Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manoj Dora, Professor in Sustainable Production and Consumption, Anglia Ruskin University

This year’s drought has once again put farmers in the spotlight, with yields in some crops falling by as much as 50%. But behind the headlines of empty reservoirs and wilting fields lies a bigger problem: the way the UK’s food system is organised, managed and governed.

For generations, UK food policy has prioritised stable, low prices above all else. This dates right back to Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the birth of free trade in grain. While the policy was meant to keep bread affordable, its influence has endured. The idea that food must remain cheap and price-stable, often at the expense of resilience in the face of climate shocks, is embedded.

These days, it means supermarket shelves stay full and prices rise more slowly than in many other European countries. But the model comes at a hidden cost: it strips resilience out of the supply chain. When extreme weather hits, the whole system wobbles – and consumers end up paying anyway.

The UK produces about 62% of the food it consumes, but only 53% of the fresh vegetables. The rest comes from imports – often from climate-vulnerable regions such as Spain, Italy and North Africa.

That dependence once diversified risk. Now, when multiple regions are hit by droughts or floods, there are far fewer alternatives.

In the UK, supermarkets run “just-in-time” logistics systems meaning produce is delivered to distribution centres and stores exactly when it is needed, with little or no stock held in reserve.

This model is designed to cut costs and reduce waste, and for highly perishable items like fresh fruit and vegetables it can seem essential. But it also makes the system brittle – when harvests fail or imports are delayed, shelves empty quickly.

Strategic storage – whether in the form of grain reserves, frozen produce or regional “cold-chain” hubs – could provide resilience without undermining freshness for short-life products.

At the moment though, farmers deliver crops straight from the field to distribution centres, leaving no buffer in case of a bad harvest. And contracts are often one-sided. If a crop doesn’t meet strict cosmetic standards, or if a retailer changes its order, farmers carry the loss.

All of this means that as soon as weather reduces supply, shortages ripple through the chain and the consumer sees higher prices. In June 2025, food inflation climbed to 4.5% year-on-year – the fastest rise since early 2024.

But the UK still throws away 9.5 million tonnes of food every year, worth around £19 billion. About 60% of that is wasted by households, but supermarkets are far from blameless.

Retailers discard more than 200,000 tonnes of fresh produce annually, often because it doesn’t meet strict appearance standards. Farmers report ploughing perfectly edible crops back into the soil when contracts are cancelled due to faulty demand forecasts.

This isn’t just bad for the environment, it undermines food security. In a year when farmers are struggling to produce crops, the idea that a third of food is lost or wasted worldwide highlights how poorly managed the system really is.

Should consumer expectations change?

The uncomfortable truth is that resilience may mean less predictability. The current model shields consumers from seasonal variations by spreading risk along the chain – usually on to farmers or overseas producers. But this comes at the expense of long-term stability.

If instead consumers accepted that prices might fluctuate more in the short term – reflecting the true cost of climate shocks – supply chains could be redesigned for resilience. Farmers could be paid fairly to invest in adaptation, and retailers could prioritise secure contracts over the cheapest imports.

In the long run, that would protect households from the more damaging spikes caused when the system fails. But lower-income households already spend a far greater share of their income on food, so short-term price increases must be accompanied by targeted government support to tackle food insecurity.

So, what would a more secure food system look like? Based on my research, three changes stand out.

1. Stronger local networks: Investing in regional hubs for processing and storage would mean that food from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England could be better connected and there would be less reliance on imports. Government should fund infrastructure and planning support, retailers should commit to long-term contracts that make local hubs viable and producers can collaborate to share facilities.

2. Fairer contracts: There’s a need for greater risk-sharing between farmers, processors and supermarkets so that a bad harvest doesn’t bankrupt producers. At present, retailers hold most of the power, often setting strict standards and cancelling orders at short notice. But if farmers keep shouldering all the risk, many could exit the sector – leaving retailers with less choice and more volatility.

3. Policy that values resilience: The government should support producers to adapt for the long term with things like drought-resistant crops and water stewardship. This is a better strategy than one-off subsidies after each crisis – as happens at the moment.

Food security is national security. Yet in the UK, it is still treated as a matter of weekly prices. Every drought, flood or heatwave exposes the same fragility – a system designed to deliver cheap food today, but incapable of absorbing tomorrow’s shocks.

If consumers want affordable food in the long run, it’s time to stop asking how to keep prices low and start asking how to keep food supplies secure. That means fairer treatment of farmers, smarter use of resources and consumers willing to accept some short-term price volatility. Otherwise, the next bad year will not be the exception, it will be the rule.

Manoj Dora does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The UK’s food system is built on keeping prices low – but this year’s droughts show up its failings – https://theconversation.com/the-uks-food-system-is-built-on-keeping-prices-low-but-this-years-droughts-show-up-its-failings-263939

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aisling Pigott, Lecturer, Dietetics, Cardiff Metropolitan University

If you’ve ever tried to lose weight, you’ve probably been told that cooking your own meals is the way to go. This has been backed up by a recent study, which found that people who ate home-cooked, minimally processed foods lost twice the weight to those who ate mainly ultra-processed, ready-made foods.

The recent study, which was published in Nature Medicine, involved 50 adults who were randomly assigned to eat either a diet high in ultra-processed foods or one with mostly minimally-processed foods. Both diets were designed to meet the UK’s national dietary guidelines.

Both groups lost weight, which makes sense as they consumed fewer calories than they usually did. However, the group that consumed mostly minimally processed foods ultimately consumed fewer calories overall – thereby losing more weight. They also saw slightly greater improvements to other measures of their health, such as having lower fat mass, reduced triglyceride levels (linked to heart health) and fewer cravings for unhealthy foods at the end of the study.

The ultra-processed foods group still lost weight and saw some improvements in blood lipids (fat) and blood glucose (sugar), but these changes were generally smaller than those seen in the minimally processed foods group.

As a dietitian, this is both an interesting and important piece of research – even though the results are not entirely surprising. In fact, a surprising result is that the consumption of ultra-processed food still resulted in weight loss.

The minimally processed diet group consumed fewer calories overall, which would explain why this group lost more weight. But the fact that this group saw greater improvements in other areas of their health highlights how health encompasses far more than calories or a number on the scales.

Why processing matters

Despite the bad press, food processing plays an essential role in food safety and preservation.

But how much processing a food has undergone seems to be the factor associated with worse health outcomes. These foods tend to have less fibre, more added fats, sugars and salt. This is because they’re designed to be tasty and long-lasting.

The most common definition of an ultra-processed foods are foods which are industrially produced and which contain extracts of original foods alongside additives and industrial ingredients. Think crisps or frozen ready meals.

The food system in much of the world has become increasingly reliant on ultra-processed foods, with these foods contributing to about half of food intake in the UK, Europe and the US. But there’s clear evidence that high intake of ultra-processed foods is linked with poorer health outcomes, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

The more calorie-rich, less nutritious foods we consume, the more our health will suffer – as this recent study has confirmed. But how can you work out which foods are classified as “ultra-processed” and which are only “minimally processed”? In short, this depends on how much processing a food product has undergone to be ready for consumption.

Ultra-processed foods are industrially formulated products made mostly from ingredients extracted from foods (such as oils, starches and proteins) and additives.

Examples include: sugary breakfast cereals, flavoured yoghurts with sweeteners and thickeners, soft drinks, instant noodles, packaged biscuits and cakes, mass-produced bread with emulsifiers and reconstituted meat products – such as chicken nuggets.

Minimally processed foods are whole foods that are altered only to make them safer or easier to prepare. Importantly, this processing doesn’t change their nutritional value.

Examples include: fresh, frozen or bagged vegetables and fruit, plain yoghurt or milk, whole grains (such as oats or brown rice), eggs, fresh or frozen fish, and tinned beans or tomatoes without added sugar or salt.

Including minimally processed foods

It can sometimes feel overwhelming to work out whether a food is ultra-processed or minimally processed.

Some advice that is often suggested for working out whether a food is ultra-processed include checking to see if a product contains more than five to ten ingredients and considering if it contains ingredients you wouldn’t use at home.

In addition to the number of ingredients, it’s also the type of ingredients that matter. Ultra-processed foods often contain added sugars, refined starches, emulsifiers, stabilisers and flavourings that serve cosmetic purposes (such as improving colour, texture or taste), rather than preserving the food’s freshness or safety.

Minimally processed foods will not contain these types of ingredients, nor will they have as many ingredients on their label.

It’s also important to be aware of smoked meats. While this is a common preservation method, most commercially available smoked meats – such as bacon, ham or sausages – are considered ultra-processed because of the curing agents and other additives they contain. While plain smoked fish (such as smoked salmon) is still classed as a processed food, it uses fewer curing agents and additives than other smoked meat products.

A diet rich in minimally processed foods usually means more fibre, more nutrients and fewer calories – all of which can support weight and long-term health, as this recent study showed. So if you’re keen to include more minimally processed foods in your diet, here are a few tips to help you get more onto your plate:

• build meals around vegetables, whole grains and pulses
• use tinned or frozen products for convenience and to save time while cooking
• choose plain dairy products without sugar or fruit purees, then add your own fruits, nuts and seeds for flavour
• healthy meals don’t have to be complicated. Aim to include a protein source, a wholegrain carbohydrate and plenty of veggies or fruits at each meal
• batch cook meals when you have time and freeze them if possible.

As a dietitian, it’s important to point out that there’s a distinction between the potential harms of excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods and the essential role processing can play in ensuring food safety, preservation and accessibility.

It’s also important not to panic about enjoying the occasional biscuit or ready meal, and we should avoid demonising convenience foods – especially for those who face barriers such as limited mobility or lack of cooking facilities. Because remember, the group that ate a diet high in ultra-processed foods but met dietary guidelines still lost weight and saw health benefits in the study.

Eating well doesn’t mean that you need to completely eliminate ultra-processed foods. But shifting the balance towards eating more minimally processed foods, with more home-cooked meals where possible, is a step in the right direction.

Aisling Pigott receives funding from Research Capacity Building Collaborative (RCBC) / Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW)

– ref. Ultra-processed foods vs minimally processed foods: how can you tell the difference? – https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-vs-minimally-processed-foods-how-can-you-tell-the-difference-262669

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Harsh Trivedi, Teaching Associate French, School of Languages, Arts and Societies., University of Sheffield

The 19th-century novelist Honoré de Balzac was Catholic, French to the core and obsessed with the material details of French society. Yet there is something profoundly Hindu in the way he sought to understand the world.

Balzac was born in the final year of the 18th century. As he began his career, European literature was turning away from the abstraction of the previous century’s Enlightenment and towards realism. Realist writers, including the French novelist Stendhal, insisted that to understand the human condition, they first had to know local customs, political and economic pressures – and the inner lives of individuals.

Balzac was the supreme example of this shift. His vast work La Comédie Humaine (1829-48) was made up of nearly 100 interconnected novels and stories. It sought to map French society, not by generalising from above, but by diving into the specific lives of his characters.

In the preface to the work, Balzac declared: “French society would be the real author; I should only be the secretary.” He described society as a zoological landscape populated by distinct species and insisted that truth emerged from a complete inventory of these types: “the dress, the manners, the speech, the dwelling of a prince, a banker, an artist, a citizen, a priest, and a pauper are absolutely unlike, and change with every phase of civilisation.”

---

This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.

---

In his novel Le Père Goriot (1835), Balzac devoted the entire opening chapter to the description of a grim boarding house. The copious descriptions of the layout, decoration and even smells serve as a physical embodiment of the moral, social, economic and physiological condition of the dwellers.

In the serial novel Illusions Perdues (1837–1843), meanwhile, he dissected the Parisian press, provincial printing shops and the cruel economy of literary fame. Even the cut of a waistcoat, the price of paper, or the decor of a salon became data for understanding society.

Though his work is known for character typology (grouping them by traits), no two characters of the same “type” are alike. This showed his commitment to individuality within universal archetypes.

Other novelists including Gustave Flaubert, Émile Zola, Charles Dickens and Leo Tolstoy, all treated the individual as the key to the social whole. But Balzac articulated the method most systematically: he aimed to know everything about a society by knowing each part in all its messy detail.

Balzac’s mandala

This method resembles a central idea in Hindu philosophy. The formula tat tvam asi (that thou art), from the Sanskrit Hindu text Chandogya Upanishad (8th to 6th century BC), says that the individual self (ātman) is identical to the universal essence (brāhman). It’s the idea that understanding the universe comes from realising that the universe is within the self.

The Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita offers a similar vision, where the deity Krishna declares: “I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings.”

Balzac was no expert on Hinduism. But he does have a character (Louis Lambert) write about it in La Comédie Humaine:

Sivaism, Vishnuism, and Brahmanism, the three primitive creeds, originating as they did in Tibet, in the valley of the Indus, and on the vast plains of the Ganges, ended their warfare some thousand years before the birth of Christ by adopting the Hindoo Trimourti. The Trimourti is our Trinity.

The passage wrongly asserts that Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Brahmanism emerged as separate “creeds”, when in fact they are interrelated and complementary currents within Hindu thought. The claim that they resolved their differences by adopting the Trimurti, and that this was the origin of the Christian Trinity, reflects a common orientalist tendency. It misunderstands Hindu ideas and co-opts them into a Christian framework.

But this misreading makes the structural parallel all the more interesting. Balzac didn’t import Hindu ideas; the resemblance emerges from his method. La Comédie Humaine is structured like a mandala: a layered map of a universe made from precise local detail.

In Hindu traditions, a mandala is not merely a symbol but a sacred diagram of the cosmos. Later Hindu and Buddhist cosmology develops it into a meditative tool – an intricate geometric pattern centred on the self and the divine. A mandala places a sacred centre at the heart of an ordered arrangement, expressing the idea that the universal is embedded in the particular. Each part reflects the whole, and the path to the centre is through a journey inward, detail by detail.

Balzac’s work functions similarly. La Comédie Humaine’s order arises not from a single philosophical system, but from mapping the interlocking elements of social existence. Like a mandala, it invites readers to move inward; from the material facts of a boarding house or a printing press to the inner motives of his characters.

Balzac explains his method of structuring La Comédie Humaine in the preface:

It was no small task to depict the two or three thousand conspicuous types of a period… This multitude of lives needed a setting – a gallery. Hence the very natural division … into the Scenes of Private, Provincial, Parisian, Political, Military, and Country Life. … Each has its own sense and meaning, and answers to an epoch in the life of man.

In this sense, Balzac’s realism is not merely descriptive but architectural: a literary mandala of modern society. The affinity with the Hindu mandala suggests that La Comédie Humaine, which has more than 2,000 characters, enacts a recognisably Hindu way of knowing: to know the world, one must first know its inward forms.

Balzac’s Catholic worldview, his (often) moralising narrator, his encyclopaedic ambition, all root him in 19th-century France. But the kinship with Hindu inwardness points to something deeper. His great realist novel, for all its materialism, remains part of a broader human project – to understand the universe by beginning with the self.

Beyond the canon

As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Harsh Trivedi’s suggestion:

For readers seeking complex but entertaining social narratives outside the western canon, Sacred Games by Vikram Chandra (2006) offers an Indian counterpart to Balzac’s realism.

Set in contemporary Mumbai, the novel intricately weaves crime, politics and mythology. The ripples of the many characters’ actions interlock like a mandala, forming a complex, layered fiction. The protagonist, Sartaj Singh, first appeared in Chandra’s earlier short story collection Love and Longing in Bombay (1997), showcasing his use of recurring characters and interconnected narratives reminiscent of Balzac’s La Comédie Humaine.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

---

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.

---

Harsh Trivedi 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. Honoré de Balzac’s La Comédie Humaine is a Hindu mandala – https://theconversation.com/honore-de-balzacs-la-comedie-humaine-is-a-hindu-mandala-262151

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter William Walsh, Researcher, The Migration Observatory, University of Oxford

Speaking to the press in an airport hangar near Oxford on August 26, the leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, unveiled his party’s new policy on mass deportations.

There are many elements to the policy, but at its heart is a decision to abandon the UK’s decades-long commitment not to send people to places where they may face torture or death.

At the heart of the global asylum system is one basic principle: countries must not send people to places where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This rule – known as the principle of “non-refoulement” – derives from the 1951 Refugee Convention but also appears in other human rights laws and agreements. It is why European countries, including the UK, assess asylum claims even when people have arrived without authorisation.

“Look, I can’t be responsible for despotic regimes all over the world,” said Farage, defending the policy in The Times, adding that his responsibility is to the “safety of women and girls on our streets” rather than to those who have entered the UK without permission.

The UK was instrumental in drafting both the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention. For the UK to effectively remove itself from these treaties raises significant questions about whether other states would follow suit, and what sort of protections would exist for persecuted people around the world in the future.

What is Reform proposing?

The plan is indeed, as Farage described, radical. Its main aim is to “detain and deport all illegal migrants” over one parliament. To make this possible, the plan, branded Operation Restoring Justice, entails leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), repealing the UK’s Human Rights Act, and “disapplying” for five years the Refugee Convention and other international agreements that could prevent deportations.

Further, it would greatly expand detention on repurposed military sites, and scale up charter flights for the removal of “up to 600,000” people without the right to be in the UK.

The policy reflects a major departure from the 75-year postwar consensus in Europe that countries should not send people to countries where they could face persecution.

Legal and practical hurdles

Reform’s policy, if implemented, is likely to attract legal challenges. However, as the parliamentary battle over the last government’s Rwanda deportation plan demonstrated, the government has considerable power to prevent the courts from having their say. Leaving the ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and removing all references to non-refoulement in domestic law would make the policy possible, from a legal perspective.

This would not happen overnight. It could take more than a year for Reform’s illegal migration (mass deportation) bill to become law, given that Reform will command no majority in the House of Lords, where the policy is liable to attract strong resistance. Leaving the ECHR requires just six months’ notice – but would probably also require the consent of parliament.

The bigger practical hurdles are logistical and diplomatic. Reform proposes to increase detention spaces to 24,000 within 18 months. As of mid-2024, the most recent available data, detention capacity stood at an estimated 2,200.

The UK’s current system for removals operates at a fraction of the scale Reform envisages. In the year ending June 30 2025, there were around 9,000 enforced returns and 27,000 voluntary ones. Removing hundreds of thousands of people over five years would require a huge expansion of interior immigration enforcement. It also remains unclear how Reform would identify hundreds of thousands of people living in the UK without permission.

Consent from receiving countries (the countries to where people would be deported) is a longstanding barrier to deportations. If a country does not recognise their citizens or refuses to take them back, they cannot be returned.

The government’s recent experience shows documentation and country cooperation are the main practical limits on enforced returns. Questions remain over whether, or on what terms, Afghanistan and Iran would agree to take back their citizens.

Reform has anticipated this potential issue by proposing to pay countries to take back their citizens, or impose sanctions on those that don’t.

Should this not work, Reform’s Plan B would be to deport people to “safe third countries”, a la Rwanda. Plan C: sending people to British Overseas Territories like Ascension Island, something the previous Conservative government was reported to have looked at internally and rejected on feasibility and cost grounds.

Reform estimates that the policy would save over £7 billion in five years. In truth, the policy is so radical that it is impossible to cost with any degree of precision.

What is clearer is that any net saving would depend critically on how many people the policy deters from crossing in small boats. Currently, small boat arrivals and a large asylum backlog generate annual government spending of over £4 billion.

Managing the asylum system has become increasingly challenging over the last decade, as numbers of both unauthorised arrivals and asylum claims have risen rapidly, and the cost of the asylum system has skyrocketed.

However, the most significant part of Reform’s announcement is not the detail, but the essence. It proposes ending the principle of refugee protection – accepting that people would be sent to countries where they could be tortured or killed, as a means of reducing unauthorised migration and cutting the costs of the asylum system.

Peter William Walsh receives funding from the Nuffield Foundation.

Rob McNeil receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), is the chair of trustees for the Work Rights Centre, and alongside his role at the University of Oxford, undertakes consultancy work for UN bodies and other international organisations.

– ref. The most radical part of Reform’s deportation plans – https://theconversation.com/the-most-radical-part-of-reforms-deportation-plans-264162

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mary-Ann Ball, Senior Lecturer, Fashion Sustainability and Marketing, Nottingham Trent University

As a fashion sustainability researcher, finding the ReTuna shopping mall in Eskilstuna was a delightful surprise. Stepping into this Swedish shopping centre felt refreshingly different – it is the first in the world to sell only secondhand and repurposed items.

During numerous visits to the shopping mall over the last 18 months, I have spoken to customers, managers and employees – all of whom seemed excited by ReTuna’s innovative business model.

The mall instantly feels very different to the cluttered charity shops or vintage boutiques most of us associate with pre-owned retail. There is a wide range of products on sale – fashion, sports equipment, household items, children’s toys, antiques – and even an Ikea secondhand store selling previously used and repaired furniture.

This is not just a retail space. It is a municipality-led experiment in circular consumption, where everything sold has been donated by the public.

ReTuna was established in 2015 as part of Eskilstuna’s climate and waste reduction strategy. Built alongside the city’s recycling centre, it includes a dedicated drop-off point called The Return, where residents donate unwanted items. These are sorted and redistributed to the retailers in the mall, creating a low-cost, low-waste circular system.

The model is only possible because of public funding and local government support – a reminder that circular innovation often requires structural investment, not just consumer goodwill.

However, what makes ReTuna so distinctive is not just its inventory but its atmosphere. Consumers describe it as “accessible”, “curated” and “convenient”. The mall’s layout and product displays mirror conventional retail spaces, making secondhand shopping feel stylish and enjoyable.

One shop manager told me customers often mistake the secondhand items for new, a testament to how fashionability and design are used to make reuse attractive without increasing cost. At ReTuna, the clean, calm environment helps make ethical consumption feel desirable and emotionally rewarding. As one shopper put it: “It’s not just ethical, it’s beautiful.”

Retailers use low-cost stock and infrastructure to create visually appealing stores. The result is a pleasurable shopping experience that challenges the stigma of secondhand. While affordability and environmental values remain central, ReTuna also reimagines what sustainable retail can look and feel like.

Demand for pre-loved

Consumer interest in “pre-loved” fashion is accelerating, with the secondhand market growing 2.7 times faster than the broader apparel market, according to one recent industry report. Globally, it is projected to reach US$367 billion (£272 billion) by 2029.

And it is not only pre-owned fashion that is growing. Another market research report forecasts the wider secondhand products market will reach US$1.04 trillion by 2035, growing at a compound annual rate of 17.2%.

In a YouGov survey spanning 17 markets, 43% of secondhand buyers favoured instore purchases, compared with 39% who preferred online (19% were undecided). ReTuna is part of this shift – not as an outlier, but a glimpse of what mainstream retail could become.

This pioneering Swedish mall turned ten this year. It has grown from a local government initiative to an internationally recognised model of circular retail. The mall’s success shows that secondhand shopping does not have to feel like a compromise – it can be stylish, convenient and socially meaningful.

Circular retail is not just about what we buy, but how and where we buy it. ReTuna demonstrates that with the right infrastructure, design and public support, sustainable consumption can be embedded into everyday life – not as a chore but a rewarding experience.

---

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.

---

Mary-Ann Ball 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. How Sweden’s ‘secondhand only’ shopping mall is changing retail – https://theconversation.com/how-swedens-secondhand-only-shopping-mall-is-changing-retail-260459

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ailsa Henderson, Head of Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh

One apparent constant in contemporary UK politics is Nigel Farage’s ability to mobilise a sense of grievance among those who regard themselves as English. By doing so, Farage has, on successive occasions, managed to shift the terms of political debate so that the issues he cares about become the key issues of the day. His ability to drag the other parties onto his terrain is a classic success story of what political scientists call issue salience. He identifies a problem, proclaims loudly that it will be our collective undoing and proposes a tantalisingly straightforward solution.

The Brexit narrative was, of course, that the loss of British wealth and influence, as well the crisis of post-austerity public services, could best be explained by the undue influence of and resources willed away to “Europe”.

In England, this frustration correlated not with British but with English national identity. It also correlated with discontent at the internal union of the UK and a sense that Britain’s political class were distributing resources and influence to other foreigners – in this case Scots.

A decade on from the referendum, English-identifying electors are now being successfully mobilised on the basis of a new bogeyman. Social and economic problems in the UK are still being attributed to the way influence and resources are being ceded to foreigners, but this time it’s not bureaucrats in Brussels who are to blame for these ills, or Scots – it’s the people arriving on small boats.

However, even if Farage’s ability to mobilise grievance to political advantage remains unmatched, our 15 years of research into English national identity underlines that the proffered solutions to those grievances – the seemingly simple, quick fixes – simply don’t work. Exiting the EU has not stemmed English grievance. Rather, erstwhile Leavers are not happy at the outcome even while preferring not to have to talk about it. There is precious little reason to believe that five deportation flights a day to Kabul airport will make them any less nostalgic for the past, less aggrieved about the present or more hopeful for the future.

The proposed solutions to English grievances haven’t worked because those solutions were, from their inception, poorly thought-through and unworkable. A hard, “clean break” Brexit was never compatible with the existence of a land border on the island of Ireland. It was never going to be possible to construct a dedicated democratic political space for England through minor tweaks to the legislative procedures of the House of Commons, as was attempted in the introduction of English votes for English laws. Similarly, we’re not going save the NHS or universities by making the UK inhospitable to the skilled migrants it needs.

Moreover, the impact of adopting Farage’s framing of problems and associated bogeymen and simply promising to deal with them more effectively has proved disastrous, first, for the Conservative party, and now Labour. Anyone doubting the impact of issue ownership on electoral success need look no further than Scotland, where years of high constitutional salience rewarded the respective “owners” of the “indy” and pro-union positions at the expense of electoral support for the political centre ground. The dip in SNP and Conservative support in Scotland in the 2024 UK general election can be attributed in part to the weakened salience of constitutional politics. The issues we talk about matter.

None of the solutions offered to assuage English grievances have ever sought to address the real problems. Take, for example, the now longstanding evidence that the English feel aggrieved at the treatment of England following the devolution of power to Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Despite this, there has yet to be a serious discussion of post-devolution arrangements in a way that affords English voters the same opportunity to shape a government that seeks to be theirs as enjoyed by voters in the rest of the UK.

No doubt that reluctance to do so in part reflects the dual role of a UK government. It serves as both the government for the whole of the state and for England alone on issues that are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The distorting impact of this distinctly odd arrangement is compounded by the steadfast refusal of the UK government to explicitly state when it is acting as the UK’s government or when it is responding to English concerns over English policy to make English lives better. Indeed, in the past two decades, no single English MP has referred in the Commons to the “government of England” as something that actually exists.

Invisible England

One of the stranger consequences of the UK’s asymmetrical governance arrangements is that England is rendered invisible, even though it is by far the largest part of the state. If UK governments of various hues are unwilling ever to name England and, indeed, behave as if the very existence of its English electorate is something to be ashamed of, it’s perhaps little wonder that English identifiers don’t feel they matter or have a voice. There is, in short, an English efficacy problem.

Rather than engage seriously with the reality of English sentiment and, yes, resentment, both Conservative and Labour governments have engaged in the serial ad hocery of constitutional change. They’ve played a never-ending game of constitutional Tetris in which plans for so-called English devolution are constantly made and remade. This process has, in turn, become a substitute for serious thinking about political voice and democratic influence within the state.

Successive UK governments have preferred to give England the structures that are least disruptive to the central institutions of the state. Thus, England is carved into a series of Scotland-sized pieces under regional devolution. What is never spoken of is the fact that this is precisely the least popular solution among England’s electorate. They instead doggedly favour an outcome that dare not speak its name – a political space for England as England.

Perhaps, then, the English are aggrieved and angry, not because foreigners have undermined their influence and stolen their resources but, in part at least, because they and their views are a perpetual afterthought in the UK’s governance arrangements. And maybe that’s another constant in UK politics – UK governments find it easier to address Farage’s successive foreigner problems than to look at their own role in stoking English grievance.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Ailsa Henderson currently receives funding for the Scottish Election Study from the ESRC and funding for work on research cultures from Wellcome (InFrame). She is Chair of Boundaries Scotland, the independent non-partisan non-departmental public body that sets electoral boundaries in Scotland for local and Holyrood elections.

Richard Wyn Jones receives funding from the ESRC for the Welsh Elections Study.

– ref. Nigel Farage and the political power of English grievance – https://theconversation.com/nigel-farage-and-the-political-power-of-english-grievance-264065

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Clodagh Harrington, Lecturer in American Politics, University College Cork

“If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits. No nothing.” This is what US president Donald Trump announced in the Oval Office in the last week in August. Ever the master media manipulator, America’s communicator-in-chief issued this as an executive order.

An executive order is issued by the president and doesn’t need to be passed by Congress. They are, however, expected to relate to existing law. Trump so far has signed 196. His latest directive, which aims to restore “respect, pride and sanctity” to the US flag, instructs the Department of Justice to investigate instances of burning the nation’s insignia under particular circumstances.

While the practice of flag burning as protest has a long history in the US, dating back to the US civil war, it is not a regular occurrence, and has been constitutionally permitted for decades.

The issue is already creating divisions among Republicans. There are three broad categories of GOP reaction. First, the Maga faithful are unlikely to complain. Unconditional support for their leader is a key trait of this group. And the executive order includes language with guaranteed appeal to those for whom terms such as “American patriots” and “foreign nationals” are predictable triggers. The president has long excelled at rallying his supporters on flag-related matters.

Beyond red-meat-for-the-base appeal, both the executive order and GOP support for it get a little more complex. Traditional conservatives, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, are a group that may have strongly negative feelings about flag burning, but their adherence to the first amendment and associated freedom of expression would generally override this.

Those who hold constitutional principles in high regard are increasingly concerned about a president demonstrating his desire for expansive power. And, the US Supreme Court has clearly ruled on more than one occasion that the act, however distasteful, is constitutionally permitted.

Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice and noted constitutional textualist, famously stated that “if it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag”. But, he added: “I am not king.” Alongside the more centrist Anthony Kennedy, these justices upheld the right to burn the US flag in the 1989 landmark case of Texas v Johnson, despite Scalia’s personal distaste for the act. In his writings, Scalia differentiated between the form of expression that was flag burning, and an act of insurrection, which, he noted, was “something quite different”. The first amendment, as he understood it, allowed for symbolic political protests, regardless of how offensive such expressions might be to patriotic sensibilities.

Already, analysts have highlighted how the president’s efforts to sidestep the constitution are laden with problems. Executive orders cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. Even Donald Trump should know that.

Getting around current law

What the executive order does attempt to do is to get around the law that allows flag burning. To do so, it focuses on associated crime such as property destruction, open burning violations and disorderly conduct. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, was instructed to pursue cases against those who “incite violence or otherwise violate our laws while desecrating this symbol of our country”. So, when someone is (legally) burning a flag, they may be acting illegally at the same time by, for example, committing a hate crime. And this could trigger prosecution.

Furthermore, the executive order nods to a key flashpoint of the current climate by leveraging immigration law, and potentially facilitating the deportation of non-citizens who engage in flag-burning. Beyond the smoke-filled headlines, what this ruling does is circumvent the core ruling of Texas v Johnson by focusing on the circumstances surrounding any flag burning, rather than the act itself. A further aspect will involve the extent to which the courts could expand existing first amendment exceptions. This can only make for nervous constitutional conservatives.

The third group who mostly reside on the Trumpian side of the partisan fence are libertarians such as Republican senator Rand Paul. In a similar vein to their conservative counterparts, their worldview would sit uncomfortably with the president’s foray into testing constitutional principles, and not standing up for more wide-ranging free speech.

Flags and freedom

Libertarians tend to feel strongly about freedom of expression. And when their president picks a fight with the first amendment for no apparent reason beyond a mention he made of it on the campaign trail, he may end up aggravating more supporters than he pleases.

Writing on Reason.com, libertarian journalist Robby Soave argued that Trump is the “last person who should confuse protected speech with incitement to violence”. He added: “Any administration that purports to care about freedom of speech should easily reach the conclusion that criminalizing provocative yet nonviolent acts of political expression is a violation of this principle.”

For a president who deliberately and controversially appointed “Scalia-like” judges during his first term, his latest executive order seems at odds with this vision. Such inconsistency, for what may involve more Justice Department smoke than actual fire, may not serve the president well if many conservatives remain uncomfortable with the move.

To misquote a famous phrase attributed to Voltaire, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that whatever a majority of the justices think of those who actually want to burn the US flag, they will all but defend to the death your right to burn it.

The waters are further muddied now that a self-described combat veteran has set fire to the flag in response to the executive order. It is unlikely he is a “sandal-wearing weirdo”. Hence, the president’s patriotic script may end up somewhat singed around the edges.

Clodagh Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Donald Trump’s plans to prosecute flag burning divides his supporters – https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trumps-plans-to-prosecute-flag-burning-divides-his-supporters-264059

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dervla Kelly, Associate Professor, Pharmacology, University of Limerick

Vitamin D supplements could help protect the caps on our chromosomes that slow ageing, sparking hopes the sunshine vitamin might keep us healthier for longer, a recent study suggests.

The researchers discovered that taking 2,000 IU (international units, a standard measure for vitamins) of vitamin D daily helped maintain telomeres – the tiny structures that act like plastic caps on shoelaces, protecting our DNA from damage every time cells divide.

Telomeres sit at the end of each of our 46 chromosomes, shortening every time a cell copies itself. When they become too short, cells can no longer divide and eventually die.

Scientists have linked shorter telomeres to some of our most feared diseases of ageing, including cancer, heart disease and osteoarthritis. Smoking, chronic stress and depression all appear to speed up telomere shortening, while inflammatory processes in the body also take their toll.

Beyond strong bones

It is well known that vitamin D is essential for bone health, helping our bodies absorb calcium. Children, teenagers and people with darker skin or limited sun exposure particularly need adequate levels to build and maintain strong bones.

But vitamin D also powers our immune system. A review of evidence found that vitamin D supplements can cut respiratory infections, especially in people who are deficient.

Early research even suggests it might help prevent autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and multiple sclerosis, though more trials are needed.

Since inflammation damages telomeres, vitamin D’s anti-inflammatory effects could explain its protective role.

In this recent study, from Augusta University in the US, the researchers followed 1,031 people with an average age of 65 for five years, measuring their telomeres at the start, after two years, and after four years. Half took 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily, while the other half received a placebo.

The results showed that telomeres were preserved by 140 base pairs in the vitamin D group, compared with a placebo. To put this in context, previous research found that telomeres naturally shorten by about 460 base pairs over a decade, suggesting vitamin D’s protective effect could be genuinely meaningful.

This isn’t the first promising finding. Earlier studies have reported similar benefits, while the Mediterranean diet – rich in anti-inflammatory nutrients – has also been linked to longer telomeres.

The catch

But there are some important points to note. Some researchers warn that extremely long telomeres might actually increase disease risk, suggesting there’s a sweet spot we don’t yet understand.

There’s also no agreement on the right dose. The Augusta researchers used 2,000 IU daily – much higher than the current recommended intake of 600 IU for under-70s and 800 IU for older adults. Yet other research suggests just 400 IU might help prevent colds.

Experts say the optimal dose probably depends on individual factors, including existing vitamin D levels, overall nutrition and how the vitamin interacts with other nutrients.

Although these findings are exciting, it’s too early to start popping high-dose vitamin D in the hope of slowing ageing. The strongest evidence for healthy ageing still points to the basics: a balanced diet, regular exercise, quality sleep, not smoking and managing stress, all of which naturally support telomere health.

However, if you’re deficient in vitamin D or at risk of poor bone health, supplements remain a sensible choice backed by decades of research. As scientists continue unravelling the mysteries of ageing, vitamin D’s role in keeping our cellular clocks ticking may prove to be just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Dervla Kelly 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 vitamin D supplements really slow ageing, as a recent study suggests? – https://theconversation.com/can-vitamin-d-supplements-really-slow-ageing-as-a-recent-study-suggests-263680

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs, The Conversation

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

---

A video broadcast earlier this week captured the horrifying moment rescuers and journalists were killed in a “double-tap” strike on the Nasser hospital in southern Gaza. They had rushed to the scene of an initial Israeli attack, only for the same location to be bombed minutes later. Five journalists and several medical staff were killed by the second strike.

The attack prompted a wave of international condemnation. UK foreign secretary David Lammy wrote on social media: “Horrified by Israel’s attack on Nasser hospital. Civilians, healthcare workers and journalists must be protected. We need an immediate ceasefire”.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, initially called the strikes a “tragic mishap”. He added: “Israel values the work of journalists, medical staff and all civilians”. But the strikes have now been characterised by Israel as a targeted attack on Hamas fighters.

An initial inquiry by Israel’s military says “it appears” its troops “identified a camera that was positioned by Hamas in the area of the Nasser hospital that was being used to observe the activity of IDF troops” in order to direct attacks against them.

Whether or not charges relating to the attacks are ever brought remains to be seen. But James Sweeney of Lancaster University’s School of Law, believes there should be no doubt that the double tap tactic falls into the category of acts of war that are prohibited by the law of armed conflict.

Sweeney examines how international law operates in situations like this, identifying four fundamental rules on methods that govern the conduct of hostilities: humanity, necessity, distinction and proportionality.

He says the Israeli strikes almost certainly breached the rule on distinction, which requires that only lawful objectives should be targeted for attack. He explains that there are very limited circumstances in which a hospital or its medical staff could ever be a lawful target. The same goes for journalists. Both are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Sweeney also sees Israel’s attack as violating the rule on proportionality, which says expected “collateral damage” should not be excessive to the expected military advantage of the attack. Even if the claim that the hospital was being used by Hamas to stage attacks on Israeli forces stands up, thus possibly making it a lawful target, the collateral damage was likely going to be vast.

---

Read more:
Was the ‘double tap’ attack on Gaza’s Nasser hospital a war crime? Here’s what the laws of war say

---

Excessive collateral damage has been a grim theme of the war. Israeli government officials consistently say their military works hard to keep civilian harm to a minimum, for example by making phone calls and sending text messages to those residing in buildings designated for attack.

However, Israel’s own numbers cast doubt on this claim. Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database, reported by the Guardian last week, indicate that 83% of the Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians. This is a rate of civilian killing far higher than other modern wars, says Neta Crawford of the University of Oxford.

Crawford, an expert on international relations, reports that western militaries began to take steps to minimise inadvertent harm to civilians after the Vietnam war in 1975. These practices, which include making collateral damage estimates prior to carrying out a strike, have not always been adhered to.

But when they have been followed, the rate of civilian killing has been reduced. In American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Crawford reports, civilian casualty rates were 68% and 26% respectively – far lower than in Gaza.

“Given the kind of war Israel is fighting – using large, indiscriminate weapons to destroy buildings and failing to distinguish between combatant and noncombatant – it has unsurprisingly produced high civilian casualty rates,” she says.

---

Read more:
Gaza: civilian death toll outpaces other modern wars

---

Peacekeeping in Lebanon

The UN security council, meanwhile, is voting today on whether to extend a long-running peacekeeping mission in Lebanon for one final time. Vanessa Newby and Chiara Ruffa of Monash University and Sciences Po respectively reported earlier this week that the mission, which has patrolled Lebanon’s southern border with Israel since 1978, is at risk of being discontinued.

The Trump administration wants to reduce US financial commitments to UN peacekeeping. It argues that expensive and longstanding missions should be downsized to cut costs. Israel has, at the same time, insisted that the mission has been ineffective in addressing the existential threat posed by Hezbollah.

Newby and Ruffa are critical of this latter assessment. They write that the mission’s mandate has never been to disarm Hezbollah directly. Instead, it is tasked with creating and maintaining a space free of armed groups in southern Lebanon by supporting the Lebanese armed forces.

The council is reportedly expected to adopt a French draft resolution that sees the operation continue until the end of 2026. It will then begin a year-long “orderly and safe drawdown and withdrawal” – a compromise with the US.

This is a welcome outcome. Dismantling the peacekeeping mission would, in Newby and Ruffa’s view, create a dangerous security vacuum along the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Lebanon’s army remains weak, so a sudden withdrawal risks a surge in Hezbollah activity in the south. This would increase the prospect of another direct conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, they say, and another Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

---

Read more:
US and Israel push to end UN peacekeeping mandate in south Lebanon risks regional chaos

---

‘Fortress belt’

Russia is continuing to pound Ukrainian towns and cities, most recently launching strikes on Kyiv that killed at least 17 people. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has accused Moscow of choosing “ballistics instead of the negotiating table”, while UK prime minister Keir Starmer says Russia’s continuing attacks are “sabotaging hopes of peace”.

Talks on ending the war have been taking place for several weeks, though there has been no breakthrough. Russian leader Vladimir Putin is demanding that Kyiv cede control of the entirety of its Donetsk oblast, a region in eastern Ukraine, to Russia.

The Trump administration, keen for the war to end, seems to back this idea. When asked a question recently about Russia keeping territory it has seized, vice-president J.D. Vance remarked that “every major conflict in human history” has ended “with some kind of negotiation. Chris Smith, a historian at Coventry University, interrogates the truth of this claim here.

---

Read more:
J.D. Vance is wrong about history – here’s why this matters for Ukraine

---

Kyiv is unsurprisingly resistant to Putin’s demands. Rod Thornton and Marina Miron, security experts at King’s College London, say this would effectively be tantamount to an acceptance of overall defeat for Ukraine. Kyiv would be giving up its principal defensive barrier against further Russian encroachment into the rest of the country.

Thornton and Miron stress the strategic importance of Ukraine’s so-called “fortress belt” – the name given to the complex series of defensive lines established between towns and cities in the west of the Donetsk region. Russia has largely been unable to break through these lines, so has been prevented from surrounding any major urban area there.

Gaining control of western Donetsk is the key to winning the war, write Thornton and Miron. So Putin, unable to break through the fortress belt, is now trying to acquire it through a peace deal brokered with US assistance. This would settle the war, but in Russia’s favour.

---

Read more:
Forcing Zelensky to hand Putin Ukraine’s ‘fortress belt’ in Donetsk will lose it the war

---

Meanwhile a far larger belt of fortifications is taking shape across eastern Europe, as Russia’s neighbours race to protect themselves in light of the war in Ukraine. Natasha Lindstaedt, a specialist in authoritarian regimes at the University of Essex, believes the recent shift in US foreign policy and its telegraphed move away from being Europe’s security guarantor, has prompted countries including Finland, the Baltic states and Poland to take extra precautions.

As Lindstaedt explains, these border defences will be using the latest technology and early warning systems and artillery units. The project is going to require a high level of cooperation between these countries to ensure that there are no loopholes which could be exploited by a Russian offensive.

The hope is that all concerned have learned the lesson of the much-vaunted French Maginot Line, which Germany simply bypassed during the second world war.

---

Read more:
Why a new ‘iron curtain’ is being built across Europe. This time it’s to keep Russia out

---

---

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

---

– ref. Israel’s ‘double-tap’ hospital strike probably breached rules of war – https://theconversation.com/israels-double-tap-hospital-strike-probably-breached-rules-of-war-264142

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Samuel Clark, PhD Candidate in Politics and International Relations, University of Reading

In a world where politics can often feel demoralising, it’s no surprise that many people are finding comfort and hope in political satire.

Shows like Have I Got News For You and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver use wit and irony to make controversial, distant and uncomfortable issues more approachable while providing moral judgment on them. The idea is that when disheartening topics are dressed humorously – climate change, political corruption, structural injustice – we’re more inclined to pay attention. And, if all goes well, we might be able to poke fun at ourselves and our ignorance along the way.

Done well, satire can benefit democracy. It offers representation: the satirist articulates the grievances of people who might otherwise struggle to advance their views. It can be educational, bringing attention to important issues that are obscured in public discussions. It can hold power to account, pressuring elites to address harms they might be ignoring. And satire can promote social equality: it mocks the powerful, and in so doing asserts that they are not above others.

But in many democracies, and the US in particular, this model isn’t always being subscribed to. Much of the popular satire we see today prioritises affirming the prejudices of its partisan audience over pursuing the democratic benefits it has the potential to deliver.

My ongoing PhD research examines when satire is and isn’t democratically valuable in societies marked by deep divisions. And I’m concerned that some popular modern satire is taking a wrong turn.

Perhaps as a symptom of Donald Trump making satire of elites more and more difficult, some satirists are choosing to make fun of uninformed regular people rather than those in power, particularly when those people have different political views.

One example can be seen in The Daily Show’s recurring segment Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse. In the segment, leftwing satirist Klepper interviews attendees at Donald Trump rallies, steering them – through strategically phrased questions – into absurd or contradictory positions. The comedy is bolstered by manipulative editing and laugh tracks that paint Trump supporters as inherently foolish and unreasonable. The clips consistently attract millions of views online.

While the segment is humorous, the primary goal is not to foster public understanding or deliver a substantive critique. Rather, it pursues tribal reinforcement. The viewer is invited to laugh not at elite wrongdoing, but at the perceived ignorance of ordinary people.

This kind of satire fails to deliver, and in some cases undermines, the democratic benefits I’ve outlined above. In relation to the good of social equality, for instance, it vilifies, and so undermines the status of ordinary people. It also doesn’t hold power to account, nor does it educate people on issues of broader public concern.

Satirists wield considerable power. Studies show that many people, particularly those with low political interest, are turning to satirical television programmes as an alternative to traditional news broadcasters for information.

When satirists single out only the most extreme or ill-informed people and hold them up as representative of an entire political movement, they don’t educate or enlighten; they entrench caricature and propagandise. The audience walks away with their prejudices affirmed and their opponents dehumanised.

Punching sideways

Other satirical offerings – such as Inside Edition and Jimmy Kimmel Live, alongside a number of social media creators – are further examples of cheap shots aimed at political opponents. (Examples from the political right are harder to come by. Conservatives tend to dress their consumption of politics in outrage and anger rather than satire and irony.)

Across all these examples, an “interviewer” uses mock sincerity to lull people in and subsequently shame, demean and ridicule them – often without them knowing that they are indeed the subject of ridicule. These performances rarely illuminate complex issues or unsettle power structures. Instead, they deliver punchlines aimed squarely at their citizen adversaries. In so doing, they become partisan theatre, not satire.

While these performances may entertain, research suggests they also have lasting psychological consequences. Humorous stimuli have been shown to increase information recall. Some evidence also points to a “sleeper effect” whereby political messages delivered through comedy can become more persuasive over time, bypassing our critical defences. Humour can, however, make audiences treat messages as less important.

In my view, the danger lies in the broader narrative this kind of satire delivers about political opposition. Critiquing the hypocrisies in hardline Trump supporters’ views is one thing, but when we are encouraged to perceive an entire political group as blindly dogmatic, irrational and unreasonable, we cross a dangerous line. Instead of gaining a deeper understanding of political disagreement, viewers are left with the conviction that their political opponents are not just wrong, but unworthy of being debated. This isn’t civic engagement, it’s ideological arrogance. Democracy can’t function properly under these conditions.

This is not to argue that satire should be politically neutral. Far from it. Some of the greatest satirical work in history – from Jonathan Swift to Ian Hislop – has been fiercely ideological. But good satire challenges its audience as much as its targets. It holds a mirror up to society, forcing us to confront not just the flaws of our adversaries, but also our own ignorance.

With Saturday Night Live set to expand into the UK, British satirists would do well to take heed. There is a risk that the kind of polarising comedy taking root in the US will follow across the Atlantic. Satire is at its best when it exposes deception, discomforts the comfortable, and asks hard questions of those in power – even when they’re on our own side. It should show that no one side holds all the answers. That’s harder, riskier work. But it’s the kind of satire we need now more than ever.

Samuel Clark receives funding from the South East Network for Social Sciences.

– ref. The harms of low-blow political satire in a polarised climate – https://theconversation.com/the-harms-of-low-blow-political-satire-in-a-polarised-climate-255750