Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Netalie Shloim, Lecturer in Counselling & Psychotherapy, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds

Pregnancy is often regarded as a time to prepare the nursery, but it is also a useful moment to get the kitchen ready.

For many expectant parents, the months before a baby arrives are filled with practical jobs: buying clothes, assembling a cot, choosing a pram, packing a hospital bag. Yet one of the most important forms of preparation happens somewhere less photogenic: in the cupboards, the fridge and the daily routines of the home.

Research Peles and colleagues conducted suggests that pregnancy can be a powerful moment for change. During pregnancy, food becomes about more than personal preference. It is bound up with the health of the developing baby, the wellbeing of the mother, and the kind of family life parents hope to create.

The idea of nutritional nesting is useful here. It describes how first-time parents begin shaping the home food environment during pregnancy. It means the food world a baby will eventually be born into: what is bought, what is visible, what is easy to reach, what gets cooked, what is eaten together, and what becomes normal.

Healthy habits begin before a baby first tastes puree or sits in a high chair. They begin in the rhythms and environment parents establish before birth. Vegetables in the fridge may technically be available, but they are unlikely to be chosen by exhausted parents looking for something quick. Fruit on the counter, chopped vegetables ready to use, batch-cooked meals in the freezer and simple ingredients within reach make healthier eating easier when energy is low.

The distinction between availability and accessibility matters. Availability means the food is present in the home. Accessibility means it is easy to see, easy to reach and easy to eat. Research on the home food environment suggests that what is available at home, what parents eat themselves, and family eating routines all play a role in the overall healthiness and variety of children’s diets. Shloim describes this as healthy mealtime interactions, accounting for what and how the family eats.

Kitchens are shaped by more than mothers alone. Pregnancy can be an especially useful time to think about food because many parents, including fathers and partners, are already imagining the family they want to become. Peles’ work with first-time expectant fathers suggests that men often see pregnancy as a turning point: a chance to take more responsibility, support their partner, and help create a healthier home. Good intentions, though, do not chop vegetables, plan meals or fill a freezer. Fathers and partners may need practical support to turn motivation into everyday action.

Nutrition support during pregnancy should involve the household, not only the pregnant mother. The home food environment is usually shaped by more than one person. Partners influence shopping, cooking, budgeting, snacking and the emotional tone around food. Treating food preparation as a shared parental responsibility, rather than another task added to the mother’s mental load, makes it more realistic and fair.

The point is to make nutrition advice more useful, rather than more judgmental. Lists of foods to eat or avoid have their place, but they rarely solve the daily problem of what tired people can afford, cook and face eating. Families also need help with the basics: planning meals, preparing quick options, shopping on a budget and making nutritious food convenient before the sleep deprivation of early parenthood begins.

For many parents, the second trimester may be a useful period for this kind of preparation. For some women, though not all, the nausea and exhaustion of early pregnancy may have eased, while the physical demands of late pregnancy have not yet fully arrived. That can make it a more realistic time to ask: what will make daily eating easier when life gets harder?

The answer does not have to be complicated. Parents might reorganise the fridge so healthier foods are visible, learn a few reliable recipes that can be cooked quickly, prepare snacks that do not depend on willpower at 3pm, or decide together how meals will work when the baby arrives. These small changes are not glamorous, but they reduce the number of decisions tired parents have to make.

Early family food culture is about nutrients, but it is also about relationships. Children learn from what is served and from how meals feel.

Shloim suggests that a calm, responsive feeding relationship means paying attention to a child’s hunger and fullness cues, offering food without pressure, and making mealtimes feel safe rather than stressful. Evidence suggests that these early interactions can support children’s ability to regulate their own eating. They also support overall positive interactions.

Early-life conditions, including the period before birth, can influence health later in life. A child’s future is not fixed before birth, but early environments matter, and supporting families before and during pregnancy can be a practical way to improve long-term health.

Expectant parents do not need a perfect diet or a perfect kitchen. Nutritional nesting is about making ordinary healthy choices more visible, more convenient and more shared. Its value is practical: reducing friction before the exhausting early months begin.

The nursery matters. But the kitchen may be where some of the most important family interactions begins.

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. Pregnancy is a chance to reshape family eating habits before the baby arrives – https://theconversation.com/pregnancy-is-a-chance-to-reshape-family-eating-habits-before-the-baby-arrives-278058

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jasper Verschuur, Assistant Professor in Engineering Systems and Climate, Delft University of Technology

Millions more people will face hunger in the coming months if the conflict in the Middle East is not resolved soon, the UN has warned. The price of energy, which instantly affects the cost of producing and transporting food, has risen sharply due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The price of fertiliser, much of it made in the Gulf states and exported via the same stretch of water, has also soared. So it seems inevitable that the cost of food around the world will increase, just as it did after Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 (both countries were big exporters of food and fertiliser).

Back then, some governments responded with expensive taxpayer funded subsidies for producers and consumers. But the situation in the Middle East highlights how consumers everywhere remain vulnerable to such geographically concentrated production of energy and fertiliser.

Here are four ways that the world could attempt to build a food system that would be far more resilient to future shocks.

1. Grow greener

The current situation is surely a sign that the time has now come for agriculture to make the transition to “green ammonia” – ammonia produced using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. (Ammonia is a key ingredient in nitrogen-based fertiliser.)

Instead of depending on certain countries or regions for fertiliser production, it would be possible to produce home grown fertiliser when the sun shines and the wind blows.

The first green ammonia plants are now being constructed in sunny places such as Chile, Morocco and Australia. It’s an expensive switch, but the declining cost of renewables combined with wildly fluctuating gas prices could soon make it a more competitive and secure alternative.

A successful transition will depend on sustained commitment (and investment) from governments – especially when the Strait of Hormuz eventually opens again.

2. Stockpile

Governments should also rethink the way they stock food. Modern logistics and slick supply chains mean that many countries store certain products to last a few days or weeks, with the assumption that those stocks can be swiftly replenished.

Some places (Sweden, China and India for example) take a longer term approach, seemingly driven by a stronger sense of the importance of self-sufficiency. Other countries should follow their lead, and think beyond stockpiling things like grains, to other essential farm supplies like fertiliser and pesticides. But they need to do so gradually to not distort already tight markets in the short term.

This kind of change would also align with broader national security ambitions that are emerging across Europe and elsewhere. Food stocks to cope with periods of uncertainty and disruption would be an essential part of that.

3. Grow more plants

A demand change towards reducing waste and healthier diets – specifically by eating more plant proteins – could swiftly improve food security and resilience.

Animal farming requires large amounts of fertiliser for the crops providing their feed. Plant proteins such as legumes (beans, lentils, peas) require much less fertiliser (they can even “create” their own fertiliser in their roots through nitrogen fixation).

They also have other advantages including improved nutrition, and much reduced carbon emmissions.

4. Electrify transport

Biofuels, such as ethanol and bio-diesel, are often portrayed as sustainable fuel alternatives. But the crops used to produce these fuels (such as corn and rapeseed) now occupy an area at least the size of Italy.

That’s a lot of land being used to deliver not very much fuel (in the UK, biofuel powers less than 7% of the country’s transport needs).

Instead, building solar or wind farms to provide energy for electric vehicles is a much more efficient use of land when it comes to fuelling transport needs.

Accelerating the electrification of transport and rapidly phase out crop-based fuel would release tens of millions of hectares globally for things like food production, rewilding and carbon storage.

Towards resilience

Building a more resilient food system will not happen overnight. Changing diets and switching fuels and fertiliser dependencies takes time. It will involve trade-offs as well as considerable political and commercial will.

None of that is easy to achieve, and previous global spikes in food prices (in 2007, 2010 and 2022) did not led to significant changes.

Yet the alternative is to remain exposed to repeated shocks. Climate change and geopolitical tensions will continue to disrupt global supply chains.

The current crisis is not only yet another warning about the fragility of today’s food system, but also an opportunity to accelerate the transition towards one that is much better able to withstand future disruption.

Paul Behrens receives funding from The British Academy and the REAPRA Foundation.

Jasper Verschuur 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. How the world can avoid millions going hungry when supply chains collapse – https://theconversation.com/how-the-world-can-avoid-millions-going-hungry-when-supply-chains-collapse-282441

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are likely to discuss many issues as they meet this week in Beijing. But alongside trade, technology and the war in Iran, one topic of conversation will stand out – the future of Taiwan.

Taiwan has long been a sensitive issue in Sino-American relations. Beijing regards the island as a breakaway province which must be reunited with the mainland. The United States has long opposed such a step. Yet in recent months, Trump has fuelled speculation that he may be ready to change key aspects of US policy on the issue, potentially granting Beijing long-sought concessions.

Trump’s apparent readiness to make these moves means that Taiwan is one of the issues on which we might see the most significant policy developments at the summit. And that could happen simply through the famously voluble president uttering just a few simple words.

The president’s policy towards Taiwan has been inconsistent and seemingly more malleable than that of previous administrations. Advocates for Taiwan point out that his administration recently approved the largest ever US arms sale to the island. But at the same time, he has sowed doubts about the strength of his support for Taiwan’s independence.

US policy towards Taiwan has traditionally been based on two principles. The first is “strategic ambiguity”, which means that the US declines to explicitly state whether it would actively use its military to defend Taiwan from attack by China. This policy is supposed to deter China while also discouraging Taiwan from formally declaring its independence from Beijing.

The second principle is the “one China policy”. According to this policy, the US recognises Beijing as the legitimate government of China, while opposing any violent solution to its dispute with Taiwan. It also retains robust informal links to the Taiwanese government in Taipei.

Observers are concerned that Trump may water down these principles during his summit with Xi. For instance, he might state that the US not only “does not support” Taiwanese independence but actively “opposes” it. Or he might double down on previous comments he has made indicating that whether or not Xi invades Taiwan is “up to him”.

Trump has also explicitly stated that he will discuss future US arms sales to Taiwan with Xi during this week’s summit. This violates one of the so-called Six Assurances that the US has upheld towards Taiwan since the 1980s, and which were endorsed by the US Congress in 2016.

Even securing a discussion of arms sales would be a victory for Xi, who would welcome an opportunity to chip away at the Six Assurances. Presumably he would then try to weaken the US commitment to the other five, which include a US commitment not to change its position on Taiwan’s sovereignty.

More concretely, if Xi succeeds in making US arms sales to Taiwan a legitimate topic of negotiation in Sino-American relations, then he could head them off in the future by offering the US concessions in other areas. For instance, if Trump or a future president asks Beijing for its help settling a conflict like that in Iran, Beijing might demand an end to US arms sales to Taiwan as the price.

High stakes

Given Trump’s reputation as a formidable China hawk, his attitude towards Taiwan may seem surprising. But it’s actually part of a longstanding pattern.

In relations with China, Trump has arguably always prioritised economic issues, while appearing less concerned about the security of America’s regional allies. He has also raised doubts about whether Taiwan is even defensible. In his first term, he reportedly told aides that: “Taiwan is like two feet from China. We are 8,000 miles away. If they invade, there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it”.

Trump is also both highly transactional and less focused on abstract principles of foreign policy than most previous presidents. He views America’s support of allies such as Taiwan as a gift that it gives them, one that is often not worth the cost. If he can achieve a concrete victory for himself today by trading away support for Taiwan tomorrow, he may well be willing to do so.

All of these developments matter because they make a violent conflict between China and Taiwan, potentially ultimately involving the US, more likely. If Trump makes concessions to Xi, it will be the latest signal that US support for Taiwan is wavering. That made be read in Beijing as permission to violently change the status quo. Even though such an act might belatedly then be met with force from Washington in response, it is made more likely by Trump’s stance today.

Even worse for Trump, the summit comes at a time when American power and the wisdom of its long-term strategy are being visibly called into question in the Middle East. The US is bogged down in an intractable conflict and has severely damaged its deterrent capacity in the Indo-Pacific by burning through advanced munitions at a high rate. Trump’s personal unpopularity is also rising at home amid the war and its economic fallout.

This weakened position makes it even more likely that Trump will want to strike a deal with Xi to help end the war in Iran or ease trade tensions to help the economy at home. Taiwan may be the price of that – and, ultimately, peace.

Andrew Gawthorpe is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Trump-XI summit: US president says he will discuss arms sales to Taiwan – breaking decades of US policy – https://theconversation.com/trump-xi-summit-us-president-says-he-will-discuss-arms-sales-to-taiwan-breaking-decades-of-us-policy-282894

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Usherwood, Professor of Politics & International Studies, The Open University

The government has set out its legislative agenda for the new parliamentary session in the king’s speech. Our panel of experts reveals the key points.

Measures to ease high living costs

Jonquil Lowe, Visiting Academic, The Open University

Surveys suggest that the cost of living is still a major concern for UK households, with energy and food prices topping the list of worries. In response, some campaigners have called on the government to use the energy independence bill announced in the king’s speech to break the link between electricity and gas prices and volatile global gas prices. And they want it to provide support, especially for low-income households, to switch away from heating homes with fossil fuels.

Among other measures, the bill aims to ensure landlords upgrade their properties to reduce tenants’ energy bills. These kinds of measure need to be introduced urgently if they are to save households from heftier energy bills expected this winter.

Other cost-of-living reliefs are welcome, although their impact may be small. For example, a move to “strengthen ties with Europe” may ease food inflation by reducing red tape and border checks on some imported foods.

The leasehold and commonhold reform bill (carried over from the previous parliamentary session) will help owners of leasehold flats and houses by capping ground rents at £250 a year, and then reducing them to a negligible amount after 40 years. Meanwhile, the social housing renewal bill aims to increase the stock of affordable social homes.

A ‘Bresignation’ bill: options for UK-EU closer relationship remain limited

Miriam Sorace, Associate Professor in Comparative Politics, University of Reading

The government clearly recognises that to improve the UK’s economic and trade security, strengthening ties with the European Union is paramount. But public attitudes are still characterised by “bresignation” rather than wholehearted “bregret”.

While support for rejoining the EU sits at around 55%, this obscures deep polarisation and strong conditionality. Support drops sharply in rejoining scenarios that require the UK to relinquish its previous opt‑outs, notably euro adoption and participation in the Schengen agreement on free movement. These would probably be among the concessions demanded by the EU, given public opinion across member states. Support for rejoining the single market (48%) or the customs union (50%) lags behind support for rejoining the EU and remains highly polarised.

The least polarising and most popular option is a broadly defined “closer relationship” with the EU, supported by around 63% of the public and even attracting a sizable minority (40%) of Reform UK voters (and 56% of previous Leave voters). Yet this plea reflects a degree of wishful thinking. Given the UK’s and EU’s red lines, marginal adjustments to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement are the only real options short of the various rejoin alternatives.

The status quo is widely disliked (only 33% prefer the current UK-EU relationship), but there is no other politically viable alternative to tinkering around the edges. “Closer relations” is not a concrete policy: it’s the default expression of living under sub-optimal constrained choice. In other words: “bresignation”. The UK is likely to remain locked into a status quo of continual negotiation with the EU for the foreseeable future, unless public opinion shifts towards accepting the significant concessions required to initiate rejoining negotiations.

Tourist taxes – England plays catch-up

Rhys Ap Gwilym, Senior Lecturer in Economics at Bangor University’s Business School

England is set to become the 26th country in Europe to introduce a tourist tax. The overnight visitor levy bill, announced in the king’s speech, follows recent moves in Scotland and Wales allowing local authorities to tax overnight stays.

In Scotland, Edinburgh will lead the way, adding a 5% levy to accommodation bills from July 24 this year. In Wales, Cardiff intends to introduce charges from April 2027: £1.30 per person per night in hotels and Airbnbs, and 75 pence in campsites and hostels. Such measures have proved controversial, with strong opposition from parts of the tourism industry.

The UK government has framed this as “the first step in a new era of fiscal devolution in England”. In practice, it is a modest one. Revenues are likely to be small relative to existing local taxes and mayors may place greater weight on reforms to council tax caps or business rate retention.

That said, international evidence suggests well-designed tourist taxes can work. Even modest revenues can help fund destination management, ease pressures on local communities and improve the visitor experience. The detail of the legislation will ultimately determine whether England achieves these gains.

Plans to make it easier to align UK law with EU agreements

Simon Usherwood, Professor of Politics & International Studies, The Open University

For all the talk from Prime Minister Keir Starmer of putting the UK at “the heart of Europe”, the proposed European Partnership Bill is a relatively modest and technical move. It would give the government powers to make adjustments to domestic legislation to ensure it complies with agreements being made with the EU. This would apply to those currently under negotiation (like youth mobility, food and veterinary standards, or emissions trading) or those that might be considered in future.

This streamlines a process that would have been necessary in any case, and remains reliant on those EU deals actually being struck. So there’s nothing particularly remarkable about the content. However, the repeated mention of “where it benefits the national interest” highlights how the government is trying to package this as something more.

Decisions about when to align are necessarily attached to decisions to sign up to deals with the EU, not to whether to make the domestic adjustments (which international law would consider to be an obligation). Much like Starmer’s flowery rhetoric in his speech on Monday, the substance doesn’t really match up.

Nationalising steel for security – but debts could burden the taxpayer

Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy and Regional Development, University of Bath

Plans to nationalise British Steel offer some comfort to UK steel workers in the form of preserving jobs and providing stability. More pertinently, the move represents a renewed willingness for the state to intervene in a strategically important industry facing financial difficulties, high energy costs, fierce global competition and the challenges of the green transition.

Steel is a critical element in UK sectors such as car manufacturing and defence, infrastructure projects like railways, and low-carbon technologies including wind turbines. Nationalisation should offer the UK a degree of security over steel supply in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical climate.
The risk is that British Steel continues to lose out in global markets and makes substantial losses. This will impose a huge financial burden on the UK taxpayer, at a time when public finances are tight. But public ownership could align steel production with the UK’s broader industrial strategy goals, such as infrastructure development and net-zero targets.

And state financing could allow for long-term investment in new electric steel furnaces and decarbonisation. In the future, the government could use other levers to ensure a market for British Steel, such as strategies which favour UK-sourced, low-carbon steel for green infrastructure projects.

Plans to clean up our rivers and seas could be watered down

Alex Ford, Professor of Biology, University of Portsmouth

Water bills are rising, public anger over sewage pollution has not abated, and the government has now set out a major overhaul of water regulation in England and Wales in the king’s speech.

The proposed water reform bill signals a shift in emphasis. Rather than focusing solely on water companies, the legislation aims to address pollution more broadly, including contributions from agriculture and industry. This is a welcome change. The bill also promises a more unified regulatory system to end the fragmented oversight that has characterised the sector for decades.

Yet despite the language of reform, the vision looks less like a radical reset and more like a reboot of privatisation. This focus will worry campaigners, as it suggests continuity with an economic model widely blamed for under-investment, rising bills and environmental harm.

Immigration bill to tighten rules on right to family life

Joelle Grogan, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, University College Dublin

The government says the new immigration and asylum bill will “tighten the application” of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Article 8 right to family life is inherently restricted, and both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights generally defer to government migration policy. So more detail of the bill in future will be welcome.

The background briefing notes state that Article 8 is stopping the removal of those living illegally in the UK, saying that 86% of people from January to September 2022 who raised rights-based applications in detention were released. However, this highlights the lack of data – both on how many removals have been stopped by the ECHR and its connection with the number of illegal arrivals. Research on available data on the ECHR and foreign national offenders indicate that numbers are very low.

The bill will define family life to ensure that it is limited to the core family unit of spouse, parents and children. But the European Court of Human Rights emphasises the “dependence” of one family member on another (for example by providing sole financial support) in migration cases as the trigger for Article 8. So by defining “family unit” without the condition of “dependence”, the government may unintentionally widen the definition rather than narrow it.

Simon Usherwood has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, as a Senior Fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe initiative.

Alex Ford has received funding from UKRI research councils, EU, charities and industrial partners including the water industry.

Joelle Grogan, Jonquil Lowe, Miriam Sorace, and Phil Tomlinson 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. State opening of parliament 2026: experts on plans for cost of living, EU ties, tourist tax and more – https://theconversation.com/state-opening-of-parliament-2026-experts-on-plans-for-cost-of-living-eu-ties-tourist-tax-and-more-282895

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Domenico Vicinanza, Associate Professor of Intelligent Systems and Data Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Nasa is developing ways to use nuclear power to send spacecraft to their destinations. Nuclear propulsion could greatly reduce the journey time to Mars, perhaps cutting a voyage of more than six months to three or four months.

The idea of nuclear propulsion in space goes back to the cold war. But Nasa has been pursuing it more aggressively since Jared Isaacman took over as the agency’s chief in December 2025. Isaacman is a well-known advocate of the technology and says it can “truly unlock humankind’s ability to explore among the stars”.

In March 2026, the agency even announced an uncrewed, nuclear-powered mission to the red planet, targeted for late 2028.

Every spacecraft begins its journey fighting Earth’s gravity by burning chemical fuel. Rockets mix fuel with an oxidiser, ignite them, and force the expanding gas through a nozzle. According to Isaac Newton’s third law, when gas pushes downward, the rocket gets an equal push upward.

Chemical propulsion is powerful, reliable, and quite simply the only practical way to leave Earth’s gravity. But it comes with a severe limitation. Rockets must carry both their fuel and, in most cases, the oxidiser needed to burn it.

That means much of a rocket’s mass at launch is propellant, not payload. The longer and more ambitious the journey, the more propellant is needed, and the heavier the rocket becomes.

Mars is far enough away that a long journey time, the threat to astronauts from cosmic radiation, the mass required to carry life-support systems and constraints on the return journey all pose serious problems for planning a mission.

This is why engineers keep looking for more sustainable alternatives to chemical rockets.

Two technologies

Nasa’s space nuclear propulsion programme distinguishes between two main
approaches: thermal propulsion and electric propulsion.

Nuclear thermal propulsion follows a three-step process. First, the nuclear reactor inside the engine splits uranium atoms to generate massive amounts of heat. Second, liquid hydrogen is pumped through the reactor core, where it flash boils and expands into a high-pressure gas. Third, this super-heated gas is blasted out of a nozzle at high velocities to push the spacecraft forward.

According to the US Department of Energy, nuclear thermal propulsion can reduce travel times to Mars by up to 25% and, more importantly, limit a crew’s exposure to cosmic radiation. It would also widen the launch windows in which spacecraft can feasibly fly to Mars.

These depend on alignments of Earth and Mars that come along every couple of years. Greater flexibility with launch windows would allow astronauts to abort missions and return to Earth if necessary.

Nuclear electric propulsion, on the other hand, uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity. This powers a type of engine called an ion thruster that accelerates charged atoms (like xenon) out of a nozzle. If nuclear thermal propulsion is the sprint approach, nuclear electric propulsion is the marathon option. Nuclear electric propulsion produces very low thrust, but it can run continuously for years.

This fuel efficient technology is perfect for sending robot explorers or heavy cargo (like habitats and food supplies) to Mars months before the humans arrive. In deep space, a small thrust applied for a long time can matter enormously.

A chemical rocket is like a powerful kick. Nuclear electric propulsion is more like a persistent hand on the shoulder.

It could make it easier to move heavy cargo through deep space, provide abundant onboard power, and remain effective far from the Sun, where the energy available to solar arrays is weaker.

This is the main idea behind Nasa’s Space Reactor-1 Freedom mission. SR-1 Freedom is a nuclear electric propulsion mission, which Nasa is currently targeting for launch in December 2028.

It would be the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft. It will journey to Mars to prove that nuclear energy can provide the sustained, high-efficiency power needed for deep space travel.

On arrival at Mars, roughly one year after its launch, SR-1 Freedom is expected to deploy the Skyfall payload. This is a set of small helicopter drones that will scout the Martian surface.

Nasa says the mission will establish nuclear hardware that can be used on other flights. It could also create a regulatory precedent and activate an industrial base for future systems based on nuclear fission.

For human exploration, the combination of both nuclear electric propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion is very attractive. Because nuclear electric propulsion is incredibly fuel-efficient, it can move massive amounts of weight (habitats, years of food, rovers, and life-support machinery) using very little propellant.

It might not matter so much if cargo takes more than nine months to arrive on Mars. But our fragile human bodies mean that longer stays in space increase the risk of cancer from cosmic radiation and cause bone and muscle loss.

The second of these issues is because bones and muscles are not being exercised in microgravity. Nuclear thermal propulsion provides the high thrust needed to reach Mars in three to four months, drastically reducing these health risks.

Steep path

Despite the clear benefits, the path to the launch pad is steep, and the 2028 launch of SR-1 Freedom appears incredibly ambitious. A nuclear electric spacecraft needs a reactor, shielding, heat management, power conversion, radiators, electric thrusters, control systems and fault tolerance. Each of these components of the mission requires testing and careful integration for them to work together.

Reactor heat must be controlled without damaging other components. Thrusters
must operate reliably for months. Other factors can interact in ways that only emerge when spacecraft subsystems are put together. If SR-1 Freedom is to make its December 2028 window, Nasa has very little time to assemble a mission that would normally require years of design, integration and review.

Nuclear propulsion has spent more than 60 years somewhere between engineering reality and technological myth – even though the physics has always been sound.

What has proved harder is making the technology safe, affordable, licensable (able to meet regulatory safety standards) and ready to fly on a real mission schedule. So far, the US has launched only one fission reactor into orbit, SNAP-10A, in 1965.

SR-1 Freedom could create the pathway for more capable systems to follow. Nuclear electric propulsion will not make Mars easy. But it might start to break down barriers to travelling to Mars, and that is a prospect we should be excited about.

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

– ref. Nasa bets big on nuclear engines to cut journey times to Mars – https://theconversation.com/nasa-bets-big-on-nuclear-engines-to-cut-journey-times-to-mars-282748

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trudy Meehan, Lecturer, Centre for Positive Psychology and Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

Whether you call it an Irish goodbye, French leave or filer à l’anglaise (leave in the English style), as the French prefer, the act of quietly slipping out of a party without fanfare is a familiar social impulse. The Brazilians called it sair à francesa (French style), the Germans a Polnischer Abgang (Polish departure), and Australians call it ninja bombing. Whatever name it goes by, the concept is the same: one moment you’re there, the next you’ve vanished into the night without a drawn-out round of explanations, hugs and promises to catch up soon.

The pattern is telling: every culture has a term for it, and every culture blames someone else. That collective deflection suggests we already know, on some level, that slipping out unannounced is a social transgression.

But for those of us with anxiety, that silent exit isn’t rudeness. While etiquette traditionalists will probably insist that leaving without saying goodbye is a social no-no, some psychologists argue that it’s a coping strategy. Here’s why sneaking out without saying goodbye might be the healthiest decision you make all evening.

When you break it down – and let’s be honest, those of us who are anxious, introverted, neurodivergent or dealing with chronic illness have all broken this down into agonising detailed steps – saying goodbye is a loaded cultural ritual. It’s a performance that demands a high degree of social skill, accuracy and nuance.

Goodbyes are high-demand situations and, sadly, by the end of a social occasion, many of us are already depleted and don’t have the energy to handle all the steps involved.

For many of us, socialising can mean feeling overwhelmed, constantly monitoring how we come across, trying to fit into other people’s expectations, comparing ourselves to others and worrying about rejection. It can be exhausting to feel like you’re constantly trying to act like your best version of normal.

When socialising means constantly adapting yourself to other people’s expectations, the healthy choice becomes using your last bit of energy to recharge and take care of yourself. Don’t leave the party completely drained with nothing left to recover with.

Sometimes we want to leave quietly because leaving loudly feels like shouting out: “I matter! Look at me, I’m leaving!” The fact is, many of us sit with the belief that we don’t really matter that much, so we don’t say goodbye because we don’t feel we are worth the performance.

Sometimes a silent exit is about self-respect, minding your energy reserves, even if you really enjoyed the evening. At other times, though, it’s an act of self-erasure. You leave without saying goodbye because you think no one will care, that you don’t matter enough to make a fuss when leaving.

Leaving quietly can become a way to protect yourself from the discomfort of saying goodbye. But the quiet exit cuts both ways. Ask yourself whether leaving without a word made your life bigger – you conserved enough energy to recover and you’re glad to go back next time – or whether it shrank it, adding another reason to avoid socialising altogether.

If you are going to pick apart your goodbye and negatively assess it, the next goodbye will feel even harder. Be careful to reality-test your post-event ruminations. It’s usually not as bad as you think, especially if you are assessing your performance through the distorting lens of anxiety.

The healthiest choice of all

There is always a tension between wanting to belong and wanting to be yourself. If saying goodbye starts to feel so pressured and so performed that you lose any sense of being authentic, then the connection is starting to cost more than it’s worth.

If you feel like you need to be a chameleon to survive the complexities of socialising, the healthiest choice is to find a way to be who you really are. Find a way to tell your friends and family that leaving quietly is something you need because of how your nervous system and psychology are made, and not a reflection of the relationship. Research shows that being your truest self and having the best social connections go hand in hand.

And if you are neurodivergent, being open about what you need can feel like a risk, but it can also be a way to find acceptance, support and understanding when you let people know what you need and like.

If you’re anxious, it’s worth letting your host know in advance that you might need to slip away quietly. Otherwise, there’s a risk that people will read it the wrong way, as coldness or indifference, say.

Get ahead of it by letting people know you’ll leave without saying goodbye, and that you’re grateful to have been invited. Anxious people aren’t bad at relationships. Relationships just work better when everyone understands the other person’s needs.

Less is more

There’s a growing idea that being choosy about your social life isn’t antisocial – some psychologists call it “selective sociality”. Picking your moments carefully means you have more to give when it counts. The goal isn’t to retreat, but to invest in deeper relationships and in real presence, rather than the hollow churn of online contact – unless it supports meaningful connection.

In a world where being seen to do the right thing has begun to outweigh doing the right thing, selective sociality offers a way forward. Knowing our limits and being open about them, when possible, doesn’t weaken connection – it helps create relationships that feel real and sustainable.

If sneaking out without a fuss makes it more likely you will go to the next party, then it’s a choice for more social connection and therefore your health.

Trudy Meehan 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. From ‘French leave’ to ‘Irish goodbyes’: why you may be right to exit a party without saying goodbye – https://theconversation.com/from-french-leave-to-irish-goodbyes-why-you-may-be-right-to-exit-a-party-without-saying-goodbye-281994

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Basil Germond, Professor of International Security, School of Global Affairs, Lancaster University

The recent attack by Ukraine of a Russian missile-carrying corvette stationed in the Caspian Sea more than 1,500km away from Kyiv has put the spotlight on this large, often overlooked body of inland salt water.

The Caspian Sea hosts major offshore oil and gas fields and critical maritime infrastructure, including ports, pipelines and terminals that connect central Asia to global markets. It is a key node in the so-called middle corridor trading route from China to Europe via central Asia that avoid increasingly uncertain routes via Russia in the north and Iran in the south.

China views it as a key corridor for energy supplies and its belt and road initiative that is an economic statecraft strategy that uses infrastructure connectivity to expand Beijing’s influence. The middle corridor links mainland China to Europe via Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Turkey, meanwhile, uses Caspian links, especially fossil fuel transit projects, via Azerbaijan, to increase its influence across the Turkic world, becoming a regional energy hub.

The 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea sets out how the Caspian’s oil, gas, and fishing resources are divided among the bordering nations. Crucially, the agreement also prohibits the deployment of armed forces from third-party countries within the Caspian’s waters. This establishes a regional security order that excludes western military presence.

Russia’s back yard

For Russia, the Caspian Sea has a high value, both as a strategic back yard and a bridge to Iran. There, Moscow maintains the strongest navy and has used the Caspian as a platform for long‑range power projection. This has included missile strikes into other theatres, including against Islamic State targets in Syria in 2015.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Caspian Sea has also gained renewed importance as a rear maritime space for Moscow. Indeed, with the Black Sea Fleet increasingly under threat from Ukraine’s drones and missiles, elements of Russia’s naval forces have redeployed away from the contested Black Sea towards the Caspian Sea via inland waterways. That said, Ukraine’s recent attack demonstrates that the Caspian Sea’s role as a sanctuary for Russia’s naval forces is limited.

More importantly, the Caspian Sea plays a structurally important role in enabling strategic coordination between Russia and Iran. As a geographically enclosed maritime space with its own specially designed legal status, it provides a direct logistical and economic corridor between the two states that is largely shielded from western military presence and oversight.

The Russia-Iran connection

This corridor enables not only energy cooperation and trade flows but also the movement of technologies and materials relevant to sustaining both war economies under sanctions pressure. This includes sanctioned goods, drone components and dual-use technologies. The Iran war has accelerated this trading pattern.

In this sense, for the two allies, the Caspian Sea functions as a critical node in a broader resilience architecture. It reinforces bilateral alignment and reduces exposure to external coercion. Its role is therefore less tactical than systemic: it provides a stable logistical, economic and strategic framework that underpins long‑term convergence between Moscow and Tehran.

In late March 2026, Israeli airstrikes reportedly disabled dozens of Iranian Caspian naval assets, including missile boats, a corvette, a shipyard and a command centre.
The strikes are likely to have severely disrupted the Caspian logistics corridor that links Russian ports to Iran’s port at Bandar Anzali, the largest and oldest Iranian port on the Caspian Sea. It also degraded Tehran’s ability to receive supplies via this route. This could force both countries to rely more on riskier overland routes via Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan.

In other words, the Caspian’s attribute as a haven for the two allies is currently under threat. That might force Russia and Iran to spend more on multi-level air defence systems and drone monitoring. They might even need to redeploy troops and military equipment to the region. This would significantly raise the cost and complexity of using the Caspian as a safe space for mil,itary and naval assets and a bridge for trade.

The Caspian Sea has become an increasingly important strategic connector linking two conflicts that are usually thought of as separate. The war in Ukraine and the war in Iran are not isolated theatres but parts of an emerging Eurasian conflict system in which Russia and Iran are mutually dependent.

Iran’s provision of drones and other military support to Russia has directly affected the course of the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia’s diplomatic, military and economic backing is central to Iran’s capacity to withstand pressure and sustain its regional posture.

The Caspian Sea underpins this alignment by providing a relatively insulated corridor for coordination, logistics and economic exchange.

Recent events, such as Ukrainian and Israeli strikes, however, reveal the limits of this strategic function for both Moscow and Tehran. At the same time, other countries, notably China and Turkey, are investing in the middle corridor. This is raising the value of the Caspian Sea, both economically and in terms of its geographical connectivity.

The Caspian Sea faces an uncertain future. Its north–south Russia–Iran strategic and military axis is increasingly contested by their adversaries. Its east–west trade and energy role, meanwhile, holds the potential to rebalance regional power dynamics towards economic connectivity, rather than conflict. Or, to put it another way, this body of water could become either be a theatre of strategic confrontation or a corridor of trade and exchange. The latter, of course, would be better for all concerned.

Basil Germond 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 the Caspian Sea has become so important in both the Ukraine and Iran wars – https://theconversation.com/why-the-caspian-sea-has-become-so-important-in-both-the-ukraine-and-iran-wars-282781

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Ford, Professor of Biology, University of Portsmouth

Water bills are rising, public anger over sewage pollution has not abated, and the government has now set out a major overhaul of water regulation in the king’s speech.

The proposed water reform bill signals a shift in emphasis. Rather than focusing solely on water companies, the legislation aims to address pollution more broadly, including contributions from agriculture and industry. This wider lens has long been missing from water policy and is, in principle, a welcome change.

The bill also promises a more unified regulatory system. The financial regulator Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the water-related arms of the Environment Agency and Natural England would be brought together under a single regulatory umbrella. The intention is to end the fragmented oversight that has characterised the sector for decades.

These proposals follow the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission, as outlined in the 2025 Cunliffe review which critiqued England’s privatised water industry, and Labour’s white paper. Yet despite the language of reform, the vision looks less like a radical reset and more like a reboot of privatisation.

The Clean Water Now coalition – a group of over 40 environmental groups – has put forward proposals that include three main asks: to fix the system, stop the polluters and restore nature.

Public opinion polling consistently shows strong support for bringing water back into public ownership. Labour’s white paper, however, places clear emphasis on “making water a more attractive and reliable sector for investors seeking stable and fair returns”. It is this focus that will worry campaigners, as it suggests continuity with an economic model widely blamed for underinvestment, rising bills and environmental harm.

---

Read more:
No wonder England’s water needs cleaning up – most sewage discharges aren’t even classified as pollution incidents

---

The government also promises more joined‑up and longer‑term regional planning for water. Solutions don’t just involve tightening regulations and enforcement within the water industry. Everything from agricultural fertilisers, road runoff and chemical factory waste can contribute to pollution. Preventing the release of contaminants is vital, before pollution reaches the water treatment system.

But some of the most pressing challenges appear to receive surprisingly little attention. Climate change, for example, is mentioned only once in the government’s 53‑page white paper, in a brief statement about “future‑proofing” the regulatory framework against emerging pressures.

That omission matters. Changing rainfall patterns are already increasing sewage discharges, placing additional strain on ageing infrastructure. Periods of low river flow and drought make pollution events more damaging, not less, because contaminants are more concentrated in a smaller volume of water. Water scarcity, meanwhile, will intensify demand for water and competition between households, agriculture and industry. Clean water is becoming even more valuable as a commodity.

Ignored warning signs

Ofwat reports from more than 20 years ago warned that climate change would require long‑term planning and major infrastructure investment. The Ofwat annual reports for 2007-08 states: “We have also started to develop guidance for companies to assess the robustness of their infrastructure to extreme events so that they can take best account of the challenges of climate change in planning and delivering services to consumers.” The industry failed to respond and the regulator failed to regulate.

After three decades without a single new reservoir being built, the government is now legislating for several over the coming years – a tacit admission that those warnings were ignored.

The government argues that a new, integrated regulator will provide greater stability, transparency and a clearer view of both economic and environmental performance. That ambition will only be realised if transparency is actively safeguarded.

Decisions about whether revenue is directed towards shareholder returns, infrastructure investment or environmental protection will increasingly sit within a single body. This makes scrutiny of that internal decision-making crucial.

The reforms promise coherence and long‑term thinking. Whether they deliver genuine environmental improvement – or simply a more streamlined version of the status quo – will depend on how robustly the new system is designed, and whose interests it ultimately serves.

Alex Ford has received funding from UKRI research councils, EU, charities and industrial partners including the water industry.

– ref. King’s speech: much-needed water industry reforms do not go far enough – https://theconversation.com/kings-speech-much-needed-water-industry-reforms-do-not-go-far-enough-282866

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Brown, Associate Professor of Medieval History, Durham University

In our research in the British Library’s medieval collections, we have identified a previously unnoticed document that provides fresh insights into the survivors of the outbreak of plague known as the Black Death (1346–53).

The document – a scrap of parchment inserted into an account of the Ramsey Abbey manor of Warboys in Huntingdonshire – records how much time peasants were absent from work when struck down by the plague. It also reveals the names of those who survived and how long their employers believed recovery could take.

Our study sheds new light on a group of 22 tenants who probably contracted plague, languished on their sickbeds for several weeks, and then recovered.

As one of the deadliest pandemics in recorded history, it has been estimated that between a third and two-thirds of the population of medieval Europe died during the Black Death.

Given the sheer scale, many historians have focused on discovering details about those who died. Yet this has left the histories of those who contracted plague and recovered largely untold.

Despite the deadliness of the disease, it was possible to recover from plague, and medieval chroniclers mention the possibility – however unlikely – of survival. For example, Geoffrey le Baker, a clerk of Swinbrook in Oxfordshire, wrote in the following decade that he thought recovery depended on people’s symptoms:

People who one day had been full of happiness, on the next were found dead. Some were tormented by boils which broke out suddenly in various parts of the body, and were so hard and dry that when they were lanced hardly any liquid flowed out. Many of these people escaped, by lancing the boils or by long suffering. Other victims had little black pustules scattered over the skin of the whole body. Of these people very few, indeed hardly any, recovered life and health.

But who recovered? Why did so many succumb to the disease when others survived? And just how long was this “long suffering”? Unfortunately, there is remarkably little documentary evidence because most medieval sources record information about mortality rather than ill health.

Unique list of plague survivors

A unique inclusion in the account of the manor of Warboys details a group of people who fell ill between the end of April and the start of August 1349. The monks of Ramsey Abbey wrote a list of their tenants who had fallen sufficiently sick that they could not work on the lord’s lands and detailed the length of time that they were absent.

People were clearly affected differently by their experience of plague.

The quickest recovery was that of Henry Broun who missed just a single week of work. By contrast, John Derworth and Agnes Mold had much more protracted illnesses and were both absent for nine weeks.

The average length of illness was between three and four weeks, with three-quarters of people returning to work in under a month. The speed of their recoveries is all the more surprising given that they were entitled to up to a year and a day of sick leave from work.

This list of survivors includes a preponderance of tenants who occupied larger holdings on the manor. It has long been debated by historians and archaeologists whether the plague killed indiscriminately, with no regard to status, sex or age, or whether the poor and elderly were more vulnerable.

The survival of so many wealthier tenants could indicate that their higher living standards enabled them to recover more readily than their poorer neighbours, perhaps because they were able to stave off secondary infections and complications. We should not read any significance into the fact that 19 out of the 22 people were men: this reflects the gender bias of manorial landholding rather than any sex-selectivity of plague.

Although 22 people may not seem like many, in a regular year during the 1340s, only two or three absences were recorded during the summer months. It, therefore, represents a tenfold increase in regular illnesses on the manor. Put another way, these sick tenants were absent for 91 weeks’ worth of labour services during just a 13-week period.

Our understanding of the impact of the Black Death has been influenced by the appalling scale of death. Yet it is only when we add those who fell ill and recovered back into the picture that we can truly understand the seismic shock the pandemic had on society. The dead, dying and sick must have considerably outnumbered the living in villages and cities across Europe.

The consequences of this can be seen in medieval accounts and chronicles, one of which records that “there was so great a shortage of servants and labourers that there was no one who knew what needed to be done”. As a result of this combination of high mortality, unprecedented illness and abysmal weather, the two harvests of 1349 and 1350 have been described as the worst experienced in medieval England, worse even than those that caused the great famine of 1315-17.

This archival discovery allows us to write the history of sickness and recovery back into the Black Death, demonstrating that recovery was possible even during one of the worst pandemics in recorded history.

This new evidence reveals the remarkable resilience of medieval peasants. Many of them lay languishing on their sickbeds, exhibiting buboes (the painful, swollen and inflamed lymph nodes on the groin and neck that were typical of the Black Death), vomiting blood and wracked by fevers and not only survived but returned to work in just a few short weeks.

Research for this article was conducted thanks to funding from a Leverhulme Trust research project grant, ‘Modelling the Black Death and Social Connectivity in Medieval England’.

Dr Grace Owen is a postdoctoral research associate on the Leverhulme-Trust funded project, ‘Modelling the Black Death and Social Connectivity in Medieval England’.

– ref. What a list of Black Death survivors reveals about the way people recovered from plague – https://theconversation.com/what-a-list-of-black-death-survivors-reveals-about-the-way-people-recovered-from-plague-275622

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nye Davies, Lecturer in Politics, Cardiff University

May 7 will go down as the worst election in the history of Welsh Labour. More than a century of electoral dominance ended with the party sitting in opposition in the Senedd (Welsh parliament) for the first time.

Given Welsh Labour’s once-hegemonic position, the scale of the defeat is astonishing. This was not simply a loss, but a collapse. The party now holds just nine seats in the Senedd, with few new figures emerging to shape its future direction.

The unavoidable question is where Welsh Labour goes from here, and whether it can recover.

The answer depends not simply on new policies or a change of leader, but on whether the party is capable of a genuine reckoning with both its ideological direction and the consequences of nearly three decades in government. That process will be difficult while Welsh Labour remains divided between its Westminster wing in London and its devolved leadership in Cardiff Bay.

Adaptation and exhaustion

No party in the democratic world has enjoyed such sustained dominance as Labour in Wales. As the political scientist T.J. Pempel has argued, dominant parties survive by remaining flexible and evolving into broad “catch-all” movements capable of appealing to diverse groups of voters.

For years, Welsh Labour did just that. The party normalised a form of progressive Welsh identity politics that stopped short of supporting independence, while reshaping debates around devolution, national identity and governance. In doing so, it assembled a broad coalition of centre-left and Welsh-identifying voters.

Yet the political terrain Welsh Labour helped create has also exposed its vulnerabilities. Having pushed this soft nationalist positioning as far as it could, tensions with the UK Labour party has weakened Welsh Labour’s ability to sustain a convincing message about “standing up for Wales”.

And having made those ideas politically mainstream, the party now struggles to present itself as their most credible champion. Plaid Cymru has increasingly occupied the political space Welsh Labour once helped define.

At the same time, the wider UK Labour party under prime minister Keir Starmer has struggled to respond effectively to the rise of Reform UK. Its rightward shift on issues such as immigration, combined with a broader lack of ideological clarity, has alienated some progressive voters and encouraged others to look elsewhere on the left.

This has left Welsh Labour politically squeezed. Its rhetoric about “standing up for Wales” increasingly rings hollow, while Plaid Cymru advances a left-leaning platform explicitly framed around Welsh interests and greater autonomy from Westminster. For many voters, the question has become: what is the point of Welsh Labour?

Learning to lose

Defeat, however, need not be fatal.

Dominant parties elsewhere, such as the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, have recovered by learning to lose and realigning with new political realities. But such renewal requires leadership, ideas and organisational coherence. Welsh Labour currently lacks all three.

Dominance has hollowed out and inhibited the party’s intellectual capacity. Former first minister Mark Drakeford arguably shaped Welsh Labour’s political identity throughout much of the devolution era. But his retirement has left a vacuum, with no obvious successor providing ideological direction.

The party can also no longer rely on claims of administrative competence and delivery after voters rejected that argument at the ballot box. Incumbency became a burden.

---

Read more:
The Welsh Conservatives survived the Senedd election – now they must decide what they stand for

---

These weaknesses are compounded by the lack of fresh voices in the Senedd group. With Ken Skates installed as interim leader, the party currently offers continuity at precisely the moment reinvention is needed. It illustrates how decades of dominance narrowed, rather than renewed, the pool of credible alternatives.

More damaging is the intensifying internal conflict within Welsh Labour. In the aftermath of defeat, long-running tensions between Labour politicians in Cardiff Bay and Westminster have become increasingly public.

Former Welsh government minister Mick Antoniw described the defeat as having been “manufactured in Downing Street”. Meanwhile the UK government’s secretary of state for Wales Jo Stevens has laid the blame at the door of the Welsh government.

While the Welsh government must accept responsibility for the failures of 27 years of government, Stevens’ post-mortem fails to mention Keir Starmer once. It is an incredible oversight considering the scale of his unpopularity.

The UK government’s at-times-hostile attitude to further devolution – alongside disputes over rail funding linked to the HS2 project – have further eroded the perception that Labour stands up for Wales.

Far from offering a self-reflective post-mortem, Stevens’ intervention risks deepening, rather than resolving, Welsh Labour’s internal tensions.

An existential moment

This is Welsh Labour’s core dilemma. If it is to recover, it must undergo a period of serious reckoning with its record, its ideological direction and the consequences of dominance. But without resolving the tension between its Westminster and Welsh wings, that process appears unlikely.

Welsh and UK politics have changed dramatically. Nationalist parties now dominate the three devolved legislatures, and the Labour party is in crisis. This reflects a wider shift in which Labour increasingly governs as an English party, with Welsh voices peripheral. For a party that has shaped Welsh politics for more than a century, this moment is existential.

Unless Welsh Labour confronts this reality and reconciles its divisions, learning to lose will be difficult. Defeat will not be a prelude to renewal, but the start of a more terminal decline.

Nye 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. After a complete collapse, where does Welsh Labour go from here? – https://theconversation.com/after-a-complete-collapse-where-does-welsh-labour-go-from-here-282615