Well 2026 has certainly got off to a flying start with a raft of excellent films, plays and TV dramas to keep our minds off the lack of sunlight and cash during this dreary month. And that’s the marvellous thing about art and culture: it is often free or costs relatively little (apart from going to the theatre in London, of course), and sustains the old spirits when things appear a bit gloomy.
This new year marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Agatha Christie, the British queen of crime; 1976 was also the year her final novel, Sleeping Murder, was published, after she had died on January 12. The author of 66 detective novels, Christie sold millions of books around the world and inspired countless film and TV adaptations.
To mark this anniversary, Netflix pays homage with a lavish production of Seven Dials, a three-part murder mystery set in the aristocratic world of England in the 1920s.
The glittering country pile of Chimneys is the scene, and the lady of the house, Lady Caterham (Helena Bonham Carter) has fallen on hard times and been forced to rent it out to some wealthy industrialist.
Now this sounds exactly like the set up in Jane Austen’s last novel, Persuasion – which is rather apt, given that Lady C’s irrepressible daughter, Lady Eileen “Bundle” Brent, is played by Mia Mckenna-Bruce, who also played the hilariously hypochondriac Mary Elliot, sister of Anne, in the 2022 film version.
Lady C and her daughter return as guests to attend a party in their own house, filled with people from “industry, aristocracy and the foreign office”. Naturally a murder ensues and Bundle is on the case, much to the chagrin of Superintendent Battle (Martin Freeman).
This new adaptation doesn’t just provide a rollicking piece of entertainment as it follows the exploits of feminist trailblazer Bundle. It exposes and confronts the brutal world of empire that provided the backdrop to Christie’s novels. Our reviewer, Catherine Wynne, says this excellent Netflix production refreshes Christie for the 21st century – “and does it admirably”.
Few horror films have actually filled me with a sense of dread – but the 28 Days Later series has always managed to do just that, turning the movie zombie from a shambling figure of fun into something fast, aggressive and terrifying. And as the franchise plays out, we realise it’s not really the zombies that we should be afraid of post-apocalypse, but other surviving humans. After 28 Days, Weeks and Months, the fourth instalment of the franchise, 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, starring the ever-brilliant Ralph Fiennes, is out today.
I once watched a live ice hockey match in Canada, both spellbound and horrified. It was one of the most aggressive things I had ever seen, where exaggerated rivalry, macho posturing and squaring up for a fight seemed positively encouraged. The spectators, relishing every testosterone-fuelled moment, could have been lifted straight out of Gladiator. So I’m looking forward to watching Heated Rivalry, a gay love story set in this hypermasculine environment. Sports researcher and queer football fan Joe Sheldon gives us his take on the much-talked-about Canadian show that has just landed on Sky in the UK.
The experimental Belgian director Ivo van Hove has notched up another smash show in London’s West End with his production of Arthur Miller’s post-war play, All My Sons. It stars Bryan Cranston and Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Joe and Kate Keller, a couple mourning their son, who remains missing after the second world war. But respected businessman and good family man Joe is hiding a dark secret that threatens to bring his world crashing down. In this stripped-back production, van Hove has chosen to stage Miller’s play as a Greek tragedy, heightening the tensions of this heartwrenching drama.
All My Sons is on at Wyndham’s Theatre, London, till March 7
The BBC’s new flagship drama Waiting for the Out is based on the real-life experiences of prison educator Andy West, recounted in his 2022 memoir The Life Inside. The drama tells the story of Dan, a young teacher from a criminal family who brings a little philosophy into the lives of inmates at a category-B prison, while trying to overcome his own mental health challenges. Abigail Harrison Moore, once a prison teacher herself, explains how the show illuminates the value of arts education for people often discarded by society, and how it provides a chink of light in a sometimes dark existence.
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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anastasia Vayona, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Social Science and Policy, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University
Online fashion retailer Asos recently introduced additional fees for customers who return lots of items, marking a significant shift in the fast fashion model that has relied on free, frictionless return policies as a key competitive advantage.
And now the fashion retailer has introduced a new tool to show shoppers exactly what their return rate is, and if they are about to incur a fee. The new policy is aimed at encouraging shoppers with the highest return rates to cut back.
It’s not clear yet if other fast fashion brands such as H&M, Shein, Zara and Primark might follow Asos’s lead on returns, and whether it will change shopping habits.
There are two common fast fashion shopping scenarios. The first is where customers buy three or four versions of the same item in different sizes, then return the ones that they don’t want. The second is where a shopper will buy three or four completely different dresses, for example.
The first approach, called “bracketing” in the retail industry, may be affected more by the new cost of returns. So it may encourage some shoppers to cut down on the sizes they order, perhaps from four to two, if they continue to use Asos. This may have somewhat of a positive environmental effect, if it reduces the size of orders.
The second scenario, impulse buying, generates almost the 40% of all online spending globally, with clothing being the most frequently purchased category. But when faced with return fees, impulse buyers are significantly more likely to avoid the return process entirely, if it is seen as complicated or pricey.
A study in the US found 75% of online consumers have kept unwanted items due to complicated or expensive return processes, rather than initiating a return. This means instead of items going back to the online shop (where they can potentially be refurbished and resold), they remain in consumers’ homes or end up in local landfills.
Rather than reducing overall consumption, the return fee merely shifts the waste burden from the retail supply chain to individual households and council waste systems.
However, Asos says it is committed to sustainability. Its corporate strategy states that: “We recognise our responsibility for reducing our impact on the environment and protecting the people in our supply chain.” Meanwhile, Shein says: “We are working hard to drive continued progress toward our sustainability and social commitments.”
The environmental implications of Asos’s new policy, and fast fashion generally, reveal a complex picture. To understand what they are, we need to examine what happens to unwanted clothing in our fashion system, and what incentives genuinely drive more sustainable outcomes.
The returns problem
The textile sector is a significant contributor to global carbon emissions, accounting for 8-10% of worldwide emissions – surpassing the combined carbon footprint of aviation and maritime shipping. Within this broader impact, product returns create additional environmental damage through a cascade of effects: extra transportation, packaging waste, energy-intensive inspection and sorting processes, and ultimately disposal.
The costs of fast fashion to the environment are high.
When an item is returned, it enters a reverse logistics system (sending goods back from the customer to the retailer) that is far less efficient than the original chain from manufacturer to supplier. Returns often require individual courier pickups, adding transportation costs and emissions.
So on the surface, return fees appear to offer a straightforward solution: discourage returns, reduce transportation emissions, ease the burden on waste systems. But this logic fails to account for consumer behaviour when faced with financial penalties.
Garments languishing unworn in closets represent entirely wasted resources: all the water, chemicals, energy and labour invested in their production yield no value. Discarding an item of clothing locally just shifts the burden to council waste systems that are often unprepared to handle textiles.
Return fees, in other words, don’t necessarily solve the waste problem. They simply reduce consumers’ options, sometimes forcing them towards worse alternatives.
This reveals a deeper truth: the environmental problem isn’t returns but rather fast fashion itself. The system generates excess production by design. Retailers prefer inventory buffers to avoid being out of stock. This excess is fundamental to how fast fashion operates.
What would make a big difference
Charging for returns is unlikely to improve environmental outcomes that much. The following measures could be more effective:
Extended producer responsibility: In France, retailers are required to finance their collection and sorting systems, creating incentives to design more durable products and manage end-of-life properly. This shifts responsibility from consumers to producers, where it belongs.
Taxation on hazardous materials: Sweden’s proposed tax on clothing containing harmful chemicals targets the production phase, where most environmental damage occurs.
Investment in recycling infrastructure: Research clearly shows that viable textile-to-textile recycling at scale is the bottleneck. Without it, reuse becomes the only circular option.
Design standards: Polyester blends complicate recycling. Requiring higher recycled content percentages or limiting fibre blends would address some root causes of waste.
Transparency in returns data: Multiple studies show that retailers lack basic data on where returned items end up. Mandatory disclosure of what they do with returned items would expose the destruction problem and increase their accountability.
The path to greater sustainability in fashion probably isn’t through discouraging returns. It’s more closely tied to changing how clothing is designed, manufactured and valued. The real question isn’t whether returns should cost money – it’s why we’re producing products no one wants to keep in the first place.
Anastasia Vayona is affiliated with Bournemouth University and ReUse Foundation in volunteer bases
Craig Guildford, the chief constable of one of Britain’s largest police forces, West Midlands Police, will retire, after coming under pressure over a controversial decision by the police to ban visiting supporters of the Israeli football team Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a match against Aston Villa.
Things escalated after it was revealed that the police used incorrect evidence that was hallucinated by AI in a report that led to their decision. Guildford had previously twice denied that AI was used. In an apology, the force said it had not deliberately distorted evidence.
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, then told MPs that she had “lost confidence” in Guildford, and announced that she would bring in new powers to allow any future home secretary to sack a chief constable. But such a promise, I argue, may be a threat to a key principle of policing in the UK.
When Robert Peel created the current British policing model, he insisted that officers must be non-partisan and free from political control and influence. Holding the office of constable means a police officer (including a chief constable) swears their allegiance to the king rather than any elected politician.
They should execute their duty independently, without fear or favour. Neither politicians nor anyone else may tell the police what decisions to take or what methods to employ, or not employ, to enforce the law. This is why the home secretary can’t just fire a chief constable.
How police are governed
For policing purposes, the UK has three separate criminal justice jurisdictions: Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales. Whatever Mahmood implements will only apply to her jurisdiction, England and Wales. Since the 1970s, this includes 43 separate police forces, each covering a county or larger urban area such as the West Midlands.
The English and Welsh forces are governed by a shared system. Responsibility is divided between the Home Office, which provides half the police budget and sets national pay awards and regulations; the police and crime commissioner, an elected official with a mandate to set certain policing priorities; and the chief constable for an area, who is supposed to be operationally independent to decide how those priorities are met.
The notion of “independence from politics” has been under threat since the introduction of police and crime commissioners (PCCs) in 2011, most of whom are aligned to one of the main political parties. In addition, there have been questions raised about interference in the operational day-to-day running of police forces by at least one recent home secretary. The judge involved in this case said she found police had “maintained their operational independence”, and that the home secretary’s conversations with senior police had not influenced on-the-ground operations.
Before 2011, the second limb of the three-pronged arrangement was a police authority. This consisted of 17 members drawn from local council, the magistracy and some members of the public. They were responsible for selecting (and if necessary, removing) their chief constable. The national police inspectorate would advise the police authority on suitability and qualifications, but there was no role for central government in the decision. Arguably, this removed personal enmity and political influence from the system.
Things changed in 1996, when the Police Act gave a home secretary the power to direct a police authority to force their chief constable to resign on the grounds of gross inefficiency or ineffectiveness. This was an extremely rare event, and generally chief constables were pretty safe in their role until a time of their choosing.
When the Conservative-led coalition government came to power in 2010, the prime minister was enamoured with the policing model in the US, whereby the local mayor had direct control of policing. This inspired Cameron’s government to create the current system of locally elected PCCs. They removed from the home secretary the power to sack a chief constable, and passed it to the PCC.
Last November, the government announced they were scrapping the model of PCCs. While we don’t yet know exactly what will replace them, the mood seems to be to give responsibility for policing to elected mayors or council leaders. Whether they will have sole power to fire the chief constable remains to be seen, but given Mahmood’s current stance it seems unlikely.
Policing by consent
To work effectively, “policing by consent” requires a sufficiently high level of public trust in the police. For several reasons, public confidence in the police is currently at a low ebb.
People want to be sure that their police service is free from political interference. It is, in my view, obviously undesirable for a chief constable to be scared of upsetting the home secretary of the day, and undesirable that any politician might bully a chief constable to suit their political ends. Losing a £100,000 pension is no doubt a sobering prospect.
As is often the case in politics, this fairly new home secretary probably wants to create the impression that she is strong, and will personally tackle inefficiency in policing. On the face of it, what Mahmood is planning to do is not particularly radical or remarkable – she is simply giving herself back the power that her predecessors had before the Tories took it away in 2011.
Although that power was rarely used, we must ask whether it was ever a desirable power for the home secretary to have in the first place.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dekan Apajee, Head of Media Department, School of Arts and Creative Industries, University of East London
News this week from the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) that YouTube has surpassed the BBC in viewing share has been widely framed as a tipping point. Some read it as a final nail in the future of public service broadcasting in a platform-led age.
But having spent ten years as a BBC journalist, another decade as a freelance content producer and academic, as well as the past five years as an Ofcom Content Board member, my instinct at times like this is to pause.
Audience measurement in a fragmented media landscape is complex. Anyone working in the industry knows that figures like those contained in this latest report from Barb – the independent UK body that measures and provides audience data for TV and video – have long been treated with caution. They capture something meaningful, but not the whole picture.
It’s important to be transparent about how Barb arrives at its numbers. Viewing is captured through two main methods: people-based data from the Barb panel; and device-based census data for online TV viewing. Both are well-established approaches, but both are proxies. They rely on standard assumptions about attention and behaviour in a world where people are increasingly watching across multiple platforms at the same time.
One television or “a view” doesn’t necessarily mean one viewer. A clip playing on a second screen doesn’t mean it’s being actively engaged with. And in an environment of constant choice, people don’t always remember what they’ve seen, let alone where they’ve seen it. The sheer volume of content means attention is often fleeting and fragmented. All of this matters when we interpret the recent headlines like this.
Rather than framing this story as YouTube versus the BBC, a more productive approach would be to look at what’s happening in practice. Audiences are still watching the BBC content via YouTube. The real job now is to understand which BBC content is travelling, how it’s being encountered and what that means for public service value when context and branding are no longer guaranteed.
Large volumes of BBC output circulate widely on YouTube: drama clips, comedy moments, documentary sequences, music performances, children’s favourites, archive footage and cultural highlights. Often re-edited or consumed in fragments, this content reaches audiences far beyond the BBC’s own services.
When that happens, YouTube gets the credit for reach and scale. The BBC’s role as commissioner, curator and public service institution can quietly recede into the background. In that sense, this moment may be less about YouTube overtaking the BBC, and more about where BBC content now lives, and how it is experienced, remembered and understood.
This shift hasn’t happened overnight. Ofcom’s 2025 Media Nations report has been pointing in this direction for years. Audiences consistently say they value high-quality UK content and trusted brands, yet they increasingly encounter that content via platforms rather than broadcasters. Discovery is driven by algorithms, not schedules; viewing is on demand, not appointment-based. Context becomes optional.
That fundamentally changes the relationship between content and audience.
The BBC still operates with public service values embedded across its output, standards around accuracy, care, accessibility, representation and responsibility. Those values shape everything from Planet Earth, to Newsround or big TV events like The Traitors.
BBC chatshow host Graham Norton’s best bits are widely viewed on YouTube.
YouTube, by contrast, is an open ecosystem. It hosts exceptional creativity and storytelling alongside commentary, parody, reaction content and material that lacks context or accountability. The platform doesn’t distinguish between public service content and everything else: that’s down to viewers.
Purpose, reach and intent
From my time at Ofcom, one thing has been consistently clear: audiences don’t lack intelligence or curiosity. What they often lack is context (and sometimes memory). When content is encountered in fragments, across platforms, mixed with countless other videos, it becomes harder to recognise what you’ve watched, where it came from, or what values shaped it.
Public service broadcasting has never just been about reach. It has been about intent. BBC content is designed to entertain, educate, reflect the UK back to itself and provide shared cultural reference points. When that content is consumed in isolation, one clip among many, some of that public service value risks being diluted, even when the content itself remains strong.
In that context, it’s hardly surprising that this debate coincides with reports, including from Reuters, that the BBC is moving towards a formal content partnership with YouTube. In many ways, that simply acknowledges a reality audiences have already created.
So when I look at these latest Barb figures, I don’t see a simple story of decline or defeat. I see a signal – imperfect, partial, but still useful – pointing to a deeper transformation in how public service content circulates in a platform-led world.
The more important question isn’t whether YouTube has beaten the BBC, it’s whether we are paying close enough attention to which BBC content is thriving on YouTube, how audiences are encountering it, and whether its public service value remains visible once the familiar containers fall away.
Because in a media environment defined by abundance, distraction and imperfect measurement, public service values don’t disappear. They just need more help to be seen and understood.
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.
Dekan Apajee 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.
What was initially sold as a bold move to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and change the UK’s approach to digital ID has now been abandoned.
The proposed scheme, unveiled in September 2025, called for the creation of a digital ID card stored on mobile phones, for use as proof of a person’s right to work in the UK. It has now emerged that this aspect of the scheme will not be compulsory.
Mandatory digital ID cards were billed primarily as a tactic to stop illegal migration. They would make employing illegal immigrants difficult, as employers would need to log ID checks of new employees. Beyond this role, they would enable quicker and easier access to government services, replacing a range of documents with one universal card.
The proposal’s downfall was, arguably, not the idea of a digital identity document. We already have these, in the form of the NHS app, eVisas, age and ID verification apps and digital banking apps. In effect, passports already have many of the characteristics of a digital ID card, including biometric data.
Rather, it was the government’s approach to one word: mandatory. Unlike drivers’ licences and passports, the scheme as proposed required universal uptake – a compulsory form of ID for all.
In an August 2025 Ipsos survey, 57% of respondents said they supported a national ID card scheme. But many had significant concerns over data security and implementation. Fear over invasion of privacy, digital exclusion and government overreach appear to have overpowered the arguments for the value of the scheme. The prime minister has been blamed for failing to make the case for the scheme, allowing these concerns to dominate discussion .
In a climate of declining trust in MPs, it would be difficult to generate confidence in the government to run a scheme which would allow the state to monitor and regulate people’s access to services and prove their identity. The Home Affairs committee noted it had received 3,500 statements from the public with the vast majority opposing the scheme. A petition opposing the scheme received 2,984,192 signatures.
How to sell an ID card scheme
Beyond addressing privacy concerns, there are a number of points that the government could have promoted to earn public support for digital IDs. They needed to do a better job at spreading the message that ID cards are part of a broader movement towards digitisation that can be trusted, and will make people’s lives easier.
The promise of a digital society has always been a quicker and easier access to services and a more responsive system to the demands of its users. In many ways, the UK has embraced this idea. But the experiences of the people of Jersey, for example, with the JerseyMe digital ID, could have been publicised more as an example of how it works in practice.
In my view, the importance of combating fraud and identity theft in particular needed more attention. The focus on illegal immigration in debates on the ID card meant the value in stopping, annually, £1.8 billion worth of identity theft was not highlighted enough.
It is evident that more attention to the concerns of those who do not have smartphones or who would prefer not to have digital ID. The civil liberties group Liberty noted that the most marginalised in society are likely to be unable to access a digital ID card. If such cards were mandatory for accessing work, this would effectively exclude people from the labour force.
Digital IDs will no longer be mandatory to prove a right to work in the UK. nednapa/Shutterstock
The economic value of the digital identity sector to the UK could also have been showcased more. Latest estimates note the sector has over 260 companies, employing over 10,000 employees and generating over £2.1 billion pounds in revenue. Estimates suggest that this could increase to £4 billion by 2030.
A digital society
With the introduction of the Gov Wallet app the move to accessing government documents through your phone or digital device continues. The plan requires all government agencies to provide digital copies of documentation through the app by 2027.
Digital drivers licences, DBS checks, veteran cards, benefit proofs and child entitlement records could all be accessed digitally through the app on your phone using smartphone facial recognition. So whether or not we have digital ID cards, there is a future where smartphones are used by all to access government provided forms of identification.
State systems of surveillance, like ID cards, are often depicted as secretive and controlling. But they do not have to be. The Estonian ID card scheme is often held up as an example of transparent system for managing identification. It has a built-in system that allows citizens to monitor when their data is accessed.
Even if, in reality, society is comfortable with digital technology, the level of confidence needs to be much higher before a mandatory scheme will be accepted. Introducing a voluntary version first that showed users the value of the system may have saved the proposal.
The other question that remains after this decision is how the government will address the other serious public concern – illegal immigration. Without this policy, its efforts to deal with illegal working in the UK will face further challenges.
Tim Holmes 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester
When news broke of a new Morrissey single and album last week (both titled Make-Up is a Lie), one thing was assured: it was going to get people talking.
Perhaps the most “Marmite” artist of all time, it’s hard to find an artist who divides opinion as much as Morrissey. To some, he is so beloved that going to one of his concerts is a religious experience. To others, he is so detestable there are social media groups with names like “the Morrissey Hate Club”, with detractors dismayed by how his recent political positions on immigration and nationalism are so at odds with the socialist values his early work appeared to advocate.
Morrissey has consistently argued that his views are focused on British identity and freedom of speech, not racism, and has denied that his contemporary nationalist stance conflicts with the anti-establishment and socialist values of his early work with The Smiths. In a 2018 blog post, he wrote: “I despise racism. I despise fascism.”
Morrissey’s relationship with the media has been similarly complex. In 2007, for example, he wrote a piece on the Guardian’s music blog about how the NME had “deliberately tried to characterise” him as a racist. Then, in 2019, he was quoted in the NME for saying the Guardian was running a “hate campaign” against him for running an article that accused him of supporting far-right ideologies.
Love or hate him, people remain fascinated with Morrissey. And this means that most of the music media covered the news of his new album, even if, like Spin magazine, they did so through gritted teeth.
A 2019 Guardian article observed that it “can be difficult – painful, even – to untangle the things you love about Morrissey from those you despise”. But when it comes to the actual new music, does the good outweigh the bad?
What we can take from this limited information is that Morrissey continues to come up with intriguing, unique and often bizarre song titles. Joining the likes of Don’t Make Fun of Daddy’s Voice (2004), Kick the Bride Down the Aisle (2014) and Jim Jim Falls (2020) from his back catalogue are new titles The Monsters of Pig Alley, Zoom Zoom the Little Boy and Many Icebergs Ago. Interesting, yes. But, as songs like Julie in the Weeds (2014) and Never Again Will I Be a Twin (2017) testify, compelling titles don’t necessarily lead to compelling songs.
Addressing what he saw as a media attempt to delete him “from being the central essence of The Smiths”, in 2024 Morrissey asserted that he “invented the group name, the song titles, the album titles, the artwork, the vocal melodies and all of the lyrical sentiments”.
From this list, it’s Morrissey’s authorship of vocal melodies that is most often overlooked, and it’s rare to find any reference to his songwriting contributions that goes beyond the lyrics.
Yet, for all the skill of his talented co-writers over the years, be that Jonny Marr, Alain Whyte, Boz Boorer, Jesse Tobias, or, in the case of Make-Up is a Lie, Camila Grey, those lead lines are Morrissey’s. And, when thousands of fans are singing them, like the performance (below) of There is a Light That Never Goes Out at Move Festival in Manchester, even his staunchest critics cannot deny his talent for writing catchy melodies.
Make-Up is a Lie may never be an anthemic sing-along in the same way as There is a Light, but the chorus, with its melodic leaps and repetition, does at least contain two of the components that scientists believe make up the “earworm effect”, which will make it hard to forget (whether we like it or not).
Morrissey performing There is a Light That Never Goes Out.
Rhyme time
At his best, Morrissey employed a range of different rhyme types to allow himself a wider range of words to draw from, resulting in lyrics which simultaneously felt startlingly fresh and comfortingly familiar.
When he used “perfect” rhymes (rhymes where both the vowel sounds and any consonant sounds after them are the same), he was often innovative, for example rhyming “northern” with “worse and” (1992’s We Hate it When Our Friends Become Successful).
In recent years, though, Morrissey seems keen to write lyrics containing more obvious perfect end rhymes. There’s been “place/face” (Earth is the Loneliest Planet, 2014) ; “babies/rabies/scabies” (Neal Cassady Drops Dead, 2014); “bus/fuss” and “train/strain” (Spent the Day in Bed, 2017); “Room/ gloom” (The Secret Of Music, 2020); and “sleuth/ truth” (The Truth About Ruth, 2020). And, of course, the “kegs/legs” rhyme in 2006’s Dear God, Please Help Me, where the line “there are explosive kegs between my legs” is a prime candidate for his worst ever.
Pleasingly, Morrissey is more expansive and imaginative with his rhyme types in Make-Up is a Lie (“reclusion/explosion” and “Paris/granite”) with only “outburst and cloudburst” seeming like a slight regression.
Whether or not 2026 will prove another difficult year for Morrissey fans won’t just rest on the music he releases, of course. There will be interviews to nervously watch and press to nervously read, and it’s inevitable that the words “cancellation” and “controversy” will never be far away. But a strong album would certainly be a boost for those who fall on the love side of the Marmite divide.
Glenn Fosbraey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
La violence, les exagérations, la diffusion de fake news et les mensonges sont les bienvenus sur les plateformes numériques. Il s’agit de maximiser la visibilité des contenus et, ainsi, les profits des Big Tech. Soutenus par Donald Trump, les milliardaires qui détiennent les plateformes refusent tout contrôle au nom de la liberté d’expression.
Jamais dans l’histoire un si petit groupe d’entreprises n’avait réussi à s’immiscer dans les relations des individus à une telle échelle – celle du monde. Les fameuses « Big Tech » sont devenues des médiateurs actifs des relations sociales grâce aux technologies numériques. Or il n’est pas inutile de rappeler que les médiateurs ne sont pas neutres. Les Big Tech influencent les opinions en modulant l’attention et en produisant des réactions chez leurs millions d’utilisateurs.
Au sein des réseaux sociaux et de leurs variantes, leurs contrôleurs opèrent en capturant les données de chaque mouvement, de chaque clic, en somme, des actions qui permettent à leurs algorithmes d’extraire des modèles de comportement, des informations fondamentales pour alimenter les réseaux neuronaux artificiels qui proposeront des contenus dans le but de prévoir nos désirs et nos besoins afin de prédire nos actions. Cela peut se résumer par l’expression « monétisation totale de la vie sociale ».
Fonctionnant de manière invisible pour leurs utilisateurs, ces plateformes ont concentré les budgets publicitaires de presque toutes les sociétés, à partir de la gestion algorithmique des regards et de l’attention. D’où leur logique fondée sur la spectacularisation de tout.
Pour ces plateformes, une bonne information est celle qui génère de l’engagement, celle qui est spectaculaire, celle qui permet de monétiser les interactions. L’engagement que les Big Tech prétendaient avoir envers la qualité de l’information n’était que rhétorique. Le nombre de clics, les réplications, les attaques mutuelles, les exagérations, les mensonges et la diffusion de fake news sont les bienvenus sur les plateformes des Big Tech.
Alors que la liberté démocratique repose sur la symétrie, c’est-à-dire sur le droit égal de tous et toutes à être libres, la proposition de liberté de l’extrême droite se traduit par des asymétries. Le puissant n’est libre que s’il peut exercer tout son pouvoir. Le milliardaire n’est libre que s’il peut utiliser sans limites tout ce que sa richesse lui permet. Cette conception s’apparente à une légitimation de la violence, loin de l’idée que chacun a le même droit de s’exprimer.
Sur les plateformes, ce n’est pas la liberté d’expression qui prévaut. C’est le pouvoir de l’argent qui règne. La monétisation de toutes les relations dans une architecture informationnelle verticale, limitée et extrêmement surveillée par ses propriétaires. La gestion totalement opaque des réseaux sociaux en ligne est assurée par des systèmes algorithmiques qui appliquent les règles et les lois de leurs propriétaires. Cette exécution est totalement arbitraire, décidée de manière monocratique par la direction de ces entreprises, modifiée sans préavis, sans débat, sans considération pour leurs utilisateurs, en suivant uniquement deux logiques : celle de leur rentabilité et celle de favoriser l’expansion du pouvoir de leur vision du monde.
Qui croit que les systèmes algorithmiques de la plateforme d’Elon Musk seront neutres dans les conflits entre l’extrême droite et les forces démocratiques de certains pays ? Qui pense que les plateformes du groupe Meta ne favoriseront pas les discours des groupes qui partagent des idées de Trump ? Qui croit que ces structures ne sont pas ploutocratiques, que l’argent n’y fait pas la loi ?
Les élites rompent avec la démocratie
L’un des grands leaders d’extrême droite des Big Tech, Peter Thiel, affirmait déjà en 2009 :
« Je ne crois plus que la liberté et la démocratie soient compatibles. »
Face au manque de perspectives catastrophique du système capitaliste, une grande partie des élites défendant les solutions néolibérales ont rompu avec la démocratie et adhéré au réactionnarisme, c’est-à-dire aux solutions de l’extrême droite. Si nous ne comprenons pas cela, nous ne serons pas en mesure de défendre la démocratie. Le philosophe Michel Foucault nous a suggéré que le pouvoir est aussi une stratégie. Fondamentalement, la destruction du débat rationnel fondé sur les faits est devenue la principale stratégie de l’extrême droite. La lutte contre la réalité, contre l’information factuelle, contre la science, est liée à une stratégie visant à propager de la confusion intellectuelle et à autoriser la violence grâce à une fausse idée de la liberté.
Dans ce contexte, il est bon de rappeler la perspective du sociologue Georg Simmel, qui nous enseignait que le conflit est un élément inhérent et nécessaire à la vie sociale. Le conflit et la coopération sont complémentaires dans la vie sociale. Mais Simmel avertissait qu’il existe des situations dans lesquelles l’absence de formes sociales régulatrices, le rejet absolu de l’autre, la fragmentation de la société sans canaux de médiation sont destructrices et extrêmement dangereuses.
Simmel n’a pas connu le monde hyperconnecté d’aujourd’hui, où les gens sont constamment exposés à des vagues de désinformation et de discours haineux modulés par des systèmes algorithmiques afin de maximiser l’extraction d’argent et la destruction des droits. Mais en travaillant à partir de ses analyses, nous constatons qu’il est indispensable de réglementer ces oligopoles géants et de garantir la qualité et l’intégrité de l’information.
Sérgio Amadeu da Silveira ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Dans les années 1950 déjà, les États-Unis intervenaient contre un gouvernement démocratiquement élu au nom d’une menace idéologique, tout en protégeant des intérêts économiques majeurs. Mais si les ressorts se ressemblent, les méthodes et le degré de transparence ont profondément changé.
Dans la foulée de la frappe militaire américaine qui a conduit à l’arrestation du président vénézuélien Nicolás Maduro le 3 janvier 2026, l’administration Trump a surtout affiché son ambition d’obtenir un accès sans entrave au pétrole du Venezuela, reléguant au second plan des objectifs plus classiques de politique étrangère comme la lutte contre le trafic de drogue ou le soutien à la démocratie et à la stabilité régionale.
Lors de sa première conférence de presse après l’opération, le président Donald Trump a ainsi affirmé que les compagnies pétrolières avaint un rôle important à jouer et que les revenus du pétrole contribueraient à financer toute nouvelle intervention au Venezuela.
Peu après, les animateurs de « Fox & Friends » ont interpelé Trump sur ces prévisions :
En tant qu’historien des relations entre les États-Unis et l’Amérique latine, je ne suis pas surpris de voir le pétrole, ou toute autre ressource, jouer un rôle dans la politique américaine à l’égard de la région. Ce qui m’a en revanche frappé, c’est la franchise avec laquelle l’administration Trump reconnaît le rôle déterminant du pétrole dans sa politique envers le Venezuela.
Comme je l’ai détaillé dans mon livre paru en 2026, Caribbean Blood Pacts: Guatemala and the Cold War Struggle for Freedom (NDT : livre non traduit en français), les interventions militaires américaines en Amérique latine ont, pour l’essentiel, été menées de manière clandestine. Et lorsque les États-Unis ont orchestré le coup d’État qui a renversé le président démocratiquement élu du Guatemala en 1954, ils ont dissimulé le rôle qu’avaient joué les considérations économiques dans cette opération.
La United Fruit Company possédait alors plus de 220 000 hectares de terres guatémaltèques, en grande partie grâce aux accords conclus avec les dictatures précédentes. Ces propriétés reposaient sur le travail intensif d’ouvriers agricoles pauvres, souvent chassés de leurs terres traditionnelles. Leur rémunération était rarement stable, et ils subissaient régulièrement des licenciements et des baisses de salaire.
Basée à Boston, cette multinationale a tissé des liens avec des dictateurset des responsables locaux en Amérique centrale, dans de nombreuses îles des Caraïbes et dans certaines régions d’Amérique du Sud afin d’acquérir d’immenses domaines destinés aux chemins de fer et aux plantations de bananes.
L’influence apparemment sans limites de l’entreprise dans les pays où elle opérait a nourri le stéréotype des nations d’Amérique centrale comme des « républiques bananières ».
United Fruit possédait notamment la marque de bananes Chiquita, qu’elle a largement promue, y compris à travers cette publicité produite dans les années 1940.
La révolution démocratique guatémaltèque
Au Guatemala, pays historiquement marqué par des inégalités extrêmes, une vaste coalition s’est formée en 1944 pour renverser la dictature répressive lors d’un soulèvement populaire. Inspirée par les idéaux antifascistes de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, cette coalition ambitionnait de démocratiser le pays et de rendre son économie plus équitable.
Après des décennies de répression, les nouveaux dirigeants ont offert à de nombreux Guatémaltèques leur premier contact avec la démocratie. Sous la présidence de Juan José Arévalo, élu démocratiquement et en fonction de 1945 à 1951, le gouvernement a mis en place de nouvelles protections sociales ainsi qu’un code du travail légalisant la création et l’adhésion à des syndicats, et instaurant la journée de travail de huit heures.
Sous Árbenz, le Guatemala a mis en œuvre en 1952 un vaste programme de réforme agraire, attribuant des parcelles non exploitées aux ouvriers agricoles sans terre. Le gouvernement guatémaltèque affirmait que ces politiques permettraient de bâtir une société plus équitable pour la majorité indigène et pauvre du pays.
United Fruit a dénoncé ces réformes comme le produit d’une conspiration mondiale. L’entreprise affirmait que la majorité des syndicats du pays étaient contrôlés par des communistes mexicains et soviétiques, et présentait la réforme agraire comme une manœuvre visant à détruire le capitalisme.
Pression sur le Congrès pour une intervention
Au Guatemala, United Fruit a cherché à rallier le gouvernement américain à son combat contre les politiques menées par Árbenz. Si ses dirigeants se plaignaient bien du fait que les réformes guatémaltèques nuisaient à ses investissements financiers et alourdissaient ses coûts de main-d’œuvre, ils présentaient aussi toute entrave à leurs activités comme faisant partie d’un vaste complot communiste.
Dès 1945, les dirigeants de la United Fruit Company ont commencé à rencontrer des responsables de l’administration Truman. Malgré le soutien d’ambassadeurs favorables à leur cause, le gouvernement américain ne semblait pas disposé à intervenir directement dans les affaires guatémaltèques. L’entreprise s’est alors tournée vers le Congrès, recrutant les lobbyistes Thomas Corcoran et Robert La Follette Jr., ancien sénateur, pour leurs réseaux politiques.
Dès le départ, Corcoran et La Follette ont fait pression auprès des républicains comme des démocrates, dans les deux chambres du Congrès, contre les politiques guatémaltèques – non pas en les présentant comme une menace pour les intérêts commerciaux de United Fruit, mais comme les éléments d’un complot communiste visant à détruire le capitalisme et les États-Unis.
Les efforts de la compagnie bananière ont porté leurs fruits en février 1949, lorsque plusieurs membres du Congrès ont dénoncé les réformes du droit du travail au Guatemala comme étant d’inspiration communiste. Le sénateur Claude Pepper a qualifié le code du travail de texte « manifestement et intentionnellement discriminatoire à l’égard de cette entreprise américaine » et d’« une mitrailleuse pointée sur la tête » de la United Fruit Company.
Ce travail de lobbying, nourri par la rhétorique anticommuniste, a culminé cinq ans plus tard, lorsque le gouvernement américain a orchestré un coup d’État qui a renversé Árbenz lors d’une opération clandestine.
L’opération a débuté en 1953, lorsque l’administration Eisenhower a autorisé la CIA à lancer une campagne de guerre psychologique destinée à manipuler l’armée guatémaltèque afin de renverser le gouvernement démocratiquement élu. Des agents de la CIA ont alors soudoyé des membres de l’armée guatémaltèque tandis que des émissions de radio anticommunistes étaient diffusées et un discours, porté par les religieux et dénonçant un prétendu projet communiste visant à détruire l’Église catholique du pays, se propageait dans tout le Guatemala.
Parallèlement, les États-Unis ont armé des organisations antigouvernementales à l’intérieur du Guatemala et dans les pays voisins afin de saper davantage encore le moral du gouvernement Árbenz. La United Fruit a également fait appel au pionnier des relations publiques Edward Bernays pour diffuser sa propagande, non pas au Guatemala mais aux États-Unis. Bernays fournissait aux journalistes américains des rapports et des textes présentant le pays d’Amérique centrale comme une marionnette de l’Union soviétique.
Ces documents, dont un film intitulé « Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas », ont circulé grâce à des médias complaisants et à des membres du Congrès complices.
La volonté de la United Fruit de renverser le gouvernement démocratiquement élu du Guatemala a été renforcée par ce film de propagande anticommuniste.
Pendant des décennies, le Guatemala s’est retrouvé aux mains de régimes militaires. De dictateur en dictateur, le pouvoir a réprimé brutalement toute opposition et instauré un climat de peur. Ces conditions ont contribué à des vagues d’émigration, comprenant d’innombrables réfugiés, mais aussi certains membres de gangs transnationaux.
Le retour de bâton
Afin d’étayer l’idée selon laquelle ce qui s’était produit au Guatemala n’avait rien à voir avec les bananes — conformément au discours de propagande de l’entreprise — l’administration Eisenhower a autorisé une procédure antitrust contre United Fruit, procédure qui avait été temporairement suspendue pendant l’opération afin de ne pas attirer davantage l’attention sur la société.
Et, selon de nombreux spécialistes des relations internationales, le Guatemala ne s’est jamais remis de la destruction de son expérience démocratique, brisée sous la pression des intérêts privés.
Les recherches d’Aaron Coy Moulton ont bénéficié de financements du Truman Library Institute, de Phi Alpha Theta, de la Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, du Roosevelt Institute, de l’Eisenhower Foundation, de la Massachusetts Historical Society, de la Bentley Historical Library, de l’American Philosophical Society, du Dirksen Congressional Center, de la Hoover Presidential Foundation et du Frances S. Summersell Center for the Study of the South.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathal O’Hara, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences
The US has unveiled a controversial new food pyramid that’s causing a stir among nutrition experts. It represents the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans – advice on what types and quantities of food and drink make up a healthy diet.
But the Trump administration’s new guidelines differ in many ways from previous versions. Most striking is the moralising language about “real” food and a stark shift of responsibility onto individuals, with all consideration of health equity stripped away.
The change from the previous plate graphic to an inverted pyramid looks revolutionary at first glance. But dig deeper and the actual dietary advice hasn’t changed as much as the presentation suggests.
The new website is eye-catching, with dramatic language about “restoring common sense”. Yet many recommendations mirror the 2020–25 guidelines that came before.
Eating a variety of fruit and vegetables, aiming for five a day, limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of energy – these are all still there. So are being mindful of portion sizes, reducing processed foods, limiting refined sugars and prioritising whole foods.
Where things get contentious is the emphasis on animal fats and protein. Meats, full-fat dairy, butter and beef tallow – all sources of saturated fat – are now recommended as healthy fats.
This contradicts established science. Saturated fats are known to increase heart disease and stroke risk, which is a leading cause of death in the US.
Doesn’t add up
Crucially, the guidelines don’t explain how people can eat these foods while keeping saturated fat below 10% of energy intake. The maths simply doesn’t add up.
Protein recommendations have doubled from 0.8g of protein per kilogram of body weight per day to 1.2–1.6g per kilogram of body weight per day. This follows social trends in protein popularity rather than nutritional need.
Adequate protein is important for muscle mass, blood sugar management and keeping hunger at bay. But this shift seems odd given that Americans are not under-consuming protein in the first place.
Many other contradictions are present too. The guidelines suggest flavouring meat and vegetables with salt while simultaneously restricting sodium – a component of salt.
Fibre and fibre-containing foods like pulses and legumes get barely a mention. There’s heavy emphasis on reducing highly processed foods, but no clear definition of what these include.
The alcohol advice is equally confusing. People are told to reduce intake without any guidance on how much is too much.
Perhaps most problematic is that the inverted pyramid image doesn’t match what’s written in the guidelines. Wholegrains sit at the narrow bottom, suggesting low consumption is recommended, but the text says two to four servings per day.
Meats and saturated fat sit at the top, implying high consumption is advised. As the pyramid is the primary visual tool for communicating these guidelines to the public, this confusion is deeply concerning.
The new US food pyramid. HHS and USDA
It’s not just the content that’s changed – the entire process has been overhauled. The US government rejected the scientific report from independent experts that usually informs the guidelines. Instead, it hired a new group of scientists who chose not to consider any fields other than nutrition science.
International and US trends in dietary guidelines increasingly take a broader view, considering environmental impact, and whether people from all backgrounds can access, afford and prepare recommended foods.
This broader perspective acknowledges a harsh reality. In their current form, dietary guidelines have limited effect on what people actually eat.
A recent review of studies from 18 countries found that only 14% to 45% of people follow some or all of their country’s dietary recommendations.
The World Health Organization and many scientists have called for “food systems-based” dietary guidelines to address this. A food systems approach doesn’t just tell people what to eat. It recommends changes across all aspects of the food system – from production through to processing, distribution, preparation and consumption.
What’s truly concerning is that these guidelines inform US government-funded food and nutrition programmes. That includes school meals, military and veteran meals, and other child and adult nutrition programmes. Through confusing and contradictory advice, the new guidelines have the potential to impede rather than promote the health of millions.
Other countries often take into account international practices when preparing their own dietary guidelines. However, it seems unlikely that they will follow this new direction from the US due to the confusing messaging, the inclusion of some questionable recommendations, and a lack of consideration of the broad range of factors that influence what people eat and drink.
Cathal O’Hara receives funding from Research Ireland and T-Pro Ltd.
Gráinne Kent 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.
In January some people start the year by trying to eat fewer animal products. Veganuary, as the campaign is called, began in 2014 and now attracts 25.8 million people worldwide.
As its name suggests Veganuary is framed as a short-term challenge, by the campaign itself and other supporting organisations, such as The Vegetarian Society, with messaging focused not on what is being lost, but on new and exciting foods to cook at a time of year when people often try something new.
But for many participants changing long-established behaviour is hard. Changing eating habits is particularly difficult. Barriers to dietary change include ingrained habits and routines, social norms and conventions that allow people to justify existing behaviour. Research also suggests that the perception that reducing meat will be difficult can itself discourage people from attempting to do so.
There are, however, ways to make behaviour change easier. Drawing on research from the former government-based Behavioural Insights Team’s model of behaviour change, it’s possible to find ways to make it easier when changing dietary habits. They suggest four clear principles: easy, attractive, social and timely.
Chef Gordon Ramsay talks through some Veganuary specials.
Tips to make it easier
This year, Veganuary’s focus is encouraging a gradual approach that can reduce psychological barriers. Our personal attitudes and values tend to have a stronger influence on behaviour than external motivations such as financial incentives. To support lasting change, meat reduction can be aligned with values people already hold, making it easier to act in line with them. For example, exploring the climate footprint of a bag of mince and comparing with an alternative, enabling the chance to choose a less carbon-heavy alternative. Here are some tips on what can help to make Veganuary work for you.
1. Make it attractive
January often marks a return to routines after the festive period, and this can make the long, dark winter days feel monotonous. Novelty plays an important role here: it can boost creativity and increase happiness. Trying a new dietary pattern introduces new recipes and ingredients, offering an opportunity to experiment in the kitchen. Exploring new ways of eating may also encourage greater variety in meals, such as eating a wider range of vegetables and exploring new protein sources.
2. Make it social
Social eating is an important part of many people’s lives. Sharing a meat-free meal with family or friends can strengthen social bonds through a shared experience and increase feelings of camaraderie. Veganuary does not have to create divisions between meat eaters and vegans. Talking about the challenge as a group can encourage deeper discussion about the role of meat in our diets, while support from others can also help.
3. Make it timely
Breaking large goals into smaller ones can make them more achievable and more sustainable. Taking part in this dietary change over a clearly defined period allows participants to know there is an end in sight. Research on temporary challenges such as Veganuary and Dry January (giving up alcohol) suggests that habits formed during these periods can continue even after the challenge has ended.
Behaviour does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by what is considered normal in society, the physical environment as well as what is available in supermarkets, and broader political and economic systems.
When attempting to change behaviour – whether through a New Year’s resolution or a short-term dietary challenge – it is important to recognise this. Systems are often in place to maintain the status quo. Doing what works for you, without aiming for perfection, can make change feel more achievable. Slipping up does not mean failure: even one meat-free meal contributes to making a difference.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Bethany Clark 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.
