Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Liv Auckland, Lecturer in Fashion Communication and Creative Direction and Curation for Fashion, Nottingham Trent University

You probably have a drawer full of T-shirts. They’re comfy, easy to style, cheap and ubiquitous. But the T-shirt is anything but basic. For 70 years, they’ve been worn as a tool for self-expression, rebellion and protest. And in 2025, the slogan T-shirt is as powerful as it has ever been.

Previously worn as an undergarment, the T-shirt became outerwear after the second world war. Snugly dressed on the bodies of physically fit young men, it came to signify heroism, youth and virility.

The T-shirt was adopted by sub-cultural groups such as bikers and custom car fanatics. And it was popularised by Hollywood stars, including Marlon Brando and James Dean. By the mid-1950s, it had become a symbol of rebellion and cool.

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.

From the 1960s onwards, slogan T-shirts gained momentum in America and Britain, and women began wearing them as the fashions became more casual. In the postmodern era, language became less about function and more about individualistic expression and exploration. This playful approach to words, combined with an emphasis on design and social commentary, made the T-shirt an ideal canvas for the championing of individual thought.

Anti-war messaging dominated slogans in the US during the Vietnam war and amid the increasing threat of nuclear war. Perhaps the most recognised slogan featured the artwork from John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s famous 1969 “War is Over” campaign, a T-shirt which is still being replicated today. Messages of peace on clothing, whether featuring words or symbols, have stayed in our collective wardrobe ever since, from high fashion to high street.

In the 1970s, the New York Times called T-shirts the “the medium of the message”, and the message itself was becoming ever more subversive. Slogan tees sought to provoke, whether through humour or controversy.

Punks were especially good at it. They constructed what subculture theorist Dick Hebdige called a “guttersnipe rhetoric” in his 1979 study Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Designers Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren paved the way for a DIY approach where slogans were often scrawled, expressive and upended social codes.

The slogan shirt in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights

Manufacturing and printing advancements in the postmodern era also meant that more designs could be printed en masse – a development used by the LGBTQ+ community and its allies.

Some of the most memorable slogan T-shirts in history were created in response to the Aids epidemic in the 1980s. The most poignant simply read “Silence = Death”. Originally a poster, the design was printed on T-shirts by the Aids Coalition to Unleash Power (known as “Act Up”) for protesters to wear.

Those affected by Aids were demonised and largely ignored, so the queer community was reliant on activism to incite action from government and their fellow citizens.

In After Silence: A History of Aids through Its Images (2018), author Avram Finkelstein describes the grassroots activism of the time as an “act of call and response, a request for participation” for the lives at stake. In a pre-internet world, T-shirts provided a platform to make the fight visible.

The 80s also saw slogan T-shirts enter pop cultural spaces as well as political ones, most notably with designs from Katharine Hamnett. Known for their oversized fit, their politically charged messages adorned the torsos of celebrities including George Michael and Debbie Harry. In 1984, Hamnett made fashion history when she met then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher while wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with “58% Don’t Want Pershing”, referencing her anti-nuclear sentiment.

That same year, Hamnett’s “Choose Life” design gained icon status when it was worn in a music video by Wham!. Originally a reference to the central teachings of Buddhism, “Choose Life” took on complex meaning when read in the context of the Aids epidemic, Thatcherism and economic instability.

The slogan was later used in the opening monologue of the cult film Trainspotting (1996), which is set in an impoverished and drug-fuelled Edinburgh. The design has been reworked countless times, including by Hamnett herself for the refugee charity Choose Love.

In author Stephanie Talbot’s 2013 book Slogan T-shirts: Cult and Culture, she explains that slogan tees can move through time to achieve iconic status. While the Choose Life tee has transcended time and generations, it also shows how the intended message of a slogan can change depending on the wearer and the observer, and the environment within which it’s worn.

Today, to Hamnett’s consternation, Choose Life has been co-opted by pro-life campaigners, not only taking on a different meaning but flipping across the political spectrum.

Who gets to wear a slogan shirt?

When we wear a slogan T-shirt, we are transferring our internal self to an external, public self, creating an extension of ourselves that invites others to perceive us. This creates opportunities for conflict as well as connection and community, putting our bodies (particularly those that are marginalised) at risk.

In 2023 for example, numerous peaceful protesters were arrested for wearing Just Stop Oil T-shirts, highlighting how unsafe – and potentially unlawful – it can be to wear a slogan T-shirt.

However, the LGBTQ+ community is continuing to seize the power of the slogan T-shirt – not in spite of law changes, but because of them.

Designer Connor Ives closed his 2025 London Fashion Week show wearing a T-shirt that read “Protect the Dolls”, during a time of increasing politicisation of trans lives and gender healthcare. The term “dolls” is one of endearment in queer spaces that refers to those who identify as feminine, including trans women.

After receiving a “groundswell” of support, the T-shirt went into production to raise money for American charity Trans Lifeline. Numerous celebrities have since worn the design, including actor Pedro Pascal and musician Troye Sivan, to show their support in the face of multiple law changes.

In a world that increasingly feels like it’s in turmoil, for many, the humble T-shirt still feels like a space where we can express how we truly feel.

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.

Liv Auckland 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 brief history of the slogan T-shirt – https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-the-slogan-t-shirt-258766

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Willis, Doctoral Researcher in Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford

Disney Pixar’s latest film, Elio, follows a familiar-sounding character, a lovable and imaginative young hero who dreams of finding a place where he truly belongs. But amid the colour and chaos of the film’s outer space setting, one subtle detail stands out: Elio wears an eye patch.

In the real world, eye patches are commonly used to treat amblyopia, or “lazy eye”, a neurodevelopmental visual condition projected to affect 175.2 million people globally by 2030. In amblyopia, the brain favours one eye over the other, leading to reduced vision in the weaker eye.

Treatment often involves covering the stronger eye with a patch, encouraging the brain to rely on the weaker eye and improve its function. This therapy is most effective during early childhood and can take months of daily commitment.

Yet, despite how common visual conditions are, positive representation of patch-wearing is rare in popular media.

Animated films have long shaped childhood imaginations, but historically, characters with eye patches or other visual markers often fall into negative stereotypes.

Think Mr Potato Head’s alter ego One-Eyed Bart in Toy Story, or Madagascar’s Dr. Blowhole: characters where an eye patch signals villainy. Glasses, meanwhile, are more often seen on older characters like Carl Fredrickson from Up or Roz from Monsters Inc.

Characters with strabismus (misaligned eyes), like Ed from The Lion King, are often portrayed as unintelligent or clumsy. One recent study found that strabismus in children’s animated films is consistently associated with negative character traits – something that can reinforce harmful stigma.

These portrayals matter. Film plays a powerful role in shaping beliefs, especially for young children who are developing a sense of identity, belonging and how to relate to others. When visual conditions are stereotyped, it can reinforce feelings of embarrassment and difference.

For children wearing a patch, these feelings can lead to skipping treatment days and poorer outcomes. In contrast, authentic, positive representation can build self-esteem, promote acceptance, and provide relatable role models.

A subtle but powerful shift

Happily, things are starting to change. In recent Disney/Pixar films, we’ve seen characters with glasses portrayed as dynamic, central figures: Encanto’s Mirabel, Turning Red’s Priya and Mei, and Big Hero 6’s scientist-superhero Honey Lemon, for example. These characters challenge old stereotypes and broaden the narrative around vision.

Elio continues that progress. The young protagonist’s eye patch is not a plot point, nor is it used to symbolise frailty, villainy or wisdom. It simply exists – a quiet part of his identity, not something to overcome.

That subtlety is powerful. For children who wear patches, seeing someone like Elio leading a space mission, not sidelined by his visual condition, can be deeply affirming.

Beyond the screen, Elio has sparked conversation and awareness. Prevent Blindness launched a campaign around the film to raise public understanding of amblyopia and the importance of early detection. Eye care organisations have also used the film as an educational tool, while individuals have shared their stories of patching and treatment across social media.

When amblyopia is recognised and treated early, patching can be remarkably effective. But awareness is key, and so is reducing stigma that might discourage children from wearing their patch.

Childhood amblyopia research

Although patching often restores vision, it doesn’t work for every child – and we still don’t fully understand why. There is limited research into how patching affects the developing brain, and this lack of insight hinders improvements in treatment.

Our research with Holly Bridge, Vision Group leader at Oxford University, aims to change that. We’re studying how patching changes brain chemistry in young children.

Adult studies suggest that chemical shifts in visual parts of the brain may be linked to patching outcomes. To explore this in children, we’re running a study of five to eight-year-olds with amblyopia or healthy vision.

In our study, children with amblyopia receive a safe, non-invasive brain scan before and after patching treatment. We also measure their vision using child-friendly tests. We then compare these results to children with healthy vision who don’t wear a patch, helping us to understand both visual changes and brain development.

We hope Elio marks the beginning of more inclusive storytelling, where difference isn’t erased or exaggerated, but simply woven into the fabric of character and adventure. Like Elio’s journey through space, the path to better understanding and representation of childhood visual conditions has faced challenges.

But perhaps this is the launch we needed: towards better awareness, better research, and a future where every child feels seen – on screen and beyond.

Rebecca Willis receives funding from a Royal Society Studentship.

Betina Ip is funded by The Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Research Fellowship, DHFR1201141) and the UKRI-MRC (MR/V034723/1).

Megan Groombridge receives funding from the MRC (MR/V034723/1).

– ref. What Elio can help teach us about eye patching, stigma and the developing brain – https://theconversation.com/what-elio-can-help-teach-us-about-eye-patching-stigma-and-the-developing-brain-259946

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sviatlana Kroitar, Honored Research Visiting Fellow, Labour Studies, University of Leicester

Unlike previous economic downturns, the COVID pandemic created a crisis that disrupted both education and employment, abruptly halting young people’s emerging careers and clouding their hopes for the future. It doubly affected those transitioning into adulthood, out of school or university and into work, and it threatened the job security of those embarking on their careers when the pandemic began.

There has been a disproportionate and often hidden cost borne by young people which has had a lasting impact on their career paths, financial independence and mental wellbeing.

The pandemic sparked widespread educational disruption. Schools were closed, there was a rapid switch to online learning and exams were cancelled. This hindered young people’s ability to acquire essential knowledge, skills and qualifications.

This aggravated existing educational gaps, particularly between students from different backgrounds, and those with and without reliable digital access and learning support.

The cancellation of internships and work placements – vital for practical experience – left many with a gap in their skills. This may have increased the pressure to undertake unpaid work for employability.

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

Young people are heavily concentrated in precarious, in-person employment sectors such as hospitality and retail. These jobs are characterised by temporary contracts, low wages and limited benefits.

This instability made them acutely vulnerable during the pandemic. Precarious roles offered few safety nets, leading to immediate job losses or reduced hours. Labour markets contracted sharply, especially in in-person sectors. This affected young people in particular, who faced higher job losses and unemployment.

Graduate recruitment also plummeted as companies froze or reduced entry-level hiring, creating a bottleneck for university leavers. This convergence of job losses and a shrinking graduate market made securing stable employment exceptionally difficult.

The pandemic also magnified existing vulnerabilities. It exacerbated hardship and job insecurity for young people who were already marginalised and disadvantaged. Young people already in non-standard employment – such as gig work, zero-hours contracts or temporary roles – experienced disproportionately severe outcomes.

The situation was the same for young people from lower-income backgrounds, women and disabled young people.

Less affluent young people often lack financial support from their families. This means deeper financial instability, increased debt and housing insecurity. These issues were exacerbated by the impact of the pandemic on employment.

Precarity carries elevated long-term risks, including prolonged low wages and stunted career progression. This often delays the achievement of typical adult milestones such as financial autonomy and independent living.

Economic uncertainty destabilised emerging careers, forcing young people to rethink their options – a situation dubbed “precarious hope”. Many graduates, feeling less prepared, lowered their expectations.

They may well have prioritised finding any available work, taking jobs that didn’t match their qualifications, leading to lower wages and poorer working conditions.

Transitions to adulthood

Research has found that the pandemic created significant disruptions to the typical transition to adulthood. A prominent trend was the rise of “boomerang” trajectories: young adults returning to live with parents due to economic hardship or job loss.

More broadly, the pandemic contributed to delayed milestones such as leaving home, achieving financial independence and building stable relationships, creating prolonged dependence for many.

The pandemic also blurred young professional identities. Disrupted final years of study and remote transitions stripped away traditional markers of closure. Cancelled exams, internships and graduations plunged many into prolonged limbo.

This absence of clear rites of passage and the unexpected conclusion to studies added ambiguity to young people’s ideas of their own identity and life paths. This lack of clear professional selves left young people feeling helpless, their future out of their hands.

The psychological toll

The pandemic inflicted a profound psychological burden on young people. The loss of expected life passages, social and professional connections and routines fostered feelings of isolation, stagnation and diminished control. This distress was amplified by relentless uncertainty surrounding disrupted education, altered qualifications and a volatile job market.

A “COVID echo” continues to resonate for young people. Graduates from the pandemic period may still feel that they lag behind in their careers.

The early disruptions it caused through lost entry-level job opportunities, fewer chances to build networks and hindered skill development continue to cast a shadow over the further career prospects of these young people.

Enduring negative consequences like this are termed “scarring”, threatening to affect employment and earning potential for years.

Addressing these potential long-term scars requires an overhaul of the youth labour market. This means tackling precarious work, enhancing training and re-skilling, and strengthening social safety nets. Robust support, as well as listening to what young people have to say about their futures, will be vital in empowering this generation to overcome the crisis and reach their full potential.

Sviatlana Kroitar 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 pandemic is still disrupting young people’s careers – https://theconversation.com/the-pandemic-is-still-disrupting-young-peoples-careers-258768

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

Each is the main political subject in their country, and one is the main political subject in the world. Each rode the populist wave in 2016, campaigning for the other. In 2024 the tandem surfers remounted on to an even greater breaker. Yet, though nothing has happened to suggest that bromance is dead, neither Donald Trump nor Nigel Farage publicly now speak of the other.

Trump’s presidential campaign shared personnel with Leave.eu, the unofficial Brexit campaign. Farage was on the stump with Trump, and his “bad boys of Brexit” made their pilgrimage to Trump Tower after its owner’s own triumph in the US election. Each exulted in the other’s success, and what it portended.

Trump duly proposed giving the UK ambassadorship to the United States to Farage. Instead, Farage became not merely MP for Clacton, but leader of the first insurgent party to potentially reset Britain’s electoral calculus since Labour broke through in 1922.

Then, Labour’s challenge was to replace the Liberals as the alternative party of government. It took two years. Reform UK could replace the Conservatives in four.

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

Trump, meanwhile, has achieved what in Britain has either been thwarted (Militant and the Labour party in the 1980s) or has at most had temporary, aberrant, success (Momentum and the Labour party in the 2010s): the takeover of a party from within. Farage has been doing so – hitherto – from without.

At one of those historic forks in a road where change is a matter of chance, after Brexit finally took place, Farage considered his own personal leave – to go and break America.

The path had been trodden by Trump-friendly high-profile provocateurs before him: Steve Hilton, from David Cameron’s Downing Street, via cable news, now standing to be governor of California; Piers Morgan, off to CNN to replace the doyen of cable news Larry King, only to crash, but then to burn on, online. Liz Truss, never knowingly understated, has found her safe space – the rightwing speaking circuit.

But Farage remained stateside. He knew his domestic platform was primed more fully to exploit the voter distrust that his nationalist crusade had done so much to provoke.

The Trump effect

Genuine peacetime transatlantic affiliations are rare, usually confined to the leaders of established parties: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. One consequence of the 2016 political shift is that the US Republicans and the British Conservatives, the latter still at least partially tethered to traditional politics, have become distanced.

During the first Trump administration, and even in the build up to the second, it was Farage who was seen as the UK’s bridge to the president. But today, at the peak of their influence, for Farage association can only be by inference, friendship with the US president is not – put mildly – of political advantage. For UK voters, Trump is the 19th most popular foreign politician, in between the King of Denmark and Benjamin Netanyahu.

There is, moreover, the “Trump effect”. Measuring this is crude – circumstances differ – but the trend is that elections may be won by openly criticising, rather than associating with, Trump. This was the case for Mark Carney in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, and Nicușor Dan in Romania.

Trump’s second state visit to the UK will certainly be less awkward for Farage than it will be Starmer, the man who willed it. Farage will likely not – and has no reason to – be seen welcoming so divisive a figure.

Starmer has no choice but to, and to do so ostentatiously. It is typical of Starmer’s perfect storm of an administration that he will, in the process, do nothing to appeal to the sliver of British voters partial to Trump while further shredding his reputation with Labour voters. Farage would be well served in taking one of his tactical European sojourns for the duration. Starmer may be tempted too.

Outmanoeuvring the establishment

Reflecting the historic cultural differences of their countries, Trump’s prescription is less state, Farage’s is more. The Farage of 2025 that is. He had been robustly Thatcherite, but has lately embraced socialist interventionism, albeit through a most Thatcherite analysis: “the gap in the market was enormous”.

Reform UK now appears to stand for what Labour – in the mind of many of its voters – ought to. Eyeing the opportunity of smokestack grievances, Farage called for state control of steel production even as Trump was considering quite how high a tariff to put on it. Nationalisation and economic nationalism: associated restoratives for national malaise.

Aggressively heteronormative, Trump and Farage dabble in the natalism burgeoning in both countries – as much a cultural as an economic imperative. Each has mastered – and much more than their adversaries – social media. Each has come to recognise the demerits in publicly appeasing Putin.

And Reform’s rise in a hitherto Farage-resistant Scotland can only endear him further to a president whose Hebridean mother was thought of (in desperation) as potentially his Rosebud by British officials preparing for his first administration.

Given their rhetorical selectivity, Trump and Farage’s rolling pitches are almost unanswerable for convention-confined political opponents and reporters. These two anti-elite elitists continue to confound.

Unprecedentedly, for a former president, Trump ran against the incumbent; Farage will continue to exploit anti-incumbency, despite his party now being in office. Most elementally, the pair are bound for life by their very public near-death experiences. Theirs is, by any conceivable measure, an uncommon association.

Farage’s fleetness of foot would be apparent even without comparison with the leaden steps of the leaders of the legacy parties. His is a genius of opportunism. That’s why he knows not to remind us of his confrere across the water.

Martin Farr 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. Have you noticed that Nigel Farage doesn’t talk about Donald Trump anymore? – https://theconversation.com/have-you-noticed-that-nigel-farage-doesnt-talk-about-donald-trump-anymore-258333

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Stanton, Reader in Law, City St George’s, University of London

Since his second inauguration in January, Donald Trump has issued more than 160 executive orders. These orders permit the US president to make directives concerning the workings of the federal government without the need to pass laws in Congress. All US presidents have used them, including George Washington, but Trump has issued his orders at an unprecedented rate.

A number of these have courted controversy. But one stands out in particular: executive order 14160. This was signed on the day of his inauguration, January 20, and seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US where the parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

The purpose of this order was to redefine the scope of the 14th amendment to the constitution. This states that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s executive order sets limits on that principle.

Due to the order’s conflict with the constitution, various district courts have issued what are known as “universal injunctions”, blocking the order. In response to these injunctions, the government brought a case in the Supreme Court: Trump v Casa. The Trump administration argues that district judges should not have the power to issue such wide-ranging injunctions which effectively limit the president’s power.

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

On June 27 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. It found in favour of the government, holding that: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The court stopped short of banning them outright – but it effectively limited the extent to which courts could issue a universal block on the president’s executive orders.

The judgment did not decide on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, but focused solely on the limits of judicial power to block presidential actions more broadly. So the question of birthright citizenship remains unresolved.

People affected can bring personal lawsuits and there is also the avenue of “class action suits” in which a number of people who have grouped together with common cause and been have been ruled by a judge to constitute a “class” can seek legal relief. The New York Times has reported that plaintiffs are how preparing to refile suits to challenge executive order 14160.

But the issue raises questions about the Supreme Court. In the US, the nine Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, and inevitably bring a corresponding political outlook to their work. Currently, there are six conservative judges – three of whom were appointed by Trump in his first term of office – and three liberal judges.

In Trump v Casa, the court divided on ideological lines. The six conservative judges supported the majority view, while the three liberal judges dissented. This was not entirely unexpected. But the ruling raises the more fundamental question about the vital constitutional role that courts play in acting as a check on government power.

Cornerstone of democracy

In democracies around the world, constitutional principles ensure that power is exercised according to law and that the various holders of legislative, executive, and judicial power do not exceed their authority. Central to these arrangements is the role of the courts. While judges must be careful not to involve themselves in the policy decisions of government, or the law-making deliberations of a legislature, it is their duty to ensure the executive does not act unlawfully or the legislature unconstitutionally.

Case reports across the world are littered with examples of judges reviewing and, on occasion, striking down government or legislative action as unlawful. In the US, the seminal case of Marbury v Madison (1803) which established, for the first time, that the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, has served as a beacon of this principle for over 200 years. In the UK, the Supreme Court’s finding in R(Miller) v Prime Minister that the government’s 2019 prorogation of parliament was unlawful provides a notable example of the continued importance of this role.

The balance that the courts must strike in not interfering in the policy decisions of government on the one hand, and their fundamental role in acting as a check on the lawful use of power on the other is at the heart of Trump v Casa. In the Supreme Court’s written majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the use of “universal injunctions” by the district courts was an example of judicial overreach. She wrote that federal judges were going beyond their powers in seeking to block the universal application of the executive order.

The dissenting three liberal justices issued a minority opinion saying that this finding was at odds with the rule of law. Indeed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling in Trump v Casa “cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Courts has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive actions is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”

The finding of the Supreme Court, in other words, has arguably limited the extent to which the courts in America can serve as a check on the exercise of executive power. Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a “giant win”, while attorney general Pam Bondi said it would “stop the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump”.

Here’s the nub of the affair: while courts must be able to act as a check on the lawfulness of government action, at the same time, a government must be able to govern without too frequent or too onerous obstructions from the judiciary and this finding potentially gives the Trump administration greater room for manoeuvre.

But there is a further issue. As mentioned, US Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president. With the justices of the court being divided on political lines in Trump v Casa, questions can fairly be asked about the propriety of this arrangement – and whether it was always inevitable that one day there would be a Supreme Court in which the people might lose faith because they felt that it was more beholden to ideology than the law.

This is a potentially dangerous moment in the US. The independence of the judiciary has long been a bulwark against abuses of power – and has been regarded as such by the US people. Having judges nominated by those holding political office arguably hinders that independence – and, as the judgment in this case suggests, could throw into jeopardy the invaluable role that the courts play in keeping the exercise of government power in check.

John Stanton 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. US Supreme Court ponders the balance of power – and sides with President Trump – https://theconversation.com/us-supreme-court-ponders-the-balance-of-power-and-sides-with-president-trump-260258

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

The UK has historically been held up as leading democracy with free and fair elections. However, our new report shows election quality in the UK is now ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe.

The Global Electoral Integrity Report provides scores for election quality around the world. It defines electoral integrity as the extent to which elections empower citizens.

Iceland received the highest score for an election that took place in 2024, the “year of elections” during which 1.6 billion people went to the polls, according to Time Magazine. This was an unprecedented concentration of democratic activity in a single year. Iceland has a successful system of automatic voter registration and an electoral system that is judged to be fair to smaller parties.

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.

Countries that scored highly based on their most recent election include Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Finland and Lithuania. Those at the opposite end of the scale include Syria, Belarus, Egypt, and Nicaragua. The UK is ranked 24th out of 39 countries in Europe. It is below Estonia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Austria, Luxembourg and Slovakia. It is ranked 53rd out of 170 countries overall.

The US also saw a decline. The beacons for electoral democracy are therefore now found in mainland Europe (most notably Scandinavia), Australasia, South America and the southern parts of Africa – rather than the UK and US. The centre of global democratic authority has shifted away from Westminster.

The weaknesses in the UK system

There remain many areas of strength in UK elections. UK electoral officials show professionalism and independence and there is no concern about the integrity of the vote counting process. There is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud.

A major weakness is in the fairness of the electoral rules for small parties. The electoral system generated a very disproportional result in 2024. Labour took nearly two-thirds of the seats in parliament, a total of 412, with less than 10 million votes (only 34% of votes cast). Labour won a massive majority in terms of parliamentary arithmetic but the the government did not enter office with widespread support.

By contrast, Reform and the Greens received 6 million votes between them, but only nine MPs. The electoral system may have worked when Britain had a two-party system – but the two-party system no longer holds. Today’s Britain is more diverse, and political support is more distributed.

The UK also scores poorly on voter registration. It is estimated that there are around 7 million to 8 million people not correctly registered or missing from the registers entirely. This is not many less than the 9.7 million people whose votes gave the government a landslide majority. The UK does not have a system of automatic voter registration, which is present in global leaders such as Iceland, where everyone is enrolled without a hiccup.

Another problem is participation. Turnout in July 2024 was low – with only half of adults voting. Voting has been made more difficult as the Elections Act of 2022 introduced compulsory photographic identification for the first time at the general election. This was thought to have made it more difficult for many citizens to vote because the UK does not have a national identity card which all citizens hold.

Meanwhile, there are further swirling headwinds. The spread of disinformation by overseas actors in elections has become a prominent challenge around the world and there was evidence of disinformation in this campaign too. Violence during the electoral period was thought to have been removed from British elections in Victorian times. But more than half candidates experience abuse and intimidation during the electoral period.

Action needed

One year into its time in office, the government is yet to act on this issue. The word “democracy” was missing from the prime minister’s strategic defence review, despite the emphasis on protecting the UK from Russia, a country known for electoral interference and other forms of attack on democracies.

This was a sharp contrast to the former government’s 2021 review, which emphasised that a “world in which democratic societies flourish and fundamental human rights are protected is one that is more conducive to our sovereignty, security and prosperity as a nation”.

In its election manifesto, Labour promised to “address the inconsistencies in voter ID rules”, “improve voter registration” and give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections. There needs to be firm action on electoral system change, automatic voter registration, campaign finance reform, voter identification changes and other areas.

The Reform party is ahead in the polls and has consistently promised proportional representation. If Labour doesn’t make the reforms, another party might do so instead – and reap the benefits.

There are a complex set of challenges facing democracy and elections. New technological challenges, change in attitudes, international hostility and new emergencies are combining to batter the door of democracy down.

International organisations are increasingly stressing that political leaders need to work together and take proactive action to protect elections against autocratic forces. This means not only supporting democracy in their messages on the world stage – but also introducing reforms to create beacons of democracy in their own countries.

Toby James has previously received funding from the AHRC, ESRC, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, British Academy, Leverhulme Trust, Electoral Commission, Nuffield Foundation, the McDougall Trust and Unlock Democracy. His current research is funded by the Canadian SSHRC.

Holly Ann Garnett receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Defence Academy Research Programme. She has previously received funding from: the British Academy, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, the American Political Science Association Centennial Centre, and the Conference of Defence Associations.

– ref. Low turnout and an unfair voting system: UK elections ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe – https://theconversation.com/low-turnout-and-an-unfair-voting-system-uk-elections-ranked-in-the-bottom-half-of-countries-in-europe-260396

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colin Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University

A remarkable documentary is providing insight into the propaganda found within Russian schools. Mr. Nobody Against Putin, directed by David Borenstein, premiered at the 2025 Sundance film festival in January, where it won the world cinema documentary special jury award.

The film was recorded over two years by Pavel “Pasha” Talankin, an events coordinator and videographer at a high school in Karabash, a heavily polluted town in central southern Russia. The documentary records the intensification of Kremlin-directed ultra-nationalist and pro-war propaganda within the Russian schooling system, which has intensified since the escalation of the war against Ukraine in February 2022.

Talankin makes clear his view that this approach to “education” represents a moral wrong, and he is very much on point with the writings of the key ethicists on the subject. American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, wrote that “education is both a tool of propaganda in the hands of dominant groups, and a means of emancipation for subject classes”.

Niebuhr was writing about the education system in the US during the 1920s, when there was a widespread understanding that education was used in these two ways. Talankin’s concern is that Russia has moved to a position of imbalance, where the “dominant groups” have too much influence and are using their power to corrupt the minds of children through disingenuous narratives about national servitude, sacrifice and conformity, coupled with the unsubtle threat that those who are not patriots are “parasites”.

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.

In their highly respected book Propaganda & Persuasion (1986), propaganda experts Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell state that “to analyse propaganda, one needs to be able to identify it”. This is a difficult task because propaganda thrives through symbols, the subliminal and in fictional works precisely because the audience is not conscious of it.

However, the creation of an environment that uses propaganda is also dependent upon who is given the oxygen of publicity and who is marginalised. These are the conditions under which ideological indoctrination occurs and power is achieved or maintained.

As such, a critical analyst of propaganda must assess the linguistic strategy, the information strategy, the eminence strategy (how to ensure that the target audience are watching, reading or listening to the desired content) and the staging strategy of the communicator. This can be remembered through the helpful L.I.E.S. mnemonic.

Talankin’s footage shows how Russian schools now promote distorted versions of European history. The well-trodden narrative that Ukraine has been taken over by neo-Nazis is referred to several times in lessons. Russian flags appear with greater frequency around the school as time goes on, and assembly time becomes an exercise in pledging allegiance to the fatherland.

Teachers are expected to read from scripts prepared for them by the ministry of education. Pupils then respond with choreographed answers – some even glancing down at notes under their desks. The children are told about how dreadful life in France and the UK is because of their reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

Interestingly, the Kremlin has asked that all of this be videoed and uploaded to a central database to ensure compliance with national regulations on what is taught in schools. Indeed, Talankin complains at one point that much of his time is now spent uploading the videos rather than actually teaching the students and helping them to be creative – as his job previously was.

Shared humanity

Talankin takes us on a tour of his city. He shows a pro-war rally that is broadly supported by the townsfolk. Or at least those in opposition dare not say anything or engage in an equivalent demonstration. He takes us to the civic library, theoretically a site of independent learning but which has been hijacked by these propaganda efforts.

Perhaps the most important moments of the documentary though are the snippets of critique and the sense of “knowing” that Talankin is keen to show. The young girl who jokingly tells her teacher to “blink twice if you’re lying”, and to which all her class then laugh. His interactions with other teachers who confide in him that they know that the propaganda is bullshit, but, worried for their status and prosperity, go along with it.

The propaganda is pretty poor though. It is clunky and obvious, and, while it might generate some short-term influence, it smacks of both arrogance and desperation on the part of the Kremlin. Indeed, it shows that there is no desire on the part of central government for Russian people to thrive intellectually.

This scenario is reminiscent of the end of the Soviet era, when communist propaganda continued to prevail, but few still believed it. Nevertheless, without a clear alternative to follow, or obvious alternative leader to guide them, most people continued to abide.

The most harrowing part of the documentary comes towards the end when Talankin provides an audio recording of the funeral of a local lad who has been killed in Ukraine. He did not dare film the funeral as this is a cultural faux pas, but the screams and wails of the mother as her son is laid to rest are piercing. The scene seems intended to bring our shared humanity to bare.

Talankin is a nice guy with intelligence and ethical fortitude. The kids are funny, charming and talented. The mother is doing what we would all do if we had lost a child to a violent death. As such, Mr. Nobody Against Putin might better be called Mr. Everybody Against Putin, as it should be of grave concern to everyone that Russia’s education system is resorting to such techniques.

Colin Alexander 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. Mr. Nobody Against Putin gives an insight into the propaganda in Russian schools – https://theconversation.com/mr-nobody-against-putin-gives-an-insight-into-the-propaganda-in-russian-schools-260162