Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Kelly, Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry, Sheffield Hallam University

The UK government has announced plans to expand its trial of using drugs to reduce the libido of male sex offenders. The approach, often described as “chemical castration”, is controversial. But how does it work – and what are the risks?

Castration traditionally meant removing or disabling the testes, a man’s main source of testosterone, to blunt the hormone’s masculinising effects. Historically, this was done to create castrati – singers castrated before puberty to preserve their high voices – or eunuchs, often used in royal courts and religious institutions to dampen sexual desire.

Modern castration still has a medical role, particularly in prostate cancer. This disease is fuelled by testosterone, and lowering hormone levels can slow its growth. While surgical removal of the testes was once common, doctors now usually rely on drugs to block testosterone production instead – a method known as chemical castration.

Normally, testosterone is regulated by a feedback loop between the brain, pituitary gland and testes called the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis. The brain signals the pituitary to release hormones that stimulate the testes. Once levels rise, the brain senses it and dials production back down.

Anti-androgen drugs disrupt this system, either by blocking testosterone’s effects or by shutting down the brain’s signals. Drugs such as medroxyprogesterone acetate and cyproterone acetate work by switching off the body’s testosterone supply.

Testosterone is central to libido. It acts on brain regions like the hypothalamus and limbic system, which help drive sexual thoughts, desire and arousal. Reducing testosterone can lower these urges, while also affecting physical aspects of sex, such as the ability to achieve and maintain an erection.

The government’s proposals include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), drugs more commonly prescribed for depression and anxiety. SSRIs increase serotonin in the brain, which can lift mood, but they also reduce sexual desire and performance as a side-effect by interfering with dopamine.

Dopamine is the brain’s main “reward” chemical, strongly linked to pleasure, motivation and sexual behaviour. Serotonin, on the other hand, tends to calm and regulate emotions, often dampening sexual drive. By boosting serotonin, SSRIs can tip this balance – reducing dopamine activity and lowering sexual interest.

When combined with anti-androgens, the two treatments can act on both hormonal and neurological pathways, blunting both the physical and psychological aspects of sex drive.

This dual approach has already been used in other countries. Poland introduced it as a mandatory punishment for certain offenders in 2009, while in south-west England it has been trialled on a voluntary basis, with “successful outcomes” reported.

Not without risks

The UK’s current proposal is also voluntary, aimed at people struggling with persistent and distressing sexual thoughts that they do not want and actively seek help to control. But while it may reduce reoffending, the treatment is not without risks.

Testosterone plays a vital role in many aspects of health. Long-term suppression has been linked to early death, higher risk of heart attacks and strokes, type 2 diabetes, loss of muscle and bone strength, as well as possible links with Alzheimer’s and breast tissue growth in men.

There are also psychological risks. Testosterone influences mood, and its suppression has been associated with higher rates of depression and even suicidal thoughts and behaviour.

Chemical castration may well prove useful in preventing future sexual offences. But policymakers must weigh its benefits against serious health risks. And given the already high rates of mental health problems among offenders, there is concern that some may not fully understand the consequences of long-term testosterone suppression – physically, psychologically and socially.

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

– ref. UK expands chemical castration pilot programme for sex offenders – but what are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/uk-expands-chemical-castration-pilot-programme-for-sex-offenders-but-what-are-the-risks-266026

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Prior, Lecturer in Politics with International Relations, London South Bank University

At Labour’s 2025 conference, Starmer’s chosen political narrative has been to draw a line between himself and Nigel Farage, between Labour and Reform – a choice between “decency and decline”. Labour represents a progressive patriotism and national renewal – and Reform a backwards-facing “politics of grievance”.

Establishing a clear line that separates Reform from Labour (and from as much of the electorate as possible) is all the more urgent a task since the latest polling suggests 29% of voters choose Reform and only 21% Labour. Judging by how often Reform were mentioned in Starmer’s speech, in contrast with the Tories (about whom Starmer quipped, “Remember them?”), Labour appears to have accepted Reform as the main opposition.

While this decision is partly due to polling, it may also derive from a broader perception of Reform as Labour’s biggest existential threat. “The politics of grievance,” Starmer told the audience, clearly referring to Reform, “is the biggest threat we face.”

Starmer’s conference speech welded Labour’s narrative to Reform: for him, victory for the former must come at the expense of the latter. Starmer would probably avoid this terminology personally, but the narrative is very much “us versus them”. Talk of a “dividing line” may be putting it too mildly, after all. Starmer now speaks of a “a fight for the soul of our country”.

And what sort of country does the prime minister want the UK to be? On the morning of Starmer’s speech, his senior minister Darren Jones promised conference attendees that the PM would explain the “journey” that we are all about to go on. Lest we forget – as BBC chief political correspondent Henry Zeffman pointed out – we are only 14 months after an enormous Labour election win.

Keep your enemies close

Labour’s narrative is defined by Reform to a huge extent, not just in electoral strategy but in basic rhetoric. If you saw a transcript of a speech about “national renewal”, and heard a politician attack complacent adherence to a status quo of globalisation and free movement, you’d perhaps assume it came from the political right.

Starmer clearly wants to wrestle a narrative of “renewal”, “patriotism”, “national pride”, away from the right-wing and rebrand them as traditional Labour values. He attached related terms were to the NHS – and presented Reform as an immediate threat to that institution.

It is significant that, for all the abstract talk of a struggle for the soul of the country, the antagonists were specific. A left-right struggle was done away with for a battle on a different front. Starmer took aim at “snake oil merchants on the right, and on the left”, fully aware that threats to his premiership (and to Labour itself) exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

Starmer also argued that he’d heard “enough lectures from self-appointed champions of working people”. Though this was explicitly directed towards figures like former prime ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, it can also be understood as a rebuke to some on the left.

This is, on some level, also a battle for the working class – and class was explicitly mentioned many times. Starmer said he made no apology if his plans “lean towards the working class” and stated that too often, people have been overlooked and ignored by politicians specifically because of their class.

In the past, Starmer has drawn on his own life story when talking about class, but this time pulled away from that, sometimes for comic effect, for example saying that the audience probably already knew what his father did for a living. This was very much a speech about the party’s future, and the country’s future, not about Starmer’s past.

One of the principles of good storytelling is knowing your audience. It is all the more significant that the Labour conference has not been the jubilant atmosphere we might have expected for a party so recently elected to government. Starmer knew that he had to unite the party around a common cause, and in the face of a common threat. We now know exactly who, and what, that is.

Alex Prior 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. Labour conference: Starmer takes aim at political opponents but ties his own future to Reform – https://theconversation.com/labour-conference-starmer-takes-aim-at-political-opponents-but-ties-his-own-future-to-reform-266003

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Julie M. Norman, Senior Associate Fellow on the Middle East at RUSI; Associate Professor in Politics & International Relations, UCL

The 20-point Gaza peace plan thrashed out under the leadership of the United States and agreed to by Israel is one of the most comprehensive outlines put forward publicly by the Trump administration for ending the conflict with Hamas.

The plan reportedly has the buy-in of the Arab states as well as the UK and France. It could mark a pivotal point for ending the war.

But Hamas was not involved in developing the plan and has yet to give an answer (although it is reportedly studying the details). And it may be that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has already doomed the project by declaring that Israel would “forcibly resist” a Palestinian state, apparently contradicting the plan he has just endorsed.

But beyond Hamas’s response, plenty of questions remain. The proposal is more a framework than a detailed plan and there are many points that require further negotiations and additional clarification for both parties.

Any agreement to end the war may fracture Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich has already signalled his intention to oppose the plan, calling it a “resounding diplomatic failure” that would “end in tears”. So it is far from clear that Netanyahu can secure the agreement of his own parliamentary backers.

Hamas, meanwhile, is likely to view the plan as less of a proposal and more of an ultimatum. Both Netanyahu and Trump were clear that if Hamas rejects the plan, Israel will – in Trump’s words – “finish the job”, with all the further death and destruction that entails.

What would Hamas gain?

But the plan does include some things Hamas wants. For that reason it’s probably the best offer it is likely to get from the US and Israel. The war will immediately end. Israel will release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees – including 1,700 Gazans detained since 2023. Hamas members who disarm and accept coexistence with Israel will be given amnesty and allowed to leave if they choose.

Israel will not annex or “occupy” Gaza, the plans says. But it calls for Israel to have a security perimeter around the enclave and it’s not yet clear when Israeli troops will withdraw. Many Palestinians will view any remaining Israeli or international military presence as occupation.

The plan also promises to bring much needed relief to civilians via the restoration of humanitarian aid (on terms agreed in the January 2025 ceasefire). And it recognises the central role of the United Nations (along with the Red Crescent) in administering the aid – a key concession.

And, crucially, nobody will be forced to leave. In fact the plans says that people will be encouraged to stay. And those who do wish to leave will be able to do so and will be free to return.

What are the red flags for Hamas?

But Hamas is likely to see numerous red flags in the plan. Earlier in the year it was reported that some of the group’s leaders were open to phased decommissioning of arms.

But it will be difficult for the organisation to commit to full disarmament and demilitarisation, especially if swaths of Gaza (and other parts of Palestine) remain under Israeli control and the terms of Israeli withdrawal remain unspecified. Hamas will likely push for much clearer timelines for IDF withdrawal before committing to any type of public disarmament process.

The plan is also vague on any guarantees that the war would not just start up again after Hamas releases the hostages. Hostilities will end immediately the agreement is signed, followed by a 72-hour period to allow for all hostages to be released.

Hamas will want to see further assurances from the US and regional partners that the war will not resume once Israel has its hostages back. This has been a stumbling block previously.

It will also be difficult for Hamas to agree to signing over Gaza’s governance and redevelopment to non-Palestinians – especially to a body headed by Donald Trump. The plan envisions a two-tiered model for governance. The day-to-day running of services will be done by an apolitical, technocratic Palestinian committee.

It’s not yet clear who they will be – or who will select them. Sitting above them in an oversight role will be a new international transitional body. The so-called “Board of Peace” will be chaired by Trump and include other members and heads of state – including Tony Blair.

The former UK prime minister appears to have the support of Israel and some regional leaders. But he is a controversial choice for most Palestinians. Not only was he a prime mover in the “coalition of the willing” which accompanied George W. Bush’s Americans into Iraq. But also his leadership from 2007 to 2015 of the Quartet – a mediating body for the Israel-Palestine peace process – has been criticised as ineffective and too pro-western business.

---

Read more:
The 5 big problems with Trump’s Gaza peace plan

---

There’s also ambiguity surrounding the future role of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in governance of Gaza. The 20-point plan specifies that this would not happen until the PA has completed the reform process outlined in Trump’s previous plan.

It is not clear who would define or assess those reforms. And, in any case, Netanyahu has flatly rejected any role for the PA in Gaza.

The plan is also intentionally noncommittal when it comes to Palestinian statehood. There is a carefully worded statement that recognises Palestinian self-determination and statehood as the aspiration of the Palestinian people, and suggests future conditions may allow for a pathway to take shape.

But Netanyahu has been clear that he will resist any moves towards Palestinian statehood. There is no mention of any framework for negotiations towards statehood in this agreement.

Gazans are desperate for the devastation to end. And Hamas is likely well aware that Trump’s plan, however flawed, is the best offer it will get from the US and Israel.

The question is if the parties involved are willing to work through the sticking points, or if they will frame any objections as a rejection and an excuse to continue the war.

Julie M. Norman 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. Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza is deeply flawed but it may be the best offer Hamas can expect – https://theconversation.com/trumps-20-point-plan-for-gaza-is-deeply-flawed-but-it-may-be-the-best-offer-hamas-can-expect-266373

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Faye Davies, Senior Lecturer in Media and Cultural Theory, Birmingham City University

Earlier this month, it looked as if late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel had lost his job after his network, ABC, pulled his show over controversial comments he made about the death of Charlie Kirk. But within a week he was back, and his show Jimmy Kimmel Live! gained its highest ratings in more than a decade.

It was Kimmel’s first show back on the air after ABC lifted his suspension as a result of public pressure. Kimmel had prompted outrage including from the US president, Donald Trump, and his Maga supporters after he accused what he called “the Maga gang” of attempting to capitalise on Kirk’s murder.

ABC’s decision to pull Kimmel off the air gained global attention. Trump celebrated on his TruthSocial platform, citing what he said were Kimmel’s poor ratings and lack of talent. But Kimmel’s fans – and supporters of free speech in the US and beyond – cancelled their subscriptions to Disney, ABC’s owner.

Disney relented and ABC reinstated Kimmel. But the episode – as well as comments from Trump that networks whose shows were opposed to him should “maybe” have their licences “taken away” – has raised fears and prompted questions about free speech, state intervention and censorship in the US.

Late-night shows have been a cornerstone of the American media landscape since the late 1940s. They typically air after the evening news and their hosts, usually comedians, tend to open with a monologue which takes in and provides a humorous commentary on the news.

---

Read more:
Jimmy Kimmel is back, but how much longer will late-night comedy last?

---

The Tonight Show’s host Johnny Carson introduced the witty introductory speech in the 1960s. Late-night political satire in the US has tended to focus on scandalous and controversial decisions, with a distinct focus on the personalities and actions of prominent public figures. Many previous presidents have been targeted but they haven’t shied away from engaging with the format. Both Richard Nixon and John Kennedy appeared on The Tonight Show in the 1960s, as did Ronald Reagan in the mid 1970s. Bill Clinton appeared on The Arsenio Hall Show as a saxophone-playing presidential hopeful in 1992.

David Letterman hosted George W. Bush in 2000. Barack Obama appeared on Saturday Night Live as a candidate before he became the first sitting president to join late-night host Jay Leno in 2009. Surprisingly, even Donald Trump hosted the satirical sketch show Saturday Night Live in 2004 and then again as candidate in 2015.

It’s a powerful medium that reaches diverse audiences, and in some instances can sway opinion. Research has found that Carson’s coverage had an impact on public opinion around the Watergate scandal against then sitting president Nixon.

Political satire tends to be focused on comic metaphors and embellishment – and so not all presidents make for good jokes. For instance, Obama didn’t provide enough scandal for content.

But the twice-impeached Trump has offered endless fodder for late-night political satire. Hosts jumped on his suggestion that injecting disinfectant might be able to treat COVID-19. They found much to prod at through the Stormy Daniels scandal.

That was during his last presidency, however. This time round he seems less open to the jokes.

---

Read more:
New York Times v Sullivan: the 60-year old Supreme Court judgment that press freedom depends on in Trump era

---

Feeling the heat

Speaking soon after Kimmel made his comments, the government official responsible for licensing ABC’s local stations publicly pressured the company to punish Kimmel. Speaking on right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson’s show, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr said: “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” It was a clear warning that action restricting content appeared to be looming.

Disney and ABC were clearly panicked and Kimmel was pulled off air.

After Kimmel’s suspension, the world of late night rallied around him. Meyers said on his show, Late Night with Seth Meyers that the situation, “has experts worried that we are rapidly devolving into repressive autocracy in the style of Russia or Hungary”. Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show – which will be discontinued in 2026 – maintained he stood with Kimmel warning that “with an autocrat, you cannot give an inch”. He called ABC “naive” for pulling Kimmel off the air.

Even former US president Barack Obama spoke up, claiming that muzzling reporters and commentators was dangerous government coercion.

As the clampdown on late-night shows develops, Kimmel and Colbert’s situations raise significant questions about free speech and the scope of political satire in “the land of the free”.

---

Read more:
The First Amendment: what it really means for free speech and why Donald Trump is trampling on it

---

Kimmel: contrite yet defiant

After his cancellation was reversed, Kimmel returned with an emotional and defiant 28-minute monologue. He appeared visibly moved when making it clear that: “It was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. I don’t think there’s anything funny about it.” Kimmel emphasised that he wasn’t laying the blame for Kirk’s death on any political side – and had been trying the achieve precisely the opposite.

Central to Kimmel’s return was his strong reaffirmation of satire’s role in American political discourse with a nod to all sides of the political spectrum: “I want to thank the people who don’t support my show and what I believe, but support my right to share those beliefs anyway.”

And, while it appears Trump is doubling down on his threats, so far the backlash and resulting debate over free speech, cancel culture, and social media will keep the late-night genre part of US primetime for now.

---

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.

---

Faye Davies 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. Late-night TV in the US has a storied history of political commentary and presidential engagement – https://theconversation.com/late-night-tv-in-the-us-has-a-storied-history-of-political-commentary-and-presidential-engagement-266087

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catia Nicodemo, Professor of Health Economics, Brunel University of London

The UK’s science minister, Sir Patrick Vallance, has sounded the alarm over the country’s declining investment in medicines. He warned that the NHS risks losing out on important treatments and the country could lose its place at the cutting edge of medical research if spending does not recover. It comes at a sensitive time – this year drugmakers including Merck and AstraZeneca have backtracked on plans to invest in the UK.

Vallance is correct that there is a need to encourage pharmaceutical firms to keep investing and launching new medicines in the UK. On the other side, there is a need to protect public funds from being wasted on treatments that do not offer enough benefit for their cost.

At the moment, just 9% of NHS healthcare spending goes on medicines. This is less than Spain (18%), Germany (17%) and France (15%). At a time when some experts believe the UK is getting sicker, this might come as a surprise.

But the UK is unusual among major health systems in how carefully it regulates drug spending. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has, since its creation, judged new treatments not only on clinical evidence but on cost-effectiveness.

That means asking whether a drug’s health benefits – measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) – justify its price compared with existing care. For most treatments the threshold is about £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY. This is not a perfect measure, but it gives the NHS a consistent way of deciding whether the health gained is worth the money spent.

The value of this approach is clear. Nice’s record shows that medicines that pass its tests have added millions of QALYs to patients in England, while also preventing waste on drugs that bring only marginal improvements at high cost.

A study published earlier this year in medical journal The Lancet found that many of the new medicines recommended by Nice between 2000-2020 brought substantial benefit to patients. But it also noted that some high-cost drugs deliver much less health gain than investments in prevention or early diagnosis could.

The study emphasises that maintaining rigorous thresholds around cost-effectiveness ensures that public funds go to treatments that really improve lives. In other words, the discipline of cost-effectiveness has protected the public purse while ensuring access to genuine innovations.

This regulatory strength is reinforced by national pricing schemes for branded medicines. These cap overall growth in the NHS drugs bill and require companies to pay rebates if spending rises too fast. In practice, this means that if total spending on branded medicines exceeds an agreed annual limit, pharmaceutical companies must pay back a percentage of their sales revenue to the Department of Health.

In recent years that rebate rate has been as high as 20–26% of sales, effectively lowering the price the NHS pays. This is made possible by the buying power of the health service.

Together with Nice’s appraisals, these measures have helped the NHS maintain relatively low medicines spending compared with many countries. At the same time, it still secures access to major advances in cancer therapy, immunology and rare disease treatment.

For a publicly funded service under constant financial strain, these protections are vital. Despite the pressure on its budget, the NHS has secured meaningful access to new therapies. For example, by March 2024, nearly 100,000 patients in England – many of whom would otherwise face long delays or rejection – had benefited from early access via the Cancer Drugs Fund to more than 100 drugs across 250 conditions.

The balance with Big Pharma

However, strict controls on price and access can have unintended consequences. If companies see the UK as a low-return market, they may choose to launch new drugs elsewhere first, or to limit investment in research and early trials here.

There is a danger that patients could face delays in receiving new treatments. Or the scientific ecosystem, which relies on steady collaboration with industry, could weaken.

Still, the answer is not to abandon cost-effectiveness. Without it, the NHS would risk paying high prices for small gains. This would divert money from staff, diagnostics or prevention – areas that often bring more health benefit per pound spent.

In such cases, raising thresholds or relaxing scrutiny would do more harm than good. Cost-effectiveness is not just about saving money. It is about fairness, ensuring that treatments funded genuinely improve lives relative to their cost.

The challenge, then, is balance. The UK should continue to hold firm on value for money, while finding ways to encourage investment. That might mean improving the speed and clarity of Nice processes, so that companies know where they stand earlier and patients can access good drugs more quickly.

It could involve reviewing thresholds periodically to account for inflation and medical progress, without undermining the principle that treatments must show sufficient benefit. And it certainly means supporting research and development through stable partnerships with universities, tax incentives and grants.

What should not be underestimated is the UK’s scientific strength. The country remains home to world-class universities, skilled researchers and an innovative biotech sector. The rapid development of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID vaccine showed what UK science can deliver at scale and speed.

---

Read more:
The UK’s speedy COVID-19 vaccine rollout: surprise success or planned perfection?

---

Pharmaceutical companies know this, and many – including AstraZeneca, GSK, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and most recently Moderna – continue to invest in British labs and trials because of the talent and infrastructure. Danish firm Novo Nordisk has strengthened its ties with the University of Oxford, committing £18.5 million to fund 20 postdoctoral fellowships as part of its flagship research partnership.

The UK’s approach to assessing value has won respect internationally. That discipline must be preserved. Reversing the decline in investment means creating a predictable, transparent environment for industry while maintaining the protections that safeguard patients and taxpayers alike. If done well, the UK can continue to be both a responsible buyer of medicines and a world leader in science.

Catia Nicodemo is affiliated with university of Oxford

– ref. The UK must invest in medicines – but not at any price – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-must-invest-in-medicines-but-not-at-any-price-266016

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paola Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, Associate Professor School of Philosophy and Art History, University of Essex

When natural disasters strike, they shatter lives, disrupt routines and loosen the emotional ties people have with the places they call home. For the Italian towns of Amatrice and Accumoli, devastated by a 6.2 earthquake in 2016, the damage extended far beyond bricks and mortar. Streets vanished. Landmarks were reduced to rubble. The past seemed to disappear while the future became very uncertain.

But what if technology could offer a way to reconnect with what was lost and reflect on the future of the place?

Recent research my colleagues and I conducted explores how virtual reality (VR) can help communities recover emotionally, socially and culturally after a disaster.

Working with members of the communities affected, we created immersive digital environments of their towns as they existed before the earthquake. The results revealed how VR can support healing in ways no blueprint or rebuild ever could.

Here are four ways virtual reality might help communities heal after catastrophic events strike.

1. It offers a space to grieve and remember

For many participants, the VR reconstructions were emotionally powerful experiences – one even described them as “cemeteries of place”. Stepping into a virtual version of their hometown allowed them to reconnect with deeply personal memories: the sound of a church bell, the feel of sitting on a bench while having a gelato, the view from a childhood window.

Grief in post-disaster settings isn’t just about lost lives – it’s also about the erasure of everyday spaces where people worked, gathered, played, laughed and simply lived. One resident of Amatrice told us she didn’t have the courage to drive through the town any more because the destruction was too painful to witness.

In VR, however, she was able to revisit the square where she used to sit with her family and eat ice cream. For some, this triggered sadness, but also joy, a sense of lightness – and a sense of reconnection.

2. It helps people reclaim a lost ‘sense of place’

Disasters often leave communities displaced, physically and emotionally. Familiar surroundings become unrecognisable. For residents of Amatrice and Accumoli, whose historic centres are still inaccessible or remain destroyed after nine years, daily routines and social interactions have been disrupted and must be reconstituted.

By recreating these spaces in VR, we saw how people could begin to reclaim their sense of place. The reconstructions included not just major landmarks, but also small, meaningful details, such as plastic chairs outside cafes, flowerpots on balconies, even the chatter of people in a square on a summer evening. These touches matter. They help make the virtual towns feel alive, bringing back the heritage of the everyday of these communities.

One participant said that being in the VR environment felt like “going to the living room” again, a phrase some locals once used for their evening strolls in the town square.

3. It supports intergenerational memory-sharing

Many of the younger participants in our project were children, or not yet born, when the earthquake struck. Their memories of the towns are fragmented or absent. VR gave them a way to see and understand what their parents and grandparents remember, through their eyes, to ask questions, point to places, and listen to stories.

In practice, the experience became a shared one. While one person wore the VR headset, others gathered around a laptop to observe, comment and remember. One teenager asked her mother to help find the window of her old bedroom. Another participant’s son, born two years after the earthquake, “saw” pre-quake Amatrice for the first time through VR and through his father’s narration.

These moments turned the technology into a tool for storytelling, for keeping cultural memory alive between generations.

4. It creates inclusive, community-led recovery tools

Much disaster recovery is led by top-down planning (meaning, engineers, architects and bureaucrats making decisions about what to rebuild and how). But VR offers an opportunity to include community voices from the start.

Our project used a “techno-ethnographic” approach, where residents didn’t just observe but shaped the reconstructions. We asked: what should we include? What matters to you? They pointed out favourite cafes, benches, trees and missing features. They even debated how many clocks were on the civic tower, as they could not remember.

This collaborative process gave residents a sense of agency over how their towns and their memories were represented. It also reminded us that authenticity isn’t about perfect realism. It’s about emotional truth: the way a place feels, not just how it looks.

Technology and emotional healing

Virtual reality can’t replace what’s been lost. It can’t rebuild trust, revive livelihoods or resolve trauma. But our research shows it can offer emotional healing: a space where people can mourn, reflect, reconnect and share.

It also shows that technology must be handled with care. In early versions of our VR environments, we found that some participants became distressed or disoriented, especially when scenes depicted post-earthquake ruins of the town in nighttime settings. This taught us the importance of trauma-sensitive design: allowing users to adjust lighting, control their experience, or even just step away when needed.

Ultimately, VR is not a fix but it can be a powerful complement to the long, human work of rebuilding after disaster. When designed with communities, for communities, it can help restore more than heritage. It can help restore belonging.

Paola Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco receives funding from UKRI through a Future Leaders Fellowship, Round 6

– ref. Four ways virtual reality can help communities heal after disasters – https://theconversation.com/four-ways-virtual-reality-can-help-communities-heal-after-disasters-263479

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ayse Burcin Baskurt, Senior Lecturer, Applied Positive Psychology, University of East London

Waiting can be boring, which is why we typically do anything we can to avoid it. We fill moments where we have to wait with something to keep our minds busy – such as scrolling on social media, reading the news or listening to a podcast.

But waiting isn’t always bad. Research shows that it can be beneficial as it improves self-control – an ability important for many social, cognitive and mental health outcomes.

Self-control refers to a person’s ability to regulate their thoughts, emotions and behaviour when long-term goals conflict with short-term temptations.

Self-control has broad importance – whether that’s in school or the workplace – because of its implications for learning, decision-making, performance, social relationships and wellbeing. The skill is key in resisting temptation in these settings.

Our ability to wait is a key way self-control is put to the test.

This might include pausing for a moment before writing a response to an email that has annoyed us. Or maybe it’s resisting the temptation of an unhealthy food when you’re trying to eat healthier. Both of these are examples of exerting self-control and creating space between impulse and action.

Research shows that even short delays or pauses – such as ordering food ahead of time or waiting before making a purchase – can cool-off impulses and help us prioritise long-term goals.

Despite the attention given to self-control in different fields of psychological research, waiting as a standalone construct has not received as much attention. Still, what research there is on the topic shows us that waiting can have similar benefits.

For instance, research has looked at what effect silence has in coaching conversations – with silence acting as a form of waiting. When the person who has been asked a question pauses before answering, it gives them the space to process their thoughts. This can help them better understand how they’re feeling, uncover memories or even shed a light on things that are confusing them. In this way, silence serves a distinct purpose in communication – be it a pause for better listening, a defence or a chance for reflection.

Moments of waiting can create space for reflection. Having the opportunity to reflect on our actions, emotions and experiences can spark ideas, deeper focus and creativity.

There are many personal and cultural differences in terms of how we perceive time in waiting. Waiting can also be uncomfortable or frustrating for those brains that crave stimulation. And, in some cultures, it can be framed as passive or inefficient – while in others, waiting is deemed powerful and transformative.

These differences mean that waiting can be perceived and practised differently – and so benefits will appear in different forms.

The value of waiting

To reap the benefits that can come from learning self-control, resisting urges and appreciating the moments when we’re waiting, we need to recognise the value of waiting.

Here are some evidence-based tips from positive psychology for practising it more intentionally for our own wellbeing:

1. Savouring

Have you ever bought a ticket for an event and ended up enjoying the anticipation more than the event itself? Or felt the excitement of counting down to a summer holiday with friends?

When we anticipate something exciting, part of the joy lies in the wait itself. Research shows that savouring what we look forward to helps us prolong pleasure.

Every time we think about it, we get small bursts of joy. Visualising the concert, the trip or any event that you long for makes waiting less of an obstacle and more of an extension of the experience.

2. Gratitude

There are many moments in life where we have no option but to wait – for instance, while waiting to hear from your doctor about test results. But these moments can also give us an opportunity to feel gratitude.

Pausing to reflect on what you’re grateful for can make waiting less about the frustration or worry you’re feeling and more about appreciation.

3. Meaning making

Instead of seeing waiting as an inconvenience, try re-framing the way you think about it.

The next time you’re stuck in traffic or standing in a long line, instead of seeing it as an inconvenience, re-frame it and see the moment as a chance to rest, pause or reflect. Re-framing how you think about the situation can change the experience.

When we connect waiting to a sense of purpose, waiting gains direction and meaning.

4. Mindfulness

Irritable waiting moments can be cues to practise mindfulness. Mindfulness involves paying full attention to the present moment, and looking at it with curiosity and acceptance.

Intentionally noticing what’s going on in you and around you can turn an annoying circumstance into a mini check-in and chance to re-charge. This small practice may even help to improve your wellbeing by helping you to relax and regulate emotions.

This all isn’t to suggest you should find more opportunities to sit around and wait. Rather, it’s about seeing value in the moments where we do have to wait – and about intentionally making these moments more manageable and fun.

Ayse Burcin Baskurt 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. Waiting isn’t a bad thing — it can actually boost your wellbeing – https://theconversation.com/waiting-isnt-a-bad-thing-it-can-actually-boost-your-wellbeing-265122

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Moldova’s ruling pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) won slightly more than 50% of the vote in parliamentary elections on September 28, achieving a slim overall majority. It garnered more than twice the number of votes of the main pro-Russian opposition party, Patriotic Bloc, which received just under 25% of the vote.

This result was by no means a foregone conclusion for Moldova. President Maia Sandu of PAS had warned repeatedly about the high stakes in an election that witnessed unprecedented interference by Russia. This included recruiting orthodox priests to sway voters towards supporting pro-Russian political parties.

The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, welcomed the result. She wrote on X: “You made your choice clear: Europe. Democracy. Freedom.”

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, echoed this sentiment. In a social media post, he said the “elections showed that Russia’s destabilising activity loses, while Moldova in Europe wins”.

Sandu’s party, as expected, did well in the diaspora vote. Almost 80% of these votes were cast in its favour. But it also beat the Patriotic Bloc convincingly in the vote in Moldova, with 44% compared with 28%. The party’s vote in absolute numbers also held steady in the Russian-controlled breakaway region of Transnistria, despite low voter turnout there.

Turnout in the elections was low in general, not just in Transnistria. Just over 52% of eligible voters went to the polling stations. This is slightly higher than in the three previous parliamentary elections in October 2019, March 2020 and July 2021. But it is below the turnout in the second round of the 2024 presidential election that gave Sandu a second term in office.

In one way or another, all of these elections were critical. And the fact that only around half of Moldova’s electorate cast a vote indicates a degree of resignation and frustration with the state of politics in the country.

The results of the September 28 elections, like those in the 2024 referendum on whether the country should pursue EU membership and in the 2024 presidential elections, also reflect the longstanding and – by most accounts – deepening polarisation in Moldova between the pro-European and pro-Russian camps.

The largest vote share went to parties that are either clearly pro-European or pro-Russian, with PAS and Patriotic Bloc gathering almost 75% of the total vote between them. This left little space for parties that, at least according to their election platforms, tried to attract voters favouring a balance between these two ends of the political spectrum in Moldova.

The fact that Sandu’s party achieved an overall – and only slightly reduced – majority indicates that its support base has held up well amid Russian election interference. Its support has also seemingly remained despite the serious economic problems Moldova has faced for many years, but especially since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

PAS finds itself in a slightly weaker position compared to after the 2021 parliamentary elections. However, achieving more than 50% of the vote – and probably gaining 55 seats in the 101-seat parliament – is a remarkable achievement for Sandu’s party in these circumstances.

It demonstrates the growth of support for the country’s European path among the voting population. A decade ago, in November 2014, pro-European parties gained a mere 44% of the total votes cast in Moldova’s parliamentary elections. And while they still had the edge over pro-Russian parties then, they were mired in scandals and far from united.

The outcome of the September 28 vote, as well as of the 2024 presidential elections, also demonstrates the limits of Russia’s influence campaigns. Russian plots to destabilise Moldova have a long history and were in evidence in the run-up to the elections.

Moscow reportedly trained dozens of Moldovans in destabilisation tactics in Serbia, while also spending millions of euros on vote buying and disinformation. Despite these efforts, Russia has not been able to turn Moldova into a country in which a majority of the population want to halt the turn towards Europe.

This is not to deny that many Moldovans rightly fear the consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the dangers of it spilling over into Moldova via the Transnistrian region, where Russia still has a small contingent of troops and retains significant political influence. But rather than seeking to appease the aggressor, many Moldovans have indicated at the ballot box that they are willing to stand up to the Kremlin.

Strong EU support

The fact that Moldova weathered these storms is also due to the strong support the country has received from the EU. The leaders of France, Germany and Poland travelled to the Moldovan capital, Chișinău, at the end of August to demonstrate their support for Sandu. And the European Commission mobilised cybersecurity experts to assist Moldova in fighting Russia’s election interference campaign.

Beyond the specifics of election support, the EU has also made significant financial support available to Moldova – €1.2 billion (£1.1 billion) between 2021 and 2025 and €1.9 billion under its reform and growth facility between 2025 and 2027. This has helped both Moldova and Transnistria avert the worst of successive energy crises.

This support by the EU in the here and now, rather than the distant promise of a brighter future inside the bloc, has been a key factor in paving the way to Sandu’s victory in the parliamentary elections. Where Russia offers endless cycles of death and destruction in neighbouring Ukraine and threatens the integrity of Moldova’s democracy and economy, the EU has been willing to support the country and its people on their path to the European future that they have clearly chosen for themselves.

That pro-European forces in Moldovan society have prevailed in the face of an intense Russian interference campaign is an important signal well beyond Moldova. It will be noted with significant relief not only in Chișinău, but also in Kyiv, Brussels and other European capitals.

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

– ref. Moldova: pro-EU party wins majority in election dominated by Russian interference – https://theconversation.com/moldova-pro-eu-party-wins-majority-in-election-dominated-by-russian-interference-266179

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Greenough, Professor of Social Sciences, Edge Hill University

As UK fans prepare to sit down for the seventh series of RuPaul’s Drag Race UK, it is worth asking what the competition format really offers drag. Since first airing in the US in 2009, Drag Race has grown into a global brand.

RuPaul has achieved global drag domination with 20 localised versions, bringing the total number of contestants worldwide to over 600. The series has brought drag unprecedented visibility. Yet across these platforms, the same issues of representation keep appearing.

My work with performer and researcher Mark Edward traces how drag has been used to fight censorship, challenge colonial law, mobilise against AIDS, critique apartheid and demand trans liberation.

It does seem like overt politics and activism are not seen as “sellable”. Mass appeal and commercial viability must be a concern when there is a whole series of linked product lines, tours, cosmetics, podcasts, merchandise, conventions and brand endorsements. The Conversation contacted the production company behind Ru Paul’s Drag Race, World of Wonder, for comment but it did not respond.

Yet beyond the show, drag performers continue to lead activist initiatives. Black and brown queens have drawn attention to systemic racism, while others have used drag for causes such as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, drag nuns, who campaign for sexual health and HIV awareness. Or performers campaigning for environmental concerns and veganism.

Drag Race also represents, recognises and rewards certain kinds of drag over others. Across its franchises, queens (note, only queens and not kings) who embody a polished, high-femme aesthetic tend to flourish. Contestants who work outside these conventions, whether through performance art, body non-conformity or alternative drag, often struggle to be recognised.

---

Read more:
Lily Savage: how Paul O’Grady helped embed drag in the British mainstream

---

Drag kings, assigned female at birth (AFAB) performers and trans and non-binary performers are absent or under-represented from the show’s casting and representation. Drag researcher Ami Pomerantz writes about the tokenism in the selection of fat performers on the show. While, political scientist Ash Kayte Stokoe discusses representations of ethnicity and prejudice against non-native speakers of English across the competitions.

---

Read more:
RuPaul’s Drag Race: how social media made drag’s subversive art form into a capitalist money maker

---

Disabled performers are also largely absent. When they do appear, disability is often hidden, downplayed or framed as personal struggle. In the US series, Yvie Oddly waited until halfway through season 11 to reveal her hypermobility condition. Tamisha Iman (US season 13) competed with an ostomy bag following cancer treatment. In the UK, Ginny Lemon (UK season 2) explained their fibromyalgia prevented them from wearing heels, and later left the show.

But outside of the show, there are disabled performers such as Drag Syndrome the world’s first drag troupe featuring drag artists with Down’s syndrome.

Drag has been about transcending and parodying rigid gender structures and in the wider drag world there is more diversity to be found. For instance, The Boulet Brothers’ Dragula has presented itself as an alternative to such performances, celebrating horror and filth.

---

Read more:
Drag culture may be mainstream but its forms are constantly evolving

---

Drag theorist Nick Cherryman describes tranimal perfomers, those who use interpretive, animalistic, and post-modern expressions of drag to transcend the human-animal binary.

Drag has long been sustained by community. In 18th-century Britain, molly houses like Mother Clap’s in Holborn, London, gave gay men and gender-nonconforming people space to parody rituals, gossip and bond. They often called each other “mother” and “daughter” – a precursor to today’s drag families. A century later, New York’s ballroom scene created chosen families led by house mothers such as Pepper LaBeija, offering shelter to youth rejected elsewhere.

The competition format of Drag Race reorders these priorities. Performers in competition, weekly eliminations, cliffhanger edits and rivalries are formatted for television, not for community.

The problem is structural. Television formats demand tension, pacing and clear winners. What gets lost is drag’s ethos of kinship and solidarity.

The contrast is clear. On television, activism is transformed into digestible content, stripping drag of the radical force it historically carried. Off screen, it remains a daily practice of protest and survival for LGBTQ+ communities.

The impact of RuPaul’s Drag Race is undeniable. It has made certain forms of drag visible and popular. Yet, drag’s visibility should not be confused with representation. By privileging certain aesthetics and the dominance of queens, the competition format constrains as much as it celebrates.

As season seven of the UK franchise begins, viewers will once again enjoy the glamour and talent of British queens. But the bigger question lingers across the franchise: can drag on television hold onto its diversity and political edge?

---

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.

---

Chris Greenough 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. RuPaul’s Drag Race: how mainstream drag is losing its political, activist and community focus – https://theconversation.com/rupauls-drag-race-how-mainstream-drag-is-losing-its-political-activist-and-community-focus-266011

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christopher Pich, Associate Professor in Marketing, University of Nottingham

Labour is holding its 2025 conference against a backdrop of Andy Burnham, mayor of Manchester, calling for “wholesale change”. Burnham is making a clear attempt to use the government’s record of scandal, u-turn and general identity crisis as fuel for his own leadership bid. But he is far from alone in attacking Keir Starmer’s Labour for lacking ideological clarity.

Starmer and his team have repeatedly tried to reset the party’s image, reframe its message, and reassure voters that Labour represents competence, stability and pragmatic change. These efforts have amounted to two of the three classic branding strategies: brand repair and brand reboot.

Labour has so far stopped short of the third and most consequential option: a full brand overhaul. But this is precisely what is now required. Surface-level resets and tactical communication tweaks cannot solve a deeper problem: voters remain unclear about Labour’s ideological core, its long-term vision, and its promise to UK voters.

Unless the party embraces a bold, comprehensive rebranding strategy – one that redefines who it is, what it stands for, and why it matters – Labour’s historic return to power risks becoming a short-lived chapter rather than the foundation of a durable political future.

In politics, as in business, repairing a brand involves rebuilding trust by returning to old positioning – in Labour’s case, competence and accountability – and apologising for past mistakes. This approach often involves messaging changes, policy tweaks or symbolic gestures.

Rebooting entails shifting the narrative, such as toward innovation, younger voters or new priorities, even if it risks alienating some traditional supporters.

Brand replacement (the overhaul option) means launching a fundamental rebrand with a new narrative, visual identity, messaging platform – and possibly leadership. This would be a radical reset aimed at shedding old baggage and redefining what the party stands for.

The resets and reboots to date

To be fair to Starmer, he hasn’t sat by idly in the face of this problem. He has attempted to recapture and rearticulate his political brand.

A reset strategy emerged in May, following the dismal results of England’s local elections and Labour’s defeat to Reform UK in the Runcorn byelection. The reset was designed to reassure voters that Starmer understood why people had turned away from the party at the polls. In an attempt to clarify his message, he vowed to go “further and faster” in delivering change.

However, it had little impact in reviving the fortunes of the Labour brand. Voters remained unconvinced the party could address deep-rooted societal issues.

This initial reset strategy, an attempt at a classic form of brand repair, failed for a simple reason: it was too superficial. Rather than articulating a bold new direction, the messaging focused narrowly on “delivery” and competence, without addressing deeper questions about identity or purpose.

Resetting the message does little if the audience no longer trusts the messenger. Voters weren’t rejecting Starmer for being unclear about logistics – they were rejecting a party that still hadn’t told them who it was and what it believed in.

Starmer had to bring forward the implementation of the second rebranding strategy in the wake of the downfall of the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner: a brand reboot in mid-September. Broader than the repair-reset strategy, this involved an attempt to clarify Labour’s message, communicating clear dividing lines with its political competitors including Reform and the Conservatives.

Starmer wanted to demonstrate he had the answers to the big issues of concern to the British public: immigration, welfare and the cost of living. This was supported by a cabinet reshuffle, which sought to demonstrate that the most effective ministers with the right personalities were in charge to “deliver, deliver, deliver”.

However, news of this reboot was quickly drowned out by fresh controversy around the now sacked UK-US Ambassador Peter Mandelson, who had been close friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

Go big or go home

In truth, neither of these previous efforts represented a real reset or reboot in the branding sense. Both were reactive attempts to contain crises and manage headlines. They were not proactive efforts to rebuild the party’s underlying narrative architecture.

A full overhaul would be risky, but may now be the only option left. And Labour has been here before. Between 1992 and 1997, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown implemented a major rebrand of Labour – and secured three election wins.

In business, a full brand overhaul is typically done when an organisation wants to fundamentally change how it is perceived, or reach out to an entirely different customer base. International brands to have taken this path include Airbnb, Burberry, Shell and Altria (formerly Phillip Morris), as well as Facebook, which shifted to being Meta, and Dunkin’ Donuts, which became simply Dunkin’.

Sometimes, a full brand overhaul strategy is adopted to respond to deep crises, to rebuild after failed resets, or to modernise. It must include both style and substance.

The risk is that a total overhaul can alienate parts of the existing customer base and create internal divisions. It can spark accusations of inauthenticity or opportunism.

But these risks can be mitigated if the brand overhaul is grounded in genuine substance, not just cosmetic changes. For Labour, that means linking it to real policy priorities, and communicating consistently and transparently about what the party stands for.

Labour keeps repainting the walls but the foundations are crumbling. A meaningful overhaul would begin with articulating a clear, values-driven vision for Britain that goes beyond technocratic “delivery” to offer a sense of purpose and direction.

It would involve aligning party messaging, policy and leadership around this vision, so that every communication reinforces the same story. And it would see leadership involving party members, communities and voters in the process – turning a top-down rebrand into a collaborative renewal. Done right, a bold reimagining of Labour’s identity could not only restore trust, but secure its place as the natural party of government for a generation.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. No more resets, reboots and reshuffles: brand experts on why Labour now needs a total overhaul – https://theconversation.com/no-more-resets-reboots-and-reshuffles-brand-experts-on-why-labour-now-needs-a-total-overhaul-266127