Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds

Beyond the high drama surrounding the Makerfield by-election and the contest to be the UK prime minister lies a more fundamental battle. It is the struggle between the incremental pragmatism of mainstream politics and the magical thinking of populism.

The great catchword of recent UK politics has been “change”. Brexit, it was said, would change the country’s declining position in the world. Boris Johnson said after his landslide electoral victory in 2019 that he was going to take on “the problems that no government has had the guts to tackle before”.

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, entitled “Change”, declared that a Starmer-led government would “stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country”.

---

Read more:
English local elections 2026: a story of a new kind of politics

---

But people have different ideas of what change means and how fast it can happen.
In a world full of entrenched, unequal social structures and complex, intractable
global problems, change is inevitably a long-term project. But voters tend not to be in the business of long-term evaluation.

Similarly, they are not impressed by graphs showing that the UK economy is currently the fastest-growing in the G7 or that waiting times for NHS treatment in England are at their lowest level in more than three years.

There are undoubtedly better ways of communicating long-term change and
identifying quick wins than the current government has adopted. However, the real battle is not between rival tellers of the mainstream narrative, but between two completely different conceptions of change. Remembering this will be crucial for Andy Burnham when he takes on Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election in his bid to return to Westminster to challenge Keir Starmer for the leadership of the Labour party and his job as prime minister.

Feelings over facts

Populist leaders are successful not because they have more convincing policies for house-building, ending child poverty or realising energy security. The change they offer appeals to visceral feelings rather than material needs. “Imagine how you will feel on the day that we come to power,” they say. “Think of how shattered all of those people who have ignored you, talked down to you, taken your jobs and pushed ahead of you in the queue for services will feel.”

Populists such as Reform UK (according to current polls the most likely party to win the next UK general election) are less interested in setting out a policy programme than in connecting with voters’ raw nerves.

That is why the most crucial lesson for Labour from the 2026 local elections
was not their devastating defeat, but the unstoppable surge of Reform’s appeal to
voters that threatened to leave them in the margins in the next general election.
Labour’s reflex response was to look at deposing its leader. And possibly at least one of Starmer’s rivals for the job would be more effective at taking on this new form of political opposition.

More important, however, is to be clear what is involved in taking on
populism. A new prime minister will be faced with exactly the same challenges as
the current one and will not be able to deliver transformative change simply by force of an appealing personality.

Europe will still be involved in its longest war since 1945. The US will continue to be an unreliable partner. The climate emergency will go on wreaking havoc. Social care for an ageing population will remain a massive challenge. National debt will still limit the capacity for public investment. Regional disparities and indefensible social inequalities will still exist.

All of these challenges and more will result in sections of the electorate feeling alienated and disappointed – the very sentiments upon which populism depends.

The big question for whoever is going to be prime minister in the next three years is not just about policy and delivery (although it is also very much about that), but about offering an alternative to the psychic appeal of populism. That will entail adopting a three-point strategy.

First, politicians need to acknowledge the depth of disappointment felt by people whose parents and grandparents had once believed that the government was there to look after them in times of need. The prime minister should declare an urgent mission to build an infrastructure of cradle-to-grave care, which exists not to tell people how they should be feeling, but to be democratically accountable to their needs and priorities as individuals and communities.

Second, there is a need for a complete overhaul of political language, led by the prime minister’s example, eschewing the lexicon of technocratic cliche and adopting the conversational tone of speaking with rather than speaking at people.

Third, there is a need for boldness in calling out the ugly sentiments of populism and appealing explicitly to the more generous, positive feelings and beliefs of the majority that are too often excluded from the domain of hardheaded politics.

A new prime minister will need to be imaginative in demonstrating that populists are not the only ones who can appeal to people’s deepest apprehensions and desires. And they will have to show that politics can be more like an inclusive conversation than a PowerPoint presentation. In that case, then perhaps the recent soap opera will not be as inconsequential as many people perceive it to be.

Stephen Coleman 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. Even if the UK changes prime minister, voters now expect to hear the language of populism – https://theconversation.com/even-if-the-uk-changes-prime-minister-voters-now-expect-to-hear-the-language-of-populism-283088

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sally Christine Reynolds, Associate Professor in Hominin Palaeoecology, Bournemouth University

For most of the 20th century, the model of human origins was a tree: with the trunk dividing into branches, and then twigs. Each species of human relative (hominin) was a neat, single branch.

As an undergraduate, I was taught that Homo sapiens was one of these branches that emerged in Africa, spread across the world, and displaced every archaic human it encountered.

Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and other ancient relatives were evolutionary dead ends – unfortunate cousins who left no descendants. In the 30 years since I left university, those early lessons are now radically revised.

That neat replacement story is now comprehensively wrong, largely thanks to studies like the one published in Nature this week by Qiaomei Fu from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and colleagues. The paper achieves something that would have seemed impossible a decade ago: it recovers meaningful biological information from H. erectus fossils far too old for DNA.

Instead of genetic sequences, the team extracted ancient proteins from the enamel of six teeth from three Chinese sites – Zhoukoudian (which, in the early 20th century, produced fossil remains known as “Peking Man”), Hexian and Sunjiadong – all dating to around 400,000 years ago.

Homo erectus is widely regarded as the first hominin to leave Africa; the evidence suggests this species had moved into Eurasia nearly two million years ago. It remains the most geographically widespread human ancestor that ever lived. The new study indicates that Homo erectus exchanged genes (probably through interbreeding) with Denisovans in East Asia roughly 400,000 years ago.

The study suggests that some of that genetic legacy, it now appears, was passed on to living people in the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and across south-east Asia.

Tooth enamel is the hardest tissue in the body, and its proteins survive long after DNA has degraded beyond recovery. What the team found in those proteins is striking. All six specimens share a previously unknown amino acid variant – a tiny molecular signature, a single letter changed in the protein sequence, never seen in any other hominin alive or dead.

This variant clusters these east Asian H. erectus into a distinct group, confirming their identity and settling a long-running debate about whether the unusual Hexian fossils were H. erectus at all. A second variant they share, however, is not unique to H. erectus.

It also appears in Denisovans – a mysterious archaic (non-Homo sapiens) human group known mainly from a cave in Siberia. The corresponding genetic variant turns up in living people at frequencies of 21% in the Philippines and about 1% in India, distributed in a pattern that matches what we’d expect if it entered modern humans via Denisovan ancestry.

The most reasonable interpretation is that H. erectus populations in east Asia passed this variant to Denisovans through interbreeding, and Denisovans later passed it on to the ancestors of modern south-east Asians and Oceanians. This transfer of genetic material from one species to another is known as introgression.

The lineage we once thought was a dead end has, it turns out, left a small but detectable trace in living human genomes – a molecular thread connecting a Peking Man tooth to living people in Asia.

A pattern repeated

But the significance of today’s paper extends well beyond the specific variant or the specific populations involved. What it really shows is that interbreeding between archaic human lineages was not exceptional. It was routine.

Every major hominin lineage we have been able to examine genomically shows admixture. Modern humans outside Africa carry roughly 2% Neanderthal DNA. Papuans and Aboriginal Australians carry an additional 2–5% Denisovan ancestry.

West African populations carry genetic signatures from an unidentified archaic lineage. Even Denisovans themselves, as today’s study adds further weight to, received gene flow from something older and more diverged — likely H. erectus.

A 2019 review in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology documents at least three distinct introgression events from Denisovan-like populations into south-east Asian and Oceanic ancestors alone, some occurring as recently as 20,000 years ago. The picture is not one of clean lineages but of a tangled web of contact and exchange extending across millions of years.

The implications are far-reaching. Our genomes are not the product of a single unbroken lineage emerging from Africa. They are mosaics, assembled from contributions by multiple archaic groups, each adapted to its own regional environment.

Some of the Denisovan-derived variants in Papuan genomes, for instance, appear to influence immune function. The H. erectus-derived variant identified today has unknown functional consequences – that remains an open question – but the precedent from other gene variants that have introgressed (genes that have passed from one species into another) suggests that adaptation to new environments may have been part of the story.

Ghost populations

Perhaps most intriguing is what the new paper implies about all the populations we cannot yet study. H. erectus survived in Indonesia until perhaps 100,000 years ago. Homo floresiensis, the diminutive “hobbit” species, was present on Flores when modern humans arrived. Another human lineage, Homo luzonensis, occupied the Philippines.

None of these populations have yielded DNA, and until today none had yielded any molecular data at all. Were they also absorbed, at least partially, into the human populations that replaced them? The genomic evidence from living people has not, so far, detected their signal clearly – but the tools available until recently were blunt instruments.

The proteomic approach demonstrated in today’s paper offers a way forward. If proteins can be recovered from H. erectus enamel at 400,000 years, the same approach applied to floresiensis or luzonensis material might finally reveal whether those lineages, too, contributed something to the humans who came after them.

The old metaphor of a tree – a single trunk branching into distinct species – has been quietly replaced in the scientific literature. It might be better to consider the process as a braided river, with many channels running partly together and partly apart, exchanging water continuously.

This new study is one more confirmation that when ancient human populations disappeared, they left traces of themselves behind.

Sally Christine Reynolds 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. Ancient tooth proteins suggest ‘Homo erectus’ may have left a genetic legacy in people today – https://theconversation.com/ancient-tooth-proteins-suggest-homo-erectus-may-have-left-a-genetic-legacy-in-people-today-282785

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Bennett, Lecturer in Popular Music, Digital Culture and Fandom, Cardiff University

Scrolling through social media, it feels as though “indie sleaze” never went away. Grainy flash photography, smudged eyeliner and a soundtrack of early 2000s indie music are once again dominating feeds.

This revival is more of a reworking than a straightforward comeback. Today’s indie sleaze – exemplified in the music video for Charli XCX’s new track, Rock Music – is an algorithmically curated version of a once messy, participatory subculture. Its renewed appeal seems to lie partly in this aesthetic of imperfection, partly in its connection to earlier digital platforms and partly in what it evokes – a specific cultural moment associated with pre-social media digital life.

The original “indie sleaze” moment emerged in the early-mid 2000s, connecting with music, fashion, nightlife and online culture. It coalesced around a wide mix of genres, including electro and “indie” rock, particularly bands from New York such as The Strokes and Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and in the UK The Libertines, Long Blondes, Arctic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand. However, it was it more than just the music – the visuals and lifestyle played a core part.

---

No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.

Read more from Quarter Life:

• Why Charli XCX might be gen Z’s answer to the Romantic poets

• Let ‘performative males’ be – gender has always been a performance and our need for authenticity is bad for us

• Is today’s political climate making dating harder for young people?

---

Equally important were the digital platforms that enabled new forms of fan participation and visibility. Sites like MySpace, LiveJournal and later Tumblr, allowed fans, bloggers and photographers to document and curate the scene in real time.

These platforms operated differently from today’s social media environment. They were less centralised or driven by algorithm recommendation, allowing different music scenes to emerge more gradually and at times unevenly across networks of different users.

As media researcher Henry Jenkins has argued, spaces like these foster forms of participatory culture, in which audiences actively shape and circulate media, often connecting with their own personal pleasures. Indie sleaze deeply connects with this, being a scene produced as much through fan practices such as blogging, photographing and sharing, as through the music itself.

What’s changed

The current revival can be traced back to a viral TikTok trend forecast in 2021, which predicted that the scene would be returning and gave it its specific name and coherence. Nobody was describing the scene as “indie sleaze” during its original heyday.

Since then, TikTok “indie sleaze” content has circulated through recognisable formats such as “get ready with me” videos styled for nights out or themed parties, slideshows of grainy flash photography, makeup tutorials and nostalgic edits imagining early 2000s club culture.

This is supplemented by accounts such as the curated @indiesleaze on Instagram, which highlights the importance of earlier platforms such as Flickr in documenting the scene. It allows followers to contrast the media we had then and its dynamics, with what we have now.

What stands out about this revival is its relationship to nostalgia. Many of the TikTok users producing indie sleaze content now were too young to have experienced the original scene. Instead, they engage with it through fragments such as archived images, music playlists and viral videos that reconstruct the past as a particular aesthetic and feeling. As a result, what circulates is not the lived reality of mid 2000s nightlife, but a stylised and selective memory of it.

For some music fans, this nostalgia is about a different experience of digital culture – one that feels less dominated by platforms, filters, AI and algorithms. For those who lived through indie sleaze, this revival may also produce a different kind of nostalgia that rests on memory.

On platforms like TikTok, “indie sleaze” has become a template that others can engage in through a set of visual cues and references that can be easily reproduced and widely circulated. This suggests that it is precisely indie sleaze’s messiness that makes it appealing and draws some people in. Its grain, blur and imperfection offer such a stark contrast to the polished, filter heavy and increasingly AI-mediated environments that characterise much of our contemporary social media.

There is also a sense of irony here. While indie sleaze is often appealing because of its rawness and imperfection, some of these visuals are now recreated through the very technologies they seem to resist. Filters and editing apps can add effects to smartphone images, digitally reproducing the look of older cameras and online photography. In this sense, the messiness associated with indie sleaze is no longer entirely spontaneous, but increasingly stylised for social media platforms.

Similar dynamics were at play in the reception of Charli XCX’s Brat album in 2025, which also resonated with audiences through its deliberately bold, messy, self aware aesthetic.

---

Read more:
Brat by Charli XCX is a work of contemporary imagist poetry – and a reclamation of ‘bratty’ women’s art

---

Music is often used by fans to connect to another time, whether through memory, or imagined pasts, bringing a sense of these moments into the present. In this sense, the return of indie sleaze is not simply a revival of a past musical movement, but a nostalgic reworking of it in the present.

As I have explored in previous research with Rafal Zaborowski on the resurgence of Kate Bush on TikTok, such revivals are often shaped by the logics of the platforms through which they circulate, connecting with forms of affect or nostalgia. What emerges then is not a faithful reconstruction or revival, but instead a version of the past that is made visible, shareable and open to reinterpretation in new ways and to new generations.

Ultimately this revival tells us as much about the present as it does about the past, raising broader insights about how digital platforms are reshaping not just what music fans remember, but the ways in which those memories are formed and shared.

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

– ref. Why indie sleaze feels nostalgic – even for people who never lived it – https://theconversation.com/why-indie-sleaze-feels-nostalgic-even-for-people-who-never-lived-it-282542

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emilia Vann Yaroson, Assistant Professor in Operations and Supply Chain Management, University of Sheffield

The UK continues to experience shortages of many common prescription drugs, despite efforts to strengthen supply chains.

Drugs for ADHD, epilepsy, GLP-1s for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, as well as ramipril (which is used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure), have all faced supply shortages since the end of last year or beginning of this year.

As products become unavailable, pressure increases across the system to secure alternatives. If patients do not receive treatment promptly and consistently, their quality of life can suffer.

Medicine supply shortages pose a significant threat to the UK’s public health. And, as a recent government inquiry revealed, the UK’s current medicine supply chain is very vulnerable to disruptions.

Making supply chains more resilient would normally have been the best strategy for ensuring the UK can maintain supplies of medicine and recover quickly when problems do occur. But growing global and supply chain pressures mean medicine shortages are likely to continue unless deeper system weaknesses are addressed.

Why shortages keep happening

Medicine supply chains are global, highly regulated and complex. Challenges such as factory maintenance, transport delays or rising demand in other countries can quickly affect medicine supplies in the UK.

Recent disruptions, such as the Iran conflict, have raised concerns about future medicines security. The war has already driven up the cost of some prescription drugs by 30%. This is largely due to the jump in gas and diesel prices, making manufacturing and shipping more costly.

The rising cost of raw materials and energy can also contribute to increasing drug costs for patients and healthcare systems.

The supply and demand for medicines can fluctuate as well depending on disease prevalence, access to diagnosis, market pricing and people’s ability to pay. For instance, ongoing HRT shortages have partly been blamed on increased demand for the drug following GP consultations.

It can therefore be challenging to ensure a constant supply of medication. But this is not just a UK issue – it’s a worldwide problem.

The UK competes globally for access to medicines and critical ingredients. Approximately 80% of the medicines used to treat UK patients are non-branded or “generics”. These are mainly manufactured in China and India. Generics are clinically effective but less expensive than branded drugs, so there’s a heavy reliance on them internationally.

China and India are also the primary manufacturers of many basic pharmaceutical ingredients. This increases global reliance on these countries. Manufacturing problems or transport delays in these countries can quickly reduce worldwide access to medicines.

Community pharmacies, which buy the medicines dispensed to patients in the UK, are directly affected by drug shortages. When medicines are not available and demand exceeds supply, market prices can rise quickly. These independent businesses may therefore be financially challenged by drug prices.

Although the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC) has agreed prices and will refund pharmacies for the medicines they buy, the pharmacies can still make a loss on the purchases – and DHSC payments are always in arrears.

Patients usually access their medications through their local community pharmacy. But in the past five years, more than 1,000 community pharmacies have closed in the UK. Some of the causes of these closures are directly related to drug supplies, including medicine reimbursement and pressure due to shortages. Closing local community pharmacies puts pressure on the remaining pharmacies to maintain stock.

If patients cannot access their medicines, it can trigger panic orders and stockpiling, which may place even greater pressure on already fragile supply chains and waste. In some cases, these shortages also create opportunities for counterfeit medicines to infiltrate the market, as desperate patients seek alternative sources to meet their needs.

Low medicine prices have also been cited as a key reason for suppliers leaving the market or companies such as AstraZeneca reducing UK investment.

A lack of timely and informative communication about prescription drug shortages can lead to patient concerns, providers panicking and trading opportunism. Patients do not know why they can’t access their medicines or how long the situation will last.

What can we do?

There are calls from within the sector for earlier signalling of supply issues and changes in demand. This would give UK suppliers more time to find alternative medicines, plan production schedules, reduce delays and disruption and hopefully better prevent medicine shortages.

Effective and timely communication is also needed to support providers in doing their jobs and allay patient concerns.

Focusing on the pricing of medicines and its wider impact on our healthcare system is another important factor. The UK Life Sciences Sector Plan aims to support the sector and attract investors to strengthen local medicine production and reduce the impact of medicine shortages.

Educating stakeholders can help reduce medicine shortages by improving awareness, coordination and responsible behaviour across the supply chain. Educating community pharmacists and patients of the causes and impact of medicine shortages is also key. This can reduce panic orders, unnecessary stockpiling of medicines and prevent counterfeit or unregulated products entering the market.

The UK government should also collaborate more extensively with European partners by sourcing products from trusted or geographically close countries. This would not only promote stronger relationships but also create direct access to alternate medicine supply sources.

The current market leaders benefit from economies of scale and scope, however. More local and distributed manufacture may be stable but expensive. Key ingredients still often have single (or few) sources.

Improving supply resilience is essential for maintaining the availability of prescription drugs and reducing service pressures. But it isn’t the only strategy the UK government should rely on. Appreciation of the role of the patient and the provider as recipients is important in managing the impact and continuity of supply issues.

For patients experiencing shortages, it’s important you don’t panic buy and stockpile items, and continue ordering your prescription only when needed. Your pharmacist can also give you advice on what to do if your usual medicine is not in stock.

Liz Breen is affiliated with the House of Lords Public Select Committee Medicines Security Inquiry as a Specialist Advisor. She received funding from the House of Lords.

Emilia Vann Yaroson and Jonathan Silcock 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. Drug shortages continue to be a problem in the UK – yet strengthening supply chains alone won’t solve this issue – https://theconversation.com/drug-shortages-continue-to-be-a-problem-in-the-uk-yet-strengthening-supply-chains-alone-wont-solve-this-issue-282682

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Ryan, Associate Professor in US History, University of Nottingham

Donald Trump’s appraisal of his recent state visit to China was, typically, positive and self-regarding. At the end of the trip, the US president told reporters that it had achieved “a lot of good” and “fantastic trade deals” had been signed. He concluded that a lot of different problems were settled “that other people wouldn’t have been able to solve”.

As usual, the US president appeared to enjoy the pageantry of a state visit. He likes meeting other “great” leaders – strongmen who lead powerful countries.

At face value, the trip appeared largely successful. The Trump-Xi relationship appeared cordial. There were no undiplomatic comments by Trump. Xi described it as “a milestone visit” of “historic” proportions. Trump said that his relationship with Xi is “a very strong one”. China pledged to buy 200 Boeing aircraft and also committed to buying billions of dollars of soybeans and other agricultural goods. These are all things Trump can present as wins, even if their significance is disputed.

The cordiality of the visit was a contrast to the Biden years, when “extreme competition” with China – in Biden’s words – was the central organising principle of US foreign policy. The Biden administration viewed China as a once-in-a-generation challenger to US power: politically, economically, militarily and ideologically. It believed Beijing was aggressively trying to displace the US as the world’s dominant power and actively sought to prevent this.

Over the past year, the second Trump administration has shifted attention away from great power conflict with China and focused on other things. These have included regime change in Venezuela (and, all the signs suggest, Cuba is now in his sights). He has changed America’s relationship with Europe, introduced an at-times erratic regime of tariffs in an attempt to address US trade deficits. And, above all, he has started a war with Iran.

Ely Ratner, a China hawk from the Biden administration has accused Trump of “strategic deference” towards Beijing. And there can be little doubt that the Trump administration has dialled down the Cold War-style ideological rhetoric about China.

Its 2025 national security strategy stresses that: “We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions or histories.” This much was evident from Trump’s visit. Unlike Biden, Trump did not publicly raises human rights issues on his trip to China. This removed a persistent irritant in the relationship.

That said, the US Congress – and many of those around the president – still see the relationship with China as fundamentally competitive and adversarial. They want the US to remain the world’s primary power, militarily, economically and technologically. The desire to out-compete China is likely to drive policy in the longer-term.

The 2026 national defense strategy, published in January, states that Washington will be “clear-eyed and realistic about the speed, scale, and quality of China’s historic military buildup” and will “prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies”. The strategy commits the US to deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by keeping “a strong denial defense along the First Island Chain” north and south of Taiwan. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who accompanied Trump to Beijing, confirmed that US policy on Taiwan has not changed as a result of the leaders’ meeting.

The Trump administration’s approach is driven primarily by economic interests. This is because it believes that “the Indo-Pacific will soon make up more than half of the global economy” and, according to the defense strategy: “Were China… to dominate this broad and crucial region, it would be able to effectively veto Americans’ access to the world’s economic center of gravity.”

This means the Trump administration will try to preserve the giant US military presence in Asia Pacific that the Chinese see as encirclement.

‘Conscious de-coupling’

The US president remains a mercurial character who can make unpredictable decisions. He likes to tout his prowess as a dealmaker and it is always possible that he could undermine the consensus view within his own government. But the US Congress is also firmly behind the drive to out-compete China and to “decouple” in advanced technology.

In July 2025, the bipartisan “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act (OBBBA) included US$58 billion (£43.5 billion) of federal investments in, and tax incentives for, AI production inside the US. These measures barred “prohibited foreign entities” from US supply chains. In 2018, Congress passed strict new export controls and investment restrictions into law to try to decouple from China in emerging new technologies. The House Select Committee on China is pushing for more of this.

Over the past year, the Trump administration launched a new strategy for rare earth metals. China’s dominance of the mining and processing of these metals is a huge advantage – they are critical to modern weapons systems and widely used in electronics, from smartphones to EVs.

In April 2025, Beijing began to impose export controls on rare earths in response to US tariffs. Since then, the US has launched a US$7.3 billion global effort to secure supplies of rare earths outside China and invest in domestic mining and processing capabilities. While this will take years to come to fruition, the goal is to speed up decoupling from China in rare earths – hardly a sign of trust.

Finally, Trump reportedly refused to extend the trade truce signed in October 2025 until the end of his administration as he believed he would lose leverage over China in future. It’s a clear sign that even he expects tension in future.

The Trump administration says that, unlike its predecessors, it is not looking for conflict with China. But its insistence on US dominance of Asia Pacific is likely to drive competition with China in the long-term.

Maria Ryan has received funding from the British Academy.

– ref. Trump’s ‘cordial’ Beijing trip has not changed superpower rivalry – https://theconversation.com/trumps-cordial-beijing-trip-has-not-changed-superpower-rivalry-283107

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds

Beyond the high drama surrounding the Makerfield by-election and the contest to be the UK prime minister lies a more fundamental battle. It is the struggle between the incremental pragmatism of mainstream politics and the magical thinking of populism.

The great catchword of recent UK politics has been “change”. Brexit, it was said, would change the country’s declining position in the world. Boris Johnson said after his landslide electoral victory in 2019 that he was going to take on “the problems that no government has had the guts to tackle before”.

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, entitled “Change”, declared that a Starmer-led government would “stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country”.

---

Read more:
English local elections 2026: a story of a new kind of politics

---

But people have different ideas of what change means and how fast it can happen.
In a world full of entrenched, unequal social structures and complex, intractable
global problems, change is inevitably a long-term project. But voters tend not to be in the business of long-term evaluation.

Similarly, they are not impressed by graphs showing that the UK economy is currently the fastest-growing in the G7 or that waiting times for NHS treatment in England are at their lowest level in more than three years.

There are undoubtedly better ways of communicating long-term change and
identifying quick wins than the current government has adopted. However, the real battle is not between rival tellers of the mainstream narrative, but between two completely different conceptions of change. Remembering this will be crucial for Andy Burnham when he takes on Reform UK in the Makerfield by-election in his bid to return to Westminster to challenge Keir Starmer for the leadership of the Labour party and his job as prime minister.

Feelings over facts

Populist leaders are successful not because they have more convincing policies for house-building, ending child poverty or realising energy security. The change they offer appeals to visceral feelings rather than material needs. “Imagine how you will feel on the day that we come to power,” they say. “Think of how shattered all of those people who have ignored you, talked down to you, taken your jobs and pushed ahead of you in the queue for services will feel.”

Populists such as Reform UK (according to current polls the most likely party to win the next UK general election) are less interested in setting out a policy programme than in connecting with voters’ raw nerves.

That is why the most crucial lesson for Labour from the 2026 local elections
was not their devastating defeat, but the unstoppable surge of Reform’s appeal to
voters that threatened to leave them in the margins in the next general election.
Labour’s reflex response was to depose its leader. And possibly at least one of Starmer’s rivals for the job would be more effective at taking on this new form of political opposition.

More important, however, is to be clear what is involved in taking on
populism. A new prime minister will be faced with exactly the same challenges as
the current one and will not be able to deliver transformative change simply by force of an appealing personality.

Europe will still be involved in its longest war since 1945. The US will continue to be an unreliable partner. The climate emergency will go on wreaking havoc. Social care for an ageing population will remain a massive challenge. National debt will still limit the capacity for public investment. Regional disparities and indefensible social inequalities will still exist.

All of these challenges and more will result in sections of the electorate feeling alienated and disappointed – the very sentiments upon which populism depends.

The big question for whoever is going to be prime minister in the next three years is not just about policy and delivery (although it is also very much about that), but about offering an alternative to the psychic appeal of populism. That will entail adopting a three-point strategy.

First, politicians need to acknowledge the depth of disappointment felt by people whose parents and grandparents had once believed that the government was there to look after them in times of need. The prime minister should declare an urgent mission to build an infrastructure of cradle-to-grave care, which exists not to tell people how they should be feeling, but to be democratically accountable to their needs and priorities as individuals and communities.

Second, there is a need for a complete overhaul of political language, led by the prime minister’s example, eschewing the lexicon of technocratic cliche and adopting the conversational tone of speaking with rather than speaking at people.

Third, there is a need for boldness in calling out the ugly sentiments of populism and appealing explicitly to the more generous, positive feelings and beliefs of the majority that are too often excluded from the domain of hardheaded politics.

A new prime minister will need to be imaginative in demonstrating that populists are not the only ones who can appeal to people’s deepest apprehensions and desires. And they will have to show that politics can be more like an inclusive conversation than a PowerPoint presentation. In that case, then perhaps the recent soap opera will not be as inconsequential as many people perceive it to be.

Stephen Coleman 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 in crisis: whoever is prime minister, voters expect politicians to use the language of populism – https://theconversation.com/labour-in-crisis-whoever-is-prime-minister-voters-expect-politicians-to-use-the-language-of-populism-283088

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neville Morley, Professor in Classics, Ancient History, Religion, and Theology, University of Exeter

In his opening remarks at his summit with Donald Trump on May 15, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, invoked the fifth-century BC Greek historian Thucydides to issue a veiled warning to the US president.

“The world has come to a new crossroads. Can China and the United States transcend the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’ and forge a new paradigm for major-power relations?”

Thucydides has been surprisingly prominent in international affairs this year. In January, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney cited the famous line from the Melian Dialogue, that the “strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”, to warn against the decline of a rules-based order. Others have quoted it to describe US military action in Venezuela and Iran – both positively and negatively.

Xi looked instead to Thucydides’ view of the “truest, though least discussed, reason” for the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. The most familiar translation of his words, from 1875, is that: “It was the rise of Athens, and the fear this aroused in Sparta, that made war inevitable.”

American international relations scholar Graham Allison developed from this the idea of Thucydides’s Trap. Thucydides’ stated goal was that readers would find his history useful for understanding future events. So, Allison argued, we can turn his words into a general principle: when an “established power” like Sparta is confronted with a “rising power” like Athens, conflict is usually the result.

History, claims Allison, bears this out. Across the centuries, 12 out of 16 examples of an established great power facing an upstart rival have resulted in war, including the two world wars. Will this also be the case between the USA, the global hegemon since the Soviet Union collapsed, and a resurgent China challenging its dominance, especially economically?

Three traps

Allison’s idea was much discussed. In 2017, he was invited to the White House to talk about it in relation to China and the US. So Xi’s mention of the Thucydides Trap was less a new idea than a call-back to the first Trump presidency. The theory has been taken seriously by the Chinese government, if only as a guide to American thinking. It has been identified as one of three traps faced by China today, together with the Tacitus Trap and the Middle Income Trap.

Discussion of the Thucydides Trap has largely focused on Allison’s account of the contemporary situation. Debate has centred on whether his characterisation of the US-China relationship is correct, and whether the advent of nuclear weapons and/or economic interdependence has changed the dynamic.

Allison offered the Thucydides Trap as a warning, to encourage both governments to pursue compromise and cooperation. The risk is that the established power might think Thucydides is telling them to suppress potential rivals before they become a threat – even if that makes war more likely. Hence Xi’s emphasis on avoiding the trap. But China hawks see that as a ruse to delay conflict until the balance of power is more even.

Cautionary tale

Since this is presented as a theory grounded in historical data and the authority of Thucydides, it is worth noting that it is questionable on both counts. Characterising many past conflicts as concerning just two rival powers, established and rising, is dubious; was the first world war just about Britain and Germany, for example?

As for Thucydides, the crucial line is a very loose translation of what he actually wrote, which is much more ambiguous. A more literal version: “Athens becoming great caused the Spartans to fear, and compelled towards war.” Compelled whom? Thucydides doesn’t specify. The Spartans? (And if so, were they actually compelled, or simply felt themselves to be compelled?) Both sides? Or the whole situation? Is he just being unclear – or is this deliberate, to push his readers to think more deeply?

Having offered this opaque and slightly ambiguous statement, Thucydides then presented a detailed narrative of the events leading to Sparta’s declaration of war. This included many points where things might arguably have turned out differently. His interpretation emphasised both short- and long-term developments, and both individual decisions and emotions as well as structural factors. His “trap” is much more complex – and it’s definitely not inevitable.

This is very familiar to discerning readers of Thucydides. His work doesn’t offer straightforward laws of war and politics, but sets out the complexity of human behaviour in a way which prompts us to think more deeply about it. But his ideas are often wrongly presented as simplistic principles that supposedly explain the world.

Trump’s response to Xi – that the USA may have been in decline under Biden but it’s now the hottest country ever – is a misreading even of Allison’s simplified version of Thucydides. The “Trap” theory says nothing about decline, only that the established superpower now faces a rival.

But anxiety about decline and decadence now pervades western thought. Perhaps this is evidence for the same sort of fear that came to govern Spartan thinking and, as Thucydides himself recounted, drew both states into a destructive war.

Neville Morley 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. Xi warned Trump against the ‘Thucydides Trap’ – here’s what ancient Greece can tell us about US-China relations – https://theconversation.com/xi-warned-trump-against-the-thucydides-trap-heres-what-ancient-greece-can-tell-us-about-us-china-relations-283106

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Johnston, Honorary Research Associate in Peatland Hydrology, University of Manchester

Thousands of holes are appearing in the Pennine hills, as part of efforts to improve carbon storage by restoring damaged peatland.

Peat itself is carbon rich and so as it grows it will help to capture the CO₂ that is produced by industrial fossil fuel use that is warming the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, damaged or drained peatlands turn into a carbon source, releasing greenhouses gases themselves. About 15% of the world’s peatlands have been drained, making these kind of restoration projects essential.

But now a new project is attempting to bring these wetlands back to life. On Holcombe Moor in the West Pennines, 3,000 bunds were created in 2021, with a further 700 in 2024 as part of Natural England’s Nature for Climate Peatland Grant Scheme. Improvements are already starting to be seen.

What’s the history here?

The hills of the West Pennines are no stranger to holes, with a long history of lead and coal mining stretching back to the Roman period.

Coal fired the mills nearby during the industrial revolution in cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. Smoke drifted back to the hills, carrying the heavy metal impurities of lead and arsenic from coal burning.

The industrial legacy remains visible in the elevated concentrations of heavy metals near the soil surface, which made it difficult for most plants to survive. Areas were stripped of all vegetation, leaving expanses of exposed soil. In the most affected places, these erosional gullies cut deep into the surface, turning places like Kinder Scout into a moonscape.

What was exposed and eroded so quickly had taken over 8,000 years to form. Much of the Pennines are covered in blanket peatland, a type of bog made through the slow accumulation of partially decayed plant matter (the type of soil we call peat).

The conditions for peat to form require a delicate balance, with the water table maintained high enough to limit the decomposition of plant matter, while still allowing plants to grow. Not just any plant can tolerate these harsh growing conditions. One species is truly specialised to bog life and forms the main building block of peat itself – Sphagnum.

Finding a super moss

Sphagnum moss is the key ecosystem engineer in peatlands, holding up to 20 times its weight in water to maintain the saturated conditions needed for its growth.

When in a healthy state, new Sphagnum grows up through the older moss, raising the water table with it to leave the older moss submerged, partially decayed, which forms the peat itself. Bogs grow only millimetres per year, but over millennia this can build several metres of peat.

The organic nature of peat means it is carbon rich, so much so that UK peatlands store over 3 billion tonnes of carbon, around ten times more than all UK woodland carbon stocks.

Restored wetlands could also help protect the area from wildfires at the UK starts to see more extreme temperatures.

Human pressure and pollution

With human pressures, including past industrial pollution, bog growth has been disrupted. Sphagnum has disappeared from these peatlands.

Now, peatland restoration efforts are under way. From the early 2000s organisations including Moors for the Future Partnership have spent decades blocking gullies to raise water tables, reseeding bare peat and planting Sphagnum moss, transforming the worst affected peatlands from dark moonscapes to vibrant green moss-scapes.

Though blocking erosional gullies with stone or timber dams has proven successful in deeply eroded peat, restoring flatter moorland plateaux presents a different set of challenges. Namely, how to restore the wet conditions required to encourage more Sphagnum moss to grow. However, this hasn’t stopped restoration organisations from trying a novel restoration method which might work to restore flatter peatlands.

Five years on from the start of the project, the original bunds are covered with grasses and many pools are now brimming with Sphagnum moss, looking more like natural bog pools.

Scallop bunds are crescent-shaped pools, created by digging shallow scrapes in the peat surface using special low impact excavators. The aim is to capture surface water which would otherwise run quickly off the hill after rainfall. The water stored in bund pools helps to maintain wetter conditions at the bog surface for Sphagnum moss to re-establish and grow on moorland plateaus.

The National Trust, in partnership with the University of Manchester, is undertaking long-term research to understand the potential for bunds as a peatland restoration method.

The 2025 drought followed one of the driest springs in England for over 100 years.

It provided the first test of extreme weather in this peat bund experiment. Preliminary monitoring during the 2025 drought suggests bunded areas remained wetter for longer than unrestored peat, helping to maintain wetter conditions near the peat surface for longer – the conditions required to support Sphagnum growth.

The excavator machines up on the hills today don’t signal a return to the industrial past, but an attempt to restore the damage it left behind.

Adam Johnston has received funding from charities delivering peatland restoration

– ref. The Pennine hills are full of holes – here’s how they’re helping fight climate change – https://theconversation.com/the-pennine-hills-are-full-of-holes-heres-how-theyre-helping-fight-climate-change-282925

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alimuddin Zumla, Professor of Infectious Diseases and International Health, UCL

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a “public health emergency of international concern”, with cases now confirmed in neighbouring Uganda. Here is what you need to know.

What is Ebola?

Ebola is a serious potentially fatal infectious disease. It causes fever, damage to blood vessels, and in severe cases, bleeding, organ failure and death. It was first identified in 1976 in central Africa and most outbreaks have occurred there since.

What is Bundibugyo virus, and how is it different from “regular” Ebola

Ebola is actually a group of related viruses. The most well-known and deadly is the Zaire strain, which has caused the largest outbreaks. Bundibugyo is a different strain, first identified in Uganda in 2007.

The Bundibugyo virus tends to kill around 30-50% of those infected – serious, but slightly lower than some Zaire outbreaks.

To put that in context, seasonal flu kills fewer than one in 1,000 people. COVID killed around one to two in 100 people early in the pandemic. Ebola is therefore far more deadly than most diseases most people have encountered. Outcomes depend on factors like how quickly someone receives care, the strength of the local health system and whether the patient has other underlying conditions.

Existing Ebola vaccines were designed for the Zaire strain and may not protect against Bundibugyo.

How does Ebola spread from person to person?

Ebola spreads through direct contact with an infected person’s body fluids, such as blood, vomit, diarrhoea, sweat or semen. This most commonly happens when caring for sick patients, during traditional burial practices involving the body, or through contact with infected animals. Ebola does not spread through the air like flu or COVID, and people are not contagious before their symptoms begin.

Why has this outbreak appeared in Uganda, and could it spread internationally?

Uganda borders the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Ebola outbreaks occur regularly. People, animals and goods move frequently across that border, which can allow disease to spread before it is detected. International spread via air travel is possible but unlikely to cause a major global outbreak – Ebola requires close physical contact to spread, and international monitoring and airport screening systems help catch cases early.

What is a “public health emergency of international concern”?

This is the World Health Organization’s highest level of global health alert. It signals that an outbreak poses a potential international risk and that countries need to work together urgently. It helps unlock funding, technical support and faster international cooperation. It does not mean a global pandemic is inevitable. It is a tool to mobilise a rapid, coordinated response.

What are the symptoms of Bundibugyo virus disease?

Early symptoms are similar to flu or malaria: fever, tiredness, headache, muscle pain and sore throat. As the illness progresses, patients may develop vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, a rash, confusion and shock. Some patients experience bleeding, though this is not universal. Because the early symptoms overlap with many common diseases, laboratory testing is needed to confirm the diagnosis.

Why do Ebola outbreaks keep occurring in the DRC?

Scientists believe Ebola lives naturally in certain fruit bats. Outbreaks usually begin when people come into contact with infected animals – for example, through hunting or handling wildlife. The DRC experiences repeated outbreaks because of dense forests, high human-wildlife contact, weak health infrastructure, conflict, poverty and limited access to medical care. Climate change and deforestation may increase the risk further.

If there is no vaccine, what treatments are available?

There is no approved vaccine or targeted treatment for Bundibugyo virus specifically. Patients are treated with supportive care, meaning medical treatment that keeps the body functioning while it fights the infection. This includes fluids, oxygen, nutritional support and treating complications. Good supportive care can significantly improve a patient’s chances of survival. Researchers are actively studying antiviral drugs and antibody treatments that might work against multiple Ebola strains.

What is being done to stop the outbreak?

Health authorities, supported by the WHO and international partners, are working to identify cases quickly, isolate patients, trace people who may have been exposed, and educate communities. Safe burial practices are also critical. The global capacity to respond to Ebola has improved greatly over the past decade, with better laboratory testing, faster information-sharing, and stronger regional coordination.

Is there an Ebola vaccine? If not, are there developments in this field?

Yes, two vaccines exist for the Zaire strain of Ebola and have proven highly effective. However, neither is approved for Bundibugyo virus. Scientists are now working urgently to develop vaccines that protect against multiple Ebola strains at once. New antibody treatments that could work across different strains are also in development, with promising results in early research. The current outbreak has reinforced how important it is to invest in these broader tools before the next crisis strikes.

Alimuddin Zumla 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. Ebola outbreak declared a global health emergency – what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/ebola-outbreak-declared-a-global-health-emergency-what-you-need-to-know-283130

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Parvati Nair, Professor of Hispanic, Cultural and Migration Studies, Queen Mary University of London

In April, as India’s governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ran elections in parts of the country, a visionary Indian passed away. He went quietly, much as he had lived, and left behind a vast photographic archive of the world’s most populous nation.

Raghu Rai (1942-2026) was India’s foremost photographer. Born prior to independence in what is now Pakistan, he and his family were one of the many millions forced to relocate during Partition.

For more than 60 years, Rai created a continuous visual record of India post-independence. He photographed major national figures, important moments in the country’s complex development, and the wide diversity – geographic, religious, cultural, social and ethnic – that shapes what it means to be Indian.

In subtle but persistent ways, his images challenged the country’s current dominant narratives. His work raised doubts about rigid nationalist rhetoric, government policies, and some of the questionable myths that underpin the ideology and politics of Hindu nationalism.

Photographs of a changing nation

Rai rose to international fame when he became the first Indian to join the renowned photographic agency Magnum. Well before then, though, his images were in the global daily press. As such, his photography is intrinsically woven into how India came to be thought of at home and abroad.

Rai shot both in colour and black-and-white, his aesthetic turning ordinary moments into fragments of awe, insight and grace. His lens captured the breadth of India – from Kashmir to Kerala, and from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea.

He photographed major establishment figures and the many unpredictable moments of everyday life, including quiet, personal scenes of reflection. His subjects ranged from leaders such as Indira Gandhi, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa to the landscapes and ordinary people of rural and urban India.

Thematically, Rai’s images spanned city life, spiritual journeys, landscapes and many other aspects of Indian society. They were often shot from a wide-angled lens that framed social scenes. His images of classical Indian musicians offer proof of how photographs can hold the flow and rhythm of music through nuanced attention to tonality, mood and evocation.

But perhaps most haunting is his photograph of a dead infant buried in rubble. It was captured in the aftermath of the world’s worst industrial tragedy, the Bhopal disaster of 1984.

Over 500,000 people in the vicinity of the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant were exposed to the highly toxic gas methyl isocyanate. The child’s open, sightless eyes force the viewer to look this horror in the face.

In Rai’s wide-ranging photographs, the nation appears in transformation. His work helped Indians to see themselves as part of this larger national movement, connected through shared relationships and interactions. In his images, you can see the colours, contrasts, tensions and energy of Indian life, captured in brief moments that seem to flow into one another.

To consider the panorama of his work is to see India not as divided or hierarchical, but as a complex, interconnected mix of people and cultures.

A spiritual exploration

Rai’s death marks the end of an era of photojournalism forged in pre-digital times. Much changed in his lifetime, but his dedication to photography was, as he put it, a spiritual exploration. His work reflects this search for revelation across the length and breadth of India.

This idea of “quest” should be heeded. Its relevance is more urgent today than ever, as India’s Hindu nationalist government finds yet more ways to extend its grip on this vast and diverse nation – promoting the view that to be truly Indian, one must adhere to its ideology.

Rai’s images go beyond what is shown in the frame, opening up possibilities that aren’t fully defined or explained. His work traces the evolution of India over more than half a century, and proposes endless facets of the country in ways that build connections across geographies, perspectives and people.

Parvati Nair 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. Raghu Rai: the trailblazing photographer who documented the vast diversity of a changing India – https://theconversation.com/raghu-rai-the-trailblazing-photographer-who-documented-the-vast-diversity-of-a-changing-india-282934