Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

Some of us remember having more energy in our 20s. We could work late, sleep badly, have a night out, recover quickly and still feel capable the next day. By our 40s, that ease has often gone. Fatigue feels harder to shake. It’s tempting to assume this is simply the ageing process – a one‑way decline.

The truth is that the 40s are often the most exhausting decade, not because we are old, but because several small biological changes converge at exactly the same time that life’s demands often peak. Crucially, and optimistically, there is no reason to assume that energy must continue to decline in the same way into our 60s.

Energetic 20s

In early adulthood, multiple systems peak together.

Muscle mass is at its highest, even without deliberate training. As a metabolically active tissue, muscle helps regulate blood sugar and reduces the effort required for everyday tasks. Research shows that skeletal muscle is metabolically active even at rest and contributes substantially to basal metabolic rate (the energy your body uses just to keep you alive when you’re at rest). When you have more muscle, everything costs less energy.

At the cellular level, mitochondria – the structures that convert food into usable energy – are more numerous and more efficient. They produce energy with less waste and less inflammatory byproduct.

Sleep, too, is deeper. Even when sleep is shortened, the brain produces more slow‑wave sleep, the phase most strongly linked to physical restoration.

Hormonal rhythms are also more stable. Cortisol, often described as the body’s stress hormone, melatonin, growth hormone and sex hormones follow predictable daily patterns, making energy more reliable across the day.

Put simply, energy in your 20s is abundant and forgiving. You can mistreat it and still get away with it.

Exhausting 40s

By midlife, none of these systems has collapsed, but small shifts start to matter.

Muscle mass begins to decline from the late 30s onwards unless you exercise to maintain it. This in itself is a top tip – do strength training. The loss of muscle is gradual, but its effects are not. Less muscle means everyday movement costs more energy, even if you don’t consciously notice it.

Mitochondria still produce energy, but less efficiently. In your 20s, poor sleep or stress could be buffered. In your 40s, inefficiency is exposed. Recovery becomes more “expensive”.

Sleep also changes. Many people still get enough hours, but sleep fragments. Less deep sleep means less repair. Fatigue feels cumulative rather than episodic.

Hormones don’t disappear in midlife – they fluctuate, particularly in women. Variability, not deficiency, disrupts temperature regulation, sleep timing and energy rhythms. The body copes better with low levels than with unpredictable ones.

Then there is the brain. Midlife is a period of maximum cognitive and emotional load: leadership, responsibility, vigilance and caring roles. The prefrontal cortex – responsible for planning, making decisions and inhibition – works harder for the same output. Mental multitasking drains energy as effectively as physical labour.

This is why the 40s feel so punishing. Biological efficiency is beginning to shift at exactly the moment when demand is highest.

Hopeful 60s

Later life is often imagined as a continuation of midlife decline; however, many people report something different.

Hormonal systems often stabilise after periods of transition. Life roles may simplify. Cognitive load can reduce. Experience replaces constant active decision‑making.

Sleep doesn’t automatically worsen with age. When stress is lower and routines are protected, sleep efficiency can improve – even if total sleep time is shorter.

Crucially, muscle and mitochondria still adapt surprisingly well into later life. Strength training in people in their 60s, 70s and beyond can restore strength, improve metabolic health and increase subjective energy within months.

This doesn’t mean later life brings boundless energy, but it often brings something else: predictability.

Good news?

Across adulthood, energy shifts in character rather than simply declining. The mistake we make is assuming that feeling tired in midlife reflects a personal failing, or that it marks the start of an unavoidable decline. Anatomically, it is neither.

Midlife fatigue is best understood as a mismatch between biology and demand: small shifts in efficiency occurring at precisely the point when cognitive, emotional and practical loads are at their highest.

The hopeful message is not that we can reclaim our 20-year-old selves. Rather, it is that energy in later life remains highly modifiable, and that the exhaustion so characteristic of the 40s is not the endpoint of the story. Fatigue at this stage is not a warning of inevitable decline; it is a signal that the rules have changed.

Michelle Spear 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 truth about energy: why your 40s feel harder than your 20s, but there may be a lift later on – https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-energy-why-your-40s-feel-harder-than-your-20s-but-there-may-be-a-lift-later-on-274250

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bobby Smith, Associate Professor of Theatre and Performance, University of Warwick

One autumn evening in 2021, I was co-facilitating the first of ten creative sessions with young people in the Daimler Warehouse, Coventry. It’s home to Highly Sprung Physical Performance, a partner in a pilot project called With One Breath. I was there to use theatre, photography and creative writing to explore the climate crisis.

My collaborator, Becky Warnock, a socially engaged artist, ran an exercise to take stock of how the group were feeling about the issue. She asked them to place themselves on a continuum in response to a series of statements – one end of the room meant they agreed with the statement, while the other end meant they disagreed.

It became clear that many young people are incredibly knowledgeable about the climate crisis. However, when Warnock asked them to respond to the statement, “I have a voice in climate change debates”, most of the group huddled on one side of the room, showing that they “disagreed”.

---

The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.

---

My research examines what happens when artists engage directly with communities through the co-creation of art. Since 2019, I have worked in collaboration with Rachel Turner-King. We have worked in a range of settings and partnerships including schools, community centres, parks and performance spaces in Coventry, Kampala and Nairobi.

We have called this work Acting on Climate. Underpinning our projects are techniques which engage young people in discussion and act as prompts to explore local environments and share stories. We are also interested in exploring the impact of climate crisis in other parts of the world, and the perspectives of people living in these places.

Young people are often overlooked in discussions about the climate crisis. And yet they stand to be most profoundly affected by it. With One Breath sought to place young people at the heart of this discussion through collaboration across borders.

The project included the use of games and techniques adapted from drama practitioner Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. We tasked young people with using photography and film to document and reflect on the areas they live in. We encouraged them to shape the work and decide what to focus on. Three themes were identified: investigating power and responsibility; reflecting on processes of globalisation; and producing positive visions for alternative futures.

The project prompted dialogue across the two locations. While many young people in the UK felt insulated from the immediate impacts of the climate crisis, hearing from Ugandans already living with and adapting to environmental disruption made those unequal realities impossible to ignore.

Our work highlighted that young people often feel a lack of agency to make change, but also feel simplistically portrayed and tokenised as beacons of hope and change. This tokenisation places responsibility on young people to adapt to, and transform, a problem that they have had little role in creating.

Communities in countries like Uganda are frequently excluded and marginalised when it comes to conversations and action on the climate crisis, so the young people we worked with in that country faced a double bind. They are both marginalised due to their age and where they are from.

As such, this transnational project provided an opportunity to amplify voices not typically heard.

Complexity and collaboration

My research took on new dimensions through Fair Play Kenya 2025, a festival at the National Theatre in Nairobi as part of the British Council’s Kenya 2025 season.

The festival considered relationships between climate crisis, conflict and land justice. One strand involved connecting three groups of young people from Nairobi, Derry/Londonderry and Birmingham through in person and online workshops. To do so, a partnership was formed involving Amani People’s Theatre and ZamaleoACT in Kenya, The Gap Arts Project in Birmingham and The Playhouse in Northern Ireland.

During this short project, young people met online, sharing discoveries and testing ideas. The process is documented in a short film sharing their work and views.

In Derry/Londonderry, participants decided to explore land and ancient Celtic culture and the rights of nature, leading them to focus on the mismanagement of Lough Neagh.

Alternatively, in Birmingham young people were concerned by the lack of access to nature, and how this intersects with the climate crisis. Participants in Nairobi explored land justice and what land means to them in their everyday lives. A particularly striking aspect of this group’s work was the reflection on Carbon Credit deals forcing Kenyans off of their land under unjust terms and conditions.

From projects such as Fair Play, we have come to understand that working creatively across borders is inherently messy, complex work. The choices that we all make on a daily basis implicate us in causing environmental harm, but an individualised approach to climate action is unlikely to succeed on its own.

Through artistic projects like ours, such nuance can be engaged with in fun, open-ended ways. For those of us in countries like the UK, the history of industrialisation and colonialism mean we are entangled in processes of exploitation and resource extraction – these must place the burden of responsibility on such countries.

Meanwhile, our work in Uganda highlighted experiences where young people are having to move away from areas that are no longer able to find jobs and how, in Kenya, climate change is one factor fuelling conflict between communities.

For the young people we have worked with, and for us as researchers, arts projects help to make visible the effects of both of this history and the climate crisis in ways that connect and resonate.

Bobby Smith received funding for With One Breath from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Fair Play Kenya 2025 was funded by the British Council and the University of Warwick’s Arts and Humanities Impact Fund.

– ref. Climate storytelling often ignores young people – arts-based research can change that – https://theconversation.com/climate-storytelling-often-ignores-young-people-arts-based-research-can-change-that-272529

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joanna Syrda, Assistant Professor in Business Economics, University of Bath

The idea of a “trophy” wife or husband may not sound like a very romantic basis for marriage. It implies one half of a couple brings physical attractiveness to a relationship, while the other half brings status and money.

But the lack of romance in this idea does not mean that attractiveness and wealth don’t both play a part in many real relationships. Sociologists call it “beauty-status exchange”, and it has traditionally reflected the gendered idea that men prioritise physical attractiveness in the search for a spouse, while women opt for wealth or earning potential.

While it might seem like an old-fashioned concept, my research suggests that, after marriage, some heterosexual couples still try to find a balance between money and attractiveness – but now it may be common for this to affect both sexes in more similar ways.

I found that increases in one spouse’s share of household income were strongly linked to reductions in the other spouse’s body mass index (BMI). It appeared that when the share of household income earned by the wives in my sample rose, their husbands tended to exercise more and slim down.

And when the husbands’ income share rose, their wives tended to respond in a similar way. So the beauty-status exchange lives on – only now it appears to be more equal.

My research used 20 years of US data about more than 3,700 dual-earning heterosexual couples, comparing the share of total household income with changes in both partners’ BMI and how often they exercised.

What was once widely thought of as a gendered, one-sided exchange, may have become a mutual process of balance, maintained in part through deliberate changes in fitness routines. These effects are largely symmetrical, holding true for both men and women.

BMI is, of course, an imperfect measure of physical attractiveness. It has many limitations and captures only one dimension of a person’s appearance and fitness.

But it is one of the few measurements consistently available for both partners in large and detailed data sets. It has also been linked with perceptions of attractiveness in previous research, which makes it widely used in studies about couples and relationship dynamics.

Equilibrium

Economists and psychologists have long described relationships as systems that strive for equilibrium. Each partner can compare what they give and receive and adjust when things feel out of balance.

Building on this idea, my study introduces the concepts of “static” and “dynamic” beauty-status exchange.

The static version refers to the one-off trade between attractiveness and status that shapes who marries whom. This is a pattern documented in previous research showing that higher-earning men are, on average, more likely to partner with women with lower BMI – a proxy for “socially defined physical attractiveness”.

The dynamic version captures how this exchange continues within marriage, as couples adjust to shifts in income and resources to maintain balance over time.

Relationships, in other words, evolve. As incomes rise or fall, people respond not just financially but physically, subtly reshaping themselves to preserve what feels like fairness or desirability within the relationship

This search for balance aligns with the fact that in some of the world’s wealthiest countries – including the US, the UK and parts of Europe – the share of households in which wives earn as much as or more than their husbands has increased.

As this financial equality grows, so too does cultural equality in expectations about appearance. The rise of male grooming markets and the normalisation of skincare and body image conversations among men all signal a shift: men now invest far more in how they look than previous generations did.

Dynamic beauty–status exchange captures this broader trend at home. Economic parity between partners is matched by a new form of aesthetic parity, where both men and women feel motivated to maintain attractiveness in response to changes in status or income.

What was once a one-way cultural expectation appears to have quietly become a two-way performance of equality. The beauty–status exchange hasn’t disappeared; it has simply evolved.

Where once men’s income and women’s appearance were traded asymmetrically, today’s dual-earner couples may engage in a more reciprocal form of exchange. Beauty–status exchange is, of course, only one of many ways couples adjust to maintain balance, alongside emotional support, housework and childcare for example.

But it offers a clear window into how economic change can reshape behaviour within marriage.

Overall, shifts in income share are mirrored by shifts in behaviour and body weight. Marriage, it turns out, remains a dynamic marketplace of mutual adjustment.

Joanna Syrda 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 husbands and wives try to find a balance between beauty and status – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-husbands-and-wives-try-to-find-a-balance-between-beauty-and-status-new-research-269303

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jeff Da Costa, PhD Researcher in Hydrometeorology, University of Reading

After major disasters, public debate often treats them as unexpected or unprecedented. This reaction is not necessarily about the absence of warnings. It reflects how societies process shock – and how authorities often explain disruption as unavoidable, rather than the result of earlier choices.

Extreme weather is rarely unpredictable. Days, sometimes weeks, in advance, scientists are able to warn of an increased risk of storms, floods, droughts or other hazards. Yet the cycle repeats.

To understand why this is, colleagues and I reconstructed the scientific warnings and the official responses to major floods in Luxembourg in July 2021 – my home country’s most damaging disaster on record. Those floods caused far more damage than they would have done if early action was taken, but Luxembourg isn’t an outlier: many other countries suffer from the same problems we identify.

As the UN targets “early warning for all” by 2027, it’s worth noting the issue is not that warnings were missing. It is that warning systems are often designed to act on certainty rather than probability – and that’s not how forecasting works. By the time warnings become visible to the public, it is often too late.

Weather forecasts may look definitive on your phone, but they are probabilistic by nature. They are created by running a series of computer simulations of the future weather. The level to which the outcomes of different simulations agree with each other provides the likelihood of hazardous conditions, not guaranteed outcomes. These allow forecasters to identify elevated risk well before impacts occur, even if the precise location of an event and their size remain uncertain.

Crucially, uncertainty is usually greatest further ahead, when preventative action would be most effective. Acting early therefore almost always means acting without certainty. This is not a weakness of science, but an inherent feature of anticipating complex systems under changing conditions. The real challenge lies in how institutions are organised to interpret, trust and act on those probabilities.

Acting on certainty

Most warning systems rely on predefined procedural thresholds: alert levels, activation protocols and emergency plans that kick in once specific criteria are met. Forecasting may indicate that flooding is increasingly likely, for example, but measures such as evacuations or road closures can only be triggered after formal thresholds are crossed.

Before that point, risk information passes through many layers of interpretation and judgment, where early signals are often noted but not acted upon.

Thresholds serve important purposes. They help coordinate response, clarify chains of command and reduce unnecessary disruption. But they also embed a structural preference for certainty. Action is authorised only once risk is framed as imminent, even when credible evidence already points to escalating danger.

This attitude was apparent in the days leading up to the July 2021 floods. Our study shows that multiple forecasts at European and national levels indicated a high probability of extreme rainfall and flooding, in some cases up to a week in advance. This information was available across different parts of the warning system. At that stage, uncertainty about precise impacts remained, as would be expected. What mattered was how the system was designed to handle that uncertainty.

Too early for warning

Because Luxembourg’s response measures were tied to procedural thresholds, early signals could not translate into anticipatory action. The country’s water administration and its national weather service had access to relevant information, but they operated within a framework that did not authorise a collective interpretation of what was happening or encourage action before thresholds were crossed.

This was not a scientific miscalculation, nor was it necessarily an operational mistake by individual agencies. Meteorological and hydrological services most likely did as much as their mandates allowed. The decision to wait for formal triggers was human and institutional rather than technical,
reflecting a system designed to prioritise procedural certainty over sound decision-making.

By the time action was authorised, for many people it was too late. Evacuations or installing flood gates became far more difficult, particularly for communities with limited experience of such severe floods. From the perspective of those affected, warnings appeared late or did not arrive at all – even though the risks had been identified earlier throughout the system.

Luxembourg is a particularly instructive illustration of what can go wrong, because it is a small, wealthy and well-connected country. The issue was not necessarily a lack of resources or scientific capacity, but of institutional design and societal readiness to act on risk.

Learning and resilience

The effectiveness of early warning systems over time depends on their ability to learn from extreme events. This requires open, independent analysis of what worked, what did not work and why. In several neighbouring countries affected in 2021, such as Germany and Belgium, formal inquiries and external reviews were carried out. In Luxembourg, they were not.

When expert critique is discouraged or avoided, learning slows. Questions about system performance remain unresolved and the same structural vulnerabilities are likely to persist. This creates a systemic risk in its own right: societies become less able to adapt warning systems, interpret uncertainty and act earlier on emerging threats.

As someone who has worked within these systems and continues to research disaster risk governance, I have seen how asking difficult questions can be treated as destabilising rather than constructive. Resilience depends on confronting uncomfortable truths, not avoiding them.

The risk of extreme weather is increasing across Europe and beyond. Early warning systems are rightly central to disaster risk reduction. But their effectiveness depends on how societies authorise action under uncertainty. This is a choice, not an inevitability.

Uncertainty cannot be eliminated. The challenge is to decide how much uncertainty is acceptable when lives and livelihoods are at stake. Systems designed to wait for certainty – for procedural, organisational, financial or reputational reasons – are more likely to deliver warnings that arrive too late to feel like warnings at all.

If resilience to future climate risks is to be sustainable, warning systems must be designed to learn, adapt and act earlier on credible risk.

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

– ref. Why do disasters still happen, despite early warnings? Because systems are built to wait for certainty – https://theconversation.com/why-do-disasters-still-happen-despite-early-warnings-because-systems-are-built-to-wait-for-certainty-275021

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham

Japan said goodbye to its last two giant pandas on January 27, as twins Xiao Xiao and Lei Lei were returned from their host country to China. Their departure has left Japan without any pandas for the first time since 1972, when Tokyo and Beijing normalised diplomatic ties.

The Chinese government has long pursued a strategy of giving or loaning giant pandas, which are found exclusively in China, to other countries to strengthen international ties and boost its global image. Widely known as “panda diplomacy”, this practice has seen more than 30 pandas sent to – or born in – Japan over the past 50 or so years.

However, relations between Tokyo and Beijing are currently tense. Comments made in November by Japan’s prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, that her country could respond militarily to a Chinese attack on Taiwan prompted an angry response from officials in Beijing.

And soon after, China announced it would be recalling Japan’s last two pandas from the Ueno Zoo in Tokyo a month ahead of schedule. The Tokyo metropolitan government had been negotiating with China to extend the pandas’ stay or loan new bears in their place. But these talks were put on hold and the pandas have subsequently been returned.

Panda diplomacy

China’s practice of sending pandas to foreign countries can be traced to the 7th century, when Empress Wu Zetian gifted two bears to Japan as a gesture of goodwill. However, modern panda diplomacy is often associated with the 1970s. That decade saw China open up and gift pandas to a number of major economies in an attempt to build ties, including the US and Japan in 1972, France in 1973 and the UK in 1974.

Due to declining wild panda populations, China stopped gifting pandas to other countries by 1984. Pandas were instead sent to foreign zoos on long-term loans, often lasting up to 15 years, with countries paying as much as US$1 million (£738,000) in “conservation fees” per year to keep them.

By the peak of panda diplomacy in 2019, a total of 21 countries or territories outside of China, Macau and Hong Kong had pandas. These were South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Russia, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Mexico, Australia, Thailand, Finland, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, US and UK. That number has now dropped to 16.

One reason for this decline is that China has to be careful about which countries it chooses to engage in panda diplomacy with. Many Chinese people regard the giant panda as a national treasure, with the animal carrying deep emotional significance. Because of their status, the perceived mistreatment of pandas abroad can cause Beijing to receive intense backlash from nationalist circles at home.

For instance, when panda Le Le died of natural causes at Memphis Zoo in the US in 2023 and photos of his female companion Ya Ya looking thin and sickly surfaced online, speculation arose on Chinese social media that the US had mishandled the pandas. Some went as far as to accuse Chinese authorities of colluding with the zoo to cover up the incident.

For many of these people, the alleged mistreatment of the pandas was symbolic of what they saw as the US’s bullying of China. As one comment on the Weibo Chinese social media platform put it: “Treating our national treasure with such an attitude is an outright provocation of China”. Despite insistence by the Chinese foreign ministry that both pandas had been “well taken care of” in the US, Ya Ya’s stay was not extended.

The desire to avoid more public backlash may help explain why China recalled Japan’s last two pandas early and did not extend their stay. With tensions between China and Japan running high, it would have been difficult for officials in Beijing to justify why these cherished national symbols should stay in the hands of what many Chinese people see as a belligerent rival.

Panda diplomacy remains an effective tool of soft power for China. This was demonstrated by the 178,000 visitors that flocked to Ueno Zoo to catch a glimpse of Xiao Xiao and Lei Lei in the month after it was announced they would be returned. The public response was so strong that the zoo had to restrict visitor numbers to the panda viewing area to 4,800 people per day, with each visit limited to one minute.

Yet there are limits to using pandas as diplomatic tools, and not just due to the strength of nationalist feeling within China towards them. China’s practice of sending pandas to foreign nations has been heavily criticised by conservationists and animal advocates, who argue the bears are used as pawns in a game of geopolitical chess.

There are also question marks over whether the practice enhances conservation. While foreign zoos that host pandas send China millions of US dollars a year in conservation fees, the species is currently listed as “vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Panda diplomacy is a delicate balancing act. While it can help strengthen China’s international relationships, it also exposes Beijing to public backlash whenever its furry ambassadors become entangled in political disputes or welfare controversies.

Chee Meng Tan 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. China’s panda diplomacy is becoming a liability for Beijing – https://theconversation.com/chinas-panda-diplomacy-is-becoming-a-liability-for-beijing-274658

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Barnfield, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London

Since Reform UK took in several high-profile Conservative defectors in the space of a few weeks, a debate has arisen about whether these new recruits benefit or harm Nigel Farage’s party.

Some suggest that the loss of Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, among others, hastens the demise of the Conservative party, to Reform’s benefit. But there’s also the risk that in embracing high-profile Conservatives, Reform is tying its image to the unpopular government they once represented. Apparently there is danger for Farage in becoming “Tory party 2.0” – a new version of the same party the electorate roundly rejected in 2024.

Polling since the defections should indeed give Farage some pause here. Recent figures from YouGov show that significantly fewer people now see Reform and the Conservatives as all that different from each other. The proportion who see the parties as different has fallen by ten percentage points since September.

Polling also shows that 63% of Labour voters 67% of Liberal Democrat voters and 64% of Green voters didn’t like Reform anyway and therefore haven’t changed their opinions about the party since the defections. No surprises there.

Conservatives are the only group for whom this is not a majority position. As a percentage, the group of Conservative voters whose negative opinion of Reform UK remains unchanged is about half that of other parties.

That’s partly because a bigger chunk of Conservative voters are positive about Reform UK in general. Almost a quarter say they were already, and remain, positive about Reform, compared to around 5% for supporters of other parties. But it’s also because the defections have had a much bigger effect on Conservative voters. While the proportion whose opinion has worsened is similar to other parties, over a fifth of Conservatives say they now have a more favourable view of Reform as a result of the defections. Negligible numbers of other parties’ supporters feel that way.

That the Conservatives stand out here matters. If Reform is going to push past its recent plateau in the polls, it will mostly likely be by winning over more Conservative voters. And if “Tory party 2.0” is likely to appeal to anyone, it’s Tory voters.

As political scientists have been arguing for a while, Reform is not going to win over many people who currently intend to vote Labour, Liberal Democrat, or Green. Those voters are in the so-called “left bloc”. Reform and the Conservatives form the “right bloc”. Voters rarely move between blocs; they move within them.

This bloc structure suggests that Reform needs two things to work in its favour. First, it needs to look more viable than the Conservatives. If voters can’t tell which of the two has a better chance of forming a government, it becomes harder to unite behind either. Second, Reform needs enough right-bloc voters’ preference for the Conservatives to be weak enough that they would consider switching to Reform in a pinch.

The defections help on both fronts. High-profile Conservatives moving to Reform make it look like those politicians see Reform as a viable route into government. On the preference side, the defections are improving more Conservatives’ opinions of Reform than they are worsening.

Conservatives are also coming to see the two parties as less different, and that is just as plausibly a good thing as a bad thing for Reform. If Reform looks closer to a party they already like, Conservative voters may have fewer qualms about switching.

But the risk here is that potential Reform voters will be turned off. And indeed, 17% of Reform supporters say the defections have made them more negative about the party – the highest figure for any party’s supporters.

Reform has done especially well at attracting people who did not vote at all in 2024. No surprise there: the arrival of a radical right-wing challenger party has been shown to boost turnout by mobilising voters who feel their views are not represented by the mainstream.

Another risk is that these voters may be more prone to disengaging again if Reform starts to look too much like part of the traditional party system. Both theory and evidence suggest that when parties are too similar, voters are less likely to turn out as the perceived difference made by their vote reduces. Populist parties are especially vulnerable here because their voters tend to share a common disillusionment about democracy with non-voters.

Coming to look ever more like Tory party 2.0 might not dent Reform’s chances of bringing Tory voters on board. But it does risk disenchanting people who were on board before, when they looked like something completely different from the status quo – or those yet to be convinced of voting at all in the next election.

Matthew Barnfield receives funding from The British Academy.

– ref. Reform has been warned that defecting Tories will damage its brand – and the first evidence is in – https://theconversation.com/reform-has-been-warned-that-defecting-tories-will-damage-its-brand-and-the-first-evidence-is-in-275201

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

Keir Starmer is in the middle of his worst crisis yet following further damaging revelations about Peter Mandelson’s friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Emails released by the US government revealed the depth of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein and confirmed that it continued after Epstein’s conviction in 2008.

Starmer insists that Mandelson lied to him and to the team responsible for vetting him as a candidate to be the UK ambassador to the United States. According to Starmer, Mandelson’s answers gave the impression that he barely knew Epstein.

When emails came to light in September showing that the relationship was deeper than claimed, the prime minister dismissed him. Starmer has, however, now admitted that he knew at the time of the vetting that Mandelson had remained in contact with Epstein after he was convicted of sex offences.

---

Read more:
What exactly is misconduct in public office and could Peter Mandelson be convicted?

---

The prime minister’s judgement over appointing Mandelson as his ambassador was being called into question even before these latest revelations. Mandelson had previously resigned twice (in 1998 and 2001) from Tony Blair’s government following scandals, and it was public knowledge that he had been friends with Epstein. All of this should have ruled him out of consideration.

Pressure has been mounting on the government to release documents detailing Mandelson’s vetting to show how much was really known about his ties to Epstein. It is these documents specifically that are at the centre of the latest speculation that Starmer cannot survive in his job.

The Conservative party tabled a humble address motion in the House of Commons on February 4 calling for all vetting documents and related correspondence to be made public. Humble address motions, if passed, compel the government to carry out the actions specified in the motion.

Starmer has a large majority and could have fought off this manoeuvre had he had the support of his own MPs. But they are furious with him. Some have briefed that this scandal is the final straw after a series of poor judgement calls from the prime minister (previously mostly in relation to policy, where U-turns have been required).

They made it clear to the whips that they would rebel if instructed to vote against the Conservative motion. As a result, the government decided to table an amendment to the motion to give itself control over which documents would be released.

Its stated aim was to prevent any material that could be prejudicial to national security or international relations from being made public. Starmer has also said that a police investigation into Mandelson also precludes publication of some documents because they may prejudice any case against him.

This amendment was tabled the night before the debate and vote but it quickly became clear that trust in the prime minister and his government had completely evaporated and that Labour MPs would not support the amendment. In response, a last-minute manuscript amendment was drafted and tabled to ensure that documents pertaining to Mandelson’s appointment would instead be given to the (cross-party) Intelligence and Security Committee for review and publication. That would prevent the government from deciding what to release.

This amendment was suggested in the chamber by Angela Rayner (the former deputy prime minister and deputy Labour leader) and is a sign of how serious the situation has become for the prime minister. It signals clearly that his own MPs no longer trust him or his government to handle the release of documents appropriately.

The government has now lost control of the process, and this could lead to the publication of documents that further damage its reputation — not only regarding what the government did or did not know about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, but also potentially embarrassing correspondence about Donald Trump and members of his administration.

The wording of the government’s initial amendment attempted to block the release of documents that might affect international relations. That suggests there may be damaging revelations of the kind that forced one of Mandelson’s predecessors as US ambassador, Kim Darroch, to resign. Darroch was forced to stand down as ambassador in 2019 after leaked emails showed he’d called the first Trump administration “”clumsy and inept”.

Labour MPs have had enough

The level of frustration on the Labour backbenches is now comparable to that of Conservative MPs during the final months of Boris Johnson’s premiership. The focus of retribution is currently directed at the prime minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who MPs blame for this error of judgement (as he was a political ally of Mandelson). They see McSweeney has having given poor advice to the prime minister and blame him for the poor operation of Downing Street over the past 18 months.

Even if the immediate pressure is on McSweeney, losing him would still be destabilising for the prime minister. A similar dynamic played out under Theresa May when her party forced her joint chiefs of staff, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, from office after the 2017 election.

Either way, Starmer’s days as prime minister appear to be numbered. The real question is how long he can remain in office. Labour MPs are not naturally inclined toward regicide – indeed, the party has never removed a sitting prime minister from office before. Any challenger needs the support of 80 MPs to trigger a leadership election – one in which Starmer would be entitled to stand himself. That remains a high threshold.

And, in the first instance, none of the apparent heirs to the leadership are currently positioned to launch a credible challenge. Andy Burnham was prevented from standing in the upcoming Gorton and Denton byelection, so won’t become an MP any time soon. Angela Rayner has yet to resolve the tax issues that forced her resignation from government last year. Wes Streeting is viewed as being too closely aligned politically with Mandelson to mount a challenge over this scandal.

There are, however, further moments of danger on the horizon. The loss of the Gorton and Denton byelection could weaken the prime minister further. Some in the party are still angry over Burnham being blocked, which many believe may have cost Labour a winnable seat.

Upcoming local elections in England, as well as the parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, also look set to be torrid for Labour. It is likely that Starmer will limp on into the local elections, but beyond that his future will depend on his MPs – specifically, whether they choose to fire the starting gun on a leadership challenge or whether they can talk him into announcing his resignation as leader of the party, thereby triggering a leadership election.

Labour’s 2024 manifesto front cover simply read “Change”, but in recent weeks politics has felt uncomfortably reminiscent of 2022. That is Labour’s problem.

Thomas Caygill has previously received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. How much trouble is Keir Starmer in? – https://theconversation.com/how-much-trouble-is-keir-starmer-in-275292

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Polina Zelmanova, PhD Candidate in Film and Television Studies, University of Warwick

One thing Bridgerton has unquestionably mastered is the depiction of sex. This season, women’s pleasure once again takes centre stage with several conversations about orgasms, or “pinnacles” and several references to past steamy scenes, including last season’s infamous carriage exchange.

Sex is everywhere. It spills out of every image, from every surface. The glistening chandeliers, colourful flower arrangements, lights and decoration all contribute to the horny mise-en-scene. The combination of framing, lighting, colour, performance and production design combine to create a sexy vibe.

Within such excess, small gestures take on a new erotic significance – a gentle kiss on the wrist, a touch of fingertips, a glance across the room. All of this contributes to a feminine model of desire that is multi-orgasmic, expanding pleasure across the screen rather than containing it to an individual sex scene. The fourth season of Bridgerton does not disappoint on this front.

This season’s central romance is inspired by the Cinderella trope, where class and social division are the main obstacles for the lovers. It raises a timely discussion of power, particularly pertinent to depictions of sex in a post #MeToo era.

A Cinderella story

This season focuses on the second eldest son, Benedict Bridgerton (Luke Thompson), and is so far adapted quite closely from Julia Quinn’s third Bridgerton novel An Offer from a Gentleman. Benedict is a self-proclaimed “lover of pleasure, a free spirit, untrammelled by mere convention”.

Pursuing a career as an artist, Benedict has come to be known as a bohemian of sorts. His queerness and ventures into non-monogamy are outside understandings of permissible relationships within Regency society. And, although it’s time for this rake to settle down, Benedict stays true to his rebellious nature.

Meeting at a masked ball, Benedict instantly falls for a charming and mysterious woman in silver. But when the clock strikes 12, she flees without revealing her identity, leaving behind only a satin glove and the traces of a passionate kiss that leaves them both in a state of perpetual yearning. And so, the “prince’s” quest for his mysterious maiden begins.

While Benedict is left love struck and confused, the mystery woman rushes home to assume her true identity as a maid. Despite the familiar setup, Sophie Baek (Yerin Ha) is wonderfully defiant and outspoken, aligning with a more modern tradition of Cinderellas that reject the original character’s subservience and passivity.

A glimpse below stairs

For the first time Bridgerton shows us the well-oiled machine of the servants’ quarters to which Sophie belongs. This season attempts a social critique of the class structures that, until this point, has remained peripheral.

From baking and cleaning to arranging secret sexual rendezvous for their employers, servants are seen as crucial to the opulent world we have experienced so far. So crucial, in fact, that when one house poaches a handful of vital servants, they set off what gossipmonger Lady Whistledown calls “the maid wars”. These poaching leave the ton (fashionable high society of Regency-era England) aflutter, with some houses poaching in turn and others becoming more appreciative of their labour.

This upstairs-downstairs glimpse contextualises the obstacles that this season’s couple face and the power dynamics that are at play.

When they meet again, unmasked, Benedict doesn’t recognise Sophie. Despite his loyalty to his mystery lady and the fact of Sophie being a maid, he falls in love anew – leaving him in a predicament.

“We must marry according to class, but we do not always love that way,” Benedict’s friend Will Mondrich tells him. Previously, his siblings Anthony and Eloise found themselves unsuccessful in their pursuit of relationships outside of their class. This is not a hopeful precedent for Benedict.

However, desire is hard to ignore and as their feelings grow hotter, the threat of scandal looms large. With the family reputation at stake and sisters still to wed, reality leaves him with no other option at the end of part one than to pop the critical question: “Will you be my mistress?”

Mistresses were women who had arrangements with wealthy and upper-class men, offering their sexual and social services in exchange for financial benefits and comfort. Despite potential privileges, these women were excluded from polite society and could never hope to legitimise their relationship through marriage, leaving them at the mercy of their “protector”.

A very indecent proposal indeed.

It also, sadly, brings things full circle. When Benedict re-meets Sophie, she is defending another maid from unwanted advances from their master. Her act of denial and defiance ends with both of their dismissals. Although Benedict saves her, securing her a job in his family home, and his advances are (somewhat) wanted, he ultimately puts her in a similar position.

The sexual encounter between the pair takes place on the staircase that separates the upstairs from downstairs, reminding us of the class conflict that is an obstacle to the longevity and legitimacy of their relationship.

Although Sophie is undeniably into Benedict, the wise housekeeper Mrs Crabtree warns Benedict that their difference in social station means that Sophie doesn’t really have the freedom to say no to him.

Benedict does not heed this warning and pushes on with his proposal, despite Sophie’s explicit statements about not wanting to risk the best job she’s ever had. With this proposal, his class power means he has everything to gain, and Sophie everything to lose. At the end of part one, Sophie is back where she started: the desires of a rich man threatening her stable employment and safety.

Although we see her reject Benedict’s offer, with part two still to come, Sophie is faced with the harsh reality of the limited options available to a woman of her stature when it comes to love. The question remains as to how the show will resolve this tension, and whether Sophie’s identity as an illegitimate heiress may be the secret ingredient to this Cinderella’s happy ending.

---

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.

---

Polina Zelmanova receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council to support the research undertaken as part of her PhD.

– ref. Bridgerton season four explores sexual and class power dynamics more than any season before – https://theconversation.com/bridgerton-season-four-explores-sexual-and-class-power-dynamics-more-than-any-season-before-274997

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Keren MacLennan, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Bath

In the academic year so far, the proportion of children who are “persistently absent” from schools in England – missing at least 10% of school sessions – stands at 19.5%. This is up from last year – and significantly higher than the 10.5% who were persistently absent before the pandemic.

The UK government’s “back to school” call in 2025 proposed a crackdown on “bad behaviour” to address this issue and get children back into classrooms. But a focus on bad behaviour may be missing the mark. Research suggests that in the majority of cases, school absence is underpinned by severe school distress and anxiety. Even more alarming is that many of these children are autistic.

Our schools and education system have not been designed for autistic children, who have neurological or thinking styles that diverge from what society sees as typical.

Up to 94% of autistic people have divergent sensory processing. This means that sensory information, such as loud sounds, bright lights and strong scents, can be distressing and overwhelming. In busy classrooms, dining halls and playgrounds, children are exposed to an onslaught of unpredictable and inescapable sensory information that becomes overwhelming across the day. This has been reported as a key reason autistic children experience distress and anxiety in school.

Here are the types of sensory information that autistic children tend to find more distressing, as well as some ways to support these challenges.

Sounds

Sudden and loud sounds, as well as environments with layers of different background noise, are commonly distressing for autistic people. Classrooms, dining halls and playgrounds have complex soundscapes with lots of chatter and noise from chairs and objects being moved about. There are also sudden sounds that can startle autistic children. These can include school bells, doors banging or teachers raising their voice or clapping to get the attention of pupils.

In research my colleagues and I carried out, autistic people, parents and teachers reported loud classrooms as the top contributor to school anxiety. But even in a quiet classroom, autistic children may struggle to filter out more subtle sounds, such as the buzzing from lights, clocks ticking, pens tapping and people whispering. These can also affect an autistic child’s ability to focus on their work.

Allowing children to listen to music with noise-cancelling headphones, use ear defenders or plugs, or sit somewhere quiet if the noise becomes overwhelming can help address these challenges.

Sights

Bright lighting, especially if it is artificial or fluorescent, can cause distress for autistic people. Classrooms and dining halls often have bright overhead lighting and children do not have the control to lower the lighting levels. Classroom walls are also often covered with busy display boards. This can cause distraction for all children, but especially autistic children.

This could be mitigated by allowing children to wear tinted glasses or to sit away from direct sunlight or bright overhead lighting.

Smells

Many autistic people can struggle with strong food smells, as well as cleaning products and perfumes. In schools, children can be exposed to food smells from canteens and packed lunches. There may also be a range of smells arising from peers and teachers, such as perfumes, coffee or body odour.

Having the option of a place to eat away from the canteen or large groups of other children could help autistic children cope with this.

Touch

Scratchy clothing fabrics and clothing labels are challenging for many autistic people. Mandatory school uniforms can cause distress for autistic children. They have limited choice in fabric and styles. Some elements of the uniform, such as blazers or school ties, may come with no choice at all.

Allowing some flexibility over clothing choices and cutting labels out of clothes could help here.

Making sensory-inclusive schools

Beyond individual support strategies, a range of steps can help make schools more sensory-inclusive. Providing flexible access to low-sensory spaces, such as rooms or dens, allows children to take breaks to recover from sensory information when they feel overwhelmed. In an ideal world, lighting and sound absorption would be improved, but at the very least sensory-inclusive design should be considered when new schools are being built.

There is also still widespread misunderstanding of autism and sensory challenges in schools. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, declared in November 2025 that children wearing ear defenders in a classroom is “insane” and has “got to stop”. But these sensory aids are essential for some children to attend school. Implementing evidence-based training for school staff and pupils on neurodiversity and autism, as well as training on sensory-inclusive spaces, can increase understanding and acceptance.

Importantly, this issue spreads beyond our schools. Many spaces in our communities pose sensory challenges – creating barriers to vital services and affecting mental health. The sensory environment affects everyone, so by making spaces more sensory-inclusive for autistic people, we may also make spaces better for all.

Keren MacLennan has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and Research England.

– ref. Schools aren’t designed for autistic children – these are the sensory challenges they face – https://theconversation.com/schools-arent-designed-for-autistic-children-these-are-the-sensory-challenges-they-face-273498

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Umair Choksy, Senior Lecturer in Management, University of Stirling

For more than a year, major institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been warning that rising tariffs and policy uncertainty would stifle global growth. This is reflected in the ways governments have been deploying tariffs unpredictably. Notably, the US has increasingly deployed threats and sudden tariff swings as tools in broader disputes.

Recent global trade updates from the likes of UN Trade & Development (UNCTAD) suggest this uncertainty is not fading. This reinforces the sense that trade volatility has become a lasting feature in the world economy rather than a temporary shock.

Contrast this unsettling picture with the strength of global trade and economic growth. One WTO report has noted that global trade volumes grew strongly in the first half of 2025, and projects that it will have been even stronger in late 2025. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) similarly notes that the global economy has shown “resilience” to trade shocks, even as the damage from shifting policies is starting to appear in more recent data.

While some interpret this as proof that the global economy can simply shrug off trade shocks, others have issued a warning. The global economy only appears resilient to tariffs; in reality, short-term offsets such as changing suppliers or altering supply chains have masked damage that will surface later through slower growth, higher costs and declining living standards. Over time, this damage will show up in everyday life – in what people pay, how secure their jobs feel, and how far their wages stretch.

My research on resilience in global supply chains has found that it is not something that businesses can achieve once and then forget about. What is happening now is not resilience, but temporary adjustments.

Imagine a supermarket that suddenly faces higher import costs on fruit because of tariffs or trade restrictions. At first, it does not redesign its entire supply network. Instead, it might buy from a different country for a few months or dip into existing stock in warehouses or distribution centres.

But if costs and availability remain in doubt, these temporary fixes stop working. Stock runs out. Emergency suppliers cost more. And when margins are squeezed for long enough, businesses respond by raising prices, freezing hiring, cutting hours, delaying pay rises or shedding jobs altogether. This is why resilience must be understood as a continuous process.

The same logic applies at national level. For countries like the UK, resilience to changing trade conditions means maintaining the ability to adjust repeatedly without exhausting households through ongoing cost-of-living pressures, income volatility and prolonged uncertainty about jobs and pay.

But when politicians interpret trade shocks as short-lived (as happened in the wake of Brexit), they tend to delay intervention. This could be holding back sector-specific support, postponing investment or relying on firms to absorb costs. This shifts the burden down the chain. Businesses protect their margins by passing costs on, and households become the shock-absorbers.

Tariffs and inequality

One lesson from my research is that some regions and communities are far more sensitive to tariffs and trade friction than others. This has the potential to deepen regional inequality, concentrating job losses and price pressures in already vulnerable areas.

For example, London and the south-east are less exposed to the direct impact of tariffs than many other parts of the country because their economies are dominated by services and finance.

Regions with more manufacturing and exports – such as the West Midlands, east of England, Northern Ireland and parts of northern England – rely more heavily on goods that face tariff barriers, such as cars and machinery. This means employment and business incomes can be more directly affected.

Addressing this imbalance requires more than a one-size-fits-all approach to trade policy. I have found that what matters is helping regions (and businesses in those regions) build resilience in ways that match the kind of disruption they face.

In practice, this depends on how often and how hard they are hit by tariffs. In places where trade costs rise repeatedly, businesses need support that helps them to keep operating without cutting jobs or squeezing pay every time costs increase. That means access to finance, help with managing cost pressures, and support that allows employers to retain workers when margins tighten.

In regions where tariff shocks are less frequent but still disruptive (as has happened to the US itself in its trade war with China), businesses need early signals about where pressures are emerging, and government support when costs spike. Without targeted backing, businesses pass costs on in the easiest way possible – through higher prices, delayed wage rises or job losses. When government treats resilience as a national average, it risks overlooking those places where adjusting is hardest and most costly.

Global trade uncertainty is going to continue. As such, policy needs to be designed for endurance rather than optimism. That involves shifting the focus away from short-term trade volumes and towards reducing the pressure of repeated tariff adjustments before they reach households. That means acting earlier in regions and sectors repeatedly exposed to disruption, rather than waiting for rising prices and job losses to hit households.

Umair Choksy 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. Tariffs might seem manageable now – but they’ll quietly squeeze households later – https://theconversation.com/tariffs-might-seem-manageable-now-but-theyll-quietly-squeeze-households-later-274594