Mission to Mars: how space exploration pushes the human body to its limits

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damian Bailey, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of South Wales

European Space Agency, CC BY-NC-ND

On January 14 2004, the United States announced a new “Vision for Space Exploration”, promising that humans would not only visit space but live there. Two decades later, Nasa’s Artemis programme is preparing to return astronauts to the Moon and, eventually, send humans to Mars.

That mission will last around three years and cover hundreds of millions of kilometres. The crew will face radiation, isolation, weightlessness and confinement, creating stresses unlike any encountered by astronauts before. For physiologists, this is the ultimate frontier: a living laboratory where the human body is pushed to, and sometimes beyond, its biological limits.

Space is brutally unforgiving. It is a vacuum flooded with radiation and violent temperature extremes, where the absence of gravity dismantles the systems that evolved to keep us alive on Earth. Human physiology is tuned to one atmosphere of pressure, one gravity and one fragile ecological niche. Step outside that narrow comfort zone and the body begins to fail.

Yet adversity drives discovery. High-altitude research revealed how blood preserves oxygen at the edge of survival. Deep-sea and polar expeditions showed how humans endure crushing pressure and extreme cold. Spaceflight continues that tradition, redefining our understanding of life’s limits and showing how far biology can bend without breaking.

To understand these limits, physiologists are mapping the “space exposome” – everything in space that stresses the human body, from radiation and weightlessness to disrupted sleep and isolation. Each factor is harmful on its own, but combined they amplify one another, pushing the body to its limits and revealing how it truly works.




Read more:
What happens to the brain in zero gravity?


From this complexity emerges what scientists call the “space integrome”: the complete network of physiological connections that keeps an astronaut alive in the most extreme environment known.

When bones lose minerals, the kidneys respond. When fluid shifts toward the head, it changes pressure in the brain and affects vision, brain structure and function. Immune cells react to stress hormones released by the brain. Every system influences the others in a continuous biological feedback loop.

The body as a biosphere

The spacesuit is the most tangible symbol of this integration. It is a wearable biosphere: a miniature, self-contained environment that keeps the person inside it alive, much as Earth’s atmosphere does for all life. The suit shields the body from the lethal physics of space, protecting against vacuum, radiation and extreme temperatures.

Inside its layered shells of mylar (a reflective plastic that insulates against heat), kevlar (a strong fibre that resists impact) and dacron (a tough polyester that maintains shape and pressure), astronauts live in delicate balance. There is just enough internal pressure to stop their bodily fluids from boiling in a vacuum, yet still enough flexibility to move and work.




Read more:
Modern spacesuits have a compatibility problem. Astronauts’ lives depend on fixing it


Every design choice mirrors a physiological trade-off. At too low pressure, consciousness fades within seconds. At too high pressure, the astronaut becomes trapped in a rigid shell.

Radiation remains spaceflight’s most insidious hazard. Galactic cosmic rays, made up of high-energy protons and heavy ions, slice through cells and fracture DNA in ways that biology on Earth was never built to repair. Exposure to these rays can cause DNA damage and chromosomal rearrangements that raise the risk of cancer.

But research into radiation biomarkers – molecular signals that show how cells respond to radiation exposure – is not only improving astronaut safety, it is also helping transform cancer treatment on Earth. The same biological markers that reveal radiation damage in space are being used to refine radiotherapy, allowing doctors to measure tissue sensitivity, personalise doses and limit damage to healthy cells.

Studies on how cells repair DNA after exposure to cosmic radiation are also informing the development of new drugs that protect patients during cancer treatment.

Microgravity presents another paradox. In orbit, astronauts lose 1–1.5% of their bone mass each month, and muscles weaken despite daily exercise. But this extreme environment also makes space an unparalleled model for accelerated ageing. Studies of bone loss and muscle atrophy in microgravity are helping uncover molecular pathways that could slow degenerative disease and frailty back home.

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station spend more than two hours a day performing “countermeasures”: intensive resistance workouts and sessions in lower-body negative pressure chambers, which draw blood back towards the legs to maintain healthy circulation.

They also eat carefully planned diets to stabilise their metabolism. No single strategy is enough, but together these help keep human biology closer to balance in an environment defined by instability.

Digital physiology

Tiny sensors embedded in spacesuits, or even placed under the skin, can now track heart rate, brain activity and chemical changes in the blood in real time. Multi-omic profiling combines information from across biology (genes, proteins and metabolism) to build a complete picture of how the body responds to spaceflight.

This data feeds into digital twins: virtual versions of each astronaut that allow scientists to simulate how their body will react to stressors such as radiation or microgravity.

The astronaut of the future will not simply endure space. They will work with their own biology, using real-time data and predictive algorithms to spot risks before they happen – adjusting their environment, exercise or nutrition to keep their body in balance.

By studying how humans survive without gravity, we are also learning how to live better with it. Space physiology has already helped shape treatments for osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, and it is improving our understanding of age-related muscle loss.

Research into spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome – a condition in which fluid shifts in microgravity cause pressure to build inside the skull, sometimes leading to vision changes – is helping scientists understand intracranial hypertension on Earth.

Even studies of isolation and resilience in astronauts have advanced research into mental health and stress adaptation, offering insights that proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic, when millions faced confinement and social separation similar to life aboard a spacecraft.

Ultimately, Mars will test our biology more than our technology. Every gram of muscle preserved, every synapse protected, every cell repaired will be a triumph of physiology. Space may dismantle the human body, but it also reveals our body’s astonishing capacity to rebuild.

The Conversation

Damian Bailey is supported by grants from the European Space Agency, SpaceX and Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship. He is Editor-in-Chief of Experimental Physiology and outgoing Chair of the Life Sciences Working Group and outgoing member of the Human Spaceflight and Exploration Science Advisory Committee to ESA. He is also a current member of the ESA-HRE-Biology Panel and Space Exploration Advisory Committees to the UK and Swedish National Space Agencies, and consultant to Bexorg, Inc. (Yale, USA) focused on the technological development of novel biomarkers of cerebral bioenergetic function in humans.

Angelique Van Ombergen works as Chief Exploration Scientist for the Directorate of Human and Robotic Exploration at the European Space Agency. She is an Associate Editor of NPJ Microgravity.

ref. Mission to Mars: how space exploration pushes the human body to its limits – https://theconversation.com/mission-to-mars-how-space-exploration-pushes-the-human-body-to-its-limits-267837

New Nasa lunar contest could pit Elon Musk against Jeff Bezos, as US fears China will win race to Moon

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ian Whittaker, Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University

The United States and China are locked in a contest to be the first country to send humans to the lunar surface in half a century. But there’s a developing twist: an emerging competition between American companies to build the landing vehicle that could win this new Moon race for the US.

The dust-up over the lunar lander could pit Elon Musk against his billionaire rival Jeff Bezos. And it has already sparked a war of words between Musk and Nasa’s acting chief, Sean Duffy, which exposes fault lines over the direction and leadership of the US space agency.

In April 2021 Musk’s company, SpaceX, was awarded the contract to develop the landing vehicle for Nasa’s Artemis III mission – the first return to the lunar surface by Americans since Apollo 17 in 1972. The lander was to be based on the innovative Starship vehicle, already under development at the time at the company’s base in south Texas.

SpaceX has carried out 11 test flights of Starship since April 2023. While launches in August and October 2025 were successful, the previous three flights ended in failure for the upper stage, or “ship” – which is the part intended to carry astronauts.

With China mounting a formidable bid for supremacy on the Moon, pressure was growing on SpaceX to make greater progress (though milestones are to some extent subjective). On October 20, Sean Duffy announced that he was opening up SpaceX’s US$4.4 billion (£3.3 billion) contract to rival companies, citing delays with Starship. Duffy, who is also the US transportation secretary, has been Nasa’s acting head since July.

Musk’s company must still demonstrate consistent launch safety. It also has to test critical technologies, such as refuelling Starship in orbit, before the planned 2027 date for Artemis III. “They (SpaceX) do remarkable things, but they’re behind schedule,” Duffy claimed.

China plans to land its astronauts on the Moon by 2030 and key figures in the US space community have warned that America may lose the race.

In October 2025, Jim Bridenstine, who led Nasa under the first Trump administration, told a US Senate hearing: “Unless something changes, it is highly unlikely the United States will beat China’s projected timeline.”

An artist's impression of Starship (left) docked to Nasa's Orion spacecraft (right) in lunar orbit.
An artist’s impression of Starship (left) docked to Nasa’s Orion spacecraft (right) in lunar orbit.
SpaceX

Given that Nasa landed crews on the lunar surface six times in the 1960s and 70s, getting there now might seem as if it should be straightforward. Unfortunately the rockets and capsules used for the Apollo programme are no longer in service and would be extremely difficult to reproduce today. With advanced technology, however, we should be able to produce more efficient missions capable of launching heavier payloads.

Of course the big difference between now and the Apollo era is funding. At its peak (between 1965 and 1966) Nasa was being given 4.5% of all US spending annually. This dropped consistently over subsequent decades and, in 2024, sat at around 0.4%. This factor of ten less means fewer staff, reduced innovation and more reliance on international collaborations.

Nasa has an additional disadvantage that many other spacefaring nations do not.
The president helps determine the goals of the agency. With the office changing hands (and potentially party) every four to eight years, a singular vision can be difficult to establish. It can also make the agency slower to react to changing geopolitics.

New entrants?

With China’s planned Moon launch fast approaching, Duffy’s call for new landers might appear to be cutting it fine. One likely contender may be able to modify an existing vehicle rather than starting from scratch. Jeff Bezos’ company, Blue Origin, is planning an uncrewed launch of its Mark 1 lander to the lunar surface in early 2026. The vehicle was designed to transport cargo, not people. But a report in Ars Technica suggests Blue Origin is looking to redesign the spacecraft so that it can carry crew.

The company’s plan reportedly involves “multiple” Mark 1 vehicles to ferry crew to the Moon’s surface and then return to lunar orbit. Duffy has already told Fox News that he expects Blue Origin to “get involved”. Critically, the proposal from Bezos’ company would skip the technical challenge of refuelling in orbit, which is required of Starship (though it’s unclear at this stage how Blue Origin would avoid this).




Read more:
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface


At the same time, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin has also been putting together a group of a dozen other unnamed industry players who would build a lunar lander from existing hardware. Lockheed’s vision for the Artemis III lander would take some design cues from the Apollo-era lunar module.

The day after Duffy’s lunar contract announcement, Musk launched an online tirade at Nasa’s acting chief. On X, Musk posted: “Should someone whose biggest claim to fame is climbing trees be running America’s space program?”

Duffy is a former member of Congress and world champion lumberjack speed climber. He holds a bachelor’s degree in marketing and a law degree. When comparing qualifications, it should be noted that Musk holds a bachelor’s degree (in economics and physics) but pulled out of graduate studies at Stanford.

However, the SpaceX boss’s feud with Duffy may extend beyond the potential loss of the lander contract. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a “power struggle” over who will permanently lead Nasa under the second Trump administration. The SpaceX boss has long backed fellow billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacman to be in charge of the space agency.

Jared Isaacman
Jared Isaacman had previously been nominated to lead Nasa.
Nasa / Bill Ingalls

Isaacman was previously nominated by President Trump to lead Nasa, but his nomination was later withdrawn. The Wall Street Journal report says Isaacman is still in contention to lead the agency. Ars Technica, meanwhile, has reported that Duffy wants to remain in charge.

Whoever is selected will help shape the agency’s priorities at a critical time. Opening up the Artemis III lander contract could lead to further infighting between Nasa and industry, endangering – rather than accelerating – the schedule. It will also cost money that is badly needed in other parts of the agency, such as its science division. This could, for example, be spent hiring researchers to analyse data from Nasa’s existing missions.

Defending his company’s track record on X, Elon Musk posted: “SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry.” He added: “Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission, mark my words.”

As Sean Duffy posted in response: “Love the passion. The race to the Moon is ON.”

The Conversation

Ian Whittaker 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. New Nasa lunar contest could pit Elon Musk against Jeff Bezos, as US fears China will win race to Moon – https://theconversation.com/new-nasa-lunar-contest-could-pit-elon-musk-against-jeff-bezos-as-us-fears-china-will-win-race-to-moon-268361

Girlbands Forever: BBC documentary charts the highs and lows of British girl groups – with one glaring ommission

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joel Gray, Associate Dean, Sheffield Hallam University

There can be no doubt that any conversation about British girlbands of the last 30 years would be dominated by Spice Girls.

In whichever corner of the globe you are, they were the defacto pop force of the late 1990s – and their impact has been long-lasting. From Adele to Beyonce Knowles-Carter, many contemporary world-class artists cite them as an inspiration.

However, new BBC documentary series Girlbands Forever focuses on many other girlbands who have emerged in British pop music from the early ’90s (Eternal) to the present day (Little Mix). It takes a broadly chronological overview, charting their development, releases and eventual splits in almost forensic detail.

As both a girlband fan and researcher, I was, though, disappointed that it offers little discussion of the impact these artists have had on their fans. Also absent from discussion is the link to queer audiences – something many girlband members have made specific reference to themselves.

One celebratory theme that is strong throughout this three-episode series is diversity and sisterhood. Eternal, All Saints, Atomic Kitten, Sugababes and Little Mix were all made up of racially diverse singers. And as each girlband passed the baton to the next generation, both media and society seemed more and more at ease with this concept.

Other topics of discussion include changes in the media (from newspapers to gossip magazines to reality television to social media) and society more broadly (rave culture, “Cool Britannia” and changing governments). This grounds the girlband discussions in a wider context.

Particular attention is paid to Little Mix as the girlband who won TV talent show The X Factor in 2011 – yet no mention is made that Girls Aloud did it nearly ten years earlier, when they won Popstars The Rivals in 2002.

Indeed, the fact Girls Aloud are not mentioned at all in the series is a glaring omission. While Little Mix faced abuse from anonymous social media trolls and the Spice Girls were constantly targeted by ’90s tabloid newspapers, Girls Aloud were the defining girlband of the celebrity gossip magazine era in the mid-2000s. Experts such as author Michael Cragg have written about the band’s impact on pop culture, and fans are likely to be disappointed by their omission.

The absence of a band which produced superstar (and later X Factor judge) Cheryl Cole highlights another area which a future series could go into: the solo career struggles and successes of these girlband members. Cole had two solo no.1 albums, and joins Spice Girl Geri Halliwell as one the most successful British female artists of all time.

Girls Aloud are a notable absence from the documentary.

The success of girlbands has always nurtured rich careers in the entertainment industries for its individual members. Both Jade Thirlwall and Perrie Edwards of Little Mix had top-five albums in the same month recently. Spice Girl Mel B is an international TV icon, judging talent shows on multiple continents; Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton has established her own record label; and Eternal’s Louise Redknapp had a top-10 album in 2025.

Spice Girl Melanie C and the All Saints’ offshoot Appleton (composed of sisters Natalie and Nicole Appleton) have been seen in the studio this year, with projects rumoured for 2026.

There are also plentiful non-music projects to mention. Many girlband members go on to support charities and philanthropic causes. Halliwell recently received an honorary doctorate from my university, Sheffield Hallam, for her work advancing rights for women and children on projects with the United Nations and Royal Commonwealth Society for Literacy. And Mel B has received awards for raising awareness of domestic abuse.

But for every number-one record and charity ambassadorship role, there is a member who may have not had the same luck. All Saints star Melanie Blatt, for example, has taken on a “chef residency” at a London pub which, while no bad thing, feels rather different to filming television shows in LA, or the solo efforts of her Girls Aloud and Spice Girls peers.

In contrast to the documentary’s omissions, I am glad it spotlights the brilliance of Atomic Kitten stalwarts Jenny Frost and Natasha Hamilton, who were quintessential noughties pop stars and gay icons.

In lieu of much Spice Girls and Girls Aloud discussion, their energy and charisma brings a welcome feeling of personal nostalgia – and a reminder of why the world needs fantastic popstars. Their cheeky charm, which first won me over 25 years ago, still makes me smile today.


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.


The Conversation

Joel Gray 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. Girlbands Forever: BBC documentary charts the highs and lows of British girl groups – with one glaring ommission – https://theconversation.com/girlbands-forever-bbc-documentary-charts-the-highs-and-lows-of-british-girl-groups-with-one-glaring-ommission-268677

‘You can’t eat electricity’: how rural solar farms became Britain’s latest culture war

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Heffron, PhD Candidate in Geography, Lancaster University

Sean Matthews, the Reform UK leader of Lincolnshire County Council, has said he’ll “lie down in front of bulldozers” to stop Britain’s largest solar farm being built in the county. He’s taking sides in a new rural culture war that pits green energy against the countryside’s traditional image of food and farming.

Reform’s opposition to renewables isn’t surprising. Fossil fuel interests have provided around 92% of the party’s funding according to research by DeSmog (when contacted by DeSmog, Reform did not comment on that finding). But solar farms have become a way for the party to mask these interests by presenting itself as a defender of farms, fields and “common sense” against what Matthews called the “nonsense” of net zero.

Meanwhile, the protest group Farmers to Action has urged supporters to “keep the land growing, not glowing”. Its leader, Justin Rogers, has called climate change “one of the biggest scams that has ever been told”, and the group now operates in lockstep with the Together Declaration, a rightwing campaign group with an explicit anti-net zero agenda.

Yet a recent protest organised by these groups in Liverpool, at the Labour Party conference, suggests there is limited enthusiasm in the farming community for these culture wars. While most of the speakers were farmers, very few working farmers showed up. (One of us, Tom, who has been to around 15 of these protests, was there in person and estimates about 50 out of around 300 people present were farmers.)

Those mobilising the culture wars are trying to turn localised rural resentments against solar panels into a wedge issue, and in the process win over rural voters to Reform as the party of anti-net zero. If Reform wins the election, it will seek to impede necessary renewable energy projects.

However, this conflicts with the majority of farmer sentiment, which shows they are concerned by climate change. So, while Reform UK is positioning itself as anti-climate, is the party, despite the rhetoric, actually anti-farmer?

‘You can’t eat electricity’

Research by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) found 80% of UK farmers are “concerned about the impact of climate change on their ability to make a living”, while 87% have experienced reduced productivity due to heatwaves, floods or other climate change-induced extreme weather.

For farmers, productivity isn’t just about profit – it’s a central pillar of what sociologists have called the “good farmer” identity. This is the idea that being a successful food producer is central to how many farmers see themselves and their role.

Since the second world war, agricultural innovations have largely been aimed at producing more food, as a way to improve domestic food security.

Now, in essence, they are being asked to shift their identity to embrace energy production along with food production. But planting fields with solar panels clashes with the productivity aspect of what it means to be a good farmer. The truism that “you can’t eat electricity”, as Farmers to Action put it, is trying to speak to this sentiment.

The accusation is that taking land out of production threatens food security. In fact, only around 0.5% of UK farmland needs to be converted to solar to achieve the government’s target figure.

At the same time, as the research by ECIU has found, the very productivity of farming is being threatened by climate change. This presents an apparent tension.

Without urgent climate action, British farms will continue to bear the costs and consequences. Environmentalists and climate activists might wish to take advantage of this tension between what farmers need and what Reform is offering. While Nigel Farage, Richard Tice and co shake their fists at the Sun, farmers suffer in the heat.

Corporate profits or community interest?

Many objections to large solar farms are driven by a sense of fairness. For example, a tenant farming family in Yorkshire is about to lose 110 acres of their best arable land – half their farm – to solar panels, without any compensation. This will have a devastating impact on their business – where they have lived and farmed for many decades.

For the landowner, the switch will probably be very lucrative, with energy companies reportedly offering rents as high as £1,000 per acre per year, on long-term contracts.

In this scenario, the landowner wins and the tenant loses, which goes against the principle of a just transition, the idea that those affected by the shift to net zero should not lose out. This is despite the prime minister, Keir Starmer, making a pre-election pledge that tenant farmers would be protected.

Effective green policy must ensure that green transitions benefit those doing the work or opposition will grow. Perhaps if the profits were recouped by local communities, not far-off corporations and large absentee landowners, nimbyism wouldn’t fester so easily.

There are fairer ways to deploy renewables, via initiatives which involve and benefit local communities. An example of this is Cwm Arian Renewable Energy, near to where one of us, Alex, lives. It has used the income from wind energy to support the local community in various ways, such as offering good employment, putting on community events and teaching land skills.




Read more:
Family farmers say their way of life is an impossible dream when ‘the bread of life is worth less than rusty metal’


Farmers, like the rest of society, are paying the price of high energy costs. Recent research has shown that wind energy alone has reduced British energy costs by at least £104 billion. Making clear that renewable energy developments can help with lowering energy bills could go some way to overcoming opposition.

Ultimately, farmers still want to farm and produce food. At the same time, agriculture must fit into broader green transitions. The challenge is to take on board the voices and concerns of farmers and see them as part of the transition – not treat them as obstacles to it. If not, there are plentiful voices on the right who are eager to offer them an alternative.


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.


The Conversation

Tom Carter-Brookes receives funding from Leverhulme Trust.

Tom Carter-Brookes is a member of the Green Party.

Alex Heffron 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. ‘You can’t eat electricity’: how rural solar farms became Britain’s latest culture war – https://theconversation.com/you-cant-eat-electricity-how-rural-solar-farms-became-britains-latest-culture-war-268128

Why is it so difficult for the UK to deport foreign criminals?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Singer, Professor of Refugee Law, School of Advanced Study, University of London

macondofotografcisi/Shutterstock

A convicted sex offender has been deported from Britain to Ethiopia after being accidentally released from prison. Following a national manhunt, home secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed that Hadush Kebatu – an asylum seeker who came to the UK without authorisation on a small boat – would be returned to his home country.

Kebatu was convicted in September of sexual offences against a woman and 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Mahmood announced she had “pulled every lever” to ensure his deportation. But shouldn’t it be easy for the government to deport someone who has committed a crime such as this?

Under UK law, the home secretary has a duty to pursue removal of foreign national offenders (FNOs). This includes “automatic” deportation of any foreign nationals who are sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment. They also have discretion to deport a foreign national (whether or not they have committed an offence) if they believe it “is conducive to the public good”.

But for several reasons, the UK has struggled to do this. In 2006, it was revealed that some 1,013 foreign national prisoners had been released without the Home Office considering deportation. This was a scandal that led to the resignation of then home secretary Charles Clarke.

Currently, the UK deports approximately 5,000 FNOs per year. There are currently 10,700 FNOs held in UK prisons, around 12% of the total prison population.

FNOs are considered for deportation on completion of their sentence or, increasingly (given the pressure on space in prisons), before they have served their full sentence. This may be under early release schemes or prisoner transfer arrangements with their home country.

In practice, deportations are often complicated by procedural issues. Removal can be prevented by lack of travel documents, and the Home Office may have to seek an emergency travel document from an individual’s embassy before they can be removed – a process which can be frustrated if the offender or their embassy refuses to cooperate or are slow in doing so.

Deportation arrangements

To address these issues, the UK now has 110 prisoner transfer agreements with other countries – most recently, Albania and the Philippines. Through these arrangements, offenders can partially serve their sentence in the UK, and then be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in their home country.

There are two other schemes under which FNOs may be deported before serving their full sentences: early removal, and facilitated return schemes. Under these schemes, they do not serve the rest of their sentence in their home country.

Recent changes to the early removal scheme mean FNOs have to serve only 30% of their sentence (rather than 50%) before removal. The home secretary has indicated plans to reduce this to 0%, so offenders can be targeted for deportation as soon as they are sentenced.

The facilitated return scheme encourages voluntary removal. It “sweetens the deal” by providing the offender up to £1,500 to help them resettle in their home country, if they agree to withdraw any outstanding appeals or applications to stay in the UK.

There has been some criticism of the fact that Kebatu was given £500 after threatening to disrupt his deportation. Although his was a forced return, not part of voluntary removal, the Home Office argued this is still a smaller payment than would have been required to detain him and put him on a different flight.

In many cases, lack of coordination and administrative errors in the Home Office are the root cause of failed removals. Complications around booking flights, arranging escorts and other practicalities have all been found to prevent deportations.

Human rights concerns

Offenders may also appeal their deportations by arguing that removal would breach their right to private and family life, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

This is sometimes misreported as offering FNOs very broad protection against removal. For example, the wrongly reported case of an Albanian who resisted removal on the basis his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets, or Theresa May’s assertion that a foreign offender was able to stay in the UK because he had a pet cat. These attention-grabbing headlines often misrepresent the content of decisions and mischaracterise the role of human rights.




Read more:
How the UK could reform the European convention on human rights


In fact, the UK has a very strict interpretation of article 8, and decision-makers must balance the right against aims such as controlling immigration and public safety.

UK rules state that the public interest in removing foreign offenders will almost always outweigh any article 8 rights, except in the most exceptional cases. This may be, for example, if the person has lived in the UK for almost their whole life and would have real difficulty integrating in the country they would be removed to, or if removal would be “unduly harsh” on their (UK citizen) child or long-term partner. FNOs sentenced to four or more years in prison must show “very compelling circumstances over and above” these exceptions.

Foreign nationals may also argue that their life will be at risk, that they will suffer inhuman or degrading treatment, unlawful detention, or an unfair trial on return to their home country.

In practice, this means the UK government cannot deport someone if there is a high risk they would face irreparable harm including persecution, torture, ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations. In some cases, this has been relied on to prevent deportation where there was a risk of abduction and torture at the hands of police, or to face trial where evidence obtained by torture would be used.

However, this is only applicable where there is real risk of very serious harm and will not apply in all, or even most, cases. British courts have ruled it is possible to return people even to countries in conflict, if there is a safe place in the country they could move to.

The most recent data shows that between 2008 and 2021, 11% of FNO appeals against deportation succeeded on human rights grounds. This is 3%-4% of the approximately 60,000 FNOs removed from the UK during this period.

Despite the exceptional nature of these human rights protections, the challenges they are perceived to pose to a state’s ability to control its borders mean they attract a disproportionate amount of political attention. In May this year, nine European states took the unprecedented step of issuing a letter to the European Court of Human Rights, calling for greater state powers in removing foreign criminals.

The UK justice secretary has followed suit, stating that the UK will pursue reform of the European convention.


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.


The Conversation

Sarah Singer 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 is it so difficult for the UK to deport foreign criminals? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-difficult-for-the-uk-to-deport-foreign-criminals-268625

J.D. Vance calls himself a ‘post-liberal’: here’s what that means for US government

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Sleat, Reader in Political Theory, University of Sheffield

The US vice-president, J. D. Vance, has identified himself as being “of the post-liberal right”. Vance is generally thought of as more influential than many previous US vice-presidents and the odds are narrowing on him running for president in 2028. So it’s useful to know what this “post-liberal” section of the Republican party stands for.

In many ways, post-liberalism isn’t new. As I argue in my forthcoming book, post-liberals hold very traditional, conservative views on social issues that have been present in the Republican party going back decades.

They don’t believe in abortion rights, same-sex marriage, or gender self-identification. They also oppose access to pornography, and condemn blasphemy, while urging governments to strengthen support for families, rebuild communities, support churches, unions, and local groups, and bring society back to its Christian roots.

But post-liberalism is different from past conservatism in three big ways.

Economic policy

Since the 1980s, conservatives across the west have mostly supported neo-liberal economics. That means things like free trade, privatisation, less government spending, globalisation and letting markets run with little interference. In short: the market decides, not the state.

Post-liberals strongly disagree. They argue that neo-liberalism has helped big corporations make unprecedented profits while hurting working people, destroying local communities, and damaging the environment. They say free trade hasn’t raised living standards for everyone – especially the working class.

Instead, they want governments to break up powerful monopolies, rebuild manufacturing bases, ensure that wages can support families, protect workers (including gig workers) and support unions and trades. This is closer to former president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s, where an emboldened state counterbalances capital to protect communities and the working-classes, than it is Ronald Reagan’s free marketeering philosophy of the 1980s.

Freedom and the common good

Post-liberals also argue that neo-liberal economics isn’t truly conservative at all – it’s just another form of liberalism because it focuses on individual freedom and choice. Liberalism is about giving people as much freedom as possible. Post-liberals say this has gone too far. In their view, freedom is not the most important thing – it’s more important to be making the right choices.

They believe in something they call the “common good”: the idea that there is one true way to live a good life, and that politics should guide people towards it. Individuals, according to this view, can be wrong about what’s best for them. It’s the moral purpose of the state to step in and point them in the right direction.

The role of the state

Religion – especially Catholicism – plays a big role in this. Many post-liberal thinkers are Catholic (as is Vance). Some believe that the state should act under the authority of the Catholic church to pursue our spiritual ends – very likely restricting certain civil and political rights of unbelievers (or believers of the wrong religion) in doing so. Not all post-liberals agree with that extreme version. But all agree that religion needs to play a more central role in politics.

Traditional conservatives often tried to change culture first, hoping politics would follow. Post-liberals think this has failed. What is needed instead, they believe, is the opposite: political power needs to be seized and then used to make society more conservative.

Like populists, they argue that “the people” (especially the working classes) are being undermined by a liberal elite. But while populists want to hand politics to the people, post-liberals think elites are inevitable. The question is whether the right elites – those committed to the common good – wield power.

Strategies differ among post-liberals as to how this will be achieved. One model is democratic – take over a political party (as Trump did with the Republicans) and then reshape society along post-liberal lines. Another model is significantly less democratic: place loyal officials inside the administration to quietly change the system from within, even if voters do not support post-liberalism.

Which strategy post-liberals choose depends on how much they think ordinary people understand their best interests. If they believe “the people” still know what is good for them – that is, post-liberalism – then all that’s needed is a political party to run on a post-liberal platform and win support through elections.

But in reality, there isn’t much evidence that large numbers of people are already waiting to support post-liberal ideas.

That makes the second strategy – quietly reshaping government from the inside – seem more likely. In this view, if people don’t know what’s truly good for them, democracy can’t be trusted. Instead, leaders must guide – or even compel – citizens towards the “right” beliefs and choices, teaching them what their real interests are.

Where conservatives have distrusted large governments, championed markets, and celebrated individualism, post-liberals embrace “big-state conservatism”. They treat a strong and activist government as essential to counter vested economic interests. Further it’s the government’s moral purpose to guide the people towards living what they believe to be the universal view of what represents a good life.

Post-liberals want to use government power to reshape society. They want to guide people towards one view of the good life, heavily influenced by religion. But many people do not

ref. J.D. Vance calls himself a ‘post-liberal’: here’s what that means for US government – https://theconversation.com/j-d-vance-calls-himself-a-post-liberal-heres-what-that-means-for-us-government-264547

Dam disasters of the 1920s made reservoirs safer – now the climate crisis is increasing risk again

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Woodward, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Manchester

One hundred years ago, a catastrophic flood carrying enormous boulders swept through part of Dolgarrog village, north Wales, destroying several homes, a bridge and the local chapel. Ten adults and six children lost their lives. The tragedy was widely reported and King George V sent a message of condolence.

This was not a natural flood. It was caused by the failure of two dams impounding the Eigiau and Coedty reservoirs on the Carneddau plateau, high above Dolgarrog, following a wet October. Overtopped by inflow from the Eigiau breach, the Coedty dam failed catastrophically, unleashing a flood of some 1.7 million cubic metres. There was no time to warn the village.




Read more:
When the dam broke: the 1925 disaster that reshaped a Welsh community and a country’s safety laws


The Dolgarrog disaster followed a reservoir failure at Skelmorlie, Scotland, in April 1925. Both brought attention to poor dam construction and inadequate maintenance practices, and led directly to the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act of 1930.

The act sought to ensure the structural safety of large reservoirs by introducing legal requirements for regular inspection and certification by qualified engineers. It was the first attempt in the UK to regulate the design, construction, and maintenance of reservoirs through statutory safety measures.

Since Dolgarrog, the UK has had an excellent reservoir safety record. But in late July 2019, the evacuation of more than 1,500 residents from Whaley Bridge downstream of Toddbrook reservoir in Derbyshire, England, was ordered. Toddbrook had received a month’s rain in just two days.

Swollen inflows overtopped the dam’s emergency spillway, undermining its concrete slabs. A large cavity appeared on the spillway, exposing the dam’s core, raising fears of a breach.

A Chinook helicopter dropped 400 tonnes of aggregate on the Toddbrook spillway to reinforce the damaged section, while fire services used high-capacity pumps to lower the water level and reduce pressure on the dam. After several days, engineers declared the Toddbrook dam stable enough to lift the evacuation order.

The Toddbrook incident was one of the most serious near failures of a dam in recent UK history. It showed how extreme rainfall events can threaten dam safety and communities living downstream. Gavin Tomlinson, the fire incident commander, said: “We were in a situation where we had five times as much water going in than we could take out. We absolutely thought it could fail. It was a very, very tense night.”

Following this scare, in April 2021, the UK government commissioned an independent review into reservoir safety. A ministerial direction was issued to owners of all large, raised reservoirs, making the formulation of emergency flood plans a legal requirement to ensure that they are prepared for an eventuality that could result in an uncontrolled release of water.

The threat from climate change

As geomorphologists who work on river processes and landforms, we are researching the landscape-changing effects of such dam breach floods, but also how topography can amplify the hazard to communities.

As the Dolgarrog disaster showed so graphically, reservoirs that drain into steep and narrow upland valleys present a particular hazard, especially where flows increase in speed and pick up destructive boulders. All aspects of the landscape setting should be part of flood emergency planning.

While the Toddbrook reservoir was compliant with existing legislation and had been recently inspected, it suffered “unforeseen and potentially critical damage that could have led to a catastrophe.” Questions were raised by local residents about how well it had been maintained. Repairs were nearing completion in late 2025.

Most reservoirs in upland Britain were constructed in the 19th century under hydrological conditions that no longer hold. Embankment dams and older masonry dams can be especially vulnerable to erosion, seepage, slope instability or overtopping.

The most common cause of dam failures is overtopping where the spillway cannot cope with floodwaters. Reservoir safety may also be challenged by rapid or sustained water level lowering during droughts. As pore pressures change, and soils dry out and crack, embankment stability can be compromised.

Climate change is increasing both storm and drought intensity in many parts of the UK posing a threat to reservoir safety. Climate models tell us that intense rainstorms that cause flash flooding will be five times more likely by 2080. Steep upland catchments in hard impermeable rocks are especially vulnerable to flash flooding, and this is where much of the UK’s water storage infrastructure is located.

The Dolgarrog disaster was the last time anyone was killed in the UK by a dam failure. But if intense storms and prolonged droughts are the new normal for our climate, the risk to ageing upland water storage infrastructure will likely increase.


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.


The Conversation

Jamie Woodward has received funding from research councils in the UK and Australia.

Jeff Warburton has received funding from UK research councils.

Stephen Tooth has received research funding from various sources, including charitable and non-charitable sources in the UK, Australia, South Africa, and USA.

ref. Dam disasters of the 1920s made reservoirs safer – now the climate crisis is increasing risk again – https://theconversation.com/dam-disasters-of-the-1920s-made-reservoirs-safer-now-the-climate-crisis-is-increasing-risk-again-267449

Witch memorials are quietly spreading across Europe

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jan Machielsen, Senior Lecturer in Early Modern History, History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University

Across Europe, campaigns for national witch memorials are gathering pace. In the Netherlands, a charity recently announced it had selected the design for a monument in Roermond, the site of the country’s worst witch-hunt.

In Scotland, campaigners Claire Mitchell and Zoe Venditozzi published a manifesto, How To Kill A Witch, to continue pressure on the Scottish government for a state-funded monument. Their Witches of Scotland campaign had won an early victory in 2022 when first minister Nicola Sturgeon issued an official apology.

Across early modern Europe (1450-1750), between 40,000 and 50,000 people were executed as witches. Though the age and gender of the accused varied from place to place, roughly 75% to 80% of all victims were women.

Within Britain and Ireland, Scotland saw some of the fiercest witch-hunting. Historians have identified more than 3,800 accusations (84% women), leading to perhaps as many as 2,500 executions.

Despite these stark figures, there are still no official national witch memorials anywhere in Europe, although the Steilneset memorial in northern Norway, created in 2011, comes close.

The lack of such national memorials does not mean the witch hunt has been forgotten. Its memory has long offered moral lessons for the present.

On the other side of the Atlantic, descendants of those caught up in the infamous 1692 Salem witch trials were among the earliest to commemorate the victims. A cenotaph erected in 1885 by descendants of Rebecca Nurse, one of the Salem accused, may well have been the first.

In Europe, there are similar local memorials. A witches’ well installed outside Edinburgh Castle in 1894 was probably the earliest such memorial in Europe, but most local attempts at memorialisation have been much more recent.

Our project – supported by Cardiff University’s On Campus student internship scheme – mapped memorials around the world and created an inventory of 134 plaques, memorials, sites and museums, which skews heavily towards the 21st century. Of the sites that can be securely dated, nearly half were unveiled during the past decade.

#MeToo, politics and wartime bears

This growth in grassroots interest has several origins. It partly stems from renewed concern at present-day violence, both against women in general but also against suspected witches in the global south. Our research threw up one memorial in the Indian state of Odisha to deter modern vigilantism.

It also coincides with the popularisation of witch-hunting as a political metaphor and the #MeToo movement. The latter not only encouraged women to call out misogyny, in the process it also highlighted how few statues of non-royal women exist.

It was the sight of a statue of Wojtek, a Polish bear and second world war mascot in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens, that inspired one of the Witches of Scotland campaigners. If a bear could be commemorated, why not any of the thousands of women executed as witches?

Overlaying witch memorials with the geography of the early modern witch-hunt reveals further striking patterns. With 29 local memorials, Scotland accounts for the largest share, followed by Germany with 24 – both epicentres of the early modern witch-hunt.

By contrast, France is virtually absent from our data. There is no memorial in the former Duchy of Lorraine, another notable witch-hunting hotspot, nor any marker in Paris of the sensational and infamous “affair of the poisons” that shook Louis XIV’s court.

Whether to remember is also a political choice. Memorials in the Basque country present witch-hunting as foreign (French and Spanish) impositions, while glossing over the role played by local officials and folkloric beliefs.

Catalonia saw relatively few trials but its nationalist politicians have spearheaded motions labelling the witch-hunt “institutionalised femicide”. In this way, calls for a memorial have become something of a vehicle for progressive nationalism.

How to remember can be fraught. Accusations of kitsch, commercialism and profit haunt museums in particular. Salem’s Witch Museum was once named the world’s second biggest tourist trap.

Perhaps for this reason, many communities have settled for straightforward plaques listing those executed for alleged witchcraft. In a similar spirit, streets in Catalonia and Scotland have been renamed in their memory as well.

Going further raises thorny questions of artistic licence and historical representation. Visual depictions risk perpetuating stereotypes about warts, noses and pointy hats.

On the other hand, portraying witches as alluring ignores a substantial body of research linking witchcraft fears to young mothers’ anxieties about the postmenopausal body. For those reasons, a monument on a Belgian roundabout of a naked witch “flying to freedom” on her broomstick surrounded by traffic sparked much debate among our project team.

Acts of remembering inevitably entail acts of forgetting, and there are pitfalls here to be avoided. Stronger, more centralised states saw less witch-hunting, not more. State and church-issued pardons and apologies may thus downplay the role that communities played in witch persecutions, including other women.

Remembering is never simple. Yet, as one of history’s most infamous forms of demonisation, the early modern witch-hunt will always teach us how easy it is to blame, and how difficult it is to understand.


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.


The Conversation

This project was supported by Cardiff University’s On Campus internship scheme. The authors would like to thank student interns Abigail Heneghan and Gabriel Hyde for creating the memorial database and for their thoughtful comments on this article.

Paul Webster 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. Witch memorials are quietly spreading across Europe – https://theconversation.com/witch-memorials-are-quietly-spreading-across-europe-265506

What will Trump’s deal with Xi mean for the US economy and relations with China? Expert Q&A

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Harper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of East London

It was 12 out of ten, said US president Donald Trump when reporting back on his meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. The two men met in the South Korean city of Busan on October 30, the first time they have come together face to face since 2019.

That, in itself, must be seen as progress after months of rising tensions. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the world’s two biggest powers have squared off in what has threatened to become an increasingly damaging trade war.

Their meeting by no means resulted in a trade deal – that will need to be agreed in coming months, if at all. But there is definitely a sense that a truce has been agreed by Xi and Trump, which will lower the temperature considerably and bring a sense of calm to relations between the two countries.

We asked Tom Harper, an expert in Chinese foreign policy at the University of East London, for his initial reaction to the messages emerging from the talks.

Who comes away from the meeting happier – Xi or Trump?

Both leaders will be happy at the outcomes from this meeting. Donald Trump is famously transactional in his approach to foreign policy, and he comes away from the meeting able to trumpet a “win” for the US.

China will be buying American soybeans, Xi has promised to help deal with the fentanyl issue and his threat to restrict China’s exports of the all-important rare earth minerals will not come into force. For 12 months, at least.

However, it’s important to note that there was no agreement from China to relax restrictions it imposed in April on exports of some critical minerals. Xi will want to prevent the US from building stockpiles of some key rare earth elements.

Restoring some trade between the two countries will also help ease the strain on US consumers. They are currently having to shoulder higher prices for everyday items, caused by the tariffs. Given Trump pledged to bring down prices in his presidential campaign, he may be able to frame this as a political victory with American voters.

China will benefit from lower US tariffs on many of its exports and Trump will suspend plans to expand trade restrictions to companies on what is known as the “entity list”. This is something China has been pushing for as it affects many of its companies. But of course, as we know, all of this could easily change.




Read more:
Chinese controls on rare earths could create challenges for the west’s plans for green tech


What does this meeting tell us about the two countries’ priorities?

What’s very evident from the language used by the Chinese foreign ministry’s report of the meeting when compared to the US president’s comments on social media and elsewhere is the different sense of timing between the two cultures.

China’s analysis stressed that this was all at one with the country’s long-term strategy, developed “from generation to generation”. It spoke in terms of a broad sweep of development: “Our focus has always been on managing China’s own affairs well, improving ourselves, and sharing development opportunities with all countries across the world.”

Trump’s post on Truth Social focused squarely on the deals done: the soybeans, rare earths and cooperation over fentanyl. He’s clearly looking ahead to the midterm elections, which take place next November. This electoral test of what Americans think of the first 18 months of Trump’s second term is looming ever larger.

On the one hand, his administration is trying to enhance its prospects by tinkering with the voting system in the US. On the other hand, the US president clearly sees foreign policy “wins” as being important when it comes to improving his approval rating with the US public.




Read more:
Trump-Xi talks will not have changed the priorities of the Chinese government


A rare earth production facility in China.
A rare earth production facility in the Jiangxi province of central China.
humphery / Shutterstock

What are the main areas of tension between the two countries now?

Tech issues will undoubtedly continue to cause tensions between Beijing and Washington. The US currently blocks Chinese access to much of the advanced tech that Beijing needs to fulfil its desire to become the world’s leader in AI.

And, despite Trump’s suggestion that he and Xi discussed China purchasing some chips from US firms, Chinese access to such advanced tech looks like it will remain heavily restricted.

Trump has said that any trade deal with China will not involve the export of Blackwell, the most advanced AI chip produced by US firm Nvidia. US lawmakers have previously raised concerns about allowing China to obtain the chip, suggesting it could bolster China’s AI industry and weaken the US’s tech edge.

Where was the regular US lecture on human rights? And was Taiwan discussed at all?

Taiwan doesn’t appear to have been on the agenda, from what both sides have said. Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, took the opportunity of hosting delegates from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group this week.

He talked about nurturing “closer Taiwan-US-Israel cooperation on security, trade and beyond, promoting peace across the Taiwan Strait”. But it’s far from clear that this is at the front of Trump’s mind.

Before the trip, it was reported that Trump’s advisers had been concerned that the US president might come away from the meeting with Xi having in some way changed the language over China’s relationship with Taiwan.

There has also been talk in recent months that the US position might shift from “not supporting” Taiwanese independence to “opposing it”. However, when he was asked about this after his meeting with Xi, the US president said they hadn’t discussed it.

Human rights, on the agenda at just about every meeting between a US president and a Chinese leader for as long as anyone can remember, appears not to have featured in the two men’s discussion either.

The Conversation

Tom Harper 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. What will Trump’s deal with Xi mean for the US economy and relations with China? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/what-will-trumps-deal-with-xi-mean-for-the-us-economy-and-relations-with-china-expert-qanda-268688

Why did the polls get the Caerphilly byelection wrong? They ignored the fact Reform is an English nationalist party

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

The results of the Caerphilly Senedd byelection held on October 23 were certainly a shock to Labour and to the Conservatives, but they also cast doubt on the reliability of polling as well. It had for some time appeared that Reform was in the running to win the seat but it ended up trailing some way behind Plaid Cymru.

A Survation telephone poll published on October 16 suggested Plaid Cymru would come second with 38%, and the election would be won by Reform with 42%. The actual results after the October 23 vote were Plaid Cymru first on 47% and Reform second on 36%.

Labour obtained 12% in the poll and 11% in the election, which is fairly accurate. The Conservatives received 4% in the polling and got half of that with 2%. Similarly, the Greens also got half of their predicted share of 3% and the Liberal Democrats got 1.5% following a prediction of 1%.

Voting in Caerphilly – Poll vs Results:

A chart showing what a pre-election poll showed for Caerphilly and what actually happened, with the poll wide of the mark for most parties.
How a poll compared to the result.
P Whiteley, CC BY-ND

So what went wrong? The small sample telephone poll in the constituency which Survation used does not have a good track record. Surprisingly, national polls are more likely to be accurate than constituency polls.

There are a number of reasons why this is true, chiefly that it is harder to get an accurate sample of respondents at the constituency level than it is nationally. This is particularly true of telephone polls, where the great majority of people approached will not respond.

But there is another important reason why Reform did worse than expected in the byelection and it relates to national identity. The 2021 census asked questions about people’s national identities – that is, did they feel British, English, Welsh, Scottish, and so on.

Overall, 90% of the population (53.8 million people) in England and Wales identified with at least one UK national identity. This makes it possible to investigate identities at the constituency level.

Some 55% of the population in Wales described themselves as Welsh in the census, but in Caerphilly it was 69% – a far higher figure. Equally, 18% described themselves as British in Wales but in Caerphilly it was 14%. Finally, 9% of the Welsh population described themselves as English, but only 4% of the population in Caerphilly did so.

Census National Identity Data, Comparing Wales and Caerphilly:

A chart showing that people feel more Welsh in Caerphilly than the rest of Wales and less British.
Caerphilly identities.
P Whiteley, CC BY-ND

It’s also revealing to compare the constituency and the rest of Wales when it comes to voting in the general election of 2024. Plaid took just under 15% of the vote in Wales but it took 21% in Caerphilly. Reform took 17% in Wales and 20% in Caerphilly.

This is why many thought that Reform would win the byelection. So why did Plaid get 11% more of the vote share than Reform in the byelection?

The main reason is that Reform is fundamentally an English nationalist party, as the chart below reveals.

There is a very strong correlation between English identity in the census and voting Reform across the 543 constituencies in England. The more people think of themselves as English rather than British or something else, the more they were likely to vote Reform in the 2024 election.

English Identity and Reform Voting in 2024:

A chart showing a close correlation between Reform voting and English identity.
How Reform voting relates to English identity.
P Whiteley, CC BY-ND

Because English identity is low in Caerphilly, even by Welsh standards, Reform struggled to get the support it would have received in a comparable constituency containing a lot more English identifiers. It did well in the general election because this was focused on the entire UK, but when the focus is on Wales in a byelection, English identity is a problem for the party.

More generally Reform will face difficulties in the future winning seats in both Wales and Scotland, since English identifiers in these countries are few and far between.

This is going to be an issue in the Welsh Senedd elections and also the Scottish Parliamentary elections next year, since Plaid Cymru and the SNP are likely to be more successful against an unpopular Labour party in their respective countries than is Reform.

For next year’s local government and devolved parliamentary elections, there is something the pollsters can do to correct for the national identity effects.

All pollsters weight their data, that is, they attach more importance to some respondents than others in order to get an unbiased sample. They should weight for national identity using the census data and this will help to make the estimates more accurate.

Reform is in part a product of the incomplete devolution experiment introduced by Tony Blair’s government in the 1990s and 2000s. This exercise provided a powerful parliament for Scotland and a less powerful but important parliament for Wales.

The missing element was a parliament for England. It was thought at the time that this was unnecessary since the Westminster parliament would take care of English issues, but with English nationalism on the rise, it may well be time to reconsider this arrangement.


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.


The Conversation

Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

ref. Why did the polls get the Caerphilly byelection wrong? They ignored the fact Reform is an English nationalist party – https://theconversation.com/why-did-the-polls-get-the-caerphilly-byelection-wrong-they-ignored-the-fact-reform-is-an-english-nationalist-party-268630