Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Juan Pablo Ferrero, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Politics, University of Bath

Javier Milei, Argentina’s self-styled anarcho-capitalist president, has secured a resounding victory in legislative midterm elections. Following a year marked by radical austerity, economic upheaval and political scandals, this outcome is nothing short of extraordinary.

Milei’s La Libertad Avanza coalition defied expectations to secure more than 40% of the nationwide vote, substantially outperforming the main opposition Fuerza Patria coalition’s roughly 32%. This triumph bolsters the president’s legislative power and, critically, positions him as a strong contender for reelection in 2027.

The elections were widely interpreted as a referendum on Milei’s tenure, which began in December 2023. His victory is a testament to his successful strategy of polarisation and his ability to present himself as the sole purveyor of hope and “redemption” amid prolonged economic stagnation and declining real incomes.

Yet the narrative of this win is also inextricably linked to a dramatic intervention by the US government to stabilise Argentina’s shaky economy. This intervention transformed a local legislative contest into a global geopolitical flashpoint.

Milei’s first year as president was characterised by a “chainsaw” approach to public spending, cutting tens of thousands of government jobs and freezing public investments. These measures were painful, contributing to business closures and job losses. But they also delivered tangible – albeit fragile – macroeconomic gains.

Annual inflation, which peaked at 289% in April 2024, was brought down to about 32% by October 2025. The country also achieved its first fiscal surplus in more than a decade. However, the more immediate electoral lifeline was the government’s intense focus on managing the price of the US dollar.

The longstanding instability of Argentina’s own currency, the peso, coupled with frequent high inflation has created a dual system where the peso is used for daily transactions there but the dollar is preferred for savings and larger purchases, like real estate.

And Milei’s administration has gone to great lengths to control the exchange rate, thereby engineering a temporary but palpable sense of stability just ahead of the polls. This stability was crucial for voters battered by volatility.

It also came at a high cost: a heavy reliance on Washington’s financial backing. As Argentina’s central bank reserves dwindled and a currency crisis loomed, the US government – under President Donald Trump – moved with speed to rescue the situation.

A US$20 billion (£15 billion) currency swap agreement between the US Treasury and Argentina’s central bank was formalised on October 20. This financial assistance, which was quickly followed by an additional announced facility of up to US$20 billion sourced from private banks and sovereign funds, was undeniably timed to shore up Milei’s position before the election.

Trump explicitly linked the continuation of this aid to a Milei victory, warning: “If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina”. Milei’s win is a clear victory for his ideological ally in Washington, who championed the financial lifeline as a strategic move to support a “great philosophy” and “make Argentina great again”.

The US government’s overt and decisive intervention marks a shift not seen in Latin America since perhaps the cold war. It signals that Argentina, and Latin America more broadly, is back on the geopolitical chessboard.

For the US, this is less about ideological affinity and more about strategic resource competition. Latin America holds vast reserves of natural resources, including critical minerals such as lithium that are essential components of the global clean energy supply chain.

Washington’s support for Milei is a move to challenge China’s expanding economic and political foothold in the region. It ensures that a key resource provider and trade partner remains firmly within the US orbit. Milei is, in turn, keen to facilitate American investment in key sectors such as oil, gas and mining. These sectors are all central to his economic recovery plans.

A reckoning for the opposition

The election results have definitively confirmed a deep and persistent political polarisation in Argentina. The centre-left opposition’s traditional strategy – waiting for the incumbent’s austerity and scandals to generate discontent – failed to deliver a victory. This should force a period of fundamental soul-searching for the opposition.

But, in my opinion, Milei’s success is not simply the product of a “crisis of representation”, where traditional parties are failing. He instead appears to be a faithful representative of a new, reactive global society. This society is deeply sceptical of institutional mediation, preferring strong executive leaders and perceived “problem solvers” over consensus-based politics.

Read more:
Argentina: despite the scandals, Milei’s politics are here to stay

Milei’s radical experiment has survived its first great electoral test. His party, despite its limited base in the Argentine Congress, secured enough seats to be a formidable legislative force. This means it is now capable of upholding presidential vetoes and advancing critical tax and labour reforms.

He has also set a powerful new trajectory for the country – one that is tightly bound to the geopolitical strategies of the US, its indispensable new partner. As I have argued before, Milei’s politics are here to stay in Argentina and Latin America.

Juan Pablo Ferrero 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. Javier Milei’s victory in Argentina’s midterm elections is also a win for Trump – https://theconversation.com/javier-mileis-victory-in-argentinas-midterm-elections-is-also-a-win-for-trump-268339

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Louis Bayman, Associate Professor in Department of Film Studies, University of Southampton

Horror has always helped us establish the boundaries of acceptability by giving a name and shape to what transgresses them. Much of what constitutes horror stems from childhood, a time when boundaries and ideas of transgression are first being set.

Children can often encounter the world as a frightening place, full of unseen, mysterious powers. Any child who has been told that the monsters under the bed aren’t real knows just how little that reassurance helps their very real sense of fear.

Read more:
Scary stories for kids: Watership Down made me aware of my mortality at age four

It is the adult attitude to monsters that is harder to understand. As a society, we largely no longer believe in sprites and demons. However, we still fear the possible bad influence they could have on children’s minds. The 1984 film Gremlins is a good example of this.

Gremlins is about a young man who receives a new pet for Christmas. Billy’s father hasn’t bought him a cat or a dog but a cute little creature known as a mogwai, which he procured from a mysterious seller in Chinatown. Billy, who names the mogwai Gizmo, just has to follow three essential rules: do not expose him to light, he must be kept away from water, and, most important of all, he must never be fed after midnight.

This article is part of a series of expert recommendations of spooky stories – on screen and in print – for brave young souls. From the surprisingly dark depths of Watership Down to Tim Burton’s delightfully eerie kid-friendly films, there’s a whole haunted world out there just waiting for kids to explore. Dare to dive in here.

Gizmo is cute. He has big round eyes and chubby cheeks and a bashful smile that looks up expectantly at Billy, as if Billy is the centre of his universe. He babbles but can’t speak, snuggles softly and plays. Gizmo is, in other words, a representation of a child.

Billy spills water on Gizmo and finds out that this breeds a litter of littler mogwais. The more rambunctious of the new litter, Stripe, manages to trick Billy into feeding them after midnight, at which point they form into cocoons and then hatch into gremlins.

Gremlins are violent, sadistic, destructive pleasure-seekers, and their principle pleasure is mayhem. They have teeth and claws and scaly skin, and eyes that look with gleeful hatred at those who get in their way. Gremlins are, in other ways, also a representation of a child.

The psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud discussed the roots of the uncanny in the familiar, something that is altered just enough to become horrific. A pet, a toy, a bedroom at night, a child, have a comforting familiarity. But they are also classic sources of terror.

We are not scared of that which is different from us; we are scared of what is close to us – something that we thought was familiar, that is suddenly made strange.

What could be more familiar and yet more strange than a child? At once, both an idealised figure of helpless innocence and an unrelenting force of energetic indiscipline, a child is the most deeply human and the most deeply alien of creatures.

The Gremlins destroy Billy’s house, swing from the lampshades and take his mother hostage, all with the television constantly on. The scenario is surely familiar to many a parent, even more so given that the film takes place at Christmas.

Through various ever more ingenious methods – you may never look at a food blender the same way again – Billy, his mother, and his co-worker Kate (who is traumatised by Christmas after her father broke his neck trying to descend a chimney), manage to kill the gremlins off. The owner of the Chinatown emporium comes back to reclaim the mogwai (the word is Chinese for “evil spirit”), but not before chiding the family, and westerners in general, for their inability to take care of nature.

The film suggests that various rules have been transgressed. Our crazed desire to accumulate ever more things is done without thinking of the consequences. The films also poses the question about the limits of knowledge.

When Billy takes his new pet to school his teacher wants to experiment on it, a Gothic figure of the amoral scientist that goes back at least to Frankenstein. At the same time, the gremlins rampaging around the American suburb clearly reference moral panics over immigrants.

The discovery of the mogwai in Chinatown draws on a long tradition of orientalist fantasies of a magical, exotic but dangerous East, grafted onto a more modern association of east Asia with cheaply manufactured consumer goods.

The violence of Gremlins led American theatres to introduce a special PG-13 certificate. Here in the UK, I saw it in the cinema, aged five. I am not sure it was the children’s film my mother expected when she got me a ticket. But I loved it – and I think your kids will love it too.

Gremlins is suitable for children aged 13+

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.

Louis Bayman 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. Scary stories for kids: Gremlins and the terror of normal, even cute, things becoming horrific – https://theconversation.com/scary-stories-for-kids-gremlins-and-the-terror-of-normal-even-cute-things-becoming-horrific-267788

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Phil Johnstone, Visiting Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex; University of Tartu; Utrecht University

Donald Trump’s recent visit to the UK saw a so-called “landmark partnership” on nuclear energy. London and Washington announced plans to build 20 small modular reactors and also develop microreactor technology – despite the fact no such plants have yet been built commercially anywhere in the world.

The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, promised these plans will deliver a “golden age” of nuclear energy that will also “drive down bills”. Yet the history of nuclear power has been decades of overhype, soaring costs and constant delays. Around the world, the trends point the wrong way.

So why the renewed excitement about going nuclear? The real reasons have less to do with energy security, or climate change – and far more to do with military power.

At first sight, the case may seem obvious. Nuclear supporters frame small modular reactors, or SMRs, as vital for cutting emissions, meeting rising demand for electricity from cars and data centres. With large nuclear plants now prohibitively expensive, smaller reactors are billed as an exciting new alternative.

But these days even the most optimistic industry analyses concede that nuclear – even SMRs – is unlikely to compete with renewables. One analysis in New Civil Engineer published earlier this year concluded that SMRs are “the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables”.

Independent assessments – for instance by the formerly pro-nuclear Royal Society – find that 100% renewable systems outperform any energy system including nuclear on cost, flexibility and security. This helps explain why worldwide statistical analysis shows nuclear power is not generally linked to carbon emissions reductions, while renewables are.

Partly, the enthusiasm for SMRs can be explained by the loudest institutional voices tending to have formal pro-nuclear remits or interests: they include the industry itself and its suppliers, nuclear agencies, and governments with entrenched military nuclear programmes. For these interests, the only question is which kinds of nuclear reactors to develop, and how fast. They don’t wonder if we should build reactors in the first place: the need is seen as self-evident.

At least big nuclear reactors have benefited from economies of scale and decades of technological optimisation. Many SMR designs are just “powerpoint reactors”, existing only in slides and feasibility studies. Claims these unbuilt designs “will cost less” are speculative at best.

Investment markets know this. While financiers see SMR hype as a way to profit from billions in government subsidies, their own analyses are less enthusiastic about the technology itself.

So why then, all this attention to nuclear in general and smaller reactors in particular? There is clearly more to this than meets the eye.

The hidden link

The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries. Maintaining a nuclear armed navy or weapons programme requires constant access to generic reactor technologies, skilled workers and special materials. Without a civilian nuclear industry, military nuclear capabilities are significantly more challenging and costly to sustain.

Nuclear submarines are especially important here as they would very likely require national reactor industries and their supply chains even if there was no civil nuclear power. Barely affordable even vessel by vessel, nuclear submarines become even more expensive when the costs of this “submarine industrial base” is factored in.

Rolls-Royce is an important link here, as it already builds the UK’s submarine reactors and is set to build the newly announced civil SMRs. The company said openly in 2017 that a civil SMR programme would “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability”.

Here, as emphasised by Nuclear Intelligence Weekly in 2020, the Rolls-Royce SMR programme has an important “symbiosis with UK military needs”. It is this dependency that allows military costs (in the words of a former executive with submarine builders BAE Systems), to be “masked” behind civilian programmes.

By funding civil nuclear projects, taxpayers and consumers cover military uses of nuclear power in subsidies and higher bills – without the added spending appearing in defence budgets.

When the UK government funded us to investigate the value of this transfer, we put it at around £5 billion per year in the UK alone. These costs are masked from public view, covered by revenues from higher electricity prices and the budgets of supposedly civilian government agencies.

This is not a conspiracy but a kind of political gravitational field. Once governments see nuclear weapons as a marker of global status, the funding and political support becomes self-perpetuating.

The result is a strange sort of circularity: nuclear power is justified by energy security and cost arguments that don’t stand up, but is in reality sustained for strategic reasons that remain unacknowledged.

A global pattern

The UK is not unique, though other nuclear powers are much more candid. US energy secretary Chris Wright described the US-UK nuclear deal as important for “securing nuclear supply chains across the Atlantic”. Around US$25 billion a year (£18.7 billion) flows from civil to military nuclear activity in the US.

Russia and China are both quite open about their own inseparable civil-military links. French president Emmanuel Macron put it clearly: “Without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear, without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear.”

Across these states, military nuclear capabilities are seen as a way to stay at the world’s “top table”. An end to their civilian programme would threaten not just jobs and energy, but their great power status.

The next frontier

Beyond submarines, the development of “microreactors” is opening up new military uses for nuclear power. Microreactors are even smaller and more experimental than SMRs. Though they can make profits by milking military procurement budgets, they make no sense from a commercial energy standpoint.

However, microreactors are seen as essential in US plans for battlefield power, space infrastructure and new “high energy” anti-drone and missile weaponry. Prepare to see them become ever more prominent in “civil” debates – precisely because they serve military goals.

Whatever view is taken of these military developments, it makes no sense to pretend they are unrelated to the civil nuclear sector. The real drivers of the recent US-UK nuclear agreement lie in military projection of force, not civilian power production. Yet this remains absent from most discussions of energy policy.

It is a crucial matter of democracy that there be honesty about what is really going on.

Phil Johnstone is a Visiting Professor at the University of Tartu, Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Utrecht, and Visiting Fellow at the University of Sussex. He is an unpaid member of the Sussex Energy Group, the Nuclear Consultation Group, a Patron of the Nuclear Information Service, and serves on the advisory board of the Medact Nuclear Weapons group.

He and Andy Stirling previously received funding from the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) for research that underpins some of the insights in this blog.

Andy Stirling is Emeritus Professor at the University of Sussex. Among many previous government and intergovernmental policy advisory appointments, he currently serves on the sociology sub-panel of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2029 and the Research Council for the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. He is an unpaid member of the Sussex Energy Group, the Nuclear Consultation Group, a Patron of the Nuclear Information Service and Nuclear Education Trust and a trustee for Greenpeace UK. He served in 2022-3 as an expert advisor for the official UK Government review of the DESNZ Nuclear Innovation Programme and (with Phil Johnstone) received funding from the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) for research that underpins some of the insights in this blog.

– ref. The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors – https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-military-pressures-behind-the-new-push-for-small-nuclear-reactors-266301

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

In the last ten years, Bruce Springsteen has cemented his status as a bona fide music legend.

In that time, he has won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, had a worldwide bestselling book been the subject of the acclaimed film Blinded By The Light (2019), and seen his studio albums continue to scale the higher reaches of the charts.

It’s as a live act, though, that Springsteen has flourished the most. Known for a relentless work ethic which has seen him touring almost non-stop since the early 1970s, Springsteen’s recent world tour has been his most lucrative, best-selling, and longest to date. On the back of all this, it’s no real surprise that “the boss” (as fans call him) has now been given the biopic treatment.

Bruce Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere stars Jeremy Allen White in the title role. The majority of the film focuses on the period between 1981 and 1982, where, in the aftermath of number one LP The River and a sold-out world tour, a disenchanted Springsteen channelled his inner turmoil into the songs that would eventually form his next album, Nebraska (1982).

As well as a lyrical shift from his earlier work, Nebraska was a sonic departure, recorded on a four-track tape machine in his bedroom. Released on September 30 1982, Nebraska was as stark and minimalist as any album from a major rock star. Coming at the peak of Springsteen’s commercial success so far, it was an enormous risk.

Devotees will undoubtedly appreciate the deep-dive into a cult favourite album. But for the casual fan or interested cinema-goer, Deliver Me from Nowhere will likely feel underwhelming.

Despite getting the thumbs up form The Boss himself, White never quite convinces in the role. While he does an admirable job depicting the gentler side of Springsteen, he lacks the jutting-jawed physical presence that so defines the star’s stage persona.

The film is interspersed with black and white flashbacks to Freehold New Jersey 1957, where an eight-year-old Springsteen struggled to get attention from his disengaged, hard-drinking father (played by Stephen Graham). The distant father trope is well-worn ground in the music biopic genre (see Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocket Man and Love and Mercy) and it falls to Graham to pull off the unenviable task of providing context for why our titular rock star is so fragile, broken and unstable.

That Graham manages to achieve this in minimal screen-time is one of his finest acting achievements yet. His nuanced performance brings a complexity to what, in other hands, may have merely been a paint-by-numbers character.

Sadly, others didn’t escape this fate. Springsteen’s friend Matt Delia (Harrison Gilbertson) is ridiculously underdeveloped. Sound engineer Mike Batlan (Paul Walter Hauser) is a glorified delivery man, first bringing the four-track recorder to Springsteen’s house, then the cassette it produces to manager Jon Landau (Jeremy Strong) and doing little else in between. Love interest Faye Romano (Odessa Young), meanwhile, seemingly only exists as a vehicle to deliver a series of cliché-heavy lines such as “I just wish you’d let me in” and “until you’re honest with yourself, you’ll never be honest with me”.

Sadly, the clichés aren’t exclusive to Faye. Towards the end of the film, Delia is saying goodbye to Springsteen after driving him to his new home in Los Angeles. As he turns to leave, Delia calls his name, Springsteen turns, Delia goes to say something but can’t seem to get the words out. Springsteen waits expectantly, Delia starts to speak, then thinks better of it and walks out. The implication, of course, is that Delia had something heartfelt to say, but for whatever reason was unable. Had I not seen the same technique used a hundred times already on screen (though never in real life), it might have been emotional.

Perhaps the biggest sledgehammer of a line, though, and one which very much laughs in the face of the old “show don’t tell” writing adage, comes when John Landau informs record executive Al Teller (David Krumholtz) that “it’s like Bruce is channelling something deeply personal”. Yes – we’ve been seeing that for the last hour, John, but thank you for the glaring neon arrow just in case we missed it.

In contrast, though, the depiction of depression is extremely well handled. The film manages to avoid stereotypes such as hysteria, violent outbursts, or sufferers who are represented as always sad or depressed (in real life depression is not necessarily a constant state of mind).

Depression is demonstrated by Springsteen letting people down, being unable to articulate his feelings, and withdrawing from social situations. And even if the film does fall short in many ways, the music is always there to rescue it. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who was unable to resist playing Nebraska on repeat the second I was outside.

For everyone but the most hardcore fans, skipping the film altogether might be the best option. Especially as the album that inspired it has been given the box-set treatment, with five-disc set Nebraska ’82: Expanded Edition released last week (a coincidence, I’m sure).

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.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Glenn Fosbraey 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. Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere is an underwhelming ode to ‘the boss’ – https://theconversation.com/springsteen-deliver-me-from-nowhere-is-an-underwhelming-ode-to-the-boss-268426

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karl Pike, Lecturer in British Politics/Public Policy, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London

If you blinked you may have missed it. Labour has a new deputy leader, Lucy Powell, who won the contest to replace Angela Rayner.

The position of deputy comes down to a vote of party members and affiliated supporters, and this contest was seen as an opportunity to give Keir Starmer’s leadership the thumbs up or thumbs down.

Members have gone for the latter, selecting Powell over Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, who was the Number 10 favourite for the role. In the end, Powell won 54% of the votes to Phillipson’s 46%.

Phillipson is popular in the party, and appears to have faced down grumbles from private schools about Labour’s VAT reforms. But polling and party mood had suggested Powell would win, even though Starmer had sacked her from his cabinet in September. This is proof both that politics is an unpredictable ride and that Labour’s internal politics is not currently blissful.

And although this was the first time since 2007 that Labour has held a contest for deputy leader while in office, turnout was just 16.6%.

Who is Lucy Powell?

Powell is no stranger to Labour leadership teams and of course only very recently served in Starmer’s government.

Having contested and lost the seat of Manchester Withington in the 2010 general election, Powell worked for Ed Miliband as Labour went into opposition, helping him establish himself as party leader.

A byelection in the Manchester Central constituency saw Powell selected and then elected for Labour in 2012, where she moved into shadow ministerial and shadow cabinet roles. Powell left the shadow cabinet in 2016, as Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership came under pressure from the parliamentary Labour party. She returned to frontbench Labour politics after Starmer became leader in 2020.

Based on her career so far, Powell is often characterised as being on the “soft left” of Labour – a label that could be used to describe many Labour party members, but which also obscures much variety, and different ideological perspectives. The “soft left” Powell is closer to the centre of that amorphous political grouping.

In choosing the candidate he did not favour, members are sending the prime minister a message that they, and many of those engaged with the party through trade unions, are not feeling motivated by the government’s performance – to say the least.

The deputy leader can play an important role within the parliamentary Labour party. They have a seat on the party’s National Executive Committee and are often involved in the party’s campaign machinery. They can act as a sounding board for MPs wanting to express views about political strategy, policy direction and legislative business.

Powell, who served as leader of the House of Commons in Starmer’s cabinet, already has experience of this kind of role. Her new role is simultaneously more formal and informal than her previous job.

As the elected deputy leader, Powell clearly has a legitimate role in discussing Labour’s ups and downs, privately and publicly. But from a governing perspective, the new deputy leader is outside of the cabinet and formal government decision-making – at least for now. This could be a recipe for further instability – and that was the argument against Powell’s candidacy during the contest.

That being said, Powell is experienced and has shown loyalty to the party. As the old adage goes, divided parties don’t win elections, and Powell will not want to make things worse for Labour.

What next?

Labour is in the doldrums. Losing the Caerphilly Senedd by-election was a sign that next year’s elections (which include elections to the Welsh and Scottish parliaments, as well as elections in England) may be very bad for Labour – meaning Starmer will come in for serious criticism.

Read more:
Plaid Cymru’s staggeringly large victory in Caerphilly is a warning to both Labour and Reform

He had already faced speculation about his position earlier in the autumn, including Manchester mayor Andy Burnham’s positioning prior to and during the party conference season. This demonstrated the unease felt after Labour’s first year.

Powell was right to dismiss the narrative connecting her candidacy to Burnham. The new deputy leader will instead be someone listened to in any analysis of Starmer’s leadership, particularly after the elections in 2026.

One big thing has not changed: Labour’s difficulty governing, stemming from Starmer’s cautious and ideologically confusing leadership. The next big political challenge to face is the budget, due to be delivered by Rachel Reeves on November 26.

The chancellor is in a difficult position, at least in part because Labour painted itself into a corner on tax policy before the 2024 general election.

Governing in these tumultuous times was always going to be difficult for Labour – but the leadership’s strategy has undoubtedly made it harder. This deputy leadership election may be looked back upon as a sign that the Labour party as a whole started to rethink its approach.

Karl Pike has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a member of the Labour Party and before becoming an academic was a political advisor for the Labour Party.

– ref. Lucy Powell becomes Labour’s deputy leader – what that means for the party and Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/lucy-powell-becomes-labours-deputy-leader-what-that-means-for-the-party-and-keir-starmer-268410