Category: The Conversation – UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not without risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep your enemies close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Hinch, PhD Candidate in Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford

The woman’s eyes blazed as I scanned the feedback form she was showing me. “UN-BELIEVE-ABLE”, read her last word in the form’s final section. It was underlined. An incensed crescendo stabbed and dragged across the page. “Flatty and Pointy are part of us. How could they think about destroying them?” she said, shaking her head in disbelief.

She, like me, had received the form at Cornish Lithium’s recent community consultation. This consultation provided updated details of the mineral exploration company’s plans to reopen Trelavour Pit, a former China clay mine at the top of the Cornish village of St Dennis.

Once mined for kaolin, this time, a new “white gold” is being extracted. Lithium is a critical mineral for the green transition, with demand expected to triple over the next decade due to the increasing electrification of the energy system and the electric vehicles sector.

In west Cornwall, Cornish Lithium are pioneering the mining of lithium from geothermal waters. Pumped from deep in the granite below, the company plans to use a technique known as direct lithium extraction to extract the lithium dissolved in the water, while also capturing the heat for geothermal energy.

Meanwhile, in mid-Cornwall’s Clay Country, Cornish Lithium is proposing more conventional hard rock mining in an existing open pit. However, in revealing the size of the expanded Trelavour Pit, the consultation confirmed the fears of many people in St Dennis: “To enable the proposed development of the site and deliver the economic benefits for Cornwall, these sky tips will need to be removed.”

Sky tips are the sandy waste mounds formed by the China clay industry. But they are heritage as much as waste. Part of the “Cornish Alps”, the sky tips affectionately known as “Flatty” and “Pointy” are emblems for St Dennis, having loomed above the village since the 19th century.

These sky tips have also loomed over my PhD research, which looks at how local communities are experiencing the UK’s new dawn of mining. As the woman’s reaction exemplifies, strong sentiments attached to Flatty and Pointy mean their future is at the core of local responses to the Trelavour Lithium Project. They had been a source of speculation and contention throughout the eight months I lived in St Dennis in 2024.

Outside of the village, critical minerals are the subject of long overdue excitement. As the UK government prepares to release its new critical minerals strategy, there’s renewed enthusiasm for domestic exploration projects for critical minerals such as lithium, tin and tungsten.

Domestic extraction is increasingly considered by western nations as essential for the security and sustainability of mineral supply chains. The return or reshoring of mining to the UK also promises jobs in regions experiencing the decline of employment opportunities through the loss of industry, including Cornwall’s clay country.

As Cornish Lithium highlights, 300 jobs will be created over the Trelavour Lithium Project’s 20-year operation, plus 800 during the construction phase.

Job creation is appreciated in St Dennis, as is Cornish Lithium’s community fund which provides financial support for the vibrant community groups and initiatives in the area. While I lived in the village, locals often lamented the decline of the clay industry, once the primary employer and centre of the community.

This is one of Cornwall’s most deprived areas. Among some, I found a tempered optimism that lithium could rejuvenate the village.

Yet, it is Flatty and Pointy tempering this optimism. While the Clay Country has long been a shifting landscape of pits and tips, blasting and collapsing hills, and villages coming and going, Flatty and Pointy have seemingly transcended this dynamism. In St Dennis residents’ living memory, they have always been there.

For some, the sky tips are dangerous, unsolicited waste. For others, they are gatekeepers to a valuable lithium resource. But in St Dennis, Flatty and Pointy represent unprotected heritage, iconic monuments, access to nature, and a wild, unruly playground. They may not be natural, but they’ve become naturalised within this clayscape as a much-loved landmark.

Yet, not removing the sky tips would present an “ongoing safety risk and make the project unviable”, Cornish Lithium explain. This justification makes sense.

But so too does the injustice felt by many in this village where “all the shit gets dumped in St Dennis” is an oft-repeated, ironic slogan. Lithium mining certainly presents opportunities, but with the loss of Flatty and Pointy, locals worry that it might contribute to this area’s demise too.

The hype for reshoring critical minerals extraction cannot wash over it’s very real consequences for local communities and landscapes. These need not be negative by default. If the mourning period for Flatty and Pointy can be sensitively navigated, a new, more sustainable, mining industry can be reinvigorated in tandem with local communities.

---

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.

---

Jamie Hinch receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council’s Grand Union Doctoral Training Partnership.

– ref. As mining returns to Cornwall, lithium ambitions tussle with local heritage – https://theconversation.com/as-mining-returns-to-cornwall-lithium-ambitions-tussle-with-local-heritage-260525

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jessica Douthwaite, Historian and curator, University of Oxford

To what do we owe our conscience? John le Carré once stated that all his fictional characters were, one way or another, navigating a world where duty to self is not necessarily duty to society.

A new exhibition at the Bodleian Library in Oxford explores John le Carré’s conscience – his personal, political and professional visions. Taking a global angle, the exhibition draws on an abundance of archival material bequeathed to the Bodleian Library special collections and made available to researchers, of whom I am one of the first.

The exhibition, which I curated with Professor of Criminology Federico Varese, takes le Carré’s methodology as a starting point, exploring how he built fictions from real events, people and places. Of the nine novels chosen for this exhibition, each sits within a broader global context and each – whether implicitly or explicitly – pursues a political or social debate.

---

Read more:
John Le Carré: authentic spy fiction that wrote the wrongs of post-war British intelligence

---

Reading le Carré towards the end of his career it’s hard to believe that he was once viewed as a mouthpiece of the British establishment: the upper class, Oxbridge-educated, writerly former spy. And yet, many fondly remember him in nostalgic sepia tones that hark back to an era of plummy post-war accents, tweed suits and quintessentially British (poorly-executed) spy manoeuvres.

However, as he aged, he was increasingly criticised for being too leftwing and outspoken. This was especially the case with Donald Trump’s first presidency and the Brexit referendum.

Le Carré’s privileged position as one of the UK’s best-known, most profitable spy authors made him a ripe target for criticism. Also, with increased publicising of his real past as a spy, working for both MI5 and MI6, came accusations of hypocrisy.

Despite his misdemeanours, le Carré has always questioned how global systems and structures facilitate immorality, profit the richest, exploit the poorest, promote self-interest, and destroy the liberties that are supposed to constitute a “free” society.

This exhibition showcases items and ephemera that have never been on public display. Visitors can see doodles and notes that reveal the inception of his characters and plots, and last minute amendments that chime with the designs of his book covers. Through photography, field notes, handwritten drafts, correspondence, sketches and illustrations it charts le Carré’s life and times through his practices.

Many have speculated on how his own experiences of betrayal, deceit and secrecy fuelled the imagined worlds of his novels. Yet, beyond those interpretations, while curating this exhibition, I realised that le Carré’s method embodied the political points he wanted to make. His worldview is borne out in the idiosyncrasies of his factual research, acute observations, obsession with accuracy, compulsion to travel and interest in the humans behind the news events.

---

Read more:
John le Carré’s archivist: papers reveal a painstaking literary craftsman

---

Le Carré embraced ambiguity: tension caused by ideological, political and romantic conflict was at the heart of the interactions between his characters. This blurring of moral lines was produced in part from the research that he did with expert collaborators. These experts were people who may not have agreed with each other, but through whom le Carré chose to accumulate and amalgamate knowledge in the lead up to drafting his novels.

His network comprised diverse informants, from corporate whistleblowers to humanitarian aid workers. Such breadth of intelligence, gave le Carré an unrivalled insight into the contentions and discord produced by topics like healthcare in the or war developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Weaving real life events with fantasy, le Carré gave equal weight to academic expertise and ordinary experience. Such an approach suggests that to an extent the realities of everyday life mattered more than theory.

His emphasis on interviewing people who knew more than him allowed their stories to reach a much larger audience. He made field trips to experience events and cultures himself. Travel was an exercise in humility, exposing gaps in his knowledge. The act of sharing his work with people for their thoughts and criticism was similarly humbling. Le Carré was glad to be told a description was wrong, a detail inaccurate or a dialogue phoney. He strove for credibility because it underscored the realities of his themes.

The integrity of le Carré’s writing approach was always consistent with his eye for immorality, injustice and lawlessness. Does it matter, then, that with age le Carré became progressively more passionate about the issues he deemed most threatening to global stability: health inequalities, financial transparency, or ethical resource mining, for example?

---

Read more:
John le Carré, MI6 and the fact and fiction of British secret intelligence

---

In 2003, le Carré marched with thousands of protestors against the British government’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq and wrote a polemical article in The Times decrying a new era of paranoid American warfare. For some time after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2004, le Carré even refused to visit the United States.

In a memo written around the same time, le Carré jotted down his thoughts on the purpose of a “political novel”, conversely, he wrote, a “non-political novel accepts the status quo”. Though he was thinking specifically of the contemporary moment of America’s foreign affairs, the status quo has always been under attack in his novels; so, in a sense they have all been political.

John le Carré: Tradecraft is open at The Bodleian Library in Oxford from October 1 2025 to April 6 2026

---

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.

---

Jessica Douthwaite received funding from the AHRC from 2014-2017 and 2021-2024.

– ref. A new exhibition explores John le Carré’s writing process and what it says about his political conscience – https://theconversation.com/a-new-exhibition-explores-john-le-carres-writing-process-and-what-it-says-about-his-political-conscience-264927

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

In a world that rarely slows down, a new wave of “functional beverages” is promising to help us do exactly that. So-called “chill-out drinks”, marketed as natural stress relievers, are appearing in supermarkets and online stores as a calming alternative to caffeinated energy drinks or alcohol. But do they work and are they safe?

These drinks typically combine herbal extracts, amino acids and adaptogens – compounds believed to help the body cope with stress. Popular ingredients include L-theanine, a naturally occurring amino acid in green tea, ashwagandha, lion’s mane mushroom and CBD (cannabidiol). Each has a different scientific story.

L-theanine has been shown to promote relaxation and reduce stress without causing drowsiness. Research suggests it influences brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine while lowering cortisol, the body’s primary stress hormone, creating a sense of calm that doesn’t blunt alertness.

Magnesium, a mineral essential for healthy heart and brain function, has also been linked to better sleep and reduced insomnia. Studies indicate that it supports melatonin production and binds to Gaba receptors, which help quiet nerve activity and promote relaxation. Low magnesium levels have been associated with a higher risk of depression, and several trials hint that supplementation may ease depressive symptoms, though more research is needed.

Ashwagandha, a traditional ayurvedic herb, has been shown in clinical trials to lower cortisol and reduce anxiety, though long-term safety data remain limited. The amounts used in those studies are also higher than the doses typically found in ready-to-drink products.

Lion’s mane, a mushroom native to east Asia, has demonstrated stress-reducing effects in small clinical studies, but the evidence base is still relatively slim.

Another popular ingredient, CBD, the non-psychoactive compound derived from cannabis, has shown early promise in reducing anxiety and stress scores compared with placebo, although large, high-quality trials are still lacking.

Part of the appeal of chill-out drinks is their branding. They present a natural, non-intoxicating way to unwind; designed for regular use without the crash of caffeine or the fog of alcohol. For young professionals or anyone seeking a midday mental reset, the idea of cracking open a can of calm can be tempting. And sometimes the ritual matters as much as the recipe: the very act of slowing down to enjoy a drink can create its own sense of pause.

---

Read more:
Why do smart people get hooked on wellness trends? Personality traits may play a role

---

Despite their wholesome image, these beverages are not risk-free. Herbal compounds can interact with prescription medicines or cause side-effects, especially when consumed in high doses or alongside other supplements.

Ashwagandha can interfere with thyroid medications and immunosuppressants. CBD may alter liver enzyme activity and interact with drugs such as antidepressants.

High intakes of magnesium can lead to diarrhoea and may clash with certain antibiotics or osteoporosis medicines. Lion’s mane appears to be well tolerated so far, but researchers still know little about its long-term effects.

Another concern is quality control. The functional beverage market is only lightly regulated, so the potency and purity of ingredients can vary considerably from brand to brand. That’s a particular worry for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding or managing chronic health conditions, and it underscores the importance of checking labels and seeking medical advice before making chill-out drinks part of a daily routine.

---

Read more:
Do wellness patches work? How to tell the good from the bad

---

A can of calm may offer a brief sense of relief, but these drinks are no substitute for professional mental health care. Chronic anxiety, depression or ongoing sleep problems require proper diagnosis and treatment. While chill-out drinks might help take the edge off a hectic day, they cannot address the underlying causes of stress.

These beverages tap into a broader wellness trend that reflects our collective desire to slow down and feel better. Their ingredients show some promise and, when used mindfully and in moderation, they may play a small part in managing everyday stress. Just don’t mistake them for a cure-all: a chilled drink can be a pleasant pause, but lasting calm still depends on the habits and support systems that lie beyond the can.

Dipa Kamdar 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. Calm in a can? Here’s what the evidence says about the chill-out drink craze – https://theconversation.com/calm-in-a-can-heres-what-the-evidence-says-about-the-chill-out-drink-craze-263934

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Hardy, Postdoctoral research associate, University of Liverpool

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced that all UK citizens and legal residents are to have a mandatory digital ID to prove their right to live and work in the country.

Starmer and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey have cited Estonia as an example of where digital IDs have proven successful. Davey noted that “times have changed” since the unsuccessful ID card plan under the Blair government.

He also enthused about the liberal Estonian government that had delivered digital IDs while maintaining liberal values. He has now chosen to row back on that position due to pressure from within his party.

The government has, driven by political necessity, led with claims about how the digital ID can minimise illegal working and misuse of public services as it seeks to build a consensus with the public for its plans.

Nevertheless, it needs to navigate concerns from both the political left and right. The Estonian case remains perhaps the leading example of digital ID in Europe, and is a particularly mature case, with more than two decades of success to highlight.

I have a long track record researching the politics of digitalisation, and spent several years living in Estonia. Drawing from that experience, there are various opportunities and pitfalls the UK government needs to be aware of.

Opportunities include enhanced public service delivery through efficiency. No more
arduous need to prove who you are with paper bills, driving licences and different
authentication processes for each service. In Estonia, a technology system, dubbed “X-Road”, allows all relevant organisations to securely interact with digital ID holders.

The UK could potentially emulate this model. It can minimise the grey economy (economic activities that are not taxed or monitored by the government). It can also prevent illegal work and tax avoidance, prevent false benefit claims and speed up interactions with the state.

Digital society

Estonia saves around 2% GDP annually thanks to the use of digital signatures to cut bureaucracy. “E-Estonia” (the Estonian term for their “digital society”) is closely associated with stimulating economic growth by empowering business creation.

Estonia has the highest per capita number of start-up unicorns – tech companies now valued at over US$1 billion (£743 million). Given the UK government’s focus on AI and the tech industry as a way to “turbocharge” the economy, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the potential for digital IDs in Britain.

Amid widespread scepticism from the left and right, trust can be built through positive experience. If a service works, evidence from Estonia has suggested that it enhances public trust and can be expanded further.

A popular critique is that digital ID represents a security and privacy risk. Of course, any data can be potentially hacked or leaked. However, security and privacy is built into the system in the form of a decentralised data exchange, the X-Road, that provides timestamps and records of access.

This ensures only appropriate people have access to digital ID data and is designed to reassure the user. In Estonia, people can identify themselves in various ways, for example using a physical ID card inserted into a card reader or SmartID – another system for authenticating users online – using a mobile device.

There’s also plenty of evidence that shows this system works well. It can also be complimented by positive experiences once the system is actually working. General research on technological acceptance shows that users judge any given innovation on its perceived usefulness and attitudes toward it.

In Estonia, the public quickly adapted to services that made a demonstrable positive impact. However, Estonia proved that it could work with and adapt the technology at pace.

The UK government has promised to roll out the scheme by the “end of parliament”, which contrasts with Estonia passing a bill in the Riigikogu – Estonia’s unicameral parliament – in 2000, having a working pilot in 2001 and progressing to national deployment on December 17 2001. Ensuring that development does not run over time and budget could enhance trust, perhaps by adapting existing technology.

Transparency vital

Beyond usefulness, transparency is vital. Transparency in how the digital ID will
work, who will be able to access data and accountability for misuse must be carefully considered, communicated and rules rigorously enforced.

Estonia has established strong legislation to this effect and punished those who have broken these laws. It has also been transparent in events of failure. Ultimately, the devil will be in the detail and the success of Britain’s digital ID may be determined as much by politics as by the technology.

Nevertheless, key questions remain around authentication processes (to ensure people are who they say they are) and systems. Who will develop, implement and maintain the project? Crucially, how much will it cost and when will it be ready? The British state has a poor recent record of project delivery generally, including in the realm of major digital investment.

Public spending has frequently run over schedule and over budget. The NHS track and trace app, for example, was extremely costly, not widely used and marred by claims that it did not actually help prevent the spread of Covid-19.

Estonia is far from the only nation using digital ID, and much criticism in the UK relates to ID in general. Many functioning democracies across Europe and beyond
mandate ID in some form, often digitally. This will increase with the EU’s eIDAs (electronic identification, authentication and trust services) 2.0 regulation – which is designed to ensure secure cross-border monetary transactions, with a focus on electronic identification.

Yet in Estonia, users are not mandated to use it by law. In Estonia, you can throw your card in a drawer and not bother with any aspect of the digital state, if you like. Nor do you need to produce it on command.

The lesson from the Baltic nation is that a functional digital ID will not necessarily turn Britain into a police state. But if implemented quickly, efficiently and transparently, it could modernise the British state.

Alex Hardy 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. As the UK plans to introduce digital IDs, what can it learn from pioneer Estonia? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-uk-plans-to-introduce-digital-ids-what-can-it-learn-from-pioneer-estonia-266303

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would Hamas gain?

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

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

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

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

What are the red flags for Hamas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Feeling the heat

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Kimmel: contrite yet defiant

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The balance with Big Pharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

Catia Nicodemo is affiliated with university of Oxford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. It offers a space to grieve and remember

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. It supports intergenerational memory-sharing

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

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

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

4. It creates inclusive, community-led recovery tools

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

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

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

Technology and emotional healing

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

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

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

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

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