Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Fankhauser, Professor of Climate Economics and Policy, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford

In the mid-2000s, soon after becoming Conservative leader, David Cameron hugged a husky on a trip to the Arctic, in what was widely described as an attempt to “detoxify” the Tory brand. Eighteen years later, Kemi Badenoch has promised to scrap the law that once made that rebranding credible.

Her announcement that the Conservatives will repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act if they win the next general election has the potential to be a major own goal – politically, environmentally and economically.

To understand why, we need to remember how the Climate Change Act came about. The bill was put forward by the Labour government of Gordon Brown, but it had enthusiastic support from the Conservative opposition, which tabled several amendments to strengthen it. Cameron had concluded that green policies were a good way to modernise his party and lead it back into power.

It worked, both for Cameron, who became prime minister in 2010, and for UK climate policy, which has enjoyed a unique period of consensus and stability. Over seven governments, multiple economic crises, Brexit, COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, there has been clarity about Britain’s climate change objectives. Policies were chopped and changed, often to the frustration of investors, but the institutional framework was stable and widely appreciated.

The Climate Change Act gives the UK a statutory long-term emissions target – initially an 80% cut from 1990 levels by 2050, strengthened to net zero by 2050 by Theresa May, another Tory prime minister.

Progress is managed through a series of five-year carbon budgets, legislated 12 years in advance and monitored by a powerful independent body, the Climate Change Committee (CCC). For much of its existence, the CCC has been chaired by yet another environmentally-minded Tory, Lord Deben (John Gummer). It is this framework the Conservatives now say they want to dismantle.

Yet the Climate Change Act has delivered, both in terms of process and substance. Indeed, the UK model has been emulated around the world. Nearly 60 countries have UK-style climate change laws and over 20 countries have CCC-style advisory bodies, cementing the UK’s position as a climate leader.

The act gives the UK a steady institutional rhythm. Relevant businesses and other organisations know the formal set pieces, such as the CCC’s annual report to parliament, and can time their interventions accordingly.

When colleagues and I interviewed people from business and civil society about the act a few years ago, they emphasised the predictable process, the clear rules on accountability and the evidence-based discourse it has enabled. This all reduces uncertainty and enables long-term planning.

Importantly, the Climate Change Act has delivered environmentally too. Compared to 1990, UK greenhouse gas emissions are down by 50%. The UK economy now uses three times less carbon per unit of economic output than in 1990. Emissions are at their lowest level since 1872.

This trend started before the act, but it was helped and accelerated by it. This is perhaps most noticeable in the radical transformation of the electricity sector: coal has been completely phased out, while offshore wind and other renewables have flourished.

Most people want climate action

Voters value this progress more than politicians appreciate. A University of Oxford survey found that internationally public support for climate action is almost twice as high as policymakers assume. In the UK, three out of four people are fairly or very concerned about climate change.

Badenoch’s announcement comes just as households are starting to reap the financial benefits of clean technology. Colleagues and I have estimated that four out of five UK households, particularly those owning a car, would be better off if net zero was achieved. The typical savings are £100-£380 per household and year.

It is true that households do not yet see the benefits of renewables on their energy bills. We are still paying for the high costs of early investments in clean power, before technology and sheer scale brought the price down.

Successive governments have chosen to recoup these learning costs through electricity bills, rather than general taxation, which would have been easier on most households. But recent analysis suggests renewables are now cutting electricity prices by up to a quarter.

---

Read more:
We surveyed British MPs – most don’t know how urgent climate action is

---

The policy uncertainty generated by the Tory announcement and similar pronouncements by Reform UK will eventually find its way into the risk premiums for investors, though for the time being this effect is still small.

But the reputational damage is immediate. Undoing the act would signal that the UK no longer values the long-term stability that has driven clean investment and made its climate policy admired around the world.

Climate policy requires debate. Deeply political choices need to be made about different decarbonisation strategies, how to pay for necessary investments or the role of controversial technologies like nuclear energy. The past 17 years have shown that these debates are best had within an agreed framework, with support from all major parties. That is what the Climate Change Act provides.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Sam Fankhauser 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. Tory plan to scrap net zero target puts UK climate leadership at risk – https://theconversation.com/tory-plan-to-scrap-net-zero-target-puts-uk-climate-leadership-at-risk-266853

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kirsten Antoncich, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Birmingham City University

Developmental research often tells us how ego centric children are. Yet all too often we hear of children who are forced to demonstrate great courage and care in in a crisis.

The ongoing inquiry into the 2024 mass stabbing of young girls in Southport, England, has produced accounts of extreme bravery among the children subjected to the attack. Indeed, the report of a child standing in front of her sister to protect her from knife blows shows a level of courage many adults might not have possessed in the same circumstances.

Details have also emerged of young children holding the door open to allow other children to escape from their attacker first and of children helping others not draw attention to themselves by running or screaming. Similar accounts often emerge from school shootings in the US – take, for example, the report of a teenager confronting a gunman who attacked pupils at a high school in Colorado in September 2025.

How could such young people conduct themselves with so much composure and selflessness? Psychological research shows that children develop the cognitive, personal and emotional skills needed earlier than people might realise.

Although much of our understanding of human courage comes from the adult field, developmental psychology professor Peter Muris’s 2009 study examined the link between fear and courage in children aged eight to 13. His interviews and studies with his young participants found there may be a link between increased courage and the personality traits of extroversion, openness and intellect.

He also found 94% of the children in his study had already carried out at least one courageous action in their lives, such as dealing with an animal they were afraid of or defending a friend from bullies.

And a 2021 study found that extroversion in teenagers seemed to protect them from developing anxiety. It could be that many of the young children who have acted bravely in a crisis had higher scores of this protective trait.

Experimental psychologist, Joana Viera, and her colleagues in their 2020 study explored how humans react when faced with a threat in the form of an electric shock and the option to help another person avoid the shock. They found that as the likelihood of the threat increased, humans were more likely to go to the aid of another, even at risk of a shock to themselves. Their study suggests that defensive states of mind also activate cognitive processes which promote care giving.

Psychologists Tony Buchanan and Stephanie Preston explored how stress can promote altruism, in their 2014 analysis. They emphasised that the neural circuits that support care-taking under stress overlap with brain circuits associated with reward and motivation. These two areas act together during times of stress, helping shift the persons response away from avoidance of threat towards the protection of others.

This care taking mechanism is seen in many animals from rats to gorillas. Social psychologist Daniel Batson suggested there are two types of responses to acute threat, one motivated from personal distress which is self focused and another based upon sympathetic or empathic responding linked to altruism. We all have the potential to respond in either way, which makes the courage of these children all the more impressive.

Several psychologists have found children as young as 12 months old can recognise and respond with empathy to distress in other humans. A 2011 study found that children as young as two years old could respond to others’ distress with verbal comfort, advice and distraction. The researchers also demonstrated that infants responded with heightened distress when presented with the sounds of distress in others.

In order to remember instructions and to show higher order skills such as empathy and the care of others over oneself, the children needed to draw on their developing executive function and areas of the brain’s limbic region. This system is a group of connected brain structures that helps regulate emotions and behaviour. These areas are typically fully developed by young adulthood.

In the stories that have emerged, you can hear how the children seem to have internalised advice from adults about how to act in an emergency. Repeated instructions are actually easier to recall under acute stress.

These structures are developing throughout childhood. But research has persistently shown that children of preschool age perform executive functioning tasks such as the ability to perceive and respond to another person’s emotional state. Rather than respond from a instinctive fight or flight response, the children who stay calm during critical moments contain their fear enough to care for others.

A 2010 study investigated the areas of the brain in adults associated with increased bravery. Participants with a fear of snakes had to bring a live snake close to their head. The study found courage was associated with the dissociation of fear and sensory arousal. This means that those people who show courage during stressful situations may disconnect from their feelings of fear and their physiological experiences of fear in the body.

The combination of dissociation and instruction retrieval could help explain how they were able to stay so calm and come to the aid of others. Indeed, caring for others in times of distress can distract us from our own acute distress.

Self efficacy, or the ability to act during times of threat can also protect people against the development of post traumatic symptoms. And a 2019 study found that positive traits such as hope, competence and optimism may also protect people against the development of post traumatic stress disorder.

In all instances where children are faced with such great adversity, one can only hope the bravery and mastery they show offers some protection against the immense psychological trauma the endure.

Kirsten Antoncich 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. Children are capable of extreme bravery from a young age – a psychologist explains how – https://theconversation.com/children-are-capable-of-extreme-bravery-from-a-young-age-a-psychologist-explains-how-265523

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amy Burge, Associate Professor in Popular Fiction, University of Birmingham

The author Jilly Cooper has died aged 88. Cooper’s books were “bonkbusters” – a form of blockbuster fiction that was most popular in the 1980s and 1990s, characterised by explicit sex, scandalous plots and large casts of characters.

In her 1993 novel, The Man Who Made Husbands Jealous, a reporter rings famous singer Georgie to tell her that her husband Guy had been voted “hubby of the year”. She elaborates: “To be quite honest there wasn’t a lot of choice. Faithful husbands are an endangered species.” This quote is emblematic of the writing that made Cooper famous. It’s full of irreverent wit, tongue-in-cheek scrutiny of British society – and misbehaving men.

Cooper was one of the four major bonkbuster authors, alongside Jackie Collins, Shirley Conran and Judith Krantz. Her racy, ribald romps through the fictional county of Rutshire reached millions of readers. And as we discovered when talking with bonkbuster readers while researching our forthcoming book, they continue to be beloved by many.

The author was born in Essex on February 21 1937, educated in Yorkshire and Wiltshire, and, at the age of 20, became a junior reporter for The Middlesex Independent. This was the beginning of what would be a highly successful career in journalism. Cooper went on to write long-running columns in The Sunday Times Magazine and The Mail on Sunday, which offered a light-hearted look at women’s domestic lives.

These columns formed the basis of many of her non-fiction books, such as How to Stay Married (1969) and How to Survive from Nine to Five (1970).

However, she was also busily writing fiction, and after some success publishing short fiction in magazines, Cooper published a series of romantic novels in the 1970s and 1980s, all with women’s names in their titles.

These works offered an account of the urban zeitgeist for young single women of the time, discussing issues like rape, marriage, pregnancy and careers.

But Cooper is best known for her Rutshire Chronicles (1985-2023), a classic bonkbuster series set in the Cotswolds. Characterised by her trademark tongue-in-cheek style, the 11 novels in the series share a huge cast of characters – anchored around the arrogant, irresistible Rupert Campbell-Black – and a wide range of settings.

These books are best known, in the words of one of the readers we talked to, as “full, fat, fun, frothy novel[s] set around class and privilege and horses”. Many of the Rutshire Chronicles blend interpersonal drama with the social drama of the equestrian world: from show-jumping and sex in Riders (1985), polo and illegitimate daughters in Polo (1991), and horse racing and even more sex in Jump! (2010) and Mount! (2016).

However, horses weren’t the only focus. Other novels in the Rutshire Chronicles explored regional television rivalries, bad husbands and infidelity, orchestral drama, murder and opera, art theft, British schools and premier league football.

Sex is good for women (or should be)

Cooper’s books are famous for their sex scenes. From the scandalous (the naked tennis match in Rivals) to the sticky (characters using grass to wipe themselves clean after an al fresco romp), she did not shy away from putting sex on the page.

Many of Cooper’s depictions of sex are very funny. However, there is a clear message throughout – women are entitled to good sex, and it is the job of their (usually male) partners to give it to them.

Rupert Campbell-Black is Cooper’s most famous stud (horses aside), but he is very bad at satisfying his first wife Helen. In Riders, Cooper wrote that Helen “longed for love but, having been married to Rupert for six and a half years … felt she had become what he kept telling her she was: boring, prissy, brittle and frigid”. However, the problem is not Helen. With a different, more attentive partner – Rupert’s rival Jake – Helen has a sexual awakening.

The entire premise of The Man Who Made Husbands Jealous revolves around male neglect (sexual and otherwise). Unsatisfied wives engage the services of a man named Lysander in the hope that some competition will reengage their neglectful, philandering husbands.

Along the way, they have considerably better sex with Lysander, whose consideration in bed has his partners “bubbling like a hot churn of butter”. The titular husbands eventually learn that they must do better in order to keep their wives, sexually and otherwise.

Sex aside, what became clear from our research was how much Cooper’s works meant to their readers. Former prime minister Rishi Sunak might be Jilly Cooper’s most famous reader, but many of the readers we spoke to were particularly fond of her books, re-reading them repeatedly for comfort and familiarity. One described her books as “like a friend”.

For some, the appeal was escapism “into this incredibly glamorous world that you … could have some ambition of being part of yourself when you grew up”. For others, Cooper’s books were educational, teaching readers about how to navigate the unfamiliar world of the British upper classes, or providing a form of sex education. Several of our readers noted the unusual (for the time) frankness of Cooper’s novels.

Cooper was the last living “big four” bonkbuster author. Her death marks the end of an era. However, the recent television adaptation of Rivals seems to have attracted a new audience. Filming for a second season commenced in May 2025 – it seems Cooper’s stories live on.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

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

– ref. Jilly Cooper: why readers still cherish her ‘fat, fun, frothy novels’ – https://theconversation.com/jilly-cooper-why-readers-still-cherish-her-fat-fun-frothy-novels-266881

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine celebrates a discovery that answers one of medicine’s most profound questions: how does the immune system know when to attack, and when to stand down?

Most of the time, our defences target dangerous infections and even cancers while leaving the body’s own tissues unharmed. But when that balance fails, the consequences can be devastating – from autoimmune diseases, where the immune system turns on healthy organs, to cancers, where it becomes too restrained to recognise and destroy tumour cells.

---

Read more:
Nobel prize awarded for discovery of immune system’s ‘security guards’

---

Three scientists – Mary E. Brunkow, Fred Ramsdell and Shimon Sakaguchi – uncovered how our bodies maintain this delicate control through a special class of immune cells called “regulatory T cells”. Their discovery revealed the immune system’s natural “brakes”: the internal mechanisms that prevent friendly fire but, in some cases, can also shield cancers from attack.

Understanding how these brakes work has already reshaped modern immunology. The same insight guiding new treatments for autoimmune diseases is now helping researchers fine tune cancer immunotherapies; adjusting the immune system’s restraint so it hits hard against tumours without turning against the body.

The immune system works like a highly trained security force, patrolling every corner of the body to detect and destroy bacteria, viruses and rogue cells. But even the best security team can be dangerous without oversight.

Left unchecked, immune cells can mistakenly attack healthy tissue: the hallmark of autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes or multiple sclerosis. And when the system becomes too cautious, it can overlook genuine threats, giving cancers the chance to grow unnoticed.

For decades, scientists thought most of this immune “training” happened early in life, inside an organ called the thymus: a small gland above the heart where young immune cells learn which targets to attack and which to ignore. Those that fail this test are eliminated before they can cause harm.

But in the 1990s, Japanese immunologist Shimon Sakaguchi discovered there was more to the story. Through experiments on mice, he identified a previously unknown type of immune cell called a “regulatory T cell”: the peacekeepers of the immune system. These cells don’t attack pathogens themselves.

Instead, they hold the rest of the immune army in check, preventing unnecessary destruction. When Sakaguchi removed these cells in laboratory animals, their immune systems spiralled out of control, launching attacks on healthy organs. His work showed that these peacekeeping cells are essential for preventing the body from waging war on itself.

A few years later, Mary Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell found the genetic switch that makes these peacekeepers possible. They discovered that a single mutation in a gene called Foxp3 could leave both mice and human babies vulnerable to a rare but devastating autoimmune disorder called IPEX syndrome. The Foxp3 gene acts as the “on switch” for producing regulatory T cells. Without it, the immune system loses its referees and chaos follows.

T helper and regulatory T cells

The immune system relies on many types of T cells. T helper cells act as team captains, directing other immune cells to respond to infections. Much of my own research has focused on how these cells behave in HIV infection, where their loss leaves the immune system defenceless. Regulatory T cells belong to this same family but serve the opposite role: they calm things down when the fight goes too far.

These peacekeepers keep the immune defenders focused on real threats rather than friendly targets. When they fail, autoimmune diseases emerge. But when they work too well, they can suppress immune attacks on cancer, allowing tumours to hide and grow. Scientists are now learning how to fine-tune this balance: boosting the guards to control autoimmune disease, or easing the brakes so the body can fight back against cancer.

These discoveries have redefined how doctors think about immunity. Clinical trials are already testing therapies that expand regulatory T cells in people with arthritis, diabetes or after an organ transplant; helping the body to tolerate its own tissues.

In cancer treatment, the opposite approach is used: blocking or disabling these peacekeepers to unleash a stronger immune attack on tumours. This is the principle behind modern immunotherapies, which have already transformed outcomes for patients with melanoma, lung cancer and lymphoma.

Science that touches lives

The work of Brunkow, Ramsdell and Sakaguchi shows how basic science can lead to profound changes in medicine. Their discoveries help explain not just why the immune system sometimes goes wrong, but how it can be guided back into balance – a balance that could one day prevent autoimmune diseases, improve transplant survival and make cancer therapies both safer and more effective.

The Nobel committee’s decision this year recognises not only their scientific achievement, but also a vision of the immune system as something far more nuanced than an on-off switch. It’s a finely tuned orchestra and regulatory T cells are its conductors, ensuring the right notes are played at the right time, silencing those that might cause chaos.

By learning to adjust these biological “brakes” with precision, medicine is entering a new era. Treatments inspired by these discoveries are already improving lives and may, in time, transform how we prevent and treat disease across the spectrum, from autoimmunity to cancer.

Justin Stebbing 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. Nobel Prize: how a hidden army in your body keeps you alive – and could help treat cancer – https://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-how-a-hidden-army-in-your-body-keeps-you-alive-and-could-help-treat-cancer-266860

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sharon Jagger, Lecturer in Religion, York St John University

As an academic specialising in gender and the church, the news that Bishop Sarah Mullally would be the next archbishop of Canterbury came as a pleasant shock to me. The announcement of a woman as leader of the Church of England and the “first among equals” in the worldwide Anglican communion came as a surprise to others too. One woman priest told me she was “stunned but pleased”.

What is not surprising, though, is the immediate condemnation from church conservatives, many outside the Church of England. Social media naysayers made their views known too – I read comments arguing that a female archbishop makes a “mockery of tradition” and that such “feminist rebellion” spells the death of the church.

This type of abusive commentary has been aimed at women priests for years. My own research explores the gendered abuse faced by women in the church.

The appointment of a woman as archbishop is a welcome show of resistance by the church against such misogyny. But it is by no means a panacea for the sexism and misogyny built into the church’s structure.

Before 1993, women were not permitted to be ordained in the Church of England. The campaign for women’s ordination has a long history, gathering pace from the 1970s. Finally, in 1992, General Synod – the church’s governing council – voted in favour of allowing women to be priests. The vote was close, and many in the church remained opposed to the move.

To accommodate those who could not accept women in the priesthood, the Act of Synod (1993) facilitating the ordination of women established a dual structure, allowing individual parishes to refuse the ministry of women priests and to have pastoral oversight from a bishop who did not ordain women (nicknamed “flying bishops”).

In 2014, legislation was passed to allow women bishops. The House of Bishops agreed on a document detailing Five Guiding Principles. This document paradoxically states the church is unequivocal in its commitment to women’s ordination, while also committing to the continuing provision for those who do not accept women can or should be priests.

The discriminatory structure, with its no-go parishes for women clergy, was maintained. The church can do this because it is exempt from UK equality legislation in matters of belief and conscience.

Today, about 5% of Church of England parishes officially object to women priests, though there are also churches where women’s ministry is unofficially curtailed. The official number of parishes avoiding women’s ministry is a minority, but they have had a disproportionate impact on the structure of the church. The open disavowal of women’s priesthood will erode the authority and status of the next archbishop of Canterbury.

There are currently nearly 600 parishes that officially bar women priests. The Church of England must now deal with an extraordinary situation: the archbishop of Canterbury will not be able to preside over communion in these churches.

In my recent book, Women Priests, Symbolic Violence and Symbolic Resistance, I detail the damage this structural discrimination does to women priests. It affects them materially, emotionally, psychologically, and undermines their status by allowing some to claim they are not priests.

To that end, the historic appointment of a woman as archbishop of Canterbury is a bold and significant move by the church. And it may, to an extent, ameliorate the damage to women’s status and bring the church’s own discriminatory practices against women clergy back onto the agenda.

Structural inequality

With guarded optimism, Martine Oborne, the chair of Women and the Church, an organisation campaigning against the Five Guiding Principles, writes about the church’s need to challenge its institutional misogyny: “Hopefully, the appointment of our first female archbishop of Canterbury will be a big step towards this.” But without the dismantling of the current structure, the misogyny that infects the church will not be tackled.

I think it is unlikely that the new archbishop will instigate the end of the dual structure. Bishop Mullally may describe herself as a feminist, but it remains to be seen whether she will create the conditions for real change that is needed to give women priests dignity and equality.

British professor of theology Linda Woodhead has praised Mullally’s emphasis on unity in the church, saying it is “exactly what the church, and nation, needs right now”.

Yet, unity may still be a tall order for the soon-to-be archbishop. Conservatives and traditionalists within the Church of England and in the worldwide Anglican communion may have trouble dealing with a woman’s authority and leadership, precluding any dramatic structural change. And women in the church may be disappointed that their circumstances will not be improved greatly.

Sharon Jagger has received past funding from Women and the Church.

– ref. First woman archbishop of Canterbury can’t preside over communion in hundreds of churches – https://theconversation.com/first-woman-archbishop-of-canterbury-cant-preside-over-communion-in-hundreds-of-churches-266719

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maha Rafi Atal, Adam Smith Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow

UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out a “youth guarantee” aimed at ending long-term unemployment among young people. Under the plan, a young person who has been out of work for 18 months would be offered a temporary job, apprenticeship or college place.

The UK has just under a million young people who are not in employment, education or training (Neet) – thought to be around 13% of the country’s 16- to 24-year-olds.

Under Reeves’ plans, those who refuse the offer could face benefit sanctions. The scheme is being positioned as a way to boost growth while keeping to Labour’s fiscal rules ahead of November’s budget.

The idea has some logic. Long-term youth unemployment has consequences that reach far beyond the individual. Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that young people who are out of work for extended periods often face lower earnings for decades afterwards, as well as poorer health and social outcomes.

Economists sometimes describe this as “scarring” – that is, lasting negative economic effects. By contrast, job losses that come mid-career tend to have less lasting economic impact because these workers have more experience or skills that they can use to get their next job.

So the argument that tackling youth unemployment offers particularly high returns is, in theory, credible.

Long-term future

The difficulty is whether the guarantee, as outlined by Reeves, can deliver anything more than temporary relief. It is not yet clear where the promised jobs will come from.

If the government pays firms to create placements, they will have been specially created for the scheme, rather than representing real gaps that the firms need to fill to grow their business. When the government subsidy ends, the firms may have no reason to keep the young person on. And a short placement may not provide enough skills development to allow the young person to get a job elsewhere.

What’s more, the government is not proposing to pay the full cost of these placements. If the onus falls on businesses to absorb additional young workers in newly created roles at their own expense, the effect may be negligible. This is because Labour’s wider programme – from higher employer national insurance contributions to new employment rights – already imposes extra costs on employers.

That tension points to a broader issue in Reeves’ strategy. She has pledged not to increase headline tax rates. Instead she is seeking to expand the overall tax base by growing employment and productivity.

Yet that kind of growth usually requires sustained public investment in skills, infrastructure and industrial policy. A scheme that subsidises wages for 12 months may help individuals back into work, but it is unlikely to shift the productivity dial or generate lasting fiscal dividends without a wide programme of investment.

For Reeves, the challenge is that the guarantee must be large enough to create real career pathways and business growth. But to do so requires precisely the kind of government expenditure that is made difficult by her own “non-negotiable” fiscal rules.

Instead of a way to grow within the rules then, the youth guarantee may be added to the list of promises the government cannot fulfil without bending them.

Maha Rafi Atal 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. Will Rachael Reeves’ youth unemployment scheme force her to bend her own rules? – https://theconversation.com/will-rachael-reeves-youth-unemployment-scheme-force-her-to-bend-her-own-rules-266716

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicolas Forsans, Professor of Management and Co-director of the Centre for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, University of Essex

When state institutions crumble under the weight of chaos, desperate governments sometimes turn to controversial solutions. In Haiti, where gang violence has transformed the capital, Port-au-Prince, into a war zone and left over 5,600 people dead in 2024 alone, the government has made a striking decision to hire a private army to restore order.

Haiti’s interim government signed a deal in March with Vectus Global, a firm founded by American private security contractor Erik Prince, that has seen mercenaries help battle the gangs. Vectus operatives have reportedly served as instructors to Haitian security forces, while also coordinating drone strikes against gang-controlled areas and criminal leaders.

The firm is thought to have deployed nearly 200 personnel in Haiti, from the US, Europe and El Salvador. It plans to have stabilised major roads and pushed gangs out of their territory within about a year. In an interview with the Reuters news agency in August, Prince said the measure of success for him “will be when you can drive from Port-au-Prince to [the northern city of] Cap-Haïtien” without being stopped by gangs.

The arrangement, while having done little to curb the power of the gangs so far, represents a dramatic escalation in the privatisation of state security. It raises profound questions about sovereignty, accountability and the risks of ceding control of security to private military personnel.

Vectus Global is reportedly operating in Haiti under two parallel arrangements. The first involves a one-year contract in which Vectus staff will help Haiti restore order. Haiti’s government has not commented on the involvement of Vectus Global specifically, though it confirmed in June that it was using foreign contractors.

The second arrangement, which remains unconfirmed by the Haitian government, will supposedly see Prince’s firm play a role in restructuring Haiti’s customs and immigration services over a ten-year period. Haiti has long struggled to prevent gangs from exploiting its porous border with neighbouring Dominican Republic.

This move would represent an extraordinary transfer of sovereign functions. Reports indicate that Vectus Global will receive a performance-based commission of 20% of customs revenue increases in the first three years and 15% thereafter. It will also receive a fixed fee of 3% on import volumes regardless of performance.

Haiti’s security collapse provides context for such extreme solutions. Criminal groups now control 90% of Port-au-Prince and possess more firepower and manpower than national security forces. A Kenyan-led multinational security support mission was deployed to Haiti in 2024, but it remains understaffed and underfunded with only 1,000 of the 2,500 personnel envisioned initially.

And despite the assistance now being provided by private security personnel, the gangs have continued to expand their reach in the provinces. At least 1,520 people were killed and 600 were injured between April and the end of June across the country. The UN says more than 60% of these killings and injuries occurred during operations by security forces against the gangs.

Criminal groups united under the “Viv Ansanm” coalition continue to dictate events, maintain control over major areas of the capital and launch attacks in a bid to control more territory. There has been no significant territorial loss by gangs in recent months and essential supply chains, trade routes and public safety remain heavily disrupted.

A complex set of factors make combating gang violence in Haiti extremely difficult. Gangs have deep-rooted relationships with certain factions in local police and government, making it hard for external security personnel to dismantle their operations. At the same time, gang control of critical transport infrastructure has crippled tax collection, trade, access to medical supplies and food distribution.

Raising the alarm

Prominent NGOs and rights groups have strongly opposed Vectus Global’s involvement in Haiti. The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre flagged that Prince’s reported ten-year contract would put crucial state powers – including tax collection and deportation – under a private company’s control.

It warned of “serious concerns for human rights and government accountability”. This is because international legal guidelines for private military companies are largely non-binding, and tend to rely on voluntary codes of conduct.

Speaking to the media in August on the condition of anonymity, a senior White House official clarified that there is “no American involvement in hiring Vectus Global and no oversight” of its mission in Haiti. This has only raised further doubts as to who, if anyone, will hold private military personnel there accountable.

The dangers of privatised warfare are well documented. Prince’s own former company, Blackwater, faced numerous scandals over its conduct during the Iraq war. Blackwater provided security for US officials and military installations there.

In 2007, four Blackwater employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded 20 others in the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad. While FBI investigations determined that at least 14 deaths were unjustified, all four convicted Blackwater contractors were pardoned by Donald Trump in 2020.

Vectus Global has communicated its plans in Haiti and operational adjustments. But fundamental criticisms relating to accountability, sustainability and lack of local institution-building remain largely unaddressed in public statements.

The deepening crisis in Haiti was on the agenda at the UN General Assembly in New York, where world leaders gathered in September for the 80th anniversary of the UN. The US pushed for a rebranding of the current multinational security support mission into a more aggressive “gang suppression force”, which has now been approved by the UN security council.

This force will have a new mandate, greater numbers and expanded autonomy from the Haitian police. Yet uncertainties remain over where the 5,500 people for the new force will come from, and who is going to pay.

As Haiti continues to struggle with rampant violence, Prince’s private army reflects governmental desperation rather than strategic wisdom. It is a model that prioritises private profit over public accountability and sustainable peace. The consequences are likely to shape how the world responds to state failure as traditional peacekeeping comes under pressure.

Nicolas Forsans 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. Haiti is enlisting the help of mercenaries in its battle against gang violence – https://theconversation.com/haiti-is-enlisting-the-help-of-mercenaries-in-its-battle-against-gang-violence-263684

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jessie Osborne, Research Assistant, RAND Europe

For the first time in half a century, America stands on the threshold of sending astronauts back to the Moon. Slated for launch no earlier than February 2026, Artemis II will not land on the lunar surface, but it will carry four astronauts on a flyby of Earth’s only natural satellite.

The ten day mission will take the crew further from Earth than any human has travelled since the Apollo missions. It’s a crucial test of Nasa’s Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, determining whether the United States can safely push beyond low Earth orbit once again. The stakes are immense: technical risks, billions in financial commitments and an increasingly competitive international race for lunar leadership.

Indeed, even vocal supporters of America’s effort are now expressing doubts that Nasa will be able to beat the Chinese space agency in the race to send humans back to the lunar surface. China has been making great strides in its lunar effort and is targeting a Moon landing by 2030. America’s programme, on the other hand, is beset with problems, including the lack of a working lunar landing system and lunar surface spacesuits that are behind schedule.

Further underlining the US’ now precarious hopes of returning first to the Moon, China completed a critical landing and take off test of its crewed lunar lander in August.

The astronauts aboard Artemis II will test critical systems required to perform in the harsh deep space environment. After separation from the core stage of their rocket, they will confront an extreme environment where deep space rescue is impossible.

During the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022, the Orion crew module sustained unexpectedly high levels of damage to its heat shield, during the return through Earth’s atmosphere. The heat shield protects the occupants of the spacecraft from the superheated gases around the spacecraft during re entry.

Nasa has been working hard to resolve this problem ahead of Orion’s first mission with humans aboard. The problem highlights the complexity of returning to lunar travel after a 50-year hiatus.

Landing challenges

Even if Artemis II is successful, major uncertainties surround the next mission: Artemis III. This is intended to be the first American mission to return to the lunar surface since 1972. The landing vehicle will be based on SpaceX’s Starship vehicle and is known as the Starship Human Landing System (HLS). SpaceX has been carrying out test flights of Starship from its launch site in southern Texas. While the most recent of these was successful, several previous flights resulted in spectacular explosions.

However, Starship faces many further challenges before it can be used to carry astronauts down to the lunar surface. The vehicle must demonstrate that it can refuel in orbit, connecting to another Starship that acts solely as a tanker. The 50 metres tall spacecraft must also be able to land vertically on the Moon. Its ability to act as a lunar habitat for the astronauts creates opportunities for extended missions, but its size and complexity creates risk too.

While these hurdles remain unresolved, Nasa faces the possibility of having to reimagine Artemis III, including the possibility that the mission becomes another lunar flyby rather than the long-awaited return to the surface.

Artemis is ambitious, but also precarious. Each SLS rocket costs US $2 billion (£1.4 billion) to launch. This extraordinary cost has already raised questions in Congress about long term sustainability. As such, some US lawmakers are pushing for a transition to cheaper commercial rockets after Artemis III. For now, funding is secured through the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, but the political consensus may not last.

International competition adds urgency to the financial considerations. The implications of lunar leadership extend beyond national prestige. They include access to lunar resources, such as the water ice locked up at the lunar poles, which could be used to support a Moon base. Nasa’s acting administrator Sean Duffy has asserted that “we are going to beat the Chinese to the Moon” , echoing the cold war narrative 63 years on from John F Kennedy’s “we choose to go to the Moon” speech in 1962.

But Nasa must also demonstrate that Artemis delivers scientific value beyond national prestige. It must justify the massive investment through discoveries that benefit humanity’s understanding of the Moon, Earth and solar system.

Lunar space station

The intended impact of the lunar return extends far beyond individual missions. A space station around the Moon called the The Lunar Gateway represents Nasa’s commitment to a sustained presence rather than Apollo-style flags-and-footprints landings. The Gateway’s first modules, scheduled for a 2027 launch, will create a staging point for future lunar operations and deep space exploration.

The Artemis IV mission will deliver additional Gateway modules in 2028, while Artemis V in 2030 will introduce Blue Origin’s competing lunar lander, reducing dependence on SpaceX as a single contractor. The cargo version of Blue Origin’s lander could be ready long before that, as the company is hoping to launch the uncrewed vehicle on a mission to the lunar surface sometime this year.

Next year’s Artemis II mission is not just another spaceflight, it is the proving ground for America’s return to the Moon. It is the test of whether the United States can sustain its most ambitious exploration program since Apollo. It is also the foundation for future voyages to Mars. Success will reaffirm American leadership in space. Failure could cede it to others.

Jessie Osborne 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. Nasa’s Artemis II mission is crucial as doubts build that America can beat China back to the Moon – https://theconversation.com/nasas-artemis-ii-mission-is-crucial-as-doubts-build-that-america-can-beat-china-back-to-the-moon-266385

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Head of Audio, The Conversation UK, The Conversation

We’re delighted that the Conversation’s Curious Kids podcast won the Gold award in the Kids category at the British Podcast Awards on October 2 at an event in London.

Launched in April 2024, The Conversation’s Curious Kids features primary school children from around the world posing questions to researchers, with the help of the show’s host and producer Eloise Stevens.

We found out ‘Do whales sneeze?’, ’Why is my dog so cute?’ and ‘How high can I jump on the moon?’ Thanks to all the kids, their parents, and the researchers, who made the show so much fun (and educational).

The podcast, published in collaboration with FunKids radio, grew out of the popular series of Curious Kids articles on The Conversation where children send in questions and we find academics to answer them.

The show is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube, or wherever else you get your podcasts. For those with access to a Yoto player, The Conversation’s Curious Kids is also available via the ‘Discover’ button on your Yoto app, under ‘Podcasts for kids’.

And for any children out there with a question they’d like to put to an academic, you can question to curiouskids@theconversation.comor record it and send your question to us directly at funkidslive.com/curious. We’d love to hear from you!

– ref. The Conversation’s Curious Kids wins best kids podcast at British Podcast Awards – https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-curious-kids-wins-best-kids-podcast-at-british-podcast-awards-266847

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Annayah Prosser, Assistant Professor in Marketing, Business and Society, University of Bath

Taylor Swift’s new album, The Life of a Showgirl, has been released to much fanfare. While the album’s critical reception has been mixed – with reviews ranging from a flop to a masterpiece – the album is all but guaranteed to hold the number one spot in music charts across the world this week thanks to a carefully plotted marketing campaign.

Swift is a global phenomenon and, as a lecturer in marketing, business and society, I am one of many researchers exploring the social science of her success.

In recent years, Swift has been criticised for releasing several limited editions of each album. The Life of a Showgirl has been no exception in its release schedule.

At time of writing, over 24 different versions of the CD and vinyl have been released. These include different colour vinyls, different cover images, signed editions and, most recently, CDs with unique tracks that are not available on streaming platforms.

This marketing strategy is a powerful tool for chart success, where every album purchased (regardless of the format or cover image) is valued.

Many of these editions are released online in timed drops on Swift’s official website. They’re only available for 48 hours, or until stock runs out. This leads to a feeling of scarcity among fans, which encourages them to make impulsive purchase decisions for fear of missing out on their “favourite variant”.

Research has shown that neurodivergent fans are likely to experience stress and anxiety around marketing strategies similar to this. There is a thriving secondary market for these exclusive editions, and scalpers (resellers who legally buy up products and then resell them at an inflated cost) know that keen fans will pay above the recommended retail price for these editions. This encourages over-consumption and many fans may spend more money than they expect to on the new album.

Manipulating charts by offering multiple exclusive album editions is, of course, not an option that many less powerful artists have. Vinyl pressings, in particular, are extremely expensive, and not all artists can afford to do such large vinyl runs, let alone with multiple variants.

The materials used to create vinyl are also unsustainable, and many musicians are seeking more eco-friendly alternatives. As yet Swift hasn’t experimented with eco-friendly alternatives to vinyl, but she does claim to offset her travel carbon footprint. Regardless of the financial drain on fans or the environmental impact, these coercive marketing strategies currently form a strong tactic for chart success.

Pre-release embargoes

Unusually, Swift’s albums do not often feature a lead single, released before the album. Many other artists use this lead single to promote their albums, and to give listeners a taste of what is to come. Swift’s releases are instead kept under sworn secrecy, with all pre-release information coming directly from the singer’s team.

While for many other artists this may be a negative, for Swift this adds layers of mystery to her releases. It also means that everyone hears the tracks at the same time, leaving little opportunity for music aficionados to provide reviews that, among other effects, could dissuade fans from purchasing.

These embargoes have negative impacts for smaller businesses – independent record stores hoping to host midnight launch parties had to cancel these when it became clear album shipments might not arrive on time. Nonetheless, this strategy allows Swift to control the narrative around her releases entirely, enticing fans with sneak-previews and puzzles to uncover before the release that keeps social media hype high.

Over release weekend, many fans attended Swift’s official album launch party, screened in cinemas internationally. These parties featured a sneak-peek of the upcoming music video for the album’s first track, The Fate of Ophelia, alongside behind-the-scenes commentary from Swift herself. Fans who attended these launch parties were able to see the video before anyone else.

As well as providing another avenue to advertise the album, the limited-time cinema release party creates an exclusive opportunity for Swifties (as fans are known) to connect and celebrate the album together. The Eras Tour showed just how important it is for fans to connect with each other around these kinds of events.

Where once these release parties may have been organised informally among friend groups, Swift has now transformed them into another opportunity for income and generating social media hype.

Unsurprisingly, given these tactics, many artists choose not to release music around Swift album release dates. Those artists who historically have deigned to compete – even weeks after the original release – have had their chart threatened by the release of yet more exclusive editions.

For example, the release of three further exclusive editions of The Tortured Poets Department knocked singer Billie Eilish off of the charts last year, five weeks after Swift’s album’s initial release.

It is extremely difficult for any artist to compete with such a strong industry force. Swift and her fans are powerful enough to wipe out most of her competition whenever she chooses to release her albums.

This album roll out leaves many questions about the state of the music industry today. What do artists owe their fans? Is this business model sustainable given the impending climate emergency? Should consumers be protected from these new forms of market exploitation? What would a fairer way of engaging in the music business look like?

Researchers across the fields of business and society, macro-marketing and corporate social responsibility have been considering these complex questions for decades. It is important that fans, researchers, artists and executives answer these questions together. The fate of the music industry – and fair competition within it – is at stake.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Annayah Prosser 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. Taylor Swift’s aggressive marketing guarantees success – no matter what the music sounds like – https://theconversation.com/taylor-swifts-aggressive-marketing-guarantees-success-no-matter-what-the-music-sounds-like-266812