Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Montgomery, Lecturer in Work and Organisations, University of Stirling

Nigel Farage’s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain is a shifting of the goalposts for those who have already come to the UK legally and settled.

Framing issues of migration as a crisis has been beneficial for Farage and other British politicians as a political strategy. However, on this occasion there are early indications that these proposals may provoke a more negative reaction from the British public.

The idea that even those already granted leave to remain would have to reapply creates insecurity for thousands of people who have come to call the UK home, which speaks to some of the human costs of such proposals.

We should also consider the potential implications for the economy. Reform claims billions could be saved by ending the right to apply for permanent residency in the UK – a claim that was called into question within days.

This indicates a pressing need for scrutiny of the economic impact a Reform government would have, particularly given that the party leading in polls.

Polls are not just indicators of who may next occupy 10 Downing Street. They also send signals to key actors in the economy about the country’s potential future direction of travel. And these signals matter. To understand how, we can turn our attention to the questions that an end to indefinite leave to remain may pose for the UK labour market.

There is already a problem with skills investment in the UK. Decisions to invest in skills and training often require a commitment to long-term investment before the employer and the employee realise the benefits.

But what happens to such investment when employers are unsure if their staff may be forced to leave? This is particularly relevant for those key sectors where there is a greater reliance on migrant workers.

Then there is the issue of job creation. If an employer is currently deciding where to invest and create new jobs, one aspect they will consider is access to the skills they need.

We know that there are key areas where employers are concerned about skills shortages in the UK. Would the potential end of leave to remain make it riskier to invest in creating jobs in the UK? This is a question employers will already be asking.

And if you are a worker from another country with skills that are in high demand, would these proposals make the UK more, or less attractive as a destination to bring skills?

These economic implications lead us to a key political question: who did Reform consult before making this announcement?

Reform has consistently sought to position itself as on the side of British business. Did they speak to the Confederation of British Industry about whether scrapping indefinite leave to remain would be a good idea? The Federation of Small Businesses? Did they speak to industry federations in the care sector, the hospitality sector, the education sector, or the health sector, where employers rely upon migrant workers?

Farage has also been keen to present himself as standing up for British workers and has in the past year been seeking to win support of grassroots union members. Did he consult any of the trade unions that represent millions of workers across the UK? Or did he consult trade union representatives in sectors that may be affected by these new proposals?

What type of consultation has informed these new proposals matters because it sends an important signal on the approach to governing that Farage intends to adopt should he become the next prime minister. Such signals are also likely to inform decisions made before the next election by employers and workers sustaining the UK economy.

Perhaps owing to the rapid rise of the Reform party and the dominance of two parties in government for generations, it has not received the same degree of scrutiny that previous “governments-in-waiting” have received. But given its dominance in the polls, careful consideration of the impact of its proposals is more necessary than ever.

If we look closer at these latest proposals, we see that they will create a more hostile and uncertain environment for those who have lived and worked in the UK for some years and those considering coming to the country. That may have already created risks for the UK economy.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Tom Montgomery works in higher education. He has conducted research on issues of social care, migration and labour markets that has been funded by the European Commission.

– ref. Nigel Farage’s pledge to end indefinite leave could hurt the economy even before an election – https://theconversation.com/nigel-farages-pledge-to-end-indefinite-leave-could-hurt-the-economy-even-before-an-election-266174

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gregory Frame, Teaching Associate in Film and Television Studies, University of Nottingham

Champions of free speech will have breathed a sigh of relief when The Walt Disney Company returned Jimmy Kimmel Live! to air on its US broadcast network, ABC, on September 23. Disney claims to have made this decision for the “right reasons” – but it was also driven by reports that creatives and, perhaps more importantly, consumers would abandon it in droves if the late-night US TV host was not restored. As always, the economic considerations had as much weight as political ones – if not more.

In the short term, Disney’s change of heart was rewarded. Kimmel’s return created a roughly threefold bump in its ratings – this despite 70 of ABC’s affiliated networks, owned by Sinclair and Nexstar, refusing to broadcast it. While it’s just one show with considerable news currency behind it, this bucks a long-term trend that has seen the decline of late-night political comedy on US broadcast television.

Falling advertising revenue was CBS’s stated reason for not renewing Stephen Colbert’s contract to host the Late Show when it expires in June 2026. But Colbert has been a longstanding critic of Donald Trump, and his show’s cancellation in August 2025 occurred alongside the finalisation of a merger between CBS’s parent company, Paramount, and Skydance Media, which required the approval of the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

In an article about topical political comedy in the UK, we argued that the cancellation of BBC shows such as Mock the Week, The Mash Report and Frankie Boyle’s New World Order were driven by the UK’s public broadcaster desire to neutralise claims it was too left-wing or “woke” in the eyes of the right-wing press and the then-Conservative government.

But while this pressure remains real, these shows also fit uncomfortably in a television ecosystem dominated by streaming where the moment of broadcast is of rapidly diminishing importance. Topical comedy’s connection to a particular time and space means it struggles to capture attention from, and remain relevant to, audiences who are used to binge-watching and time-shifting.

So, while the return of Jimmy Kimmel Live! to ABC may be good news for those who fear the US’s descent into authoritarianism, we should consider what other factors may have been at stake in the decision.

For now, Disney cannot afford to offend the creative community that produces content for the more lucrative areas of its business, from Walt Disney Studios and Marvel to Star Wars. Nor can it alienate its consumers who subscribe to Disney+ or visit its theme parks every year. Many members of both groups are not fans of Donald Trump or Maga.

But in the medium and long term, Disney might question whether going all-in for late-night comedy hosts is worth it when this could harm other, more valuable parts of its business. For example, Disney is unlikely to sacrifice its ability to get FCC approval for future acquisitions – such as the rights to broadcast live sports on ESPN – for the sake of satirical critique of the Trump administration.

Free speech flourishes online

Tellingly, Kimmel’s opening monologue on his return broke records on YouTube, with more than 15 million views in its first 16 hours. There remains a significant audience for satirical political content, even if not through traditional linear broadcast. Whatever Disney decides in future about Jimmy Kimmel Live! or its ownership of ABC (which is not for sale at present), this trend is likely to continue.

In this age of political polarisation and cultural fragmentation, topical political comedy and satire in the US and beyond are arguably better suited to the online environment. This is – for now – a safe space outside the purview of Trump’s FCC, where commentators and other content creators can say the unsayable largely unencumbered by regulatory oversight on social media and YouTube.

Whatever the right-wing suggests, free speech is alive and well – for good or ill – online. Recommendation algorithms can find content for you whatever your political proclivities.

The Walt Disney Company does not want to be part of a culture war. It has sought to avoid it in these first months of Trump’s second term, from settling his defamation lawsuit against TV anchor George Stephanopoulos and ABC to the tune of US$15 million (£11.23 million) in December 2024, to erasing queer and environmentalist themes from Pixar’s Summer 2025 release Elio.

Despite taking meaningful steps towards diversity and inclusion in recent years, Disney has responded to the US’s rightward turn by concluding that politics is bad for business.

So while it is heartening that, in this instance, Disney has chosen to back free speech and liberal values against right-wing authoritarianism, it would be naive to think this portends a major sea-change in its approach. As former CEO Michael Eisner said in an internal memo in 1981: “We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.”

The future of topical political comedy and satire on broadcast television will be decided by this cold, hard reality. Indeed, while this particular battle may have been won by Kimmel and his fans, the larger war may already be over.

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. Jimmy Kimmel is back, but how much longer will late-night comedy last? – https://theconversation.com/jimmy-kimmel-is-back-but-how-much-longer-will-late-night-comedy-last-266013

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Gift, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre on US Politics, UCL

US president Donald Trump’s “meme coin” $TRUMP fell about 8% in five minutes in late September 2025, wiping millions off its value. Users can buy and sell this cryptocurrency, inspired by an internet meme, on the open market.

Shortly before retaking office, Trump had posted on X: “My NEW Official Trump Meme is HERE! It’s time to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING!” Below the post was a drawing of Trump with the words “FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT” – an allusion to his assassination attempt.

Soon after that announcement came the creation of the $MELANIA coin, named after the first lady, which also slid on the markets in late September 2025.

There are concerns that these and other crypto businesses the president and his family are involved with are creating an unprecedented ethical minefield – blurring the line between private profit and public office.

The personal profit Trump might receive from these meme coins is unclear. The website gettrumpmemes.com suggests that while the product is endorsed by the president, it has “nothing to do with any political campaign”. The Trump Organization, a holding company for Trump’s business ventures, and Fight Fight Fight LLC own 80% of the coins, it states.

But critics such as Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren worry that Trump could be leveraging the presidency to add to his family’s wealth. Norman Eisen, a former ethics adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued that Trump’s crypto dealings may be “the single worst conflict of interest in the modern history of the presidency”.

One inquiry by the New York Times into Trump’s budding crypto empire contended that it has “erased centuries-old presidential norms, eviscerating the boundary between private enterprise and government policy in a manner without precedent in modern American history”.

In response to allegations that Trump has profited off interests while in the Oval Office, his assistant press secretary, Anna Kelly, released a statement saying his assets are “in a trust managed by his children”, and that there was not a conflict of interest.

In May, Democratic senator Jeff Merkeley (Oregon) introduced a bill for an end crypto corruption act, which would ban the president and other senior officials from “issuing, endorsing or sponsoring crypto assets”. The bill is pending with mostly Democrat support, so it is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

A family affair

Trump’s forays into crypto are a family affair. His sons Don Jr, Eric and Barron founded World Liberty Financial (WLFI) in September 2024, months before Trump was inaugurated a second time.

The president was originally listed as its “chief crypto advocate”, although his title on the website has since changed to “co-founder emeritus”. The site states this happened when he took office.

Apart from his sons, WLFI includes in the team listed on its website Trump’s chief Middle East envoy and negotiator, Steven Witkoff, and Witkoff’s son Zach.

According to the Trumps, WLFI was founded as “the start of a financial revolution” destined to make crypto more user-friendly. Yet critics say it represents an opportunity for the president to benefit financially, because of his involvement with the firm.

More concerns were raised when its crypto coin, the WLFI token, started trading in September 2025, reaching a high of about 40 cents per coin – hugely expanding the Trump family’s wealth.

Eric Trump also recently founded American Bitcoin. According to a press release, this firm will mine and hoard the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency, bitcoin, as well as capitalise on “opportunistic bitcoin purchases”. Upon its stock debut, estimates were that the Trump sons’ stake in American Bitcoin totalled around US$1.5 billion (£1.12 billion).

Trump’s crypto history

Formerly a crypto sceptic, Trump once said he was “not a fan” of bitcoin. Yet just before re-taking office, he declared that he wanted to make the US “the crypto capital of the planet”.

An early sign of Trump’s interest in crypto came when he spoke to a standing-room only crowd at bitcoin’s annual conference in Nashville, Tennessee in July 2024, becoming the first major presidential candidate to do so.

As America’s chief law enforcement officer, Trump helps set and enforce crypto policy — precisely the arena where his family’s businesses now operate. According to one report, the Trump family’s wealth in crypto, at least on paper, has surpassed US$5 billion – a number that now exceeds Trump’s vast real estate portfolio.

The emoluments clauses were created in the US constitution in 1789 to protect presidents from corrupting influences, and prohibit US leaders from accepting gifts from foreign governments. But they are now considered by some to need updating.

This concern isn’t hypothetical. In May 2025, Freight Technologies (Fr8Tech), a Nasdaq-listed firm based in Mexico, announced it would raise as much as US$20 million to purchase $TRUMP meme coins.

Against the backdrop of the US raising tariffs on Mexico, Fr8Tech CEO Javier Selgas said the deal was both economically and politically advantageous, explaining: “We believe that the addition of the Official Trump tokens [is] an effective way to advocate for fair, balanced, and free trade between Mexico and the US.”

By purchasing Trump’s meme coin, a firm such as Fr8Tech can both support the Trump family’s financial interests and hope to gain favourable treatment on trade policy. More concerns were raised when Trump hosted a black-tie dinner at his club in Virginia for the largest $TRUMP holders.

Trump’s crypto credentials

Trump has been the most crypto-friendly president ever. In March, he signed an executive order to create a national bitcoin strategic reserve – a government stockpile of the asset he has framed as a symbol of US dominance in the digital asset space. Moreover, Trump’s AI and crypto czar, David Sacks, has presided over historic pronouncements to improve the regulatory “rules of the road” for cryptocurrencies.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission, an executive branch agency that regulates markets, has moved to being pro-crypto under Trump, casting aside the approach of the Joe Biden era. This has included dropping legal suits against high-profile crypto firms such as Coinbase.

But while the Trump family benefits financially from its rising investment in crypto, this could yet prove a Pyrrhic victory. If Democrats wrest control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms, they could use it to scrutinise the president’s crypto entanglements – and highlight concerns about presidential conflicts of interest.

Thomas Gift holds shares in Bitcoin financial instruments.

– ref. Trump’s love affair with crypto raises worries about presidential conflict and influence – https://theconversation.com/trumps-love-affair-with-crypto-raises-worries-about-presidential-conflict-and-influence-265029

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

Removing lymph nodes during cancer surgery has saved countless lives in many tumour types. Yet recent research is challenging parts of this long-standing practice.

Imagine your body’s immune defences as a city, and lymph nodes as the hubs where police and firefighters gather fresh intel to launch their attack on criminals. What happens if you remove too many of these hubs? This is a new question at the centre of modern cancer surgery.

When surgeons remove lymph nodes, it’s usually for two reasons: to find out whether cancer has spread, and to prevent further spread to other organs. For decades, this approach represented the best standard of care.

If a tumour escapes its original site, cancer cells often travel through lymph vessels and settle in the nearest lymph nodes, which act as biological filters. Detecting cancer cells in lymph nodes signals that a patient’s disease may be more likely to return after treatment.

Removing these nodes allows doctors to “stage” the disease accurately, and potentially increase the chances of eradicating all tumour cells – while also telling oncologists like me to treat the cancer more aggressively.

But lymph nodes are not just passive waystations. They play an active role in the body’s immune response, acting as meeting points for immune cells to share information about cancer. Recent scientific discoveries have led researchers to rethink how crucial these hubs are for sparking powerful, lasting immune reactions.

One of the newest studies shows lymph nodes help maintain a special type of immune cell called “CD8 positive T cells”, which can destroy cancer cells. These immune cells are primed and kept ready to act by the environment inside the lymph nodes.

Without these hubs, the body’s anti-cancer immune response, especially during immunotherapy treatment, may be weaker than previously imagined. The research shows how the specific cells in the lymph nodes make an initial anti-cancer burst of activity. However, this has only been demonstrated in the laboratory, not in humans as yet.

Removing lymph nodes is not without drawbacks. Patients can experience swelling (lymphoedema), increased risk of infection in the affected limb, and sometimes chronic pain or mobility problems. There’s also concern that removing lymph nodes, while reducing short-term risks of cancer spread, might inadvertently weaken the body’s long-term immune defences – especially as modern treatments increasingly rely on the patient’s natural immunity. This is in line with the new study findings.

Why do surgeons still remove lymph nodes, then?

For many types of solid tumour, the risk of metastatic spread remains high, and lymph node involvement is one of the best predictors of cancer recurrence.

Lymph node removal also provides vital information for choosing the most effective post-surgical treatments. In breast cancer, doctors often use a “sentinel node biopsy”. This means removing only the first lymph node that fluid from the tumour drains into. Checking just this sentinel node helps doctors see if the cancer has spread, while reducing the number of nodes removed and lowering the risk of side-effects.

Medical researchers are learning more about how lymph nodes work during long-term illnesses. The new study shows that lymph nodes aren’t just passive filters; they’re active training grounds where special immune cells grow, multiply and become powerful fighters. This is especially important during treatments that boost the immune system, such as checkpoint blockade treatments which are now used for many types of cancer.

These results suggest that taking out lymph nodes doesn’t just block cancer’s spread; it also removes important hubs where the immune system monitors the body and gets reactivated to fight disease.

Over the last decade, hospitals have adopted gentler, more targeted lymph node surgeries. Instead of removing all the nodes in a region, the focus is now on minimising disruption: taking only the nodes most likely to harbour cancer.

This approach reduces complications for patients and may help keep their immunity strong. Some patients with early-stage cancers may even avoid node removal altogether, instead relying on imaging and biopsies to monitor for spread.

For those worried about the consequences of major lymph node removal, emerging therapies offer hope. Immunotherapy drugs, targeted treatments and even cancer vaccines are being developed that can “re-educate” the immune system, even if some lymph nodes have been lost.

Still, there is growing evidence that patients do best when at least some hubs remain – preserving the body’s ability to mount and sustain a defence against lingering cancer cells.

In the future, cancer surgery may become even more personalised. By mapping the activity inside lymph nodes – tracking which ones are essential for immune function and which are most likely to seed new tumours – doctors can tailor surgery so each patient gets maximum benefit with minimum harm.

The recent discoveries challenge surgeons and oncologists to weigh every decision carefully: not just for what is removed today, but for the immunity and future defences left behind.

Is removing lymph nodes in cancer surgery a bad idea? The answer is complex. For many patients, it’s still a good idea and can be lifesaving. But new science teaches us that lymph nodes are more than just staging posts; they may be indispensable for long-term immune protection. The future promises smarter, more strategic surgery, keeping more of the body’s natural defence system intact while targeting cancer with precision.

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. Don’t cut them out: lymph nodes may be key to cancer treatment – https://theconversation.com/dont-cut-them-out-lymph-nodes-may-be-key-to-cancer-treatment-265557

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mikael Klintman, Professor of Sociology, Lund University

It’s 2:47 am and your phone buzzes on the nightstand. The notification suddenly glows in the darkness: “You’re on a 7-day streak!”; “Don’t break your streak!”. You feel the need to open the app right away for an emergency breathing exercise. Half-awake, you fumble for the device, chest tightening. Another buzz: “What’s your positive intention for the day?”

The app that promised to ease your anxiety has just jolted you into a state of micro-panic. Have you fallen prey to some kind of toxic, digital positivity?

Research shows that smartphone notifications from various types of apps can contribute to stress, anxiety and depression, with users receiving dozens of push notifications daily.

A recent meta-analysis found that while mental health apps can help improve clinical outcomes, there are some concerns around too much engagement leading to frustration and stress.

These apps, sometimes marketed as “therapist in your pocket” and “a sort of 24-7 mobile therapist” are employing strategies closely resembling what social media platforms use to maximise psychological engagement. But when the product is mental wellbeing, what happens when the cure becomes part of the disease?

To understand why app design choices matter, we need to consider how our minds process threats, whether positively or negatively framed. In my new book Framing – The Social Art of Influence, I examine topics ranging from caviar ads to public‑health campaigns, asking which kinds of signalling strike a chord with different audiences in particular situations. While mental‑health apps are not directly investigated in my book, there are plenty of parallels to them backed up by research.

One key idea is the distinction between “rough” and “smooth” textures of framing in communication. Rough framing uses threat cues, surveillance language and urgency to capture attention. It’s the difference between a gentle reminder and a fire alarm. These apps systematically deploy rough framing through their notification systems.

Consider how these notifications exploit what evolutionary psychologists call our “hypervigilance bias” — the ancient tendency to overreact to potential threats that once kept our ancestors alive. Research shows that throughout human evolution, diverse environmental threats shaped our brain’s fear response, resulting in cognitive mechanisms that prioritised survival.

When an app warns that your stress is spiking, it’s using the same neural pathways that once alerted us to predators. But unlike a rustling bush that might hide a tiger, these digital warnings can create threats where none existed.

By sending alerts about “detected stress” or “mood dips,” mental health apps create micro-crises that only the app can resolve. User reviews consistently praise the “instant reassurance” these apps provide, yet studies tell a different story about long-term engagement patterns.

Research on mental health app notification timing and frequency reveals concerning patterns. One study found that people using a certain app receiving daily notifications showed higher engagement initially. Still, some users described experiencing frustration with repetitive notification content, with one participant noting: “n the end it got me a bit annoyed, ‘cause I was like, ‘Oh, I’ve done this already.’”

Analysis of push notifications showed that frequent users become less responsive to suggestion-based prompts over time.

Hot and cold framing

In my book’s framework of social influence, I also distinguish between “hot” and “cold” framing temperatures. Hot framing creates urgency and emotional intensity — think breaking news alerts or emergency warnings. Cold framing allows space for reflection and considered response.

Mental health apps have become masters of hot framing. Haptic buzzes accompany streak warnings. Red badges accumulate on home screens. Animation effects show wilting flowers when you miss a meditation session. One popular app even sends notifications styled like text messages: “Hey! Your anxiety score is climbing. Let’s chat?”

The informal tone masks the manipulative design — you’re not chatting with a friend but with an algorithm optimised for engagement.

This matters because mental health recovery often requires the opposite approach. Decades of research in cognitive behavioural therapy emphasise the importance of creating distance from anxious thoughts, not constant monitoring of them. When we’re repeatedly prompted to check our stress levels, we’re training ourselves to become more, not less, aware of every physiological fluctuation.

How to improve design

The solution isn’t to demonise technology or abandon digital mental health tools altogether. Instead, we need to reframe how these apps operate radically. Research suggests several promising approaches that shift from hot to cool, rough to smooth framing.

First, notification caps work. A study on smartphone notification batching found that limiting alerts to three times daily reduced stress and increased wellbeing. Moreover, research on mental health app notifications warns that “a lot of annoying reminders can lead to disengagement” and recommends allowing users to customise reminder frequency and timing.

Second, opt-in rather than default biometric monitoring reduces the surveillance feel while maintaining functionality for those who genuinely benefit. Third, what designers call “intentional friction” — small barriers to obsessive checking — can break compulsion cycles. Such barriers may include limiting how often data is refreshed or using batching notifications.

Colour psychology matters too. Research on healthcare design shows that blue environments can lower blood pressure, reduce heart rate and decrease cortisol levels. A study on mental health app design found that young people “favoured a subtle use of colour” for wellbeing apps, warning against “overly intense colours”.

Language shifts make a difference. “When you’re ready, you might enjoy a breathing exercise” lands differently than “URGENT: Manage your stress NOW!”

What you can do

The next time your mental health app sends an urgent notification, pause before responding. Ask yourself: is this alert serving my wellbeing or the app’s engagement metrics? Are these “insights” about my stress creating more worry than wisdom? The power to reframe these digital interactions lies first in recognising how they frame us.

Perhaps the most radical act of digital self-care is the simplest: turning off notifications altogether. True mental wellness might begin not with another app alert, but with the confidence to trust our own minds, in their own time, at their own pace. Now that would be revolutionary — an app that knows when to stay quiet.

Mikael Klintman 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. When mental health apps become worry engines: how digital ‘care’ can hijack our anxieties – https://theconversation.com/when-mental-health-apps-become-worry-engines-how-digital-care-can-hijack-our-anxieties-263930

Source: The Conversation – UK – By George Newth, Lecturer in Politics and member of Reactionary Politics Research Network, University of Bath

Faced with an insurgent UK far right backed by a billionaire oligarch, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s pledge to lead the progressive fightback is long overdue. If Starmer’s speech, however, is to be anything but empty rhetoric, he must abandon his failed strategy of chasing the Reform vote in favour of a bolder, more hopeful narrative.

Based on his government’s actions and discourse so far, the signs are far from promising. He has helped embolden the very politics he claims to oppose.

Starmer’s speech comes hot on the heels of Britain’s largest ever far-right mobilisation. Between 110,000 and 150,000 people descended on London for the so-called “Unite The Kingdom” march, organised by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (better known as Tommy Robinson).

In line with far-right great replacement theory, the principal target of those speaking at the event was Islam and immigration – but there were plenty of examples of placards targeting other marginalised groups such as LGBTQ+ people.

Appearing via video link, the billionaire oligarch Elon Musk warned of the need “to fight back or die” in the face of “massive uncontrolled migration”. Starmer’s home secretary, Shabana Mahmood labelled Musk’s words as abhorrent and Starmer said some of the views expressed at the rally did not reflect a “nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity and respect”. The government, however, arguably shares significant responsibility for legitimising the politics behind the rally.

Starmer’s denunciation of “loutish behaviour” mimics his decision to attribute the summer 2024 riots to “far-right thuggery”. Countering far-right figures such as Yaxley-Lennon is vitally important. However, on its own, such reactive discourse is not enough. Associating far-right ideas with the margins of society ignores the way in which so-called mainstream politicians have normalised such politics .

The Unite the Kingdom march was the climax of “operation raise the colours”, which saw people all over the country putting up flags wherever they felt like doing so. Bearing all the hallmarks of a carefully coordinated “astroturf” campaign (stimulating grassroots support for a cause and then using that support to legitimise other activities), raise the colours contributed to an emboldening of the far right.

Further to “just” raising the union flag and St George’s cross, there were acts of vandalism against mosques and ethnic food restaurants as well as racist graffiti. It is hard not to also see the link between those putting up flags in the streets and those waving them outside so-called “asylum hotels”.

Most of this has since been condemned by Starmer, yet he initially embraced raise the colours wholeheartedly, even calling himself a “big supporter of flags”. Meanwhile, the (at the time) home secretary Yvette Cooper made the somewhat bizarre assertion that her entire home was bedecked with St George’s crosses and Union Jacks and said that people should “put ‘em up anywhere”.

The violent rhetoric and actions on display at the rally reveal the severe limitations of this attempt to co-opt the flag waving initiative to attract its backers.

I would argue this also illustrates how Starmer’s attempt to pivot towards a more “progressive” form of patriotism is doomed to fail. Because patriotism is so often tied to exclusion and the policing of national boundaries, it ultimately undermines broader commitments to empathy, equality and solidarity.

A losing game

In the longer term, Starmer’s own policies since taking office have tried to outflank Reform on the right. Starmer has framed Reform as Labour’s official opposition. In line with this, the Labour party has made immigration, and Channel boat crossings in particular, one of its top priorities.

On taking office, Labour’s prioritisation of “secure borders” has been encapsulated by the violent slogan of “smash the criminal gangs”. Starmer has accused past Conservative governments of running an “open-borders experiment” and has allowed images of deportations to be made public – a technique most notoriously used in the Trump administration’s racially charged deportation videos that are shared with the public in the knowledge that they will be widely circulated on social media.

Starmer cannot defeat the far right by using its language and tactics. This much is evident not only in the chants and placards which target him at far-right rallies, but also his disastrous polling figures.

In the words of journalist Nesrine Malik, “we need new stories” when addressing the socioeconomic and sociopolitical challenges facing the UK. A key example is the way we talk about immigration. It is telling that just 5% of overall migration to the UK is classified as illegal yet it almost entirely dominates the national conversation.

Starmer has done nothing to counter that imbalance. Indeed, his speech, intended to mark a fightback of progressive values, has doubled-down on anti-migrant rhetoric.

In particular, the introduction of digital ID cards is framed as a way of ensuring Britain takes back control of its borders. Claiming Britain has been “squeamish” about talking about illegal immigration, Starmer has said ID cards would help protect working people’s wages against those who “slip into the shadow economy and remain here illegally”.

Academic research consistently illustrates that the way in which immigration is framed by politicians and the media has a significant impact on how and whether people view it as a “legitimate concern”. It is incumbent on a supposedly “social democrat” prime minister to lead this change in narrative.

Starmer’s intervention on the side of progressive values might be a welcome one, were it not premised on a dead duck narrative of “progressive patriotism”. It is, though, effectively meaningless if he continues to lead a government which oversees and manages the “division” he ostensibly seeks to address.

George Newth is a Lecturer in Politics at University of Bath and is a member of the Green Party

– ref. Starmer has enabled the far-right – promises of ‘progressive patriotism’ are no longer enough – https://theconversation.com/starmer-has-enabled-the-far-right-promises-of-progressive-patriotism-are-no-longer-enough-266036

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Katie MacLean, PhD Student, University of Stirling

Popstar Charli XCX is turning her hand to acting in the new film Erupcja. In it, she recites Lord Byron’s poem Darkness. Charli and Byron may be 200 years apart, but the legacies of Romantic poetry are alive in Brat, the singer’s sixth studio album.

Byron has often been described as the first modern celebrity, notorious in regency England for rumours of incest, homosexuality and vampirism. Irish writer Marguerite Gardiner, Countess of Blessington, wrote in 1823 that “Byron had so unquenchable a thirst for celebrity, that no means were left untried that might attain it.”

---

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

---

Brat is similarly concerned with the self-construction of identity and celebrity in Charli’s “party girl” image. Her interest in fame is reflected both in her album’s extensive branding and in lyrics like, “When I go to the club I wanna hear those club classics/I wanna dance to me”.

In Might say Something Stupid, Charli admits that she is “famous but not quite” and doesn’t know if she “belong[s] here anymore”. This echoes John Keats’ 1818 poem When I have fears that I may cease to be, in which he laments that he might die before he experiences true literary achievement and fame. Charli has inherited the identity of lonely artist obsessed with creative genius from the Romantics.

Anxieties around legacy resurface in Apple. Charli uses the apple as a Gothic metaphor for inheritance and cursed fate, not unlike Byron’s On Leaving Newstead Abbey, in which he imagines his ancestors haunting him until death. Romantic poetry is full of this tension between inheritance and decay, and Charli’s lyrics show how those anxieties still haunt us today.

Romantic poets were obsessed with the archaic and classical through Greek and Roman mythology, ruins, and medievalism, like John Keats’ poem Ode to a Grecian Urn. Similarly, Brat frequently looks back with references to Y2K aesthetics and early 2000s culture.

Charli romanticises nostalgia in the song Rewind:

Used to burn CDs full of songs I didn’t know
Used to sit in my bedroom, puttin’ polish on my toe
Recently, I’ve been thinkin’ ‘bout a way simpler time
Sometimes, I really think it would be cool to rewind.

In both cases, romantic nostalgia becomes a creative lens to explore our relationship with the past.

Romantic poets were fascinated by the sublime, characterised as the overwhelming power of nature. In Wordsworth’s Lines Composed A Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey, he contrasts “the din/Of towns and cities” against awe-inspiring “steep and lofty cliffs”.

---

Read more:
How to resolve friendship tension like Lorde and Charli XCX

---

In the song, Everything is Romantic, Charli instead finds beauty in juxtaposing symbols: the man-made (“Bad tattoos on leather tan skin/Jesus Christ on a Plastic sign”) contrasts nature (“Lemons on thе trees and on the ground/[…] Pompeii in the distance”). Where the Romantics rejected the artificial, Charli embraces it, extending Romantic ideas into the 21st century.

The most explicitly romantic song on Brat is So I, an elegy for the producer Sophie, who died suddenly in 2020. Just as in romantic elegies, Charli laments the loss of genius: “Your star burns so bright/ […] You had a power like a lightnin’ strike”.

Percy Shelley’s elegy Adonais, written on the death of Keats, concludes that the genius of Keats lives on through his poetry. Similarly, Charli sings: “Your sounds, your words live on, endless.” The influence of Romantic elegies can still be seen in popular culture through music, particularly songs which immortalise fellow artists and explore contemporary understandings of grief.

The media studies academic David Tetzlaff argues that, “Romanticism remains the common language of middle-class rebelliousness.” Brat rebels most obviously in its neon green branding, hyperpop tracks and aggressive autotune, becoming one of Rolling Stone’s 250 greatest albums of the 21st century so far. So, Brat Summer’ may been a neon green Tik-Tok trend, but the album perfectly showcases how Romanticism influences art and culture today.

As Matt Sangster, an expert in 18th-century literature and material culture, writes in David Bowie and the Legacies of Romanticism, “[t]he ways that texts happened in the past are hugely important, but texts and the idea clusters they spawn are also fascinating for the complex ways that they continue to happen in our lives.” Concerns inherited from the Romantics are evident in Brat, with its exploration of celebrity, nostalgia, nature, legacy and loss. Romanticism isn’t stuck in the 19th century – it is alive today in the very places you may least expect.

---

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.

---

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

– ref. Why Charli XCX might be Gen Z’s answer to the Romantic poets – https://theconversation.com/why-charli-xcx-might-be-gen-zs-answer-to-the-romantic-poets-266088

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jenni Ramone, Associate Professor of Postcolonial and Global Literatures, Nottingham Trent University

The Times has described the 2025 Booker Prize shortlist as “revenge of the middle-aged author”“. If the phrase sounds derogatory, it isn’t meant that way: the review also describes the shortlist as “novels for grown-ups”, with the prize privileging “maturity over novelty” and supporting “unpretentious, old-fashioned literary fiction”.

This is reinforced by the Booker Prize website, which highlights the previous winner (Kiran Desai) and two previously shortlisted authors (Andrew Miller and David Szalay) on the list, while noting that all six authors have long-established literary careers.

A book prize should reward novelty, though – and the Booker is, after all, a book prize, not an author prize like the Nobel. But if novelty isn’t obvious from the authors themselves, it can be detected in their books.

Their ages should not be a big surprise. Several literary prizes focus on older writers, including the newly launched Pioneer Prize for female writers over 60, established by Bernardine Evaristo to “acknowledge and celebrate pioneering British women writers” in all genres. Evaristo notes that the prize intends to correct the problem that “older women writers tend to be overlooked” – 91-year-old Maureen Duffy was its first recipient.

Perhaps these prizes and Booker nominations respond in part to society’s emphasis on youth, reflected in publishing initiatives such as Granta’s best young novelists, Penguin’s authors under 35 to watch and previously, The New Yorker’s 20 under 40 list.

It will be interesting to see whether the Booker winner this year reflects the suggested trend of overlooking older women writers, or responds to it. Three of the shortlisted authors are women, and according to my students and the bookies’ odds, Desai’s The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny and Susan Choi’s Flashlight are likely contenders for the prize, with Ben Markovits’ The Rest of Our Lives behind them.

My students were drawn to the specific historical context of Flashlight, which conveys the lives of several generations of a family beginning in 1940s Japan, then moving through suburban America and North Korea. They valued the less-documented migration story, and suggested the mystery fiction aspect added wide appeal.

Markovits’ The Rest of Our Lives was seen as a typical Booker shortlist by my students, who identified the extra-marital affair, the road trip across America, and the internal-monologue narration of the eloquent and thoughtful university lecturer protagonist as factors which might make the book very popular.

Beyond this, the plot shares with Flashlight a fundamental uncertainty, with characters feeling out of place in their own lives. In The Rest of Our Lives, Tom’s life is gradually unbuttoned when he and his wife decide to stay together until their youngest child leaves home, following her affair. Rather than a dramatic upheaval, the narrator decides to undertake a picturesque road trip.

An extra-marital affair is also at the centre of Miller’s The Land in Winter, in which the harsh winter of 1962-63 in England’s West Country forces two couples to confront their uncomfortable relationship dynamics, when they are forced to stay indoors to avoid the weather.

Disaster looms in the countryside through unpredictable people like Alison Riley, who is “the kind of person who might choose to bring the house down simply to find out what kind of noise it made”.

The uncertainty of individual identity, driven by unconventional and challenging family relationships, is the fundamental connecting factor between all six books, and Katie Kitamura’s Audition expresses this most directly.

Written in two parts, the novel considers the relationship between its protagonist and a younger adult male who may or may not be her son. The novel suggests, as the Booker judges note, that we play roles every day, like the actor protagonist of this novel – who first rejects the suggestion that the young man is her son, then later changes position to live alongside him as if he were.

But perhaps the novel that stands out most to me is Szalay’s Flesh. While this book likewise conveys the unravelling of life into uncertainty and risk, its plot concerns a 15-year-old boy in a relationship with a woman of his mother’s age. Flesh is written in lengthy dialogue, rendering the story sparse and sharp.

Having written about both of Desai’s previous novels as a scholar of post-colonial studies, I am eager to read The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia, which was published on the day of the Booker shortlist announcement – an auspicious sign perhaps.

Only her third novel in a long career, it is described as a romance. Publishers have recently pointed to an upturn in the popular romance genre fiction, including subgenres like romantasy. This might offer favourable conditions for the book – helped by judge Sarah Jessica Parker’s association with romance, and a new wave of literary romance screen adaptations including Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights and a new Netflix series of Pride and Prejudice in 2026.

The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia begins with a 55-year-old protagonist whose parents control minute details of her life, but is centrally concerned with the epic and transnational love affair of its two eponymous characters.

The novel maintains Desai’s trend of changing literary direction between novels. Having herself lamented Hullaballoo in the Guava Orchard as “exoticist”, she responds to that accusation in The Loneliness of Sunny and Sonia, where protagonist Sonia is accused of writing “orientalist nonsense”. In a Guardian interview, Desai explained that the character expresses her own concern about how to write about India for a western readership.

Desai’s second novel, The Inheritance of Loss, was set in the aftermath of violence resulting from the claim for a separate state in post-Partition India. It won the Booker Prize in 2006 when Desai was 35, then the youngest woman to win the award – in 2013, it went to an even younger Eleanor Catton. This statistic suggests the Booker winner, at least, tends to be an older author.

The novels in this year’s shortlist all convey the overwhelming impact of uncertainty and change, and privilege introspective responses to disruptions that are sometimes hidden for decades. While (mostly) stories about middle age, they are anything but safe and comfortable.

---

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.

---

Jenni Ramone 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. Booker shortlist 2025: six novels (mostly) about middle age that are anything but safe and comfortable – https://theconversation.com/booker-shortlist-2025-six-novels-mostly-about-middle-age-that-are-anything-but-safe-and-comfortable-266184

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Padraig Murphy, Associate Professor in Communications, Dublin City University

“Are you making good health decisions?” reads one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. meme on social media, a slogan printed against an image of a smiling US health secretary. Such social media posts invariably invite lively comments beneath them, but the situation is deadly serious.

On 22 September, Donald Trump and RFK Jr. publicly proposed a link between paracetamol – commonly referred to in the US by the brand name Tylenol – and autism. The paracetamol link has also been shown, through rigorous research, to be false.

It’s far from the first falsehood about science to be presented at the highest levels of the US government. While RFK Jr. denies being anti-vaccination, he has repeatedly stated debunked claims about supposed vaccine harm.

The highly politicised nature of such claims and the current political environment may lead to a reluctance among some scientists to speak out publicly. But it’s imperative that they continue to defend science in the public arena.

With wall-to-wall coverage of such issues, it is easy for the considered views of experts to get drowned out – and headlines rarely lead with the perspectives of researchers. The speed of the news cycle can also mean that the story has moved on by the time they are in a position to comment.

Science communicators weigh up the published evidence on a topic of controversy, factoring in multiple perspectives. They also talk about when science gets it wrong – and when retractions of journal articles are needed.

Toxic environment

But online toxicity and hostility on social media have increased to the extent that both scientists and, indeed, science journalists have a real fear of writing about topics even where they have strong expertise. And with the US government making major cuts to research funding and targeting politicised areas such as climate science in particular, some may be inclined to stay quiet or self-censor to avoid losing their grants.

We’ve also seen government scientists removed from their positions by the Trump administration. In June 2025, RFK Jr. removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.

In August 2025, the director of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Monarez, was fired for what she says was refusing to dismiss vaccine policy officials. The health secretary says it was because he didn’t trust her.

Political decisions such as these and others can have a chilling effect on scientists and the media, where commentators may feel the need to tread carefully. Yet this makes it all the more urgent that everyone involved in communicating science to the public ups their game and defend expertise.

Nevertheless, when the politics are combined with the toxicity of debate in the public sphere, particularly on social media, it can make conveying expert opinions very challenging. Science communicators have often developed valuable and thoughtful methods to put the message across to the public.

Platforms like Bluesky, which give users greater control over their interactions, have been one such attempt for a civil space to discuss science. Yet, on other platforms, it is easy to see how valuable efforts such as these could sour amid the kinds of vitriolic attacks come from anonymous sources who seem to act with impunity online.

There is arguably a place to fight fire with fire, including with the use of ridicule. Examples include California governor Gavin Newsom’s mockery of Trump tweets or South Park satirising the US administration in the basest of fashions.

The longer-term goals in controlling false scientific statements involve increasing media literacy, prebunking– debunking myths and conspiracy theories before they spread rapidly – and setting out “nudge” effects, where there are several choices offered to people that eventual lead to a change of behaviour, as happens in advertising.

If a scientific or innovation programme has the resources, subvertising techniques – where spoofs and parodies of corporate ads are created to critique their messages – have been used effectively against the tobacco lobby and oil companies.

It may help for professional bodies, universities and other institutions involved in communicating science to maintain vigilance on contentious claims so that they are well prepared when these topics blow up in the media. The tylenol-autism claim is not something that had been widely shared in mainstream publications before now. But science communicators should be ready for the next time it comes up.

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

– ref. Why scientists may be fearful of speaking out about Trump’s autism claims – https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-may-be-fearful-of-speaking-out-about-trumps-autism-claims-265985

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has triggered a blazing row by telling the Telegraph that MPs want him to mount a leadership challenge against prime minister Keir Starmer.

Starmer’s poll ratings are dire and for some weeks, discussion within some sections of the Labour Party has turned to who is his most likely successor.

Up until early September, the assumption was that it would be Angela Rayner. But her resignation as deputy prime minister and deputy leader of the party over a financial scandal has made that less certain. Attention therefore turned to Burnham.

Burnham is popular within the party – and has been for a long time. A poll of party members conducted by Survation back in June for the website LabourList placed him just above Rayner as the top choice to be the next leader. He is also seen as plain-spoken and direct – a quality that Nigel Farage also has but which Starmer lacks.

However, he does face several hurdles if he does wish to become the leader of the labour party one day, whether through Starmer’s resignation or some other turn of events.

The first challenge is that you must be a Labour MP to stand for the leadership of the party – and Burnham is not an MP. For Burnham to become an MP before the next general election (expected in 2029), there will need to be a vacancy (ideally in his home region, Manchester) and currently there isn’t one. There have been suggestions that a sitting MP in Manchester could stand down triggering a by-election that Burnham could stand in, although none of those MPs currently seem keen.

Burnham would also then need to be shortlisted as a candidate for the seat, which will require approval from the national executive committee (NEC). Starmer currently has a majority on that committee. Given that Burnham is a former MP and the mayor of Greater Manchester, it would be odd if the NEC were to block him, but in theory it is possible. He would then need to win the shortlisting vote in the constituency Labour party where he stood. Again, I would imagine if he was standing in a Manchester seat, that the local party would approve him, but it is a further hurdle nonetheless.

The next hurdle is the need to win the by-election. While Manchester is a Labour stronghold and remains so, given the support for Reform UK in the polls, victory is not guaranteed. Parties can pour resources into by-elections as there is only one vote taking place (as opposed to 650 taking place on the same day in general elections) so activists can be bussed in and campaign finance is not so thin on the ground. You can guarantee that Reform UK will throw the kitchen sink at any by-election where they have a chance of victory, regardless of whether Burnham is standing or not.

If he clears all these hurdles, a further one remains. Currently to challenge Starmer for the leadership of the party, any challenger would need the backing of 80 MPs. This is a high threshold, as we have seen during the deputy leadership election and again there is no guarantee that enough MPs would back him. There has been some backlash to his criticism of Starmer and the party, particularly as the labour party annual conference approaches. Starmer’s allies (and investors) have also been quick to point out that his suggestion to borrow more to fund increased public spending would trigger a similar run on the pound that we saw during Liz Truss’ time as prime minister.

It is for these reasons that a challenge to Starmer from Burnham is unlikely at least in the short term. However, if Labour’s poll ratings do not improve over the course of the next 12 months, discussion of succession will only ramp up further.

Any challenge to Starmer’s leadership in the short term will likely come from within the parliamentary Labour party. The next key moment of danger will be after the 2026 local elections (in England) and devolved parliamentary elections (in Scotland and Wales). However, we should note that Labour is not as regicidal as the Conservative party. It has far less of a history of toppling even unpopular leaders.

Labour MPs should also remember the public’s reaction to the Conservative party going through three leaders in the last parliament – it did play a part in their defeat last year.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

Thomas Caygill has previously received funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Andy Burnham’s leadership ambitions: what is the path to mounting a challenge against Keir Starmer? – https://theconversation.com/andy-burnhams-leadership-ambitions-what-is-the-path-to-mounting-a-challenge-against-keir-starmer-266160