Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This newsletter was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

There’s an organisation in Russia called the Valdai Discussion Club, a group of public intellectuals that has met since 2004 to discuss the country’s place in the world. It has strong links with government and each year hosts the president, Vladimir Putin, for a day of discussion. This year’s talkfest focused, as Putin put it, on “what is happening in the world, the role of our country in it, and how we see its development prospects”.

And that’s very interesting when you consider the title of the thinktank’s annual report this year, which will particularly appeal to any fans of Dr Strangelove – Dr Chaos or: How to Stop Worrying and Love the Disorder. The report’s basic thesis is that because the west is attempting to inflict, in Putin’s words “a strategic defeat on Russia”, Russia, in turn, must rise to the threat.

One of the ways it can do that, the Valdai Club’s report says, is by recognising that the purpose of conflict is changing and that the “contemporary objective may no longer lie in victories – wherein one party achieves all its goals – but rather in maintaining a balance necessary for a period of relative peaceful development”.

This, writes Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, would go a long way towards explaining the low-level but constant hybrid warfare that Russia has been waging against the west for more than a decade now, and which blew up in 2022 into an all-out armed conflict in Ukraine.

This so-called “grey-zone warfare” seems to have become ever-present in Europe in recent months. Interference in elections, Russian warplanes flying into other countries’ airspace, drone incursions forcing airports to close, regular cyber attacks – they all test the resilience and preparedness of Nato, Wolff believes.

In his analysis, winning the war in Ukraine will involve Russia being able to weaken western resolve and unity. And winning the war will demonstrate that it is capable of doing just that. “In this sense,” Wolff writes, “the intensification of the Kremlin’s hybrid war against Kyiv’s European allies is a tool Moscow uses as part of its broader war effort.”

Read more:
Russia now has a strategy for a permanent state of hybrid war

Wolff’s thesis is echoed by Christo Atanasov Kostov, an international relations expert with particular focus on Russia at Schiller International University in Madrid. Kostov analyses Russia’s grey-zone “toolkit”, and concludes: “The Kremlin’s strategy increasingly favours hybrid means – drones, cyberattacks, disinformation, and energy blackmail – over warfare. These are not random provocations, but a coherent campaign of testing.”

Kostov believes that Russia has set out to exhaust the west, not to conquer it. He draws several conclusions as to where this is likely to lead, concluding that an all-out war with Nato is unlikely, “but not unthinkable”. More likely is an escalation into a new cold war across Europe, meaning permanently increased defence budgets and requiring a stronger focus on coordination across Nato, but also stronger European autonomy to compensate for America’s intention to dial down its involvement in the continent’s security.

Europe, writes Kostov, “has to resist the fatigue of endless crisis and demonstrate that resilience, not fear, defines the continent’s future”.

Read more:
Russia’s ‘permanent test’ is pushing Europe to the brink of war – here’s what Moscow actually wants

Donald Trump, peacemaker

Vladmir Putin wasn’t among the dignitaries who gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh to sign the “Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity”. This, you’ll remember, is the rather grandiosely titled 642-word statement signed by the US president, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (the meeting’s host) and a supporting cast of world leaders including UK prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney.

The declaration itself was insubstantial. It welcomed the “historic commitment” by all parties to the Trump peace agreement (also known as the Gaza ceasefire deal) and made a joint commitment to “a comprehensive vision of peace, security, and shared prosperity in the region, grounded in the principles of mutual respect and shared destiny”.

Trump had flown to Egypt hot from his appearance at Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, where he took applause from all sides for his achievement in getting Israel and Hamas to agree a ceasefire. The US president was understandably enthusiastic, referring to the “the historic dawn of a new Middle East”.

But is it really? asks David Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham. Dunn felt that the day was more of a performance than anything else. But this in itself might serve a useful purpose. Besides playing to the US president’s well-known love for adulation, as Dunn puts it: “For the US to be openly and obviously committed to the peace process makes it more difficult for the opposing parties to reopen hostilities without the risk of incurring US displeasure for ruining their achievement.”

And for Starmer, Macron, Carney and the rest, who risk being mocked in their own countries as also-rans in the scheme of things, Dunn believes that there’s a purpose to that as well. The more they encourage Trump to see himself in the role of peacemaker and the more he gets to bask in a praise he has rightly earned for the Gaza ceasefire, the greater the chance that he might redouble his efforts to get Russia to see sense over Ukraine.

As he concludes: “If flattering his [Trump’s] ego into directing his energies towards this end achieves this goal, then their part in this iteration of the Trump Show should probably be judged by history as worthwhile.”

Read more:
Egypt peace summit showed that Donald Trump’s Gaza deal is more showbiz extravaganza than the ‘dawn of a new Middle East’

As to how long the ceasefire will stick, at the moment that’s changing day by day. We’ll continue to monitor events in Gaza as they unfold. The other big question is whether the Israeli prime minister can survive the peace.

John Strawson, who researches Israeli politics at the University of East London, believes that he’ll be under pressure ahead of an election which must – if peace holds – be held within a year. Some say the ceasefire is bad news for him. He sold the war on the basis it would achieve total victory and annihilate Hamas. And he may struggle to retain the support of his far-right colleagues who wanted Israel to do just that.

But Strawson believes it would be a mistake to underestimate Netanyahu. He’s a wily campaigner who “has made a career out of turning obstacles into opportunities”.

Read more:
Can Netanyahu survive peace?

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Putin’s forever war against the west – https://theconversation.com/putins-forever-war-against-the-west-267679

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

Ibuprofen is a household name – the go-to remedy for everything from headaches to period pain. But recent research suggests this everyday drug might be doing more than easing discomfort. It could also have anti-cancer properties.

As scientists uncover more about the links between inflammation and cancer, ibuprofen’s role is coming under the spotlight – raising intriguing questions about how something so familiar might offer unexpected protection.

Ibuprofen belongs to the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) family. The connection between NSAIDs and cancer prevention isn’t new: as far back as 1983, clinical evidence linked sulindac – an older prescription NSAID similar to ibuprofen – to a reduced incidence of colon cancer in certain patients. Since then, researchers have been investigating whether these drugs could help prevent or slow other cancers too.

NSAIDs work by blocking enzymes called cyclooxygenases (COX). There are two main types. COX-1 helps protect the stomach lining, maintains kidney function, and plays a role in blood clotting. COX-2, on the other hand, drives inflammation.

Most NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, inhibit both, which is why doctors recommend taking them with food rather than on an empty stomach.

Ibuprofen and endometrial cancer

A 2025 study found that ibuprofen may lower the risk of endometrial cancer, the most common type of womb cancer, which starts in the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) and mainly affects women after menopause.

One of the biggest preventable risk factors for endometrial cancer is being overweight or obese, since excess body fat increases levels of oestrogen – a hormone that can stimulate cancer cell growth.

Other risk factors include older age, hormone replacement therapy (particularly oestrogen-only HRT), diabetes, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Early onset of menstruation, late menopause, or not having children also increase risk. Symptoms can include abnormal vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain, and discomfort during sex.

In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) study, data from more than 42,000 women aged 55–74 was analysed over 12 years. Those who reported taking at least 30 ibuprofen tablets per month had a 25% lower risk of developing endometrial cancer than those taking fewer than four tablets monthly. The protective effect appeared strongest among women with heart disease.

Interestingly, aspirin – another common NSAID – did not show the same association with reduced risk in this or other studies. That said, aspirin may help prevent bowel cancer returning.

Other NSAIDs, such as naproxen, have been studied for preventing colon, bladder, and breast cancers. The effectiveness of these drugs seems to depend on cancer type, genetics, and underlying health conditions.

Ibuprofen’s broader potential

Ibuprofen’s possible cancer-protective effects extend beyond endometrial cancer. Studies suggest it may also reduce risk of bowel, breast, lung, and prostate cancers.

For example, people who previously had bowel cancer and took ibuprofen were less likely to experience recurrence. It has also been shown to inhibit colon cancer growth and survival, and some evidence even suggests a protective effect against lung cancer in smokers.

Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer and ibuprofen is, at its core, anti-inflammatory. By blocking COX-2 enzyme activity, the drug reduces production of prostaglandins, chemical messengers that drive inflammation and cell growth – including cancer cell growth. Lower prostaglandin levels may slow or stop tumour development.

But that’s only part of the story. Ibuprofen also appears to influence cancer-related genes such as HIF-1α, NFκB, and STAT3, which help tumour cells survive in low-oxygen conditions and resist treatment.

Ibuprofen seems to reduce the activity of these genes, making cancer cells more vulnerable. It can also alter how DNA is packaged within cells, potentially making cancer cells more sensitive to chemotherapy.

A word of caution

But not all research points in the same direction. A study involving 7,751 patients found that taking aspirin after an endometrial cancer diagnosis was linked to higher mortality, particularly among those who had used aspirin before diagnosis. Other NSAIDs also appeared to increase cancer-related death risk.

Conversely, a recent review found that NSAIDs, especially aspirin, may reduce the risk of several cancers – though regular use of other NSAIDs could raise the risk of kidney cancer. These conflicting results show how complex the interaction between inflammation, immunity, and cancer really is.

Despite the promise, experts warn against self-medicating with ibuprofen for cancer prevention. Long-term or high-dose NSAID use can cause serious side effects such as stomach ulcers, gut bleeding, and kidney damage.

Less commonly, they may trigger heart problems like heart attacks or strokes. NSAIDs also interact with several medications, including warfarin and certain antidepressants, increasing the risk of bleeding and other complications.

The idea that a humble painkiller could help prevent cancer is both exciting and provocative. If future studies confirm these findings, ibuprofen might one day form part of a broader strategy for reducing cancer risk, especially in high-risk groups.

For now, experts agree it’s wiser to focus on lifestyle-based prevention: eating anti-inflammatory foods, maintaining a healthy weight and staying physically active.

Everyday medicines may yet hold surprising promise, but until the science is settled, the safest prescription for cancer prevention remains the oldest one: eat well, move often, and listen to your doctor before reaching for the pill bottle.

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. Ibuprofen: how an everyday drug might offer protection against cancer – https://theconversation.com/ibuprofen-how-an-everyday-drug-might-offer-protection-against-cancer-266645

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nigel Gilbert, Professor of Sociology, University of Surrey

Scrapping stamp duty may sound like a quick fix to Britain’s housing crisis, but there’s reason to believe it would barely move the needle on affordability – while costing the Treasury billions.

At the Conservative party conference, leader Kemi Badenoch announced that a future Tory government would abolish stamp duty for people buying their main home. Badenoch called stamp duty “tax on aspiration” that traps families and holds back social mobility.

But research we conducted with colleagues casts doubt on this claim. We tested it using a detailed computer model of the English housing market. Our results told a different story.

Our simulation found that removing stamp duty, which the Tories themselves estimated would cost between £9 billion and £11 billion a year in lost revenue, would make almost no difference to house prices, rents or people’s ability to buy a home. It might be politically attractive, but the proposal would deliver little benefit to those most in need of help and would hand the biggest savings to wealthier buyers.

To understand why, it is helpful to examine what stamp duty actually does. Buyers in England and Northern Ireland pay the tax on property purchases above £125,000, with rates increasing for more expensive homes. (Scotland and Wales now have their own systems.)

The logic of abolishing it is simple enough: if you cut upfront costs, more people can afford to move. But our research shows this doesn’t translate into meaningful change.

We built an agent-based computer model that simulates the behaviour of thousands of virtual households across England. These digital households vary in income, family size, tenure and employment status. They make realistic decisions about saving, renting, buying and selling property over time. The model mirrors how the market behaves when conditions change, such as when interest rates rise or a tax is removed.

Read more:
Housebuyers hate stamp duty. Why hasn’t it been reformed before now?

When we ran the model without stamp duty for main homes, very little changed. Buyers could save for a deposit slightly faster because they no longer needed to set aside money for the tax. But the overall patterns of prices and transactions remained almost identical to the current system.

In other words, removing stamp duty gave households a modest short-term boost without altering the deeper forces that shape the market.

Rising deposits

For most people, the real barrier to home ownership is the deposit, not the tax. The average first-time buyer now needs around £60,000 to put down a deposit, while abolishing stamp duty would save them only a few thousand pounds. It’s the difference between climbing a mountain and skipping the last step.

More importantly, the benefits of scrapping stamp duty wouldn’t be shared evenly. Buyers of high-value homes, who currently face rates as high as 12%, would gain the most.

First-time buyers and those buying modest properties would see only a small difference. That makes the policy regressive – it helps those already well-off far more than those struggling to get on the ladder.

Our model also highlights how tightly connected the housing system is. Changes in one part of the market ripple through others. If more affluent buyers rush to buy expensive homes, prices can rise further up the chain, offsetting any small gains made lower down. Renters, meanwhile, would see no direct benefit.

This complexity explains why policies that look straightforward, often disappoint in practice. Housing markets are shaped by multiple factors: interest rates, planning restrictions, the supply of new homes and people’s incomes. Tweaking a single tax rarely shifts the overall picture.

The findings underline a broader point about policymaking. Governments often announce headline-grabbing tax cuts or incentives without fully testing their effects. But simulation models like ours can provide a powerful way to forecast outcomes before they happen in the real world.

They allow researchers to explore how thousands of households, landlords and lenders interact, revealing unintended consequences that might otherwise be missed.

In this case, the message is clear: abolishing stamp duty might sound like a lifeline for aspiring homeowners, but it’s unlikely to change who can actually afford to buy. The real solutions lie elsewhere: in building more homes, addressing stagnant wages and improving access to affordable credit.

The housing crisis is one of the defining challenges of our time. Quick fixes make for good headlines, but data-driven evidence should guide decisions that affect millions of people. Before policymakers reach for the next easy answer, they would do well to test whether it’s genuinely likely to work.

Nigel Gilbert receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Corinna Elsenbroich receives funding from UKRI. She is a member of the Labour Party.

Yahya Gamal (Yahya Gamalaldin) receives funding from UKRI.

– ref. The real reason abolishing stamp duty won’t help first-time buyers – https://theconversation.com/the-real-reason-abolishing-stamp-duty-wont-help-first-time-buyers-267584

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sharon Ruston, Professor of English and Creative Writing, Lancaster University

Frankenstein has clearly been a labour of love for the director Guillermo del Toro. I am editing Frankenstein for The Oxford Complete Works of Mary Shelley so have spent a lot of time with her tale too. While del Toro’s deviates in noticeable but interesting ways from Shelley’s novel, the film remains true to the heart of her story with its obvious compassion and empathy for the Creature created in an unorthodox experiment by a young scientist.

The film is grand and lush, the costumes are incredibly opulent, the settings awe-inspiring, and the score emotional. I watched it in a sold out 600+ seat cinema in Manchester, filled with a young audience mainly in their 20s and late teens who laughed, cried and winced along with the action on screen.

Read more:
Frankenstein at 200 and why Mary Shelley was far more than the sum of her monster’s parts

It is divided into two parts – scientist Victor Frankenstein’s (Oscar Issac) narrative and then the Creature’s (Jacob Elordi) narrative – framed by and interspersed with the story of a ship caught in the ice and a captain faced with mutinous sailors who want to give up on their foolhardy mission and return home. This very much follows Shelley’s original tale.

The main narrative in the film has been moved to 1857; Shelley’s book is set in the 1790s. This enables a far greater range of technology to be employed – from early photography, flushable toilets, and gigantic voltaic piles, which were the first electrical batteries.

However, many scenes evoke earlier times, such as the gowns and wigs of the medical professionals who reject Victor Frankenstein’s heretical experiments with corpses. These have an 18th-century aesthetic, wearing large white wigs like those depicted in William Hogarth’s 1736 engraving A Consultation of Physicians, or The Company of Undertakers.

The film makes full use of historical medical knowledge. For example, one breakthrough in Victor’s experiments comes when he is given a map of the lymphatic system, which is said to be the fifth long lost Evelyn Table. The real four tables are from 17th-century Italy and were an educational tool to demonstrate the vein, artery and nervous systems. Famously, these wooden boards were pasted with real human tissue.

Read more:
The dark history of medical illustrations and the question of consent

Just as the surgeon who gathered the material for the Evelyn Tables is unlikely to have asked for the patient’s consent before their death, Victor is relentless in his search for body parts to build his monster. One of the most visceral scenes is of him surrounded by piles of heads, legs, and other human parts, sawing off what he intends to use, and lugging sacks of unwanted bits of bodies to be slung into the gutter.

Throughout, Victor is brilliant but single-minded to the point of monomania. He is likened, as he is in the novel’s subtitle, to the mythological figure Prometheus who stole fire from the gods to give to humans. But, unlike Prometheus, Victor’s actions seem to lack much altruistic purpose.

The one character who sees through him is Elizabeth Lavenza (Mia Goth), newly imagined as the intended wife of Victor’s brother William (Felix Kammerer). Elizabeth in this version is herself an amateur entomologist (a scientist who studies insects). Her scarab necklace, with its Egyptian symbolism, is a symbol of renewal and rebirth – a symbol of her affinity with creatures that are often misunderstood.

Del Toro creates animosity between Victor and his father Leopold (Charles Dance) to prepare us for the inadequacies of Victor’s relationship with his creation. He also leans into the theory that Victor and his Creature are doubles. Nowhere is this more clear than when the scientist identifies himself as Victor and the monster applies that name to himself. Both characters also emit the same animalistic growl when they are angry.

There are also visual signs of this doubling. At first, the monster is practically naked bar a few bandages until he acquires a long coat from a fallen soldier and other swaddling layers, which only enhances his formidable size.

When Victor begins to hunt the Creature, he is dressed in a similarly huge fur coat. His gait is ambling, much like the creatures in his first steps, as he drags his prosthetic leg across the snow in pursuit. Their resemblance seems to signify a merging of identities. It is difficult to know who is the hunter and who is hunted.

Read more:
Two centuries on, Frankenstein is the perfect metaphor for the Anthropocene era

Created from a process declared unholy, obscene and an abomination, and declared by Victor to be a mistake, the Creature endures. In fact, as it all ends we are left with a final close up of the monster’s face, cementing del Toro’s sympathy with the Creature.

In the film, the Creature is, throughout, afraid, attempting to be gentle, wanting to find affection at the hands of the humans he encounters but most often instead encounters pain and suffering. Ultimately, he is not of “the same nature” as humans, which allows for some intriguing differences.

Despite this, he insists that he is not a “something” but a “someone”. Those watching will be left with the Creature’s words reverberating in their heads, words which shine a harsh light on us all: “the world will hunt you and kill you just for being who you are.”

Sharon Ruston 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. Guillermo de Toro’s Frankenstein: beguiling adaptation stays true to heart of Mary Shelley’s story – https://theconversation.com/guillermo-de-toros-frankenstein-beguiling-adaptation-stays-true-to-heart-of-mary-shelleys-story-267570

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sanam Mahoozi, PhD Candidate Journalism, City St George’s, University of London

Iran and Israel fought a 12-day war in June. Although a ceasefire was declared the same month, news coverage of Iran continues to focus on the conflict’s aftermath and the Middle East’s tense political situation.

Meanwhile, Tehran – home to more than 10 million people – is facing one of its worst water shortages in decades. Dams near the capital are at their lowest levels for nearly 70 years – the Karaj dam (one of the city’s major suppliers), which has 25 million cubic metres of water storage, is 86% empty.

In the centre of the country, the city of Isfahan is sinking as subsidence swallows cars and pedestrians. Land subsidence is mainly caused by over-extraction of ground water for agriculture – more than 90% of Iran’s water is extracted for agricultural use. Many of Iran’s iconic lakes have turned into a bed of salt.

Even though schools and roads in Tehran were evacuated in September due to their risk of collapsing, international media coverage of this major environmental problem remains alarmingly low – limited mostly to local and Persian-language diaspora outlets.

Earlier this year, the country’s southern provinces were blanketed by sand and dust storms that sent thousands to hospitals and disrupted infrastructure. Again, this went mostly unreported outside Iran.

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.

There has also been little international coverage of the environmental impact of the war on Iran.

In contrast, local media have reported that Israel’s missile attacks on oil depots close to Tehran released 47,000 tons of greenhouse gases into the city’s atmosphere, causing air pollution. They claimed surface and groundwater systems, soil and wider ecosystems have all been damaged by the leakage of industrial wastewater, urban sewage and other forms of pollution including noise, vibration, radiation and heat – all of which pose a threat to the lives of humans, animals and plants.

For months, international news outlets have focused their coverage of Iran on questions about its nuclear programme and worsening ties with the west. They have covered espionage, sanctions, cybersecurity and Iranian officials’ statements about uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons.

This is not surprising. An analysis by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford found that newsrooms covering the Middle East will mainly report on war and conflict. Other academic studies underline that long-term but far-reaching environmental issues are far down their list of priorities.

Even inside Iran, the news media has largely concentrated on the war. During the conflict, conservative Iranian state-affiliated news outlets such as Tasnim, Mizan and Kayhan focused almost entirely on military developments and official narratives of “national defence” and “foreign threats.”

But when the fighting ended, some Iranian newspapers, particularly those which advocate for gradual social, political and press freedom (along with the state-run IRNA news agency), started to cover the drought and water shortages. The conservative Iranian news media outlets are now covering these stories a little, but less so than the reformist media, such as Payamema and Shargh.

Today, the Middle East faces some of the world’s worst environmental crises — including droughts, floods, sand and dust storms with enormous consequences. Across Iran’s provinces, many rivers and wetlands have dried up. Air pollution is getting worse and power cuts are devastating lives and livelihoods.

What does the world know?

My research looks at how the media reports climate change across the Middle East and North Africa, and particularly in Iran.

I also write for news organisations about water and climate change. In doing this research, I have found that Iran’s environmental problems are largely driven by decades of government mismanagement and the overexploitation of water resources — including excessive dam construction and groundwater use for agriculture.

Even on the few occasions when international media outlets have covered Iran’s water crisis in recent months, the lead section of the coverage is often tied to the war. While reporting on war is essential to expose its human costs and security, environmental coverage is equally important. Climate change will not pause for a ceasefire, and neglecting it risks overlooking a crisis that affects everyone.

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

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

Sanam Mahoozi 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. Drought, sand storms and evacuations: how Iran’s climate crisis gets ignored – https://theconversation.com/drought-sand-storms-and-evacuations-how-irans-climate-crisis-gets-ignored-266725

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ed Harrison, PhD Candidate, Institute for Digital Security and Behaviour, University of Bath

Last September, Reform leader Nigel Farage dismissed a policy of mass deportations as a “political impossibility”. Now, a year on, the party has pledged to deport up to 600,000 illegal migrants and retrospectively strip indefinite leave to remain from people already settled in the UK.

This is a drastic lurch to the right, even for Reform. Only last year the party was saying it seeks to represent the “silent majority” and keep out “extremists”.

In explaining this shift, Reform politicians would probably claim this is what the silent majority wants. They would point to a hardening of public opinion on illegal migration.

They would want to avoid the accusation they have given in to extremists by proposing these policies. Reform has, after all, sought to distance itself from the far-right with every step it takes towards the mainstream.

But an analysis of social media suggests something else. Many people and groups on the radical and far-right are harnessing a process known as audience capture in order to influence political policy.

A group of anonymous X accounts is said to follow a “posting-to-policy” strategy. These accounts – some of which are run by disaffected Westminster professionals – post to inject their grievances into online discourse.

Their goal is to see their narratives circulate and gain popularity within rightwing networks. Once established, they hope political actors, many of whom follow them, will take up the ideas.

Use and discussion of the “Boriswave” is an example of this. The term, which refers to a rise in non-EU immigration under former prime minister Boris Johnson, originated and proliferated from this network. It is now commonly used in the mainstream and was deployed by Reform to justify its proposal to revoke indefinite leave to remain.

Another example is the motability scheme, a programme that helps eligible disabled individuals lease a car. It was first highlighted and heavily criticised by anonymous accounts on X for being wasteful and subject to fraudulent abuse, and has dominated much of the discussion on welfare reform in 2025. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch recently promised to restrict eligibility to the scheme.

While many of these accounts are anonymous, some are more out in the open. Online conservatives such as Connor Tomlinson and Steven Edington have boasted of how their work has helped move Reform to the right.

Further to the online activities of aggrieved anonymous online users and disaffected conservatives, are the cases of ex-Reform politicians MP Rupert Lowe and Advance UK leader Ben Habib. Both left the party in acrimonious circumstances, both now lead alternative movements, and both are pushing Reform to adopt more radical policies.

Lowe has called Reform’s pledge to deport up to 600,000 illegal migrants “pathetic” and has suggested it be quadrupled. Habib attended the far-right Unite the Kingdom protests in September.

Add these forces together and you get what amounts to a rightwing arms race – communities of social media users pushing for more radical policies in an attempt to change the norms and policies of Reform and the right.

How an idea spreads

To explore this dynamic, and how Reform’s recent u-turn has been shaped by it, we analysed the online networks that drove conversation about “mass deportations” on X over the past year. Using computational methods, we identified four distinct sub-communities defined by their retweet relationships. These sub-communities were formed around far-right influencers, radical right influencers, Advance UK/free-marketeer influencers – and around the Reform party.

Reposting network of discussion of mass deportation on X:

Discussion of mass deportations in 2024 was almost exclusively dominated by the far-right and the anonymous accounts of the radical right. Fast forward to April 2025 and we find Lowe, Habib and a wider range of rightwing influencers have entered the conversation in support of the policy.

Finally, in September, following Reform’s August announcement, you can see Farage and key Reform personnel supplant the influencers as players in a movement they had little role in creating. In doing so, the party has aligned itself with a policy that less than a year ago it vehemently rejected.

This offers only a snapshot of discussions on social media and cannot account for the wider political and socioeconomic factors influencing these shifts. It does, however, demonstrate how narratives in far-right and fringe online ecosystems can migrate into more mainstream discourse over time and help shape the norms and policies of whole political movements.

It is difficult to imagine this happening without the new role of X under Elon Musk. With far-right figures now allowed back onto the platform, and the liberalisation of its algorithms to push more extreme content, the result has been the amplification and normalisation of more radical views and rhetoric.

Researchers have highlighted how, as a result of this, social media begins to function like a funhouse mirror, distorting political reality. Because online debate is dominated by a small number of extreme voices (10% of users produce 97% of political content), it projects a skewed and unrepresentative picture of public opinion.

This, in turn, blurs users’ sense of which norms and views are mainstream. The fact that offline, the majority is said to oppose the retrospective removal of indefinite leave to remain, only adds weight to the argument that Reform’s policy shifts are being driven by a small number of influential online voices rather than the voices of the masses.

Where once social media played a role more akin to that of a town hall, allowing people to express their views and support for political parties, it is now increasingly reflective of the strategic activities of a select influential few.

While the extent of this is unclear, we have to wonder if Reform’s perceptions of public opinion are being distorted by the funhouse mirror that X has increasingly become. And while the party is polling ahead of all others, that has implications for the future direction of the UK.

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. Inside the far-right social media ecosystem normalising extremist ideas in UK politics – https://theconversation.com/inside-the-far-right-social-media-ecosystem-normalising-extremist-ideas-in-uk-politics-266948