Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alan Shipman, Senior Lecturer in Economics, The Open University

Lord Robertson’s claim that the UK cannot defend itself with an “ever-expanding” welfare budget has resonated loudly, given his previous positions as a Nato secretary-general and UK defence secretary. Following up on the UK’s 2025 strategic defence review, which he led, Robertson warned that low investment is leaving UK security “in peril”.

The comments have instant appeal in one sense. Defence is indeed awarded a far smaller share of the pie than social protection: 6.5% of total managed expenditure for 2026/27 against 28%, according to estimates.

The UK’s budget deficit is adding to already high public debt, and the IMF has forecast that Britain will be hit harder than other countries by the economic effects of the Iran hostilities. The government is already seeking savings from other departments as it tries to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027.

But the idea of a simple trade-off, with more weapons requiring less welfare, confuses two very different types of public spending.

Defence is part of “final” public expenditure, funding armed forces’ pay and the weapons and equipment they work with. This takes up money that can’t be assigned elsewhere in the budget, and consumes a share of national output when the government spends it.

In contrast, the welfare budget consists mainly of “transfer payments” that shift income between households. Some transfers are made according to assessed need, others also depend on past national insurance contributions. All represent a redistribution of income without any exchange of goods or services, leaving recipients to decide what to do with the money. This allows prices to steer spending away from scarce resources, while some is used to repay debts or clawed back in tax.

Demands on the public purse

As the government’s overall budget is in deficit (to the tune of around 4.5% of national income in 2025/26), it is true that welfare payments compete with other demands on the public purse. But the boost to recipients’ income is still largely offset by taxes collected from better-off households.

In principle, a country could raise its welfare budget to 100% of its GDP, by collecting all the money generated by production as tax and then paying it out to households. It would compromise efficiency, as happened in Europe’s “state socialist” countries before 1989. But such an economy could still function.

In contrast, raising the defence budget even to 3% of GDP – the UK’s target for the next parliament – will cause political and economic strain. This is due to the trade-off against other final expenditures, including healthcare, education and policing – all equally vital for national survival and security.

The UK and other countries with large welfare systems have reformed them with the aim of adding at least as much to output as to demand. Transfer payments are increasingly designed to keep people economically active, moving into new and more productive work. This matching of extra income to extra production keeps the inflation risk low, even if the government is “printing money” to fund some of its transfer payments.

Extra defence spending carries greater inflation risks. Paying for more weapons and military training generates new income and demand for consumer products. At the same time it can divert workers and materials away from civilian production, into military hardware that is intended never to be used.

Stronger defence could boost production as much as consumption if, as many advocates claim, it stimulates investment and innovations that other industries can adopt. The Manhattan Project remains a standout example of “mission-oriented” military spending that sped the arrival of new technologies and methods of organisation.

Studies confirm a pick-up in innovation and growth after major increases in military spending. But these tend to focus on the US and trace the improvement to increased research and development (R&D). Growth might be stimulated equally well, making more weapons and more welfare an affordable option, if greater sums went into R&D without a link to war preparations.

Of course, defence can be counted as an even more productive investment if, through effective deterrence, it prevents costly wars that would devastate civil production.

But again, there is an important difference between investing in military hardware and in social protection. The welfare bill is hard to forecast, as it varies with the state of the economy and trends in income and employment. But when transfer payments enable people to recover their health or acquire new skills and return to work – or when they keep pensioners out of poverty – the government gets a rapid return on its investment and reduces longer-term costs.

Investment in more soldiers and equipment may be easier to control in the short term. But it commits the government to maintenance and upgrades over the long term, without which the fighting capacity can soon become non-operational. The UK has a history of cost overshoots and delays keeping tanks and ships out of service. That’s why a Treasury set on cost-effectiveness will always choose butter over guns.

Alan Shipman has previously received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin.

– ref. What ‘warfare versus welfare’ gets wrong about real-life economics – https://theconversation.com/what-warfare-versus-welfare-gets-wrong-about-real-life-economics-280747

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Smalley, Research Fellow in Environmental Psychology, University of Exeter

On a chilly yet beautifully clear evening last November, I sat on a video call with colleagues and happened to mention the live feed from the International Space Station – a real-time broadcast from onboard cameras as the station orbits earth.

Several people hadn’t heard of it, and so I dug out the link and sent it over. We then turned to Nasa’s spot the station smartphone app, which shows you the ageing satellite’s orbital track and provides a countdown to when you can next see it. Again, I found the link and shared it on the chat.

I suddenly realised the station was going to pass directly overhead – in just a few minutes. Video beamed from the station as it advanced over the Atlantic, crossed the terminator (the line that separates day from night), and hurtled towards the southwestern tip of the UK, where I live.

Running outside, I took my phone and the live feed with me. And as I looked up at the bright, impossibly fast-moving smudge traversing the sky above, the feed showed the station’s birdseye view – and perhaps the view of the astronauts aboard – looking down on me, too.

Just 25 years ago, this kind of experience would have been hard to imagine. Yet as our lives have become increasingly interwoven with technology, so too have our encounters with the world around us. And nowhere is this more true than when it comes to viewing the night sky.

Smartphone apps now help us to identify planets, catch views of satellite clusters (for better and worse), and plan how to view supermoons. These experiences could be crucial in helping to reconnect people with the night sky and preserve a darkness that is increasingly under threat.

Simulations that allow people to view the Earth from afar, via apps or computer games, could even recreate a fascinating phenomenon reported by astronauts: the overview effect. Recently referred to by the Artemis II crew, the overview effect is described as a “a profound reaction to viewing the Earth from outside its atmosphere”. It represents a powerful form of awe and wonder and digital tools might help us unlock similar feelings from Earth too.

On May 11 2024, residents marvelled at the aurora borealis (northern lights) across parts of the UK including in southern England where they are rarely seen. The sightings made headlines across Europe, an excitement that was made possible by digital technology and heightened by digital shares and updates.

Public interest began with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Deep Space Climate satellite picking up particularly strong solar winds. This triggered an alert to users of Lancaster University’s Aurorawatch app. These stargazers started taking photos of the northern lights, which they promptly shared via social media.

The display happened close to midnight when most people in the UK were in bed – but still scrolling. And as real-time images of the aurora quickly circulated online, masses of people went outside to see it for themselves. But, as one witness reported, many people struggled to make out the display: “I could see nothing by eye, but it was there on the camera screen, and on my phone camera too.” And so images of the sky were captured through ultra-sensitive smartphones.

From webcams in bird boxes to big-budget nature documentaries, these digital connections have come to define modern interactions with the natural world. They are now interwoven into everyday routines.

Ten million people watched the first episode of BBC’s Planet Earth III in 2023 – the same number who visit the Peak District in a year. Nature-based “relaxation” videos have achieved viral status on YouTube, amassing hundreds of millions of views each. Spotify, Audible and Netflix have made nature content a core offering to their combined half a billion subscribers. Instagram is home to pictures of 346 million sunsets – and counting.

Online relationships

Being online can also have serious consequences for mental health, but when it comes to the natural world, digital connections could also provide exciting opportunities to bolster wellbeing. Growing research has shown that engaging with digital forms of nature can lead to improvements in emotion regulation, stress reduction and attention restoration – a pathway that is already being explored by apps hoping to boost wellbeing for people who spend large amounts of time online.

These digital encounters also have the potential to affect how people behave towards the environment.

Some academics are worried that these trends might be degrading our relationship with nature, but there is substantial nuance to be found here. The real value in these experiences may lie not in their ability to simulate natural worlds, but in their capacity to stimulate interest in nature.

Harnessing technology to “rewild” our digital lives could be especially relevant when it comes to an emerging generation of young people. Take for example, the perspectives of generation alpha, the first wave of which are entering their late teens, and who, after gen Z, represent the second cohort of digital natives – hyper-connected visual learners who have never known a world without smartphones, social media, instant access to information, and for some, artificial intelligence.

Perhaps, as some have suggested, modern and digital tools could even mean that young people’s opportunities to connect with nature are unprecedented.

And so, as with some other innovations, these technological connections might enhance human experience, understanding and capability.

It could be time to recognise and embrace digital tools as part of the dynamic, evolving, and exciting way we interact with the natural world – approaches that might bring us closer to nature at a time when its future hangs in the balance.

Alex Smalley is scientific advisor to Portal Labs Ltd. He has received funding from the Wellcome Trust via the Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health.

– ref. From sunsets to the night sky: how technology can help you to notice nature in new ways – https://theconversation.com/from-sunsets-to-the-night-sky-how-technology-can-help-you-to-notice-nature-in-new-ways-279506

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Neal, Personal Chair of International Security, University of Edinburgh

Lord Robertson, former UK defence secretary and Nato chief, has said that the UK’s national security is “in peril”. He is right. There is no secret about what the threats are. In addition to the woeful news from the Middle East and Ukraine every day, stories of sabotage, hacking, Russian reconnaissance of undersea cables and the testing of the UK’s defensive reactions keep coming.

The country’s leaders need to spell out what these threats mean for the UK. They must also be honest about our minimal defensive capabilities.

Russia arguably does not have the capacity or intent to launch a ground invasion of the UK. Yet if tensions were to escalate, Russia certainly has the capacity to attack the UK by air and sea. Its long-range bombers routinely test the limits of UK airspace and perform targeting runs for air-launched cruise missiles.

The UK has little in the way of land-based anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences. Most of what we have is ship and aircraft based. This has the advantage of mobility, but as we saw with the recent Hezbollah drone strike on an RAF Cyprus base and the slow deployment of UK destroyer HMS Dragon in response, it is spread thin.

The surface combatant fleet currently stands at 17 (six destroyers and 11 frigates). This is a quarter of its size in 1990, and below the target of 19, which itself is below what internal Ministry of Defence assessments reportedly claim is the “bare minimum”.

The UK remains almost defenceless against drone strikes. Ukraine and Iran have shown that cheap drones get through defences by sheer numbers. Missile defences like Patriot – deployed by many US allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, but not the UK – have a limited number of expensive shots which are quickly depleted. The Royal Navy’s ship-based Sea Viper system is designed to defend fleets, not cities. Ukraine has developed sophisticated and cost-effective defences based on acoustic listening devices, multiple perimeters, anti-drone drones and mobile gun emplacements. The UK needs similar resources in reserve.

Britain’s nuclear deterrent remains an important insurance policy against nuclear attack, not only for the UK but perhaps also for Europe, though its dependence on the US may be problematic in the long term. However, below the level of escalation to full-scale nuclear war, it serves no functional role in our defence and security. The UK is not going to threaten a nuclear strike, and therefore suicide, in response to cable sabotage or drone strikes on British bases. The threshold for nuclear use is exceptionally high, even for our enemies, and this is a good thing.

The current state of unpreparedness has been years in the making. Defence spending, understandably, fell from 5% of GDP after the cold war. During the 1990s and 2000s it stayed at around 2.4% of GDP, although still steadily declining as a proportion of public spending. Austerity from 2010 onwards saw real cuts in percentage of GDP, leading to a loss of personnel and capability.

Ukraine defence start-ups can design, produce, test and deploy in weeks, with needs communicated directly from the battlefield. The UK’s sclerotic procurement systems and big defence companies would take years to produce the same results. The vested interests around them – a mix of defence nationalism, pork barrel politics, trade unions and a revolving door with government and the military – need to be pushed aside.

The UK has a nascent defence startup culture promising to bring new products to market rapidly. It needs investment and regulatory support. They were expecting this after the publication of the strategic defence review, but are still waiting. Meanwhile, Europe is already building new arms production facilities.

The recent air and naval operation to end a month-long loiter by Russian vessels shows that Russia is interested in vulnerabilities in the UK’s undersea data and energy connections. While questions remain about what exactly Russia may have done, or left behind, the threat is clear: as a highly connected island country, it would be simple for Russia to disrupt the economy. Repair would be slow and difficult.

On a geopolitical scale, European security has depended on the US for decades through Nato. US commitment is now seriously in doubt. Even if it does not formally pull out of the alliance, the credibility of its deterrent effect is shot. Is the US going to defend Europe if attacked by Russia? Even having to ask the question shows that the damage is done.

Rebuilding capacity

The government has offered, in its strategic defence review, a serious plan to close vulnerabilities and build up UK defence capacity. The Treasury and electoral concerns appear to be holding up its implementation.

The UK has some capable systems, but they would be quickly depleted in conflict. Estimates vary widely, but Russia may be producing 30,000 attack drones a year, and Iran anywhere between 5,000 and 12,000 a month. Meanwhile, the UK military has adopted a number of small-scale systems with units in the tens.

Our army and navy are the smallest they’ve been for centuries. Previous strategic reviews assumed that technology would substitute for personnel. We are witnessing a new revolution in military affairs in which even our newest military assets are too few, too fragile and too slow to arrive. Ukrainian start-ups can build in a week what would take us ten years. Ukraine still needs us, but we need them to share their expertise and model of innovation.

War may come whether we like it or not, and to be unprepared would be reckless. Credible defences have a deterrent effect, reducing the chance of war. While the possibility of a wider war in Europe remains small, it is no longer unthinkable.

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

– ref. The UK is alarmingly unprepared for the threats it faces – security expert explains why – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-is-alarmingly-unprepared-for-the-threats-it-faces-security-expert-explains-why-280621

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aris Politopoulos, Assistant Professor in Archaeology and Cultural Politics, Leiden University

Humans have always been playful. But for much of our history, play has left little trace. Unlike tools or bones, games rarely preserve and the fleeting pleasures they produce are even harder to recover.

The recent discovery of 12,000-year-old dice, published in American Antiquity, however, sheds new light on the playfulness of human societies in the deep past.

Archaeologist Richard J. Madden identified 565 dice from sites across North America including Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. They dated from the 19th century all the way back to 12,000 years ago. The recognition of these artefacts as dice pushes back the material evidence for human play by thousands of years, which Madden interprets as evidence of games of chance and gambling. He believes that his study shows that Native Americans were gambling with dice 6,000 years earlier than anyone else.

To identify these objects as dice, Madden gathered data on comparable objects from archaeological publications and databases of remains, building on an earlier, comprehensive study of Native American play objects.

These objects do not resemble the six-sided dice we use today. Instead, they are binary: flat, round, or rectangular pieces marked on one side and blank on the other. If you are a Dungeons and Dragons geek like us, you might call such a casting device a d2. In effect, you can compare throwing one of these ancient dice to a coin toss – although this discovery also underscores that dice are much older than coins.

When evaluating groundbreaking research of this kind it is crucial to think about the nature of the archaeological record in this very deep past. We are dependent on a very limited range of objects, since many do not survive in the ground. Many times when we play, even in the present, we don’t use any material objects at all. Think of a game of tag or hide and seek. Now consider a similar game taking place 12,000 years ago. Could an archaeologist ever find evidence for that?

Even when play requires materials, such as in board games, the evidence is often not preserved. Indeed, ethnographic studies have shown that people frequently play board games in ways that archaeologists would almost never detect. For many games people scoop out holes and draw lines in the ground as boards and use stones, seeds, shells and even dried animal droppings as pawns.

Natural objects also work: two-sided sticks and cowry shells can be used as binary dice. This is not only a thing of the past or of foreign places. Around the world, play takes place every day that makes creative use of all sorts of objects – bottle caps, tin cans, twine, sticks and stones and other titbits – that are not easily identifiable as playthings. That is why to us, archaeologists who study play, dice are particularly special finds, because they are unambiguously playthings.

Ancient dice

Archaeologists find dice more often than you may think, in all sorts of interesting forms. One of the most famous examples are astragalus bones, the ankle bones of hooved animals (mostly sheep and goat). They have four distinct sides and have been commonly used as dice.

One of the oldest games in human history, the game of 20 squares (a later version of the Royal Game of Ur), is known to have used such dice because astragalus bones have been found in the drawers of game boxes. In many cases, rather than harvesting these bones from butchered animals, people replicated them in other materials such as stone, glass or metal. Ivory examples were found with the games in the Egyptian tomb of Tutankhamun. This suggests that people began making dice-like objects only after they had already been using naturally occurring objects suited to the same purpose.

In his study, Madden argues that dice are a continuous evolution of the type of economic transactions that underpin gambling. We would like to take the argument in a different direction. Play exists outside of gambling and the contextual analysis required to truly identify gambling in the past is absent from this study. Moreover, this study positions play exclusively in functionalist terms, particularly evolutionary and economic frameworks.

We have argued elsewhere that studies like these rarely consider a fundamental point: that play frequently exists for play’s sake. Sometimes you flip the coin to win it, but often you flip it just for fun.

Though we are not convinced these ancient Native American people were running prehistoric gambling rings, this is an exciting find. What these and other dice in archaeological contexts worldwide point to is the fascinating beauty of play, now and in the past. So the next time you roll some dice, realise you are taking part in the same sense of play – the suspense, the joy, the sting of a bad throw – that people also felt 12,000 years ago.

Aris Politopoulos receives funding from the Starting grant Archaeological Futures and the Ammodo Science Award for Groundbreaking Research for the Past♥Play project. Aria is a board member of Stichting VALUE.

Angus Mol receives funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) under the NWO-VIDI Playful Time Machines grant and the Ammodo Science Award for Groundbreaking Research for the Past♥Play project. He is a board member of Stichting VALUE.

Walter Crist receives funding from European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) for GameTable: Computational Techniques for Tabletop Games Heritage, and from Game-in-Lab for the project Play and the City: Investigating the Cultural Heritage of Games of the City of Rome. He is on the board of trustees of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI).

– ref. Archaeologists have discovered 12,000-year-old dice – here’s what they reveal about the history of play – https://theconversation.com/archaeologists-have-discovered-12-000-year-old-dice-heres-what-they-reveal-about-the-history-of-play-280545

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tony Milligan, Teaching Associate in Philosophy, School of History, Philosophy and Digital Humanities, University of Sheffield

The classic 1988 anime Akira returns to cinema screens on April 17. Set in a dystopian neo-Tokyo, it is one of the few pieces of cyberpunk manga which has translated well onto the screen. Its ultimate message is disturbing: we are no better or worse than the elites who are using technology to dominate us. All of us are just part of a bigger game. A game involving power and our limited ability to wield it.

Directed by the original manga creator, Katsuhiro Otomo, the hand-drawn animation is incredible, the storyline complex and the violence relentless. Along with Blade Runner (1982) and William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer (1984), Akira is considered one of the big-three classics of cyberpunk – a genre defined by high tech and low life. They’re all centered around rogue loners who investigate mysteries, only to be accidentally drawn into conflict with powerful elites. And they’re each set in an imagined near future where bodies are replicated, modified and occasionally rendered monstrous.

Akira goes for the monstrous option, driven by a relentless pursuit of power which is simultaneously natural to humans and destructive of our humanity. Otomo’s anti-hero, Kaneda, is a biker drawn from the subculture of real tribal bōzōzuku biker gangs which had tens of thousands of members in early 1980s Japan.

Otomo’s tale shows a deep familiarity with Japanese sub-cultures and societal unease about the legacy of the atomic bomb and aversion to mutation.

In the film, Kaneda tries to rescue his friend Tetsuo but stumbles into a conflict between hardened idealistic terrorists and a top-secret military project. The latter is trying to accelerate the drug-induced development of telepathic powers that are wielded by a group of captive children. Tetsuo has become part of the program and shows incredible power, but he cannot contain it within his body.

The emphasis on power is welcome. Tetsuo has always been relegated to second place in the biker gang to Kaneda and cannot bear it. The other effects are less welcome. As with the faltering Japanese economy, artificially accelerated development spirals out of control, eventually forcing military forces and terrorists to collaborate to contain Tetsuo and the mysterious Akira. Much of neo-Tokyo is destroyed in the process. Once again, the narrative strongly echoes the legacy of the atomic bomb.

Akira and cyberpunk

Akira is a good watch and, if you have the patience, a good read. Patience is certainly a important virtue for Akira fans. They have been waiting decades to see a live action version. The latest collapse of attempts to bring it to the screen in 2025 helped to prompt this year’s return of the anime.

But how accurately does cyberpunk’s vision of the future align with the real history that unfolded after the genre’s golden age in film and literature? Though it got plenty wrong, cyberpunk did anticipate some defining features of contemporary life – most notably anti-elite populism and political protest. Cyberpunk, including Akira, is broadly anti-authoritarian, yet it is often set in worlds where no viable alternative appears to exist. As a result, dissent in cyberpunk tends to be more expressive than goal-oriented, with violence frequently emerging as one of its most potent forms of articulation.

This is, arguably, a reasonable anticipation of a long-term trend within political dissent. Particularly where (as in cyberpunk) an association is drawn between technology and elite control. It is worth noting that driverless Waymo taxis were a popular target for protesters during the 2025 riots in Los Angeles.

So there is a similarity up to a point. But cyberpunks like Kaneda and Tetsuo, and their counterparts in the other genre classics, faced off against power more than wealth. Today’s left and left-right crossover dissent focuses upon bankers and it trades upon an idea of finance capital in which banking dominates industry. Cyberpunk was anti-authority, but had a better idea of who was actually in charge – elites for whom wealth was primarily corporate and only a means to advancing power.

In our world – the actual world of advancing technology – nobody really knows how much is owned by the wealthiest corporate tech figures such as Elon Musk (Tesla and Space-X), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon). But we do know that none of them are bankers. Their wealth underpins their power, and as in cyberpunk they seek broader forms of social and political influence.

Unlike cyberpunk elites, they face limits to their ability to wield such influence. The brief Musk team-up with Donald Trump was a marriage made in the divorce courts, with little prospect of lasting the course. In Akira, elites are far less constrained, particularly in the military.

Akira focuses upon power, as opposed to mere wealth, by using a secretive military program as the driver of the plot. But it does so with moral ambiguity. There are no monsters in charge. The military is under the command of The Colonel, who is not a particularly bad or unsympathetic character. He just happens to be someone on a different side from Kaneda and the terrorist underground that Kaneda has fallen in with for reasons more to do with assertive sexual attraction rather than politics.

Ultimately, Tetsuo and Kaneda cannot come up against The Colonel as good guys versus the bad guy, or as friends to the many set against the enemy elite. Kaneda wields power ruthlessly within his biker gang and Tetsuo desperately wants power. Both are constrained only by their attraction to the (secondary) female characters. The desire for power is represented as natural and, by the end, as a cosmic urge which is slowly making its way into consciousness through humans. Albeit at the expense of our small and vulnerable bodies.

Within this narrative there is a longing for power inside all of humanity. A longing which is both constructive and destructive. To renounce it would be to renounce our humanity. To imagine that we can wield it indefinitely is the great illusion. Eventually the temple bell rings and it is over. This makes power-wielding elites no better or worse than the rest of us. The distinction between the experimenters and those of us experimented upon ceases to matter.

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

Tony Milligan 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. Akira returns to cinemas – why the legendary anime demands a rewatch – https://theconversation.com/akira-returns-to-cinemas-why-the-legendary-anime-demands-a-rewatch-279830

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Massimo D’Angelo, Research Associate in the Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, Loughborough University

“I am not a politician; I speak of the Gospel.” Pope Leo XIV’s recent remarks, made during his apostolic journey to Africa, immediately suggest that his clash with Donald Trump operates on a different level to the US president’s usual political spats.

This is not the classic kind of confrontation that Trump has often had with foreign heads of state and government in the past, such as in recent months with the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, whose refusal to fully back the US and Israel in their war against Iran attracted Trump’s ire. Rather, it is a clash rooted in fundamentally different moral and political visions: between a president who treats power in transactional terms and a pope who frames war, migration and human dignity as matters of moral principle.

When Cardinal Robert Prevost was named as Pope Leo in May 2025, Trump and his administration initially appeared to welcome the new pontiff warmly. In fact, in a post to his Truth Social platform the US president appeared to take credit for his election as pope, writing that Prevost “was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump”.

But the war in the Middle East launched by the US and Israel has made the differences between their positions clearer – further heightening tensions between them. On Palm Sunday, the week before Easter, it became clear that Leo had decided to take a firm line against the war in Iran, saying that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’”.

His Easter message was equally clear: “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue! Not with the desire to dominate others, but to encounter them.”

Day’s later the pope denounced the US president’s apparent threat to destroy the whole of the Iranian civilisation as “truly unacceptable” in comments which roundly criticised the war and called for a “return to dialogue, negotiations”.

Trump responded in harsh terms, describing the pope in a Truth Social post as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy”. He went on to say that he did not want a pope “who thinks it is OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons”, adding that “Leo should use common sense, stop doing the bidding of the radical left, and focus on being a great pope rather than a politician”.

Returning to Washington from Florida, Trump also told reporters: “I don’t think he’s doing a good job. I’m not a fan of Pope Leo.” The pope replied on Monday by saying that he was not afraid of the Trump administration and would continue to speak out against war.

Trump did not stop there. He went so far as to publish an image portraying himself as Jesus Christ, a move that appeared to go too far even for many of his conservative supporters. The reaction was strong enough to force him to delete the post and backtrack.

This could hurt the US president

Trump has clashed with the Vatican before, but this confrontation unfolds in a very different setting. Pope Francis, the first Argentine pope and the first pontiff from the global south, was often openly critical of Trump, particularly on migration. In 2016, he famously suggested that a leader who thinks only of building walls rather than bridges is “not Christian”, crystallising the tension between them.

The key difference was that Francis was also a divisive figure within sections of the American Catholic Church. He was frequently targeted by conservative Catholic commentators and church networks in the US, and in 2019 he remarked that “it’s an honour that the Americans attack me”.

Leo, by contrast, is the first US pope – and that changes the political equation. His voice is likely to carry different authority among Catholic voters, who are an important part of Trump’s electoral base.

In the last presidential election, 55% of Catholic voters supported Trump, including 62% of white Catholics. Senior Catholics also occupy prominent positions in his administration, including Vance and Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio.

That is why Leo’s criticism may prove more politically consequential. It does not come from an external moral voice alone, as was often the case with Francis, but from an American pontiff speaking into a church and an electorate that Trump cannot afford to ignore.

Early reactions suggest that many Catholic voices in the US have rallied behind Leo, making this not only a diplomatic clash, but a potentially significant domestic one too. (This could also really hurt J.D. Vance. As the likely contender to succeed Trump on the Repulican ticket, he is deeply invested in his Catholic faith and is about to publish a book devoted to his conversion.)

From an international perspective, the break with the pope has also had visible repercussions. Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, long regarded as Trump’s closest ally in Europe, went publicly in defence of Pope Leo, the bishop of Rome, drawing criticism from Trump himself, who defined the Italian prime minister’s behaviour as “unacceptable”.

To conclude, this is not a political confrontation like the many others the world has become used to with this US president. The stakes are higher at home and on the world stage. At home, it risks alienating many Catholic voters whose support will matter not only in the midterm elections but also in the next presidential race. Internationally, it may complicate Trump’s relationship with European conservative parties, many of which have long sought close association with the Vatican.

The pope, as the leader of a vast global community, cannot be treated as though he were just another political opponent.

Massimo D’Angelo 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. ‘I’m not a politician’: why the clash with Pope Leo could prove dangerous for Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/im-not-a-politician-why-the-clash-with-pope-leo-could-prove-dangerous-for-donald-trump-280742

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joanna L’Heureux, Postdoctoral Researcher, Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter

Social media videos are claiming that mouthwash can raise risk of blood pressure – and potentially damage heart health.

According to some of these videos, this is caused by mouthwash wiping out “good” oral bacteria that are important for the cardiovascular system. While it’s a striking message, don’t throw your mouthwash away just yet. The reality is far more complex.

Our mouths contain a wide variety of bacteria. Together, these bacteria form a balanced and diverse microbiome which helps prevent the overgrowth of other bacteria linked to disease, supports normal metabolic functions and contributes to both good oral and overall health.

One of the important roles these oral bacteria have is converting the nitrate in our food (typically from sources such as leafy greens) into nitrite. When we swallow nitrite, the body turns it into nitric oxide. This happens via the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway, also called the enterosalivary pathway. It’s one example of how bacteria contribute to keeping the body healthy.

Nitric oxide plays an essential part in regulating blood pressure and supporting brain function and muscle function.

But according to some online influencers, the reason mouthwash harms heart health is because it affects the “healthy” bacteria – the ones that produce nitric oxide.

Mouthwash and heart health link

Several small studies have actually found that giving people mouthwash can change the balance of bacteria in the mouth. This may reduce the bacteria’s ability to turn nitrate from vegetables into nitrite, which the body needs to make nitric oxide.

One study of 19 healthy volunteers found that the adults who used chlorhexidine mouthwash for seven days saw a small increase in blood pressure and reduced levels of nitrite.

An intervention study also reported that rinsing with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash twice daily for one week significantly increased blood pressure in 27 healthy adults.

In another trial of 15 adults who already had high blood pressure, three days of chlorhexidine use further increased blood pressure.

The key detail that may be missed out of some of these online social media videos is the type of mouthwash used in these studies.

Many of the studies which have found a link between mouthwash use and blood pressure gave participants chlorhexidine. This is a strong, over-the-counter antiseptic mouthwash only recommended for short-term use in people with gum disease or after dental procedures where its antimicrobial effects are beneficial.

Chlorhexidine disrupts oral bacteria to help with infection control – including the bacteria that convert nitrate into nitrite. This makes it an ideal mouthwash to use for researchers wanting to study the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway. However, it also means the findings may not reflect what happens with milder, everyday mouthwashes.

A trial with 12 healthy adults investigated the effect of three different mouthwashes (and gargling water, which acted as a control) on oral bacteria.

After drinking a nitrate-rich juice, researchers measured how much nitrate was converted to nitrite by oral bacteria. Water and the mild mouthwash (which didn’t contain harsh ingredients such as chlorhexidine) caused a typical response, where nitrate was converted into nitrite.

But the cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash (which also has strong, anti-bacterial effects) partially blocked the conversion of nitrate to nitrite. The strongest chlorhexidine mouthwash almost completely stopped this process. This is consistent with their stronger antibacterial effects. The stronger types of mouthwash were also linked to higher systolic blood pressure.

Alcohol (ethanol) is another common ingredient in many mouthwashes, although formulations usually also include other active ingredients – such as essential oils. This makes it difficult to isolate the specific effects of alcohol.

As an antimicrobial, alcohol may influence the oral microbiome. Some studies have even suggested a possible association between mouthwashes containing alcohol and increased oral cancer risk. However, there are currently no studies that have specifically examined the effects of ethanol-only mouth rinses on the oral microbiome or cardiovascular health.

Overall, the body of evidence suggests that a mild, over-the-counter mouthwash, like the kind most people buy at stores, may be less likely to significantly interfere with nitrate-to-nitrite conversion or affect blood pressure.

In a long-term study of 354 adults, better routine oral hygiene, such as brushing and flossing, was linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular death over nearly 19 years. Regular mouthwash use did not appear to have any influence on heart health outcomes. This was true for milder mouthwashes containing flouride and alcohol, as well as stronger, anti-bacterial mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride.

The type of mouthwash matters

Together, these studies suggest that some types of mouthwash (such as chlorhexidine) disrupt beneficial oral bacteria and the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway when used long term. But more research needs to be done to truly understand the long-term effects of other types of mouthwash on cardiovascular health – including mild everyday mouthwash brands and those containing alcohol.

Mouthwash comes in different types for different purposes, so it’s important to check the active ingredient on the back of the packaging. Alcohol-free and milder mouthwashes appear to have less effect on the heart-healthy bacteria than stronger types.

However, be aware to check the ingredients as even alcohol-free options can contain antibacterial agents such as cetylpyridinium chloride. As such, it’s best to choose one that fits your needs and use it in moderation. Strong mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine are best reserved for helping gum disease or oral infections.

It’s also worth noting that oral health and untreated infections can also contribute to heart disease more broadly. For example, a systematic review of 82 studies concluded that chronic oral disease and tooth loss was associated with risk of heart problems. This is why maintaining a healthy balance of mouth bacteria matters beyond your teeth.

Take care of your oral and overall health by keeping up with brushing, flossing, visiting your dentist and choosing a mouthwash that works for you.

Joanna L’Heureux 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. Is mouthwash bad for the heart? Here’s what the research actually says – https://theconversation.com/is-mouthwash-bad-for-the-heart-heres-what-the-research-actually-says-277299

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benedict Morrison, Senior lecturer in Film, Television, Literature, and Queer Studies, University of Exeter

In her 1998 essay What’s a Good Gay Film?, film critic B. Ruby Rich considered what queer audiences were looking for.

She wrote that queer cinema-goers were seeking “films of validation and a culture of affirmation: work that can reinforce identity, visualise respectability, combat injustice and bolster social status”. They were tired, she argued, of stereotypes of queer suffering and trauma. Instead, they required “nothing downbeat or too revelatory; and happy endings, of course”.

But if a straightforward happy ending is what you are after, Departures is not the film for you. This miraculously self-financed and stylish debut feature is not purely affirmative. At times, the screen shimmers with sadness. And yet, wryly and playfully, the film also resists becoming gloomy. Tonally sophisticated, it combines the bleak with the whimsical, ultimately sidestepping the crude dichotomy of happy or unhappy endings altogether.

The film opens with a love-scarred Benji (played by the film’s writer and co-director Lloyd Eyre-Morgan) recalling a recent relationship. In flashback, he remembers meeting handsome Jake (David Tag) in the airport as they both wait for a flight to Amsterdam. Jake bewilders Benji: his flirtation is suggestive but always deniable, never quite declaring itself. Charismatic and assertive, Jake engineers it so that they sit together on the flight, telling the air steward that he is Benji’s carer – a description which quickly becomes grimly ironic.

Later, Jake rejects the suggestion that he is gay but demands that Benji give him a blowjob regardless. Monthly trips to Amsterdam follow and the two men develop a form of intimacy, but one which affords the softer, more pliable Benji little power.

In such a brief synopsis, the scenario risks sounding cliched. Familiar narrative devices pile up: the physically asymmetrical gay relationship in which the self-consciousness of one man makes them susceptible to the coercive manipulations of the more assured partner in a whirlwind of sex and drugs and emotional control. A comparable dynamic played out in another recent queer film, Pillion.

Benji, longing for this to be more than a once-monthly dose of overseas sex, withstands put-downs and disappointments. His quiet, emotional expressions of desire (played movingly by Eyre-Morgan) contrast with Jake’s struggle to accept his attraction to men. Tag is excellent and his portrayal of Jake is sometimes harsh and defensive, but also shows vulnerability, which prevents him from becoming a one-dimensional monster. Because of these tensions, the relationship’s unhappy ending feels like a dead cert.

Lessons from Heartstopper

Departures takes familiar cliches and gives them new life, turning them into something unexpectedly revealing. Its understated story recalls many films about gay suffering – from A Single Man to All of Us Strangers – but it refuses to stay within that familiar emotional frame.

Instead, the film disrupts expectations through bold, stylised touches that feel borrowed, perhaps improbably, from the Heartstopper playbook. The result is a work that plays with recognisable influences while twisting them into something more strange, lively and original.

Heartstopper, the popular Netflix queer teen drama, deliberately avoids the more difficult or painful stories often told about queer life. Instead, it offers the kind of wish-fulfilling, happy endings that Rich suggested many queer viewers have long desired. Every glance, touch and kiss between its characters is punctuated with playful on-screen doodles — bursts of electricity, fluttering butterflies and swirling text that insist we are watching Love with a capital L.

Departures borrows these same twee, saccharine stylistic gestures, but uses them in a very different context. Applied to a darker, sometimes even sordid story about control and sadness, they take on a mischievous, unsettling edge.

---

Read more:
Heartstopper: how this joyous teen show contrasts with my bitter memories of school life under homophobic law Section 28

---

As Benji’s voiceover details his suffering, scratchy lettering and illustrations dance around the screen. When he first sees Jake and his weary voiceover acknowledges the pain to come, doodled hearts burst around the handsome stranger to the music of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. As Benji submissively performs oral sex for Jake, the Hallelujah Chorus plays and animated fireworks fill the screen. And as Jake prepares to get into a fight with Benji’s friends, the needle of a Toxic Masculinity Meter shoots up to maximum. Here is a version of Heartstopper for an audience which knows that happy endings are often only the stuff of comic books.

In Departures, the collision of the sombre, unsettling narrative with the comic stylings of those twitching onscreen graphics suggests a more complex emotional situation in which neither cynicism nor romanticism is left unchecked. Instead, they synthesise in a complex portrait of Benji, who can neither maintain nor give up his romantic belief that Jake might love him.

Colliding styles

One of the film’s most striking ways of expressing this tension comes in a series of non-narrative sequences. Here, the characters dance – or perhaps merely convulse – under harsh strobe lights, their bodies flickering in and out of view, shifting into new poses and even seeming to become different selves between flashes.

It’s a simple but powerful device, inspired by the club scenes the men encounter on their trips to Amsterdam. Yet it opens up something more unsettling: brief glimpses of gay men caught between pleasure and pain, ecstasy and distress, moving to the uncertain rhythm of a contemporary queer world where nothing quite feels stable or fixed.

In the 1990s, Rich rejected the idea of easy affirmation, describing herself instead as an “old-time outlaw girl” who craved films “that push the edge, upset convention, defy expectation, speak the unspeakable, grab me by the throat and surprise me with something I’ve never seen before”.

Departures may work with familiar characters and a recognisable story, but its force lies in how it collides styles and tones in unexpected ways. It’s the kind of film that, in Rich’s terms, grabs you by the throat. What stays with me most is its sardonic yet romantic energy and the strangely undefeated presence of Benji at its centre.

This film deserves to find an audience who want more than easy viewing. It deserves viewers who will dance along to its tonal shifts and cherish the funny, sad, ironic almost-happy ending it serves up in its closing credits.

Benedict Morrison 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. Departures: this stylish gay love story deftly balances darkness and whimsy – https://theconversation.com/departures-this-stylish-gay-love-story-deftly-balances-darkness-and-whimsy-280497

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

 The day after Péter Magyar ousted Victor Orbán as prime minister of Hungary, he gave a combative press conference. He spoke in Hungarian, but was talking to the world – and particularly to Europe.

“We will do everything to restore the rule of law, plural democracy, and the system of checks and balances,” Magyar said, calling his election a historic moment for Hungary.

During 16 years in power, Orbán and his Fidesz party managed to take control of many of Hungary’s levers of power, from the judiciary to state-owned media, and weakened the institutions that could keep them accountable. Orbán liked to call it an illiberal democracy.

Magyar also urged the Hungarian president to move swiftly to install him as prime minister, before any more damage could be done by Orbán’s loyalists. “We know that people have been destroying documents, just like in the old communist age, that shredders are working full time,” he said.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, Zsolt Enyedi, professor of political science at the Central European University and an expert in Hungarian politics, explains how Magyar, a former member of Fidesz, manage to beat Orbán, his former boss.

Magyar’s moment

Enyedi describes Magyar as a centre-right figure with some nationalistic attributes, who is a bit eurosceptic with “some reservations against progressive way of speaking”. However, Enyedi says Magyar changed since first entering politics in 2024, when he gave an explosive interview criticising Orbán’s regime.

Back then he was “clearly someone who reproduced many of the ideological panels of this Orbánist regime, but he was very critical of the corruption that exists in the regime”. He was likened to a clean, young version of Orbán himself.

Since then, Magyar has spent two years travelling around Hungary speaking to people across the country on the campaign trail. “He started to understand better the enormous harm done by the Fidesz regime, and he also became more pro-European in his rhetoric, embracing the democratisation agenda,” says Enyedi.

Magyar is now able to “provide the lowest common denominator for all pro-democratic forces,” says Enyedi. “In that sense, he’s more than simply representative of one political ideological current.”

As European leaders breathe a sign of relief at Magyar’s victory, Enyedi says although Europe has not gained an “enthusiastic partner”, he will be a much more constructive one. “Partly out of conviction, partly because he needs EU money and he needs that money soon. So he cannot play games. He has to make a deal with the EU leadership.”

Listen to the interview with Zsolt Enyedi on The Conversation Weekly podcast. This episode was written and produced by Gemma Ware, Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Mixing by Eleanor Brezzi and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from CNN, CRM News, euronews and Partizán.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Zsolt Enyedi has received EU Horizon funding.

– ref. ​Who is Hungary’s Péter Magyar and how he overturned Viktor Orbán’s illiberal democracy – https://theconversation.com/who-is-hungarys-peter-magyar-and-how-he-overturned-viktor-orbans-illiberal-democracy-280651

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Toomey, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Glasgow

Hungary’s Tisza party won parliamentary elections on April 12, bringing an end to the 16-year tenure of Viktor Orbán as prime minister. The result is a seismic one for Hungarian domestic politics. But it is also a major development in the trajectory of Hungary’s relations with the EU.

Throughout Orbán’s term, but particularly since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, he was consistently a thorn in the side of the EU. He flouted European norms, values and legislation as he went about building what he called an “illiberal state”.

One example was his 2011 decision to lower the mandatory retirement age for Hungarian judges and prosecutors from 70 to 62. This forced a large proportion of the country’s judiciary into retirement, allowing Orbán to replace them with party loyalists. The European Court of Justice ruled against the change in 2013, but many of Orbán’s appointees remained in their positions.

Orbán’s continued defiance of EU policies eventually resulted in the suspension of his Fidesz party from the powerful European People’s Party grouping in the European parliament. Its membership of the alliance was terminated two years later. The European Commission’s 2022 decision to withhold €30 billion (£26.1 billion) in funds from Hungary caused relations to plummet further.

And Orbán subsequently sought to leverage the EU’s need for solidarity and unanimity to support Ukraine and sanction Russia. Hungarian obstinance and disruption became so frequent that the country has been described by some political figures in Europe as not being aligned with European or Ukrainian interests when it comes to Russia.

In a thinly veiled reference to Orbán during a 2024 parliamentary speech, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “There are still some who blame this war not on the invader but on the invaded. Not on Putin’s lust for power but on Ukraine’s thirst for freedom. So I want to ask them: would they ever blame the Hungarians for the Soviet invasion of 1956?”

A true low point in EU-Hungary relations was reached in early April 2026 when leaked audio recordings showed Orbán and his foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, actively coordinating with the Russian government. The recordings show that Szijjártó had used breaks in closed EU ministerial sessions two years earlier to call his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and brief him on the state of internal discussions.

Szijjártó is also accused of sharing confidential documents with Lavrov relating to minority language requirements in Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations. The French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, has described this as a “betrayal”. Had Orbán managed to prevail in the recent elections, the relationship between the EU and Hungary is likely to have reached a breaking point.

Rupture or continuity?

As it is, EU officials will be breathing a sigh of relief. The incoming prime minister, Péter Magyar, has a huge incentive to restore Hungary’s relations with the EU – if for no other reason than to secure the release of roughly €17 billion in allocated EU funds that are still suspended. Warmer relations would also help Hungary access a possible further €17 billion in discounted defence loans.

Given the global economic ramifications of the war in Iran and the costs Magyar will incur as he reforms and dismantles Orbán’s oligarchic economic system, his government will rely on these funds to ease some of the budgetary pressures they will face.

However, unfreezing these funds is not a foregone conclusion. Von der Leyen has already announced that reforms will need to be made in order to achieve this and has presented Hungary’s incoming government with 27 conditions that will need to be satisfied.

Some of these reforms will be relatively easy for Magyar to achieve. For instance, tackling corruption was an explicit part of Tisza’s election manifesto. However, other EU funds that were suspended due to infringements on LGBTQ+ rights or asylum procedures will be more politically costly to access.

Hungarians remain deeply conservative and more eurosceptic than the average European. According to a 2025 survey conducted on behalf of the European Commission, only 55% of Hungarians consider the country’s EU membership to be “a good thing”. This is lower than the EU average of 62%. Reforms that are seen to be at odds with Hungarian values may thus provoke domestic resistance.

Perhaps of most global interest will be how Magyar approaches the war in Ukraine. He has indicated an interest in rapprochement with Ukraine as part of his broader goal of realigning Hungary with the EU and Nato. Most notably, he has stated that Orbán should lift his veto on the provision of a €90 billion EU loan to Ukraine.

However, there may also be more continuity with the Orbán regime than those in Brussels might like. Magyar has stated that he intends to continue importing Russian energy until at least 2035 and that he will need to put any future possibility of Ukrainian EU membership to a referendum.

In a country where opinion polls show 50% of voters – and 36% of Tisza voters – see Ukraine as a threat, such a referendum would be highly likely to upend the entire process of Ukraine’s EU accession.

Orbán’s downfall is undoubtedly a positive for EU-Hungary relations. However, while Magyar himself has asserted his determination to restore a friendly relationship, this reset will face multiple sizeable tests over the coming months and years.

Michael Toomey 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. Orbán’s downfall is a positive for EU-Hungary relations – but the reset will not be smooth – https://theconversation.com/orbans-downfall-is-a-positive-for-eu-hungary-relations-but-the-reset-will-not-be-smooth-280681