Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Holmes, Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Bangor University

The UK’s new digital ID card scheme, announced by Keir Starmer on September 26, has two big questions swirling around it. Is it a solution to illegal immigration? And will it give the government too much power to monitor people?

These questions are likely to dominate discussion and debate for some time. A petition has been posted and civil liberty groups and politicians are already questioning the value of the scheme. But what is the reality?

What is a digital ID card?

Similar to the NHS app and various other existing digital cards, the new scheme will create a universal form of identification stored on mobile phones. When accessing public services, the ID could be used in the same way similar schemes are used across Europe, offering the promise of a more efficient process. Estonia has famously operated a digital ID system since 2002.

One of the aspects of the new scheme that may be overlooked in the forthcoming debate is the benefits this would have in potentially reducing bureaucracy, cost, fraud and waiting times when people are trying to prove they are eligible for certain services. While there are concerns over ID cards from a civil liberties point of view, their use in improving efficiency is something to bear in mind.

Read more:
A national digital ID scheme is being proposed. An expert weighs the pros and (many more) cons

The other imperative in this scheme is monitoring who has the right to work in the UK. Anyone wanting to work or rent a home in the UK would need one, replacing the current practice of using a variety of documents such as driving licences, national insurance numbers and gas bills.

There is therefore an expectation that this will affect illegal immigration by deterring people who don’t have the right to be in the UK from trying to get jobs. Employers and landlords would need to examine ID cards to confirm the identity of applicants.

Illegal immigration and the shadow economy

Combating the flow of illegal immigrants has been a consistent problem for both the current Labour government and the previous Conservative regime. The appeal of the UK is related in part to the work opportunities available to those who can make it to the country and blend in.

In principle, the current eVisas scheme and the new digital ID card would cut off access to legitimate work for those entering the country illegally – although groups such as Migrants’ Rights Network have questioned the value of the eVisas scheme for those wanting to prove their immigration status.

With the political debate focusing on trying to stop small boat crossings, this may seem like an indirect way to address a problem – but cutting off access to work could have an impact on the appeal of the UK in the first place.

Those trying to stay in the UK undetected would need to work in the shadow economy and live in accommodation that did not check ID. The shadow economy is estimated to be 10.8% of GDP in the UK. Both activities could lead to increased dependency on organised crime groups and human traffickers.

Research suggests technology has been key in reducing crime over the past 20 years. Solutions to fraud have often been focused on improving security around identification processes, such as the introduction of facial recognition technology in passports. Perhaps digital ID cards are the next hi-tech solution needed to address illegal immigration.

Stepping into the future

ID cards have been tried and proposed before with similar intentions, so this is not a radical new idea. Also, we all carry a collection of digital ID on our phones, so in many respects, people are not being asked to do something we do not already do.

Read more:
Blair’s ID cards failed in the 2000s – could Starmer’s version fare better?

What could capture the public’s attention and concern, however, is the idea that the card is mandatory and universal. If it is only used in the specified circumstances of accessing public services, seeking employment or rented accommodation, then there is no need to see the scheme as anything more than a new way to be efficient.

But will the demand to produce the card outside of these situations become a common practice in efforts to seek out illegal immigrants? What happens to those who do not have access to their digital ID card, or do not want one? Will it create a rift in society by providing more protection from illegal immigration?

These questions are certain to be raised as the government moves ahead with its plan.

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.

Tim Holmes 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. Digital ID cards: what are they and how will they help the UK deal with illegal immigration? – https://theconversation.com/digital-id-cards-what-are-they-and-how-will-they-help-the-uk-deal-with-illegal-immigration-266194

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daanish Mustafa, Professor in Critical Geography, King’s College London

For ten days in April 2025, Pakistan almost came to a standstill. No freight was moving from its only port city, Karachi, towards the population centres in the north. The cause was the government’s announcement of a project to build six canals to irrigate the Cholistan Desert in the east of the country.

Protesters in the southern Sindh province, fearing diminished water supplies, demanded the immediate cancellation of the project and blocked all highways running northwards. The government soon relented, with prime minister Shehbaz Sharif announcing the project’s suspension in early May.

This was probably, at least in part, because the government was anticipating Indian military action. India blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam terrorist attack, in which 26 people were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir the previous month. Internal squabbles had to be diffused in the face of external threats.

Geopolitics handed a temporary victory to the protesters. But the potential of water to cause conflict in Pakistan remains a live issue, from households using suction pumps to draw more than their share, to large inter-provincial disputes.

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

As someone who has researched water scarcity in Pakistan for 30 years, I argue that water conflict there is entirely avoidable. It is largely a function of the state’s obsession with supply-side mega projects and a lack of attention to questions of equitable access and quality.

At a time when the effects of climate change are becoming more severe, Pakistan can ill afford to continue its engineering-based approach to water if it is to ensure sufficient access for all.

According to the Pakistani government’s own figures, more than 95% of the available water in Pakistan is devoted to agriculture. It is used to cultivate water-guzzling crops, including rice and sugarcane. Pakistan is the fifth-largest producer and fourth-largest exporter of these crops.

Meanwhile the country’s teeming commercial centre of Karachi, with a population of 18 million, suffers from acute water shortages. Affluent neighbourhoods have water intensive date palms, exotic gardens, golf courses and swimming pools.

But for more than 80% of the city’s poorer neighbourhoods, there is almost complete dependence on water from tankers at up to 30 times the price richer neighbourhoods pay for regular piped water.

Water mains often become battle fronts in Karachi. My own research has documented many instances of violent conflict between different ethnicities and groups around manipulating water mains to gain access.

The minority Christian community in the Gujjar Nala neighbourhood of Karachi, for example, has engaged in violent clashes with the neighbouring Pashtun community over the operation of the regulating valve for allocating water to the two communities.

Conflict has also arisen between the city’s predominantly Urdu-speaking communities of Orangi Town and Altafnagar. Orangi residents attacked and destroyed the overhead water dispenser at the Altafnagar pumping station in early 2015 as it was siphoning water for Orangi to commercial water tankers.

Conflict between provinces

Pakistan is dependent on the Indus River and its tributaries for water. The system recharges the extensive Indus aquifer, which provides up to 80% of the water required for crops in the country.

Inter-provincial conflict over the distribution of Indus River water between upstream Punjab province, where several of Pakistan’s largest cities are located, and downstream Sindh province is an ongoing saga.

Sindh resents any new water mega projects in the powerful Punjab province. Along with the central government, Punjab wants to push forward dams and infrastructure projects in the name of development.

The Sindh-Punjab water conflict had a resolution of sorts in 1991, when the Inter-provincial Water Accord was signed. The agreement allocated water from the Indus River system among Pakistan’s four provinces.

However, Sindh’s civil society and government frequently accuse Punjab of violating the agreement by diverting water from the Indus River without the permission of the chief minister of Sindh, as required by the accord.

Sindhi and Punjabi nationalist politics heavily feature the water conflict in their rhetoric, which is proving corrosive for the federation of Pakistan.

Numerous dams and mining projects in the restive Balochistan province have also alienated the populace against the Pakistani government. They argue that dams are built with little local consultation and become hazards when they are swept away in flash floods. Around 30 dams in Balochistan were swept away during the 2022 floods.

At the same time, massive amounts of water are appropriated by foreign-owned mining operations there. These operations are of little benefit to local populations. The ongoing insurgency in the province, and the associated human rights abuses by the Pakistani state, are not divorced from the politics of water.

Pakistan’s water development paradigm is based on engineering and infrastructure. But under the greater uncertainty of climate change, what is needed is more adaptive and flexible management of water at the local scale.

The current approach locks the state into fixed management based on assumptions underlying the design parameters of the infrastructure.

During flood season, which typically runs from July to September, the design parameters of dams and other infrastructure are now routinely exceeded. Water has to be released to save the infrastructure, thereby accentuating flood peaks.

The bulk of agricultural water also comes from groundwater, but all the investment is in surface water. It is a common lament in Pakistan that groundwater has been left for unregulated exploitation by private electric pumps, with all the attention devoted to surface water.

In domestic water supply, the obsession for photogenic urban green spaces and mega supply projects also take away water from poor areas and resources from the much-needed maintenance of the distribution infrastructure.

Climate change is a wicked problem that defies centralised decision making in a country the size and diversity of Pakistan. Local knowledge and democratic decision making are the best arbiter of adjustment to climate change and equitable water access.

Yet, in a praetorian state like Pakistan, military-dominated governance is unfortunately moving in exactly the opposite direction.

The research cited in this article emerged from grants funded by United States Institute for Peace (USIP) & Royal Geographical Society.

– ref. How water fuels conflict in Pakistan – https://theconversation.com/how-water-fuels-conflict-in-pakistan-262628

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naporn Popattanachai, Lecturer in Environmental and Marine Law, University of Galway

Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond national borders, an unregulated expanse under growing pressure from mining, fishing and climate change. Now, a new UN treaty promises to change that – but could also trigger fresh conflicts over who controls the high seas.

The high seas treaty, formally known as the BBNJ Agreement, has finally crossed the threshold to become international law after Morocco became the 60th country to ratify it. This triggers its entry into force in January 2026, opening a new era of ocean governance.

At the heart of the treaty is a plan to create protected areas on the high seas, similar to national parks on land. The goal is to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, a target agreed under the UN’s global biodiversity framework.

Only countries that sign and ratify the treaty will be bound by its rules (with some exceptions). Those that stay outside the agreement, like China or the US, won’t have to follow the treaty – but will lose a say in shaping the multilateral system of ocean governance. The could act unilaterally, but other states would be able to challenge them under the UN convention on the law of the sea.

The new treaty also lays down very detailed processes, thresholds, and other requirements for environmental impact assessments for activities that could harm the high seas. Countries can expect more regulations for activities – especially offshore activities – in their waters if they could cause damage beyond their maritime borders.

The high seas are a huge source of genetic resources. That means any plant, animal or microbe that could lead to new medicines, crops or industrial materials.

The treaty sets out rules for sharing both the materials and the potentially-lucrative scientific information they generate, so that poorer countries can also benefit from discoveries made in these waters. Detailed rules on access and benefit-sharing will be further developed by the countries that have signed the treaty.

However, the treaty will not apply to fishing already covered by international regulations, or to fish or other marine life caught through such activities on the high seas. Effectively, commercial fishing falls outside the scope of this treaty.

Mining pitted against conservation

But conservation isn’t the only activity on the high seas. Mining companies are keen to extract minerals such as nickel, cobalt or copper from below the deep seabed – often in the same areas where fragile ecosystems and valuable genetic resources can be found.

Deep-sea mining is already regulated by the International Seabed Authority, a separate specialised body established by a UN convention that has already granted many exploration contracts and is now drafting new rules for commercial extraction.

The two regimes – the high seas treaty and the seabed authority – compete and conflict with one another. Protecting marine life may significantly limit (if not prohibit) deep-sea mining, and vice versa.

It’s not yet clear how the new treaty will resolve this potential conflict. The only clue we have is that article 5 (2) of the treaty states it shall be interpreted in a way that “does not undermine” other relevant legal and political bodies. It remains to be seen how the two regimes will coordinate in practice, as well as how these competing interests can be reconciled, where the stakes are very high. When protecting biodiversity could stop lucrative mining projects, tensions seem inevitable.

Before the treaty takes effect in 2026, countries that have signed and ratified the treaty will meet again to agree on details: how protected areas will be chosen, how genetic resources will be shared, and how to handle conflicts with activities like fishing and mining.

For anyone involved in marine conservation and governance, this is an exciting moment. The high seas treaty could transform the way we look after the oceans. It gives us the chance to protect vast, vulnerable ecosystems and ensure the benefits of ocean science are shared more equally. But whether it will deliver on that promise depends on whether states can balance conservation with a growing scramble for deep-sea resources.

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

– ref. A landmark treaty could protect the high seas – and spark new conflicts – https://theconversation.com/a-landmark-treaty-could-protect-the-high-seas-and-spark-new-conflicts-265908

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Montgomery, Lecturer in Work and Organisations, University of Stirling

Nigel Farage’s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain is a shifting of the goalposts for those who have already come to the UK legally and settled.

Framing issues of migration as a crisis has been beneficial for Farage and other British politicians as a political strategy. However, on this occasion there are early indications that these proposals may provoke a more negative reaction from the British public.

The idea that even those already granted leave to remain would have to reapply creates insecurity for thousands of people who have come to call the UK home, which speaks to some of the human costs of such proposals.

We should also consider the potential implications for the economy. Reform claims billions could be saved by ending the right to apply for permanent residency in the UK – a claim that was called into question within days.

This indicates a pressing need for scrutiny of the economic impact a Reform government would have, particularly given that the party leading in polls.

Polls are not just indicators of who may next occupy 10 Downing Street. They also send signals to key actors in the economy about the country’s potential future direction of travel. And these signals matter. To understand how, we can turn our attention to the questions that an end to indefinite leave to remain may pose for the UK labour market.

There is already a problem with skills investment in the UK. Decisions to invest in skills and training often require a commitment to long-term investment before the employer and the employee realise the benefits.

But what happens to such investment when employers are unsure if their staff may be forced to leave? This is particularly relevant for those key sectors where there is a greater reliance on migrant workers.

Then there is the issue of job creation. If an employer is currently deciding where to invest and create new jobs, one aspect they will consider is access to the skills they need.

We know that there are key areas where employers are concerned about skills shortages in the UK. Would the potential end of leave to remain make it riskier to invest in creating jobs in the UK? This is a question employers will already be asking.

And if you are a worker from another country with skills that are in high demand, would these proposals make the UK more, or less attractive as a destination to bring skills?

These economic implications lead us to a key political question: who did Reform consult before making this announcement?

Reform has consistently sought to position itself as on the side of British business. Did they speak to the Confederation of British Industry about whether scrapping indefinite leave to remain would be a good idea? The Federation of Small Businesses? Did they speak to industry federations in the care sector, the hospitality sector, the education sector, or the health sector, where employers rely upon migrant workers?

Farage has also been keen to present himself as standing up for British workers and has in the past year been seeking to win support of grassroots union members. Did he consult any of the trade unions that represent millions of workers across the UK? Or did he consult trade union representatives in sectors that may be affected by these new proposals?

What type of consultation has informed these new proposals matters because it sends an important signal on the approach to governing that Farage intends to adopt should he become the next prime minister. Such signals are also likely to inform decisions made before the next election by employers and workers sustaining the UK economy.

Perhaps owing to the rapid rise of the Reform party and the dominance of two parties in government for generations, it has not received the same degree of scrutiny that previous “governments-in-waiting” have received. But given its dominance in the polls, careful consideration of the impact of its proposals is more necessary than ever.

If we look closer at these latest proposals, we see that they will create a more hostile and uncertain environment for those who have lived and worked in the UK for some years and those considering coming to the country. That may have already created risks for the UK economy.

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.

Tom Montgomery works in higher education. He has conducted research on issues of social care, migration and labour markets that has been funded by the European Commission.

– ref. Nigel Farage’s pledge to end indefinite leave could hurt the economy even before an election – https://theconversation.com/nigel-farages-pledge-to-end-indefinite-leave-could-hurt-the-economy-even-before-an-election-266174

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gregory Frame, Teaching Associate in Film and Television Studies, University of Nottingham

Champions of free speech will have breathed a sigh of relief when The Walt Disney Company returned Jimmy Kimmel Live! to air on its US broadcast network, ABC, on September 23. Disney claims to have made this decision for the “right reasons” – but it was also driven by reports that creatives and, perhaps more importantly, consumers would abandon it in droves if the late-night US TV host was not restored. As always, the economic considerations had as much weight as political ones – if not more.

In the short term, Disney’s change of heart was rewarded. Kimmel’s return created a roughly threefold bump in its ratings – this despite 70 of ABC’s affiliated networks, owned by Sinclair and Nexstar, refusing to broadcast it. While it’s just one show with considerable news currency behind it, this bucks a long-term trend that has seen the decline of late-night political comedy on US broadcast television.

Falling advertising revenue was CBS’s stated reason for not renewing Stephen Colbert’s contract to host the Late Show when it expires in June 2026. But Colbert has been a longstanding critic of Donald Trump, and his show’s cancellation in August 2025 occurred alongside the finalisation of a merger between CBS’s parent company, Paramount, and Skydance Media, which required the approval of the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In an article about topical political comedy in the UK, we argued that the cancellation of BBC shows such as Mock the Week, The Mash Report and Frankie Boyle’s New World Order were driven by the UK’s public broadcaster desire to neutralise claims it was too left-wing or “woke” in the eyes of the right-wing press and the then-Conservative government.

But while this pressure remains real, these shows also fit uncomfortably in a television ecosystem dominated by streaming where the moment of broadcast is of rapidly diminishing importance. Topical comedy’s connection to a particular time and space means it struggles to capture attention from, and remain relevant to, audiences who are used to binge-watching and time-shifting.

So, while the return of Jimmy Kimmel Live! to ABC may be good news for those who fear the US’s descent into authoritarianism, we should consider what other factors may have been at stake in the decision.

For now, Disney cannot afford to offend the creative community that produces content for the more lucrative areas of its business, from Walt Disney Studios and Marvel to Star Wars. Nor can it alienate its consumers who subscribe to Disney+ or visit its theme parks every year. Many members of both groups are not fans of Donald Trump or Maga.

But in the medium and long term, Disney might question whether going all-in for late-night comedy hosts is worth it when this could harm other, more valuable parts of its business. For example, Disney is unlikely to sacrifice its ability to get FCC approval for future acquisitions – such as the rights to broadcast live sports on ESPN – for the sake of satirical critique of the Trump administration.

Free speech flourishes online

Tellingly, Kimmel’s opening monologue on his return broke records on YouTube, with more than 15 million views in its first 16 hours. There remains a significant audience for satirical political content, even if not through traditional linear broadcast. Whatever Disney decides in future about Jimmy Kimmel Live! or its ownership of ABC (which is not for sale at present), this trend is likely to continue.

In this age of political polarisation and cultural fragmentation, topical political comedy and satire in the US and beyond are arguably better suited to the online environment. This is – for now – a safe space outside the purview of Trump’s FCC, where commentators and other content creators can say the unsayable largely unencumbered by regulatory oversight on social media and YouTube.

Whatever the right-wing suggests, free speech is alive and well – for good or ill – online. Recommendation algorithms can find content for you whatever your political proclivities.

The Walt Disney Company does not want to be part of a culture war. It has sought to avoid it in these first months of Trump’s second term, from settling his defamation lawsuit against TV anchor George Stephanopoulos and ABC to the tune of US$15 million (£11.23 million) in December 2024, to erasing queer and environmentalist themes from Pixar’s Summer 2025 release Elio.

Despite taking meaningful steps towards diversity and inclusion in recent years, Disney has responded to the US’s rightward turn by concluding that politics is bad for business.

So while it is heartening that, in this instance, Disney has chosen to back free speech and liberal values against right-wing authoritarianism, it would be naive to think this portends a major sea-change in its approach. As former CEO Michael Eisner said in an internal memo in 1981: “We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.”

The future of topical political comedy and satire on broadcast television will be decided by this cold, hard reality. Indeed, while this particular battle may have been won by Kimmel and his fans, the larger war may already be over.

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. Jimmy Kimmel is back, but how much longer will late-night comedy last? – https://theconversation.com/jimmy-kimmel-is-back-but-how-much-longer-will-late-night-comedy-last-266013