Category: English

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 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

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Serge Wich, Professor of Primate Biology, Liverpool John Moores University

Vegetable oils are everywhere, and almost everyone has an opinion about them. From clever marketing in supermarket aisles to headlines about deforestation, they have become both the heroes and villains of the modern diet. But vegetable oils are vital to our lives and can help to address food insecurity.

Consumers trying to make ethical and sustainable purchases find themselves at odds with a marketplace where clickbait often masks reality and reliable information about traceability is often missing or hard to find. A pot of “palm-oil-free” peanut butter does not necessarily disclose what the palm oil was replaced with, or how and where the peanuts were produced.

In a market flooded with controversy and conflicting messages, informed consumption is a challenge. Which oils should we really be using and what’s the truth behind their production?

Consumers are entitled to clear ingredient transparency. More accurate information enables us to make choices that genuinely align with our values. Our recent research across three studies explores how nutrition, sustainability and transparency intersect in the world of vegetable oils.

Read more:
Iceland advert: conservation is intensely political, let’s not pretend otherwise

Few foods illustrate the complexity of our global food system quite like vegetable oils. Used in cooking, processed foods, cosmetics, plastics and biodiesel, the global demand has quadrupled in 50 years, making vegetable oils a cornerstone of both diets and economies. An estimated 37% of agricultural crop land is used by oil crops, such as soybean, oil palm, rapeseed and sunflower.

Yet, this demand also drives major health and environmental pressures. With 2 billion more mouths to feed in the coming decades, several hundred million hectares of land – ten times the area of the UK – will need to be allocated to vegetable oil production. Decisions about which crops are used and how they are produced will have critical environmental and social consequences.

Don’t call me fat

“Fat” has long-held negative connotations. This has led to extreme health advice calling for anything from the total omission of seed oils to eating a stick of butter as a snack or adding a shot of coconut oil to one’s coffee.

Alongside this, alarmist marketing campaigns have painted certain vegetable oils, most notably palm oil, as the agent of mass extinction and deforestation.

But behind every bottle on a supermarket shelf lies a more complex story: a network of farmers, factories and policies that shape not only what we eat but also how land is used and how livelihoods are sustained.

We need to stop treating dietary fat as a villain. Yes, trans-fats are harmful, but evidence on saturated fats is mixed and context-specific. Frying risks are overlooked and fat replacers are often oversold.

Importantly, a global “fat gap” coexists with obesity – really, some people need more fat in their diet. The idea that some fats are good for you and others aren’t isn’t clear cut.

The consumer blind spot

Claims about the foods we consume can become part of popular discourse. Take WWF’s 2009 claim that 50% of supermarket products contain palm oil. Is it true now? Our findings suggest at least not everywhere.

How easily could it be proved to be true then? Ever? It’s hard to tell, without clear historical evidence of how the original claim was made. But has this claim encouraged millions of consumers to avoid palm oil? Absolutely.

This is not a matter of overturning palm oil’s bad reputation, but one of noting the sheer lack of clarity and transparency in ingredient information. Many food products list only “vegetable oil” without specifying type or origin and sustainability labels are inconsistent and easily manipulated.

This lack of transparency fuels misinformation and prevents consumers from aligning purchases with their values. This fundamentally slows down any efforts from consumers and policymakers to improve sustainability within the food system.

The human dimension: culture and equity

Vegetable oils are more than ingredients. They’re woven into our culture, economies and identity. From palm oil in south-east Asia and west Africa to olive oil in the Mediterranean, their value extends beyond nutrition or environmental metrics.

In an era of rising food insecurity, affordable oils remain a vital source of nutrition and income for millions. Calls to eliminate certain oils can carry hidden social costs, undermining livelihoods in producing regions. No oil is inherently good or bad.

Rather than asking which oil is best, we should question how our oils are made, who benefits, and which systemic changes truly serve people and the planet.

Ultimately, companies need to disclose sourcing origins and processing methods, and policymakers must mandate labelling that disclose an ingredient’s true environmental and social effects. Only then consumers can know how best to choose a varied mix of traceable oils, without the hype.

Technology such as QR codes and mobile applications can already enable this and by demanding greater traceability, shoppers can help shift towards fairer and more sustainable food systems.

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.

Serge Wich is a professor at Liverpool John Moores University. He receives funding from United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP) under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Congo Basin Impact Program (PCA/2022/5067) to conduct research on vegetable oils in Central African countries. He is also a member of the IUCN Global Oil Crops Task Force.

Erik Meijaard works for Borneo Futures and consults to Soremartec SA and Soremartec Italia, Ferrero Group, in the framework of its Sustainable Nutrition Scientific Board. Erik co-chairs the IUCN Global Oil Crops Task Force. We thank Emily Meijaard for developing the initial pitch and story line.

– ref. Which cooking oil is best? Asking how they’re made could tell you more – https://theconversation.com/which-cooking-oil-is-best-asking-how-theyre-made-could-tell-you-more-267266

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 Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Drone incursions into Poland, fighter jets in Nato airspace, election interference in Romania and Moldova and “little green men” (soldiers of unconfirmed origin) in Estonia. These are just a few examples of the tactics Russia has been using in the past few weeks.

They appear to be part of a much broader strategy variously referred to as the “Gerasimov doctrine”, non-linear war or new-generation warfare. What lies behind these terms is the very worrying and very real “weaponisation of everything” – Moscow’s strategy to reshape international order.

As a researcher on great-power rivalries in Eurasia, I’ve observed this kind of hybrid warfare long before the full-scale invasion in Ukraine. We saw it most obviously with Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. But it has intensified since the Ukraine conflict began in 2022.

These tactics cover a broad spectrum. They range from information operations, including propaganda and disinformation campaigns, to attacks on critical infrastructure, such as undersea cables. They involve the use of drones to disrupt air traffic and malicious cyber-attacks against Russia’s enemies. They have also included assassination campaigns against defectors and dissidents in the UK and elsewhere.

Russia is struggling to retain its traditional influence in post-Soviet regions like the south Caucasus and central Asia. Meanwhile it has also sought to extend its influence elsewhere, such as in Latin America or Africa.

But the main focus of the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare is Europe. The continent has become a key battleground in Moscow’s attempts to restore Russia to its erstwhile great-power status and reclaim a Soviet-style sphere of influence.

At the heart of these efforts is the war against Ukraine. For Russia, victory there is more than the mere military defeat of Ukraine and the permanent weakening of the country along the lines of Moscow’s frequently stated war aims: annexation of one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, limits on the country’s armed forces and no prospect of Nato membership.

While clearly important for Putin, he needs Russia’s victory to signal the extent of his power and at the same time to highlight western impotence to prevent Ukraine’s defeat.

Weakening the west

To win the war against Ukraine, the Kremlin needs to weaken the west and its resolve. In this sense, 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.

But weakening the west is also an end in itself. A strong EU and Nato alliance would prevent Russia from reclaiming its sphere of influence in central and eastern Europe.

Europe has been slow to rise to the challenge of upping its defence game against Russian aggression. But in the end the simple numbers do not favour Russia. The size of the EU’s economy is roughly ten times the size of Russia’s, and its population is more than three times that of Russia.

The EU’s defence expenditure in 2024 stood at just under US$400 billion (£298 billion), up 19% from 2023, and equal to 1.9% of member states’ GDP. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russia, by comparison, spent US$145 billion, or an ultimately probably unsustainable 6.8% of its total GDP.

In terms of purchasing power parity (the buying power of different countries’ currencies using a common “basket of goods”), Russia still marginally outspends the EU. But not if non-EU Nato members such as the UK and Norway are factored into the equation.

So far, Russia has not been able to decisively outperform Ukraine’s military on the battlefield. With the transatlantic alliance – and hence US support – still by and large intact and a more assertive coalition of European allies backing Kyiv emerging, this is unlikely to change soon.

That is why Russia employs its wide range of hybrid warfare tools against European societies. It needs to sow doubt over their ability to prevail, to cause perceived hardship that makes supporting Ukraine unattractive, and to support populist allies who promote pro-Russian narratives, be they government parties in Hungary or Slovakia or opposition parties in Germany and elsewhere.

Permanent state of war

From the Kremlin’s perspective, the logic is probably very simple. Using the full spectrum of hybrid warfare signals that Russia has the capability and the will to make the costs for supporting Ukraine unacceptable for Europe.

With European support for Kyiv ebbing away, Russia will either defeat Ukraine outright on the battlefield or force the country into humiliating concessions at the negotiation table. Either outcome will damage European credibility and morale and allow Moscow to set the terms of a reshaping of the continent’s security order along the lines of one of the Kremlin’s favourite current talking points – “indivisible security”.

Indivisible security was one of the themes of Vladimir Putin’s speech at the annual meeting of the Valdai discussion club – a gathering of Russian and pro-Russian foreign and security policy analysts. By this he simply means a prioritisation of Russian interests over those of its neighbours – in other words a western recognition of a Russian sphere of influence.

But it would be a mistake to assume that recognising such a Russian sphere of influence would satisfy the Kremlin today in the same way as it may have satisfied Soviet rulers during the cold war. On the contrary, a Russian victory in and beyond Ukraine would most likely encourage dreams of further expansion.

The 2025 annual report of the Valdai club, written by some of Russia’s leading foreign policy thinkers, is instructive in this respect. Titled “Dr Chaos or how to stop worrying and love the disorder”, the report posits that the very purpose of war may have changed from victory to “maintaining a balance necessary for a period of relative peaceful development”.

If turned into actual policy, the kind of hybrid warfare the Kremlin has pursued against Europe for more than a decade, becomes a permanent feature of Russia’s relations with Europe. This is a vision that exposes the limits of Russia’s aspirations – managing chaos and loving disorder – and the dangers they imply for the rest of the world.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Russia now has a strategy for a permanent state of hybrid war – https://theconversation.com/russia-now-has-a-strategy-for-a-permanent-state-of-hybrid-war-266936

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Strawson, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of East London

Now a ceasefire has come into effect in Gaza, Israel’s long-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, faces the dilemma of how to campaign ahead of the next national elections. These elections must be held, at the latest, in one year’s time.

In a meeting at the Knesset in Jerusalem on October 13, both Netanyahu and opposition leader Yair Lapid made speeches that seemed to open the election campaign. Netanyahu chose to cast himself as war victor, while Lapid emphasised the liberal values contained in Israel’s declaration of independence.

Donald Trump also addressed Israeli lawmakers at the Knesset and, in his speech, paid many compliments to Netanyahu. He even directed a request to Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, to pardon Netanyahu over longstanding fraud and bribery charges – something Herzog has already suggested.

But the US president also issued Netanyahu with a warning that Israel could not fight the world. Netanyahu has received a lesson in big power politics over the past month that will not have been welcomed.

It came after his miscalculation in attacking Qatar on September 9, where Hamas representatives were discussing the possibility of a plan to end the war in Gaza. Netanyahu was called to the White House and made to apologise to the Qatari government.

He was then pressured into signing up to Trump’s 20-point peace plan, which includes a “realistic pathway” to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. This is something Netanyahu has long opposed and puts him in a difficult position with his electoral base, which is vociferously against a Palestinian state.

The question now is can Netanyahu turn Trump’s plan to his advantage and win the next election?

Some commentators, such as Middle Eastern affairs expert Shira Efron, think Netanyahu has not realised that the Gaza deal represents a defeat for his government. Efron says the agreement contradicts what Netanyahu has sold Israelis for two years: the promise of total victory and the destruction of Hamas.

However, I think this underestimates a politician who has made a career out of turning obstacles into opportunities. His first election as Israel’s prime minister in 1996, for example, came despite trailing his rival Shimon Peres by a substantial margin in opinion polls at the start of the election campaign.

He has also learned to build coalitions with figures on the left, like former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the centre like Benny Gantz and, of course, with the far-right politicians Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir.

Read more:
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich: the Netanyahu government extremists sanctioned by the UK

His speech in the Knesset during Trump’s visit was vintage Netanyahu. He spun the peace deal, which he was forced to sign, into a massive victory for Israel’s war aims in Gaza. Only weeks before he had been saying that Hamas could only be crushed by conquering Gaza City.

It is true that the living hostages have now been freed. But, in deploying 7,000 armed men to control areas in Gaza vacated by Israeli forces, Hamas hardly seems destroyed. Netanyahu has nonetheless convinced himself – and will now try to convince the electorate – that he has led Israel to total victory.

Prospects of success

Opinion polls since the October 7 Hamas attacks in 2023 have not made good reading for Netanyahu. However, despite this disaster taking place on his watch, Netanyahu’s polling has never been disastrous.

Current polls suggest that, if elections were held today, his Likud party would be the biggest single party in the Knesset. However, his ruling coalition would be unlikely to return to power. The same polling gives the Netanyahu bloc 51 seats compared to 55 for the opposition, with the balance held by Arab parties.

The opposition bloc ranges from the right, led by former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett, to the dovish Democrats. They are united in opposition to Netanyahu’s style of government and his judicial reforms, but they have not yet found a convincing narrative of what they stand for.

Whereas Netanyahu unites his bloc, the opposition is divided between several strong personalities. The leaders that make up this so-called “change bloc” – Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Benny Gantz, Yair Lapid and Yair Golan – all think they should be Israel’s next prime minister.

But unlike the last election in 2022, where these parties fought as divided incumbents after a short period in office, they have begun coordinating well in advance of the elections.

The election will be held in the wake of the still palpable trauma after October 7 and exhaustion from two years of war fought on many fronts. Despite this, Israel’s civil society remains healthy.

This has been best exemplified by the Hostages and Missing Family Forum, a body that has not only campaigned publicly for the hostages return but also provided vital services to the families and released hostages. The big question will be the effect of such movements on the way Israelis vote.

Much, of course, will also depend on how Trump’s peace plan develops on the ground. If the US and its allies can deploy an international stabilisation force and create a semblance of a governing authority in Gaza to take over from Hamas, then calm may be maintained. This could boost Netanyahu’s reelection chances if he can spin it as a win for Israel.

Looming over the plan is the decommissioning of Hamas – not just guns and rockets but also dismantling its network of tunnels beneath Gaza. This process is unlikely to be smooth. It is possible that Trump’s plan will still allow Netanyahu some more opportunities to demonstrate military prowess ahead of the election. This might help mobilise support for his coalition, particularly among the far right.

Since the start of the war in Gaza, the Israeli prime minister has compared himself to Winston Churchill, Britain’s leader during the second world war. Churchill did indeed win the war, but went on to lose elections in 1945. Netanyahu will be working hard to prove that part of the comparison wrong.

John Strawson 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. Can Netanyahu survive peace? – https://theconversation.com/can-netanyahu-survive-peace-267383