Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies, University of Bradford

Keir Starmer says unless there’s a ceasefire and a peace process leading to a two-state solution, Britain will recognise the state of Palestine at the UN in September. The UK prime minister is following a similar, alebit unconditional, pledge from the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

They are reacting to what Starmer referred to as the “intolerable situation” in Gaza. In Scotland, Donald Trump has also complained at the humanitarian catastrophe of people starving in Gaza, saying: “We’ve got to get the kids fed.”

Does this mean western politicians are finally prepared to act? Quite possibly. Will it have any discernible effect on Benjamin Netanyahu? Doubtful.

Trump still appears to trust Netanyahu to feed the people of Gaza, or so he told reporters as he flew back from his weekend of “golf buggy diplomacy” on July 29. And as long as the US president supports Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister can act with few restraints.

True, the vigorous international reaction to the food crisis in Gaza has finally had some effect. But the Israeli response so far has been largely symbolic.

It has comprised air drops of aid by Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and some “tactical” or “humanitarian” pauses in the assault in parts of the Gaza Strip to allow for the delivery of aid. Air drops are good for publicity, but the amount of aid they actually deliver is very small and hugely expensive.

How did we get to this point? The current phase of the conflict started in mid-March, when the Israeli government began blocking all aid to Gaza.

That lasted two months until some shipments were allowed. In recent weeks, an average of about 70 trucks a day have crossed the border. But the reality is 500-600 trucks a day are required to support and restore heath to 2 million people.

Meanwhile, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed – mostly shot – since May while trying to get food at one of the four overcrowded distribution sites run by the private, US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Before being replaed by the GHF system, UN agencies ran 400 distribution points across the territory.

What the daily pauses in some areas, which began on July 27, actually represent is far from clear, given that fighting continues in much of the Strip. There is little sign that Netanyahu’s government wants an early end to the war. From its perspective, there can only be peace when all the hostages are returned and Hamas has been destroyed.

But Hamas is proving far more resolute than expected. Its survival is little short of remarkable given the huge force the Israelis have used to try and destroy it.

The usual Israeli military priority in dealing with an insurgency is to follow what is known colloquially as the “Dahiya doctrine”. If an insurgency cannot be handled without serious casualties, then the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) directs its operations at civilian infrastructure and the general population to undermine support for the insurgents.

The tactic is so called because it was developed as a way of dealing with a Hezbollah stronghold in the Dahiya suburb of west Beirut in 1982. The reduction of much of Gaza to ruins is taking the doctrine to extremes, yet it is failing – Hamas is still there.

This is reportedly common knowledge in IDF circles, but rarely admitted in public. A notable exception is the senior retired IDF officer, Major-General Itzhak Brik.

Brik’s publicised view is that Hamas has already replaced its thousands of casualties with new recruits. They may not be trained in the conventional sense, but they have learnt their craft while surviving in a war zone and seeing so many of their friends and family killed and wounded.

No end in sight

Israel’s demands may be that it will end the war if Hamas surrenders and disarms, then goes into exile. The problem with this is Hamas doesn’t think Israel would end the war.

Instead, it believes Gaza would be forcibly cleared and resettled, and the occupied West Bank would see a huge increase in settlers. In this scenario, a two-state solution would be a pipe dream, and Israel would be the regional superpower able to rise to any future challenge.

So, is there any prospect of Israel being forced to compromise, to accept a UN-monitored ceasefire and seek a negotiated settlement? External political pressure is certainly rising, especially the potential formal recognition of the state of Palestine by the UK and France.

But in both cases, the conditions for the road to peace are such that they are effectively non-starters. Macron envisages a “demilitarised Palestine” living alongside Israel. Starmer has called for Hamas to disarm and play no role in the future governance of Palestinians. Neither plan has the slightest chance of getting off the ground.

In any case, without Trump’s full backing it would still mean little. Economic and social sanctions by a state or group will have little impact because there will always be states or organisations sufficiently supportive of Israel to bypass them.

We are left with two possible routes to a settlement. One is that Trump is sufficiently motivated to insist Netanyahu negotiates.

That is unlikely, unless the US president somehow gets the idea that his own reputation is being damaged. Even then, the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, especially the support for Israel of tens of millions of Christian Zionists, is formidable.

The other route to a peace deal is if the war is becoming problematic for the Israeli military. If more of the IDF’s top brass recognise that this war, right from the start, was always going to be unwinnable, this might yet move the conflict in the direction of a settlement.

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.

Paul Rogers 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. UK and France pledges won’t stop Netanyahu bombing Gaza – but Donald Trump or Israel’s military could – https://theconversation.com/uk-and-france-pledges-wont-stop-netanyahu-bombing-gaza-but-donald-trump-or-israels-military-could-262131

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jen Wilson, Senior Exercise and Health Practitioner, Nottingham Trent University

The “100 kettlebell swings a day” challenge is the latest viral fitness endeavour on social media. The challenge is simple: pick up a kettlebell and do 100 swings (bringing the kettlebell from between your legs and using your core and glutes to swing it up to chest or shoulder height) every day. These can be done either in one stint, or broken up throughout the day.

Proponents of the challenge say it leads to fat loss, improved muscle mass and a stronger posterior chain (glutes, back and hamstrings) – all in a short daily session.

At first glance, it sounds like a time-efficient, no-fuss approach to getting fitter with minimal equipment. But while there’s some merit in consistency, this type of challenge often ignores fundamental principles of exercise and training – and could even do more harm than good.

Here’s a few reasons why it might be best to skip the kettlebell challenge – and what you can try instead.

1. It’s not personalised to you

One of the biggest flaws in the 100 kettlebell swings challenge is that it treats everyone the same, regardless of experience level, injury history, mobility or training goals. What’s manageable for an advanced athlete could cause problems for a beginner with poor hip mobility or lower back issues.

Daily, high-rep dynamic movements which use explosive power, such as kettlebell swings, require good technique, good posture and body awareness. Without that, you’re simply reinforcing poor movement patterns. Worse, you could be inviting injury when such movements are done repeatedly.

Effective training should be personalised – or at least adapted to your movement abilities and fitness requirements in order to have the most impact.

2. No room for progress

The human body adapts quickly. If you do the same 100 reps with the same amount of weight every single day, the challenge becomes less effective over time. That initial burn you felt in week one? It’ll be gone by week three.

In well-designed training programmes, there’s a principle called “progressive overload”. This involves gradually increasing stress on the body, either through the amount of weight you’re lifting, the number of repetitions you do of an exercise, the number of sets you complete or the complexity of your movements.

The 100-swing challenge skips this entirely. This means you’ll probably hit a plateau fairly quickly.

3. Risk of injury

Doing 100 swings every day, especially without rest or proper technique, can lead to injuries such as muscle strains or joint pain in the back and shoulders.

Too much repetitive movement, insufficient recovery time and inexperience can also lead to an increased risk of an overuse injury – a condition caused by repeated stress on muscles, joints or tissues. This often results in pain, swelling, or stiffness and could potentially mean taking weeks or even months off from working out to fully recover.

Picking up this challenge might be appealing but it also ticks a lot of boxes for overuse injury.

4. It undermines recovery

Recovery between workouts is not optional. In fact, it’s where the actual adaptation happens. Training breaks the body down, while recovery builds it back stronger.

Kettlebell swings, especially if performed explosively and with heavier loads, place stress on your central nervous system. Doing them every single day without rest days, mobility work (such as stretching) or variation can lead to chronic fatigue, poor sleep, nagging injuries and even reduced performance in other areas of training.

If you’ve started the challenge and find you’re constantly sore, tight or worn down, the challenge may be doing more harm than good.

5. It’s a one-dimensional solution

Fitness isn’t just about repetition. True strength and conditioning involves a variety of movements, such as pushing, pulling, squatting, rotating and stabilising.

The 100-swing challenge trains only one plane of motion and one movement pattern. While that’s better than nothing, it’s nowhere near comprehensive. Moreover, doing the same task over and over can become mindless. You’re not necessarily getting stronger or fitter – you’re just going through the motions.

A smarter way to use kettlebells

In fairness, the challenge does have some value in the right context. For beginners who need structure, it can help establish a daily habit. It requires minimal equipment, little space and can raise heart rate, build endurance and activate the posterior chain.

But for it to be sustainable and effective, a few things must be in place:

• Your form must be solid
• The kettlebell weight must be appropriate for your fitness level
• You should vary the volume or intensity over time
• You should include rest days
• It should be part of a broader training plan – not your only form of training

If you enjoy kettlebell swings, there are more intelligent and safer ways to include them in your training than doing 100 reps every day.

Try incorporating swings into interval sessions, circuits or strength workouts with varied repetitions and loads. Instead of doing 100 swings alone, aim for 100 total reps using a mix of exercises, such as goblet squats, rows and presses. This approach not only keeps things more balanced, but also reduces the risk of injury from overuse and gives different muscle groups time to recover .

The “100 kettlebell swings a day” challenge might sound appealing in its simplicity, but simple doesn’t always mean smart. Without personalisation, progression and recovery, it can quickly turn into a repetitive grind that risks doing more harm than good.

Yes, training should be challenging, but it should also be strategic. Your body deserves more than just a checkbox of daily repetitions – it needs the right moves done the right way.

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. Viral ‘kettlebell challenge’ could do you more harm than good – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/viral-kettlebell-challenge-could-do-you-more-harm-than-good-heres-why-260010

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen R. Buzdugan, Senior Lecturer in International Business, Manchester Metropolitan University

For the past two years, Tesla has been embroiled in a bitter dispute with the Swedish labour union IF Metall. It is of a scale that the union hasn’t witnessed since the 1930s.

At the heart of the dispute is Tesla’s refusal to sign a collective bargaining agreement. This is a pillar of the “Swedish model” of labour relations, which is prized by Sweden’s citizens due to its perceived contribution to social wellbeing and shared prosperity.

Instead, Tesla has opted to circumvent striking union workers and bring its cars into the country using non-unionised labour and labour from neighbouring countries. Tesla’s actions to undermine a system that Sweden strongly supports are what we call “anti-societal”. That is, they might be said to undermine democratic norms and the broader public interest.

More broadly, it isn’t unusual to see corporations acting in ways that negatively affect the public interest, with effects such as environmental degradation, poor working conditions or violations of anti-trust laws. Multinational corporations are often in the news for violating or avoiding government regulations and working behind the scenes to influence regulation to their advantage.

Among many examples is the Volkswagen group’s “Dieselgate” emissions scandal. The German carmaker cheated on vehicle tests to make diesel cars seem less polluting than they were in reality. The company later acknowledged it had “screwed up” and breached customers’ trust.

And it is believed that oil and gas giant Exxon had evidence in the 1970s that fossil fuels contribute to climate change, but mounted a a campaign of disinformation in order to stifle regulation of their products. (In 2021, Exxon CEO Darren Woods told US politicians that the company “does not spread disinformation regarding climate change”.)

These examples raise the question of why corporations engage in activities against the public interest. Yet browse through any standard textbook used in a university business or management course, and you will struggle to find answers.

Instead, for several decades the standard viewpoint has been that multinational corporations are mainly economic entities without any particular interest in doing either harm or good. Any anti-societal corporate behaviour has typically been chalked up to a few “bad apples”.

The fact that corporations have political power and systematically use it in their interests in ways that harm society has been largely left out of the picture.

Our recent research shows that the underlying nature of the global economy can influence any corporation to behave anti-societally. We argue that under certain circumstances, a corporation like Tesla might face a threat that compromises its market position, assets or even its existence.

IF Metall, for example, poses a significant threat to Tesla’s business model. If the Swedish trade union wins this dispute it could strengthen the bargaining position of trade unions across Europe. In this case, a corporation like Tesla will exert its power to protect itself. But this often comes with negative consequences for society.

We call this the “self-preservation perspective” of the multinational corporation. It illuminates the ways in which corporations use political power to their advantage, often to society’s cost.

The balance of power

The self-preservation perspective can help people to understand how corporate political power should be challenged through both regulation and activism. Trade union action, for instance, can act as a powerful political force to balance corporate power.

The idea of “self-preservation” comes from international relations theory and an overlooked argument by the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith .These suggest that any organisation – a nation state or a multinational corporation – will seek primarily to preserve itself in the face of threats.

We apply the idea of self-preservation to modern multinational corporations that seek to survive in a global economy marked by fierce competition and complex regulation.

This perspective predicts that, when faced with a regulatory threat, a multinational corporation will weigh up four strategic options.

First, it may try to influence the regulation through sometimes ethically questionable political activities. Second, it may consider avoiding or ignoring the regulation by exploiting loopholes or by taking strategic legal action. Third, it can decide to comply with the regulation. And last, it can think about exiting the market altogether.

We predict that the corporation’s choice depends on its relative level of political power and resources, as well as the profitability of the market it is operating in. However, it also depends on how powerful it is in relation to governments, trade unions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

If government enforcement or societal pressure are very strong, this may steer a corporation toward adapting to the regulation, rather than more negative influencing or avoiding behaviour. One example is Apple’s recent changes to its App Store rules in Europe, to comply with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act.

In the case of Tesla versus the Swedish union, Tesla has exerted its power to avoid regulation. In doing so it has considered the scale of the threat to its business model across Europe and its perceived power relative to the trade union. This possibly stems from Tesla’s strong ties to the technology sector, where engagement with unions is often seen as an unnecessary threat to innovation.

If Tesla’s avoidance strategy succeeds, it would effectively dissolve the Swedish model, creating a system that’s less secure for workers. From our self-preservation perspective, IF Metall’s success in the dispute will depend on how well – and how widely – the unions, government and citizens can galvanise opposition. By balancing corporate power in this way, societies might hope to protect their interests against the might of multinational giants.

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.

David Freund receives funding from Handelsbanken Research Foundation.

Ulf Holm receives funding from Handelsbanken’s Research Foundations.

Stephen R. Buzdugan 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. Why do corporations act against the public interest? We may have the answers (it’s not just greed) – https://theconversation.com/why-do-corporations-act-against-the-public-interest-we-may-have-the-answers-its-not-just-greed-261866

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Stern, Visiting Professor of Management Practice, Bayes Business School, City St George’s, University of London

Are two heads better than one? This is a question that members of the Green party will be asking themselves over the summer as they take part in the election of a new leader … or leaders.

Former co-leader Carla Denyer MP announced in May that she would not be standing again. Her co-leader, Adrian Ramsay MP, is now joined on the prospective leadership ticket by another Green MP, Ellie Chowns. (It is a Green party rule that where there is a joint leadership the job holders must be of different genders.)

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.

They are being challenged by Zack Polanski, currently deputy leader of the party and a member of the London Assembly, who has positioned himself not merely as a solo candidate but also as a rather more radical one. While his politics have little in common with those of Reform party leader Nigel Farage, Polanksi has suggested the Greens could learn from his approach.

The contest presents us with an intriguing conundrum – or even a paradox. In the real world – that is, away from Westminster – expecting a single human being to display all the qualities and attributes required to lead a complicated business or organisation is rightly seen as unrealistic. Leadership is a team activity, to be carried out collectively.

This is one reason why it’s so troubling to see excessive pay packets being delivered to bosses who should not be taking all the credit for the success of a business.

Of course, the leadership provided by the ultimate boss matters, but good corporate governance involves testing the suggestions and instincts of the chief executive with the ideas of other senior executives or directors. This is known, perhaps rather euphemistically on occasion, as “challenge”.

But in Westminster politics a rather more traditional (we could say old-fashioned) view of leadership prevails. Here the orthodoxy holds that something called “strong leadership” stems mainly from a dominant single figure who is firmly in charge.

This belief is based in part on the mythology which surrounds the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” who supposedly never took a step back (although she did), and who dismissed “wets” and “moaning minnies” who expressed doubt about her policy choices. Tony Blair in turn paid homage to this mythology, famously once declaring: “I’ve got no reverse gear”.

In Westminster changing your mind, even in the light of new evidence, is invariably labelled a U-turn, and is considered to be bad. This is also how the British media frames their actions.

So here is the Green party’s conundrum: against this backdrop, they would arguably get better media coverage and perhaps win more support from voters if they installed a single leader in the more conventional way. This is the case that could be made for Polanski.

But at the same time, the Greens are not meant to be just like all the other parties. They have a different view of the world, so why should they conform to the other people’s view of what leadership looks like?

Behind every strong leader

Successful businesses have often been led by double acts. Behind some swaggering CEOs there is often a cautious and competent chief financial officer making sure the numbers add up.

When the Granada media group was growing to a dominant market position in the 1990s, its CEO, Gerry Robinson, got most of the attention but his trusted managing director, Charles Allen, was an equally important, if less prominent, figure. Berkshire Hathway, one of the world’s most successful investment vehicles, has been led by the well-known Warren Buffett for decades, but for most of that time he had his old but less famous friend Charlie Munger at his side (Munger died in 2023).

Westminster’s latest prototype party, the alliance of independent pro-Gaza MPs, is also considering a joint leadership structure with former Labour MPs Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. The difficulty here is that it is not yet clear exactly how the two figures would share their leadership duties. The much-discussed launch is planned for later this year.

Voting for the new Green party leader(s) will take place through all of August, with the result declared on September 2. We will see if the arguments in favour of a more conventional leadership structure (albeit with more radical policies and tone) prevail over the less conventional structure (but with a steadier political approach).

Either way, the Greens will continue to provide an alternative voice and approach in our still developing multiparty era. And maybe that’s a good thing too. When you look around the world at some other self-styled “strong leaders” – Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, to name but three – a break from having similar aspiring “strong leaders” at Westminster might be welcome.

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.

Stefan Stern 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. From the Green party to Corbyn’s new launch – is it time Westminster took joint leaders more seriously? – https://theconversation.com/from-the-green-party-to-corbyns-new-launch-is-it-time-westminster-took-joint-leaders-more-seriously-262058

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Beth Johnson, Professor of Television & Media Studies, University of Leeds

Keeley Hawes’s new Channel 4 and Prime Video drama, The Assassin, introduces a premise that feels both bold and overdue. It follows Julie (Hawes), a menopausal woman, overlooked and emotionally stalled, who worked as a hitwoman in her youth and unexpectedly comes out of retirement to return to the profession.

It’s pulpy, stylised and laced with dark humour. But beneath the genre trappings lies something more striking – a cultural pivot in how menopause and midlife womanhood is being written and visualised on British television.

Historically, menopause has been television’s silent transition. Onscreen, it was something female characters either didn’t have, didn’t talk about, or, when acknowledged, were mocked for. Sitcoms of the 1980s and 1990s, such as Birds of a Feather or Absolutely Fabulous, played menopausal symptoms for laughs.

In drama, menopause tended to arrive invisibly: women stopped being protagonists, were subtly phased out of storylines, or returned only as wives, mothers, or medical cases.

Television has always been shaped by industry ideas about youth, sex appeal and marketability – ideas that left little room for midlife women unless confined to supporting roles – or contained within the domestic, ensemble structures of soap operas.

While shows like New Tricks (2003), Last Tango in Halifax (2012) and Call the Midwife (2012) gradually shifted the dial, menopause itself remained offscreen: considered either too niche, too biological, or too awkward to dramatise.

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.

What The Assassin offers is not just a menopausal character, but midlife as premise. Rather than sidelining her life stage, the show lets its rhythms – emotional turbulence, internal chaos, flickers of disorientation, flashes of wit and a deep, simmering strength – seep into the storytelling itself.

The story ties her hormonal shifts to emotional volatility, a sense of personal invisibility, fractured family life and existential grief. And then she snaps. But it’s not collapse; it’s re-ignition. She becomes lethal — not in spite of midlife, but because of it.

I research the way midlife female protagonists are presented in British television drama. I’ve recently written about Russell T. Davies’ work in particular, arguing that his dramas (such as It’s a Sin, 2021, and Nolly, 2023) reclaim neglected figures by placing their emotional complexity and cultural marginalisation at the centre.

Nolly offered a compelling reappraisal of Noele Gordon (played by Helena Bonham Carter), the soap star unceremoniously dumped from her own show – a decision now widely understood to be rooted in sexism and ageism. Davies refused to let her disappear quietly, instead making her menopause-era strength and defiance the dramatic core of his show.

Similarly, my work with Professor Kristyn Gorton on Sally Wainwright’s series Happy Valley (2014) explores how Catherine Cawood (played by Sarah Lancashire) embodies emotional realism, grief, rage and midlife fatigue – not as flaws, but as substance. These female characters don’t just react to events; they are the story. Their emotions are not incidental but generative, propelling the narrative, shaping its tone and demanding audience recognition.

Read more:
Happy Valley: the art of Sally Wainwright’s perfect TV ending

The Assassin fits this trajectory. It joins a growing body of British TV that blends genre hybridity with emotional and political resonance. Like Killing Eve (2018) or I Hate Suzie (2020), it uses the structure of the thriller to think critically about gender, ageing and identity.

The menopausal hitwoman is, of course, a metaphor as much as a plot. She is rage personified: a woman no longer governed by the social niceties that often temper female representation. She’s also funny, erratic and uncontained.

A menopausal reckoning

Importantly, The Assassin doesn’t simply celebrate her transformation. It stages it as messy, uncomfortable and morally complex. This is menopause not as a redemptive arc but as a reckoning, with a body that’s changing, a past that won’t stay buried, and a society that prefers women neat, young and silent.

There’s still work to do. British television remains far more comfortable exploring middle-aged male protagonists than women in the same life stage. But what’s changing, and what I frequently explore in my research, is the tone and ambition with which female midlife is now being scripted. Where menopause was once a punchline or absence, it’s becoming a story. And not just any story, but one shaped by genre, irony, feeling and risk.

Thanks to its long-form, visual medium, television can explore the ordinary in ways that resonate deeply, from the exhaustion of grief to the frustration of being dismissed. Menopause, long under-explored, offers rich dramatic territory: emotional volatility, bodily transformation, the redefinition of self. What The Assassin understands is that these aren’t signs of decline. They’re tools of narrative power.

By giving us a menopausal character who is central, subversive and narratively in control, The Assassin signals a broader shift. It reminds us that midlife is not an endpoint, but a site of potential – for drama, for comedy and for cultural critique. British television is, at last, beginning to give menopause the storylines it deserves.

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.

Beth Johnson 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 Assassin: Keeley Hawes drama is a milestone for menopause on screen – https://theconversation.com/the-assassin-keeley-hawes-drama-is-a-milestone-for-menopause-on-screen-262101