employer national insurance contributions to new employment rights – already imposes extra costs on employers.

That tension points to a broader issue in Reeves’ strategy. She has pledged not to increase headline tax rates. Instead she is seeking to expand the overall tax base by growing employment and productivity.

Yet that kind of growth usually requires sustained public investment in skills, infrastructure and industrial policy. A scheme that subsidises wages for 12 months may help individuals back into work, but it is unlikely to shift the productivity dial or generate lasting fiscal dividends without a wide programme of investment.

For Reeves, the challenge is that the guarantee must be large enough to create real career pathways and business growth. But to do so requires precisely the kind of government expenditure that is made difficult by her own “non-negotiable” fiscal rules.

Instead of a way to grow within the rules then, the youth guarantee may be added to the list of promises the government cannot fulfil without bending them.

Maha Rafi Atal 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. Will Rachael Reeves’ youth unemployment scheme force her to bend her own rules? – https://theconversation.com/will-rachael-reeves-youth-unemployment-scheme-force-her-to-bend-her-own-rules-266716

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicolas Forsans, Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

When state institutions crumble under the weight of chaos, desperate governments sometimes turn to controversial solutions. In Haiti, where gang violence has transformed the capital, Port-au-Prince, into a war zone and left over 5,600 people dead in 2024 alone, the government has made a striking decision to hire a private army to restore order.

Haiti’s interim government signed a deal in March with Vectus Global, a firm founded by American private security contractor Erik Prince, that has seen mercenaries help battle the gangs. Vectus operatives have reportedly served as instructors to Haitian security forces, while also coordinating drone strikes against gang-controlled areas and criminal leaders.

The firm is thought to have deployed nearly 200 personnel in Haiti, from the US, Europe and El Salvador. It plans to have stabilised major roads and pushed gangs out of their territory within about a year. In an interview with the Reuters news agency in August, Prince said the measure of success for him “will be when you can drive from Port-au-Prince to [the northern city of] Cap-Haïtien” without being stopped by gangs.

The arrangement, while having done little to curb the power of the gangs so far, represents a dramatic escalation in the privatisation of state security. It raises profound questions about sovereignty, accountability and the risks of ceding control of security to private military personnel.

Vectus Global is reportedly operating in Haiti under two parallel arrangements. The first involves a one-year contract in which Vectus staff will help Haiti restore order. Haiti’s government has not commented on the involvement of Vectus Global specifically, though it confirmed in June that it was using foreign contractors.

The second arrangement, which remains unconfirmed by the Haitian government, will supposedly see Prince’s firm play a role in restructuring Haiti’s customs and immigration services over a ten-year period. Haiti has long struggled to prevent gangs from exploiting its porous border with neighbouring Dominican Republic.

This move would represent an extraordinary transfer of sovereign functions. Reports indicate that Vectus Global will receive a performance-based commission of 20% of customs revenue increases in the first three years and 15% thereafter. It will also receive a fixed fee of 3% on import volumes regardless of performance.

Haiti’s security collapse provides context for such extreme solutions. Criminal groups now control 90% of Port-au-Prince and possess more firepower and manpower than national security forces. A Kenyan-led multinational security support mission was deployed to Haiti in 2024, but it remains understaffed and underfunded with only 1,000 of the 2,500 personnel envisioned initially.

And despite the assistance now being provided by private security personnel, the gangs have continued to expand their reach in the provinces. At least 1,520 people were killed and 600 were injured between April and the end of June across the country. The UN says more than 60% of these killings and injuries occurred during operations by security forces against the gangs.

Criminal groups united under the “Viv Ansanm” coalition continue to dictate events, maintain control over major areas of the capital and launch attacks in a bid to control more territory. There has been no significant territorial loss by gangs in recent months and essential supply chains, trade routes and public safety remain heavily disrupted.

A complex set of factors make combating gang violence in Haiti extremely difficult. Gangs have deep-rooted relationships with certain factions in local police and government, making it hard for external security personnel to dismantle their operations. At the same time, gang control of critical transport infrastructure has crippled tax collection, trade, access to medical supplies and food distribution.

Raising the alarm

Prominent NGOs and rights groups have strongly opposed Vectus Global’s involvement in Haiti. The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre flagged that Prince’s reported ten-year contract would put crucial state powers – including tax collection and deportation – under a private company’s control.

It warned of “serious concerns for human rights and government accountability”. This is because international legal guidelines for private military companies are largely non-binding, and tend to rely on voluntary codes of conduct.

Speaking to the media in August on the condition of anonymity, a senior White House official clarified that there is “no American involvement in hiring Vectus Global and no oversight” of its mission in Haiti. This has only raised further doubts as to who, if anyone, will hold private military personnel there accountable.

The dangers of privatised warfare are well documented. Prince’s own former company, Blackwater, faced numerous scandals over its conduct during the Iraq war. Blackwater provided security for US officials and military installations there.

In 2007, four Blackwater employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded 20 others in the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad. While FBI investigations determined that at least 14 deaths were unjustified, all four convicted Blackwater contractors were pardoned by Donald Trump in 2020.

Vectus Global has communicated its plans in Haiti and operational adjustments. But fundamental criticisms relating to accountability, sustainability and lack of local institution-building remain largely unaddressed in public statements.

The deepening crisis in Haiti was on the agenda at the UN General Assembly in New York, where world leaders gathered in September for the 80th anniversary of the UN. The US pushed for a rebranding of the current multinational security support mission into a more aggressive “gang suppression force”, which has now been approved by the UN security council.

This force will have a new mandate, greater numbers and expanded autonomy from the Haitian police. Yet uncertainties remain over where the 5,500 people for the new force will come from, and who is going to pay.

As Haiti continues to struggle with rampant violence, Prince’s private army reflects governmental desperation rather than strategic wisdom. It is a model that prioritises private profit over public accountability and sustainable peace. The consequences are likely to shape how the world responds to state failure as traditional peacekeeping comes under pressure.

Nicolas Forsans 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. Haiti is enlisting the help of mercenaries in its battle against gang violence – https://theconversation.com/haiti-is-enlisting-the-help-of-mercenaries-in-its-battle-against-gang-violence-263684

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Annayah Prosser, Assistant Professor in Marketing, Business and Society, University of Bath

Taylor Swift’s new album, The Life of a Showgirl, has been released to much fanfare. While the album’s critical reception has been mixed – with reviews ranging from a flop to a masterpiece – the album is all but guaranteed to hold the number one spot in music charts across the world this week thanks to a carefully plotted marketing campaign.

Swift is a global phenomenon and, as a lecturer in marketing, business and society, I am one of many researchers exploring the social science of her success.

In recent years, Swift has been criticised for releasing several limited editions of each album. The Life of a Showgirl has been no exception in its release schedule.

At time of writing, over 24 different versions of the CD and vinyl have been released. These include different colour vinyls, different cover images, signed editions and, most recently, CDs with unique tracks that are not available on streaming platforms.

This marketing strategy is a powerful tool for chart success, where every album purchased (regardless of the format or cover image) is valued.

Many of these editions are released online in timed drops on Swift’s official website. They’re only available for 48 hours, or until stock runs out. This leads to a feeling of scarcity among fans, which encourages them to make impulsive purchase decisions for fear of missing out on their “favourite variant”.

Research has shown that neurodivergent fans are likely to experience stress and anxiety around marketing strategies similar to this. There is a thriving secondary market for these exclusive editions, and scalpers (resellers who legally buy up products and then resell them at an inflated cost) know that keen fans will pay above the recommended retail price for these editions. This encourages over-consumption and many fans may spend more money than they expect to on the new album.

Manipulating charts by offering multiple exclusive album editions is, of course, not an option that many less powerful artists have. Vinyl pressings, in particular, are extremely expensive, and not all artists can afford to do such large vinyl runs, let alone with multiple variants.

The materials used to create vinyl are also unsustainable, and many musicians are seeking more eco-friendly alternatives. As yet Swift hasn’t experimented with eco-friendly alternatives to vinyl, but she does claim to offset her travel carbon footprint. Regardless of the financial drain on fans or the environmental impact, these coercive marketing strategies currently form a strong tactic for chart success.

Pre-release embargoes

Unusually, Swift’s albums do not often feature a lead single, released before the album. Many other artists use this lead single to promote their albums, and to give listeners a taste of what is to come. Swift’s releases are instead kept under sworn secrecy, with all pre-release information coming directly from the singer’s team.

While for many other artists this may be a negative, for Swift this adds layers of mystery to her releases. It also means that everyone hears the tracks at the same time, leaving little opportunity for music aficionados to provide reviews that, among other effects, could dissuade fans from purchasing.

These embargoes have negative impacts for smaller businesses – independent record stores hoping to host midnight launch parties had to cancel these when it became clear album shipments might not arrive on time. Nonetheless, this strategy allows Swift to control the narrative around her releases entirely, enticing fans with sneak-previews and puzzles to uncover before the release that keeps social media hype high.

Over release weekend, many fans attended Swift’s official album launch party, screened in cinemas internationally. These parties featured a sneak-peek of the upcoming music video for the album’s first track, The Fate of Ophelia, alongside behind-the-scenes commentary from Swift herself. Fans who attended these launch parties were able to see the video before anyone else.

As well as providing another avenue to advertise the album, the limited-time cinema release party creates an exclusive opportunity for Swifties (as fans are known) to connect and celebrate the album together. The Eras Tour showed just how important it is for fans to connect with each other around these kinds of events.

Where once these release parties may have been organised informally among friend groups, Swift has now transformed them into another opportunity for income and generating social media hype.

Unsurprisingly, given these tactics, many artists choose not to release music around Swift album release dates. Those artists who historically have deigned to compete – even weeks after the original release – have had their chart threatened by the release of yet more exclusive editions.

For example, the release of three further exclusive editions of The Tortured Poets Department knocked singer Billie Eilish off of the charts last year, five weeks after Swift’s album’s initial release.

It is extremely difficult for any artist to compete with such a strong industry force. Swift and her fans are powerful enough to wipe out most of her competition whenever she chooses to release her albums.

This album roll out leaves many questions about the state of the music industry today. What do artists owe their fans? Is this business model sustainable given the impending climate emergency? Should consumers be protected from these new forms of market exploitation? What would a fairer way of engaging in the music business look like?

Researchers across the fields of business and society, macro-marketing and corporate social responsibility have been considering these complex questions for decades. It is important that fans, researchers, artists and executives answer these questions together. The fate of the music industry – and fair competition within it – is at stake.

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.

Annayah Prosser 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. Taylor Swift’s aggressive marketing guarantees success – no matter what the music sounds like – https://theconversation.com/taylor-swifts-aggressive-marketing-guarantees-success-no-matter-what-the-music-sounds-like-266812

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anthony Ridge-Newman, Associate Dean And Associate Professor School of Humanities, Liverpool Hope University

In the wake of the 2024 general election, media headlines, public discourse, and Reform UK’s consistently favourable electoral and polling results have suggested the party poses an “existential threat” to the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have seen off and subsumed major threats in their long history. But Reform UK is a well-oiled machine. Its leader is a political juggernaut who has honed his skills in a new era of populist political communication and looks better connected to voters as a result. The contemporary Conservative party, meanwhile, is a deer caught in headlights.

The decline in the relevance of the Conservative party and the rising relevance of Reform UK as the de facto opposition party was demonstrated by Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his party conference speech when he placed primary importance on battling Farage and did not even mention Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, by name.

It is pertinent to note that the rise of Reform UK, formerly the Brexit party, is not an isolated phenomenon. Since Brexit entered our lexicon, scholars have observed political fragmentation and new divides appearing across the political spectrum.

Several nascent political entities have risen and declined, such as the fleetingly registered Change UK party. The European Research Group, a eurosceptic grouping of Tory MPs limps on, but with dramatically reduced influence and activity since the last election.

New political groupings continue to form on both the left and right of British politics. Despite some recent infighting, former Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana are starting a new party, currently known as Your Party.

But what seems comparatively different on the right is Reform’s fairly rapid, real and successive electoral successes. The outcome of Brexit in 2016 and Reform’s rise in the UK reflects similar recent trends across the world. Voters are turning away from conventional and centrist politics towards more disruptive forces. Trumpism in the United States might be the most notable example.

Historically, at times of significant cultural, technological and social change, we have observed seismic shifts in the political landscape. The most comparable example in the UK might even be the rise of the Labour party at the outset of the 20th century, which came at a time when the right of the British political system was undergoing upheaval.

Around that period, what we now know as the Conservative party was a parliamentary coalition undergoing a process of evolution. Various political groupings, including older Whigs and Tories, and newer Liberal Unionists and National Liberals, linked with Conservatives to form what formally became the Conservative and Unionist party.

Students of the Conservative party, such as historian Richard Cockett, argue the party is like a “Darwinian” organism. It has the ability to adapt and survive – and indeed has survived many crises. It survived the birth of Labour, having weathered a major split, almost a century prior to that, under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel over the repeal of the corn laws.

Many experts cite the Conservative party as the world’s most successful democratic political party in history. To describe Reform as an existential threat in this context is therefore all the more striking.

Reform continues to lack concrete plans in several key areas. Its annual conference primarily focused on immigration, without delivering policies on other pressing issues, such as housing and health. But unlike the Tories, Reform enjoys outsider credibility, further enhanced by Farage’s media-savviness. This clean-slate status allows Reform UK to tap into emotional and cultural discontent – a hallmark of populist politics.

Now, the Conservative party, which has historically absorbed or neutralised political threats, may face a challenge it cannot subsume. If Reform UK was to outperform the Tories at the next election, it would amount to a fundamental realignment of the right in British politics. It would raise the spectre of something that goes against conventional academic wisdom: that the Conservative party always adapts to survive.

Adapt or die

Reform UK’s success suggests it is not simply a fringe distraction, but a genuine existential threat to the political dominance and identity of the Conservative party. Its survival ultimately depends on its ability to evolve and adapt in this new political context.

Currently, the Conservative party seems lost in the wilderness. It is far too laboured in its thinking about how to reshape its identity in an era of superfast social, political and technological change.

It is failing to resist the urge to emulate aspects of the Reform UK agenda, and seems to be lurching further to the right towards its rival. In so doing, the Tories are losing their unique selling point.

The modern Conservative party has been at its strongest when it is able to show a combination of party unity and an image of competent leadership (echoing a sense that it is the party of good and prudent governance), all housed within a catchall and centrist offering. Lurching to the right simply plays into the hands of Reform UK – they risk losing more moderate supporters and splitting the harder right vote with Reform UK.

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.

Anthony Ridge-Newman 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 Conservatives always adapt to survive – or do they? – https://theconversation.com/the-conservatives-always-adapt-to-survive-or-do-they-265255

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Claire Jowitt, Professor of Renaissance Studies, University of East Anglia

Like afternoon tea, red pillar boxes and bracing walks on crisp autumn days, there is something reassuringly British about the Shipping Forecast, broadcast twice a day on Radio 4, and three times at weekends.

Dogger; Rockall; Malin; Irish Sea: with its distinctive poetic rhythm, the bulletin consists of a gale warning summary, a synopsis of general conditions at sea and forecasts for each of the weather areas including wind direction and force, sea state, weather and visibility. All are essential information to ensure safe sailing for ships and fishing vessels.

This year marks a century since the BBC first broadcast on radio a dedicated shipping forecast from its station 5XX at Daventry on a wavelength of 1,600 metres. Now one of the longest-running radio programmes in the world, for many in the UK it has achieved national treasure status, not least due to its soothing theme tune Sailing By, composed by Ronald Binge in 1963 and added to the broadcast in 1973.

The forecast is produced by the Met Office on behalf of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, and covers sea conditions around the British Isles for the next 24 hours. The waters around the UK and Ireland are divided into 31 weather areas, each with a quixotic-sounding name which often refers to a local geographic feature. Starting with Viking (Viking Bank), the forecast proceeds on a clockwise route around the map of the British Isles to finish at Southeast Iceland (Iceland).

Each broadcast comprises a maximum of 380 words, depending on whether Trafalgar (Cape Trafalgar) is included. This is the weather station furthest from the United Kingdom and is usually only mentioned on the 00:48 forecast. It takes precisely nine minutes for practised BBC announcers to read the bulletin.

With its rhythmic nature and formulaic repeated phrases and structure, the forecast has even been adapted into a fortnightly BBC podcast, The Sleeping Forecast. Advertised as “a soothing blend of classical and ambient music” interspersed with bulletin excerpts, the podcast recognises the forecast’s calming qualities and hypnotic ability to lull the nation to sleep.

The Shipping Forecast has also entered popular culture, inspiring countless songs, novels, films, TV shows and works of art. One of the most memorable is the sonnet The Shipping Forecast by the Irish poet Seamus Heaney in his 1979 collection Field Work, which captures how beauty and routine intersect. It was memorably read out on national poetry day in 2016 on Radio 4’s Today Programme by King Charles, then Prince of Wales.

There are legions of other famous fans too. In 1988 Stephen Fry, with obvious fondness, parodied the forecast: “Malin, Hebrides, Shetland, Jersey, Fair Isle, Turtle Neck, Tank Top, Courtelle,” he deadpanned.

Former merchant-navy seaman and ex-deputy prime minister John Prescott read the 5.20am broadcast on Red Nose Day 2011, to support Comic Relief. Michael Palin, who viewed the forecast as poetry, picked Alan Bennett to read it out when he was guest editor of the Today Programme on December 29 2013. Bennett, with his distinctive Yorkshire accent took obvious relish in repeating the words “rough” and “very rough” when reading this lyric poem of places to the nation.

Early origins of weather warnings

Despite the Shipping Forecast’s comforting nature and importance as a national cultural icon, it should be remembered that first and foremost it is intended to help save lives at sea.

The first public weather forecast – published in The Times on August 1 1861 – was inspired by the tragedy of the steam clipper Royal Charter, sunk in a storm in 1859 with the loss of more than 400 lives.

The storm-warning service was the brainwave of the meteorologist Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy, who established 15 land weather stations using the recently invented telegraph to transmit to him daily reports of conditions at set times. According to Historic England, the public body that advises the government on important historic sites, there are more than 37,000 known shipwreck sites and recorded losses in England’s territorial sea. Without FitzRoy’s innovation, it would be much higher and more people would have lost their lives. In 2002, the weather area Finisterre (Cape Finisterre) was renamed FitzRoy in honour of the man who created the forecast.

Today, the Shipping Forecast is still listened to by many mariners around Britain, providing a safety net of good weather information to supplement the more advanced weather detection technologies available via satellite systems.

Yet, in 2025, with navigating the sea safely becoming increasingly challenging due to extreme weather caused by climate change, the 10,000 Ships for the Ocean global coalition initiative was launched at the UN’s ocean summit in June. It aims to raise the number of ships equipped for weather monitoring at sea, providing data that improves weather forecasting and the effectiveness of responses to extreme weather events.

Such initiatives underline the crucial importance of global collaboration across maritime communities to continue to further improve safety at sea for the next 100 years.

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. Why the BBC’s Shipping Forecast still entrances people after 100 years – https://theconversation.com/why-the-bbcs-shipping-forecast-still-entrances-people-after-100-years-265702

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Lees, Reader in French Studies, University of Warwick

French prime minister Sébastien Lecornu has resigned after less than a month in the role, making him the fourth to leave the office in the past year and a half.

When he was first elected in 2017, President Emmanuel Macron was supposed to be a figure of calm. After five turbulent years under the presidency of François Hollande, Macron heralded a new dawn. The first centrist president of France’s fifth republic managed to amass huge support through his nascent political party La République en Marche, which included many representatives who were entirely new to politics.

For the first year, this steadiness prevailed. Macron had defeated the extreme-right’s Marine Le Pen in the second-round run-off of the presidential elections that year. Le Pen’s supporters seemed stunned into submission. Opposition to Macron was limited. Now he can’t hold on to a prime minister, can’t pass any legislation and faces calls to resign.

The problems really began for Macron in 2018. First came the gilets jaunes in 2018, the mass protest movement opposing fuel prices and Macron’s economic plans, including changes to retirement rights.

Then there was the pandemic, a challenge unlike anything Macron’s predecessors had faced. Then, in 2022, a resurgent Le Pen made it yet again into the second-round of the election. This time the gap between the two was closer than it had been back in 2017.

In an attempt to freshen up his offering, Macron appointed Gabriel Attal as prime minister in January 2024 – the youngest person to hold the role since the fifth republic began in 1958. This approach failed. Macron’s party lost dismally in the European elections of June 2024.

This led Macron to take the decision that plunged France into the unrelenting political chaos that has been on display for over a year. In a bid to halt the progress of the far right, specifically Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, Macron called the now infamous snap elections of July 2024.

Stalemate in the National Assembly has been the norm ever since. None of the three major blocs (the centrists under Macron, the far right under Le Pen and her acolyte Jordan Bardella, and the leftwing alliance comprised of socialists, communists and La France Insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed) have a majority.

Attal resigned and was replaced by the rightwing Michel Barnier, who survived just a few months in the job before losing a confidence vote in the assembly. Barnier gave way to François Bayrou, who survived slightly longer in office before also losing a confidence vote in September 2025.

Finally, the centrist Lecornu took over before resigning less than a month later. He did not even have time to chair his first cabinet meeting, let alone try to corral parliament into an agreed position on any important matters, most of all the economy. Lecornu cited a lack of willingness to compromise among the various parties in the assembly as the main reason for his decision to stand aside.

The calm Macron appeared to embody in 2017 has transformed into volatility. The recent bloquons tous! (block everything) protest movement has shown signs of echoing the earlier gilets jaunes, bringing large parts of the nation to a halt with strikes and transport disruption.

Indeed, France has not seen scenes of such political chaos for some time. The prime ministerial churn is more akin to the lowest moments of the third republic – a regime that ended in defeat to the Nazis – than to anything since Charles de Gaulle returned to power in 1958.

All this comes at a time of constant reports of corruption, scandal and sleaze. Both former president Nicolas Sarkozy and Le Pen have recently been found guilty of corruption. For Sarkozy, this means becoming the first former president to face a custodial prison sentence. For Le Pen, it means a probable end to any hope of the presidency in 2027 thanks to a ban on her even entering the race.

The future seems to lie in youth. Macron may now well turn to someone like Attal, who could be capable of working with two of the three blocs, but who would need to steer clear of major reforms to the economy: the price for the backing of the far-left.

The other option is to look for a way forward through a legislative election, where the main contenders for a majority would all be youthful. Whether the far-right Bardella, Mathilde Panot (the current leader of La France Insoumise in the National Assembly) or a figure like Attal leading the centre, the main players are likely to be under the age of 40, and free of the images of corruption tainting some of the veterans of the political scene.

Macron will no doubt continue to see his role as a statesman on the world stage and hope that one of his followers can bring the left on board, or else hope the prospective legislative election could bring some change. If not, these conditions means two years is a long time to wait for a change in president. Calls for Macron to go will only intensify if a way forward is not found – and soon.

David Lees 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. France’s latest prime minister has resigned after less than a month – what will Emmanuel Macron do now? – https://theconversation.com/frances-latest-prime-minister-has-resigned-after-less-than-a-month-what-will-emmanuel-macron-do-now-266817

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

The morning of October 7 2023 set in process a series of events which have profoundly changed the Middle East.

At the beginning of that month, the region looked very different to today. Saudi Arabia appeared ready to normalise with Israel, having recently set aside longstanding differences with Iran.

With the normalisation of relations between the region’s two preeminent military powers would come the possibility of curbing Iran’s influence. This, in turn, could bring peace to Yemen and Lebanon.

But thanks to the events of that day, this vision is in tatters. As the sun rose, Hamas fighters launched a brutal terror attack in southern Israel, killing 1,195 people and taking a further 251 hostages. The attack opened up a wound at the heart of the Israeli psyche, evoking memories of the Holocaust and of repeated terror attacks across the 2000s.

In the past two years, the destructive reverberations have been felt across the entire Middle East as Israeli forces have sought to assert unilateral and hegemonic dominance. Beyond Gaza, Israel has engaged in military strikes across the region, causing thousands of deaths and widespread destruction and sowing the seeds of division.

Read more:
Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza is deeply flawed but it may be the best offer Hamas can expect

In Lebanon, Israeli strikes on Beirut and across the south led to more than 3,100 deaths – including senior Hezbollah leaders such as Hassan Nasrallah. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a military campaign in southern Lebanon in October 2024, pushing Hezbollah fighters north of the Litani river. Though a ceasefire was reached on November 26, Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon continues, with the Israeli government citing Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm.

With Hamas and Hezbollah on the ropes, Netanyahu’s attention turned to Iran. Given Israel’s longstanding view of the Islamic Republic as an imminent threat to Israel’s security, this is hardly surprising.

The so-called shadow war that had taken place between the two states across the previous decade erupted. The outbreak of open conflict between the two states on June 13 2025 – since dubbed the 12-day war – had a devastating impact on the Iranian regime.

Netanyahu had called for the Iranian people to overthrow the Islamic Republic. But while many Iranians are unhappy with the regime, Israel’s strikes appeared to have the opposite affect as people rallied around the flag.

Hostilities culminated in bombing raids launched by the US on Iran’s nuclear installations. While the success of these raids has been open to question, the raids allowed the US president, Donald Trump, to claim a US victory.

He demanded an end to hostilities between Israel and Iran and Iran’s retaliation to the US strikes was confined to a carefully orchestrated attack on a US base in Qatar, which was telegraphed in advance and was more performative than escalatory.

Israel has also conducted regular strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which had targeted Israeli (and other countries’) shipping in the Red Sea. And since the fall of the Assad regime, the Israeli military has occupied large tracts of southern Syria, seizing the demilitarised buffer zone around the contested Golan Heights in violation of a 1974 treaty between the two countries.

More recently, Israel struck targets in Doha, Qatar, in an effort to assassinate senior Hamas leaders which ultimately failed. The strike prompted a united front from the Gulf monarchies who called for a real discussion about ending the war. With US officials furious at the Israeli strike on a major non-Nato ally, diplomats sensed an opportunity for a breakthrough.

Peace plan

Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to enact a ceasefire has the potential to be an impressive feat of diplomacy, bringing together a wide range of disparate actors with a real chance of ending the fighting – despite its multiple flaws. But as a feat of peace building, it rings hollow.

The plan does not indicate how a Palestinian state will emerge. It does suggest that the Palestinian Authority will, in the right circumstances, play a role in the governance of Gaza – but this is something that Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected.

Instead, the Gaza International Transition Authority will resemble a mandate of the sort imposed by the League of Nations over a century ago. And even if Trump’s plan brings about a ceasefire and the release of the Israeli hostages, the contours of regional order have been dramatically affected.

Without a Palestinian state there can be no Saudi normalisation with Israel. This is a point that Saudi crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, has made abundantly clear.

Popular anger across the region will remain. The failure to secure a viable Palestinian state after the Abraham accords provoked anger and resentment among some. That feeling is now growing with the death and destruction meted out to people in Gaza.

If a ceasefire doesn’t emerge, the destruction of Gaza will continue at a pace which will continue to have a catastrophic impact across the Middle East. Israel will remain diplomatically isolated while its citizens will continue to live in fear of Houthi and Hezbollah rockets or attacks from what remains of Hamas, as well as having to deal with the memory of October 7 for years to come.

All the while, Palestinians continue to die on a daily basis and there are still Israeli hostages (and in some cases bodies) waiting to be brought home. Gaza is devastated and rebuilding the enclave will take decades. And the so-called international rules-based order may never recover.

Simon Mabon receives funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Henry Luce Foundation.

– ref. The two years of fighting since October 7 have transformed the Middle East – https://theconversation.com/the-two-years-of-fighting-since-october-7-have-transformed-the-middle-east-266804