Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Moore, Senior Lecturer in Political Communication Education, King’s College London

Brazilians have been strikingly divided in their response to the trial and conviction of their former president Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup after his 2022 election defeat. A poll conducted shortly before the September 11 verdict found that 48% wanted to see Bolsonaro imprisoned while an almost equal proportion – 46% – wanted him to remain free.

A separate survey in late August suggested that, were a new presidential election held, 45.4% would vote for Bolsonaro and 44.6% for the incumbent president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. For half of Brazilians, it would appear, the conviction of Bolsonaro was a just end for a would-be dictator. For the other half it was a politically motivated leftwing witch hunt.

The persistent loyalty of so many Brazilians to Bolsonaro seems illogical if one looks at the evidence gathered against him. The former president was shown to have considered numerous alternative ways of staying in power.

These included issuing decrees to stay in office and summoning military leaders to formalise the coup. He was also found to have endorsed a plan to assassinate Lula and his vice-president elect, Geraldo Alckmin, as well as supreme court judge Alexandre de Moraes. This was all covered extensively across Brazil’s mainstream media outlets.

Added to this is the evidence accumulated during Bolsonaro’s term of office (2019-22) that he used “digital militias” to take down his enemies, propagated “fake news” on a vast scale and pursued “antidemocratic acts” against Brazil’s institutions. When taken together, it becomes more surprising that so many Brazilians do not accept his guilt.

However, their denial makes more sense when you look at where Brazilians find their news and information. Many people in Brazil have abandoned legacy media almost entirely and rely on social media, influencers and WhatsApp for their news. Over 90% of Brazil’s adult population are active WhatsApp users.

Conscious of this, Bolsonaro and his administration built and maintained a parallel information ecosystem while in office based around social media and messaging services. This digital ecosystem comprised a vast network of alternative news sites, YouTube channels, social media influencers, Facebook pages, WhatsApp administrators and legions of bots.

Official investigations later revealed that the system was coordinated by the so-called Hate Cabinet, which was run by Bolsonaro’s sons, Carlos and Eduardo, and leading advisers such as Felipe Martins. The Hate Cabinet earned its nickname because the operation’s primary strategy was personal attack.

Whenever anyone criticised the administration, challenged Bolsonaro or showed signs of disloyalty, the Hate Cabinet would orchestrate a vicious campaign against them. This could include false claims about corruption, criminal activity or sexual impropriety, combined with threats of violence.

Joice Hasselmann, a Brazilian politician who fell out with Bolsonaro, was sent a severed pig’s head in November 2018 along with a note reading: “You will suffer and you will die”. These “reputation killings” were used to discredit a wide range of people, from journalists and judges to opposition ministers. The intention was to scare them into silence.

The information operations of the Bolsonaro administration went well beyond reputation killings. With its network of close supporters, the administration sought to undermine public confidence in Brazil’s democratic institutions and processes. This included the judiciary, mainstream media and electoral system.

They smeared supreme court justices whenever the judges made decisions with which they disagreed, while dismissing journalistic investigations as politically motivated “cultural Marxism”. They also questioned the integrity of Brazil’s electronic voting machines.

Bolsonaro’s alternative ecosystem

This parallel information ecosystem was highly sophisticated and carefully coordinated. A “news story” would be given to an alternative news site by the Bolsonaro camp, then quickly reproduced on other sites. This gave the misleading impression that the story was legitimate breaking news rather than a smear campaign by Bolsonaro insiders.

Links were then posted to the articles by a network of influencers, which was amplified by bots. Tens of thousands of WhatsApp groups were also set up, led by Bolsonaristas – unofficial Bolsonaro supporters who organised themselves according to military ranks. They disseminated content to their millions of followers.

The effort was funded largely by regime-friendly business people who wanted to keep Lula’s leftwing Workers’ party (PT) out of power. But funding also came via online advertising, some of it paid for covertly by the Bolsonaro government.

Bolsonaro’s alternative ecosystem failed to get him reelected – just. He lost to Lula by 49% to 51% in the second round of voting in October 2022. But it succeeded in undermining trust in the electoral process and in Brazil’s democratic institutions. It also succeeded in nurturing a society riven in two – where the two halves not only have different political views but live in different political realities.

Moreover, Bolsonaro showed how malleable the new digital information environment could be for those who want to construct alternate realities. And, as we show in our forthcoming book, Dictating Reality: The Global Battle to Control the News, such parallel realities are increasingly evident in democracies across the world.

A growing number of leaders and parties are manipulating the digital communication environment to promote whatever narrative serves them best.

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. Why Brazilians have been so divided in their reaction to Bolsonaro’s conviction – https://theconversation.com/why-brazilians-have-been-so-divided-in-their-reaction-to-bolsonaros-conviction-265419

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rory McCarthy, Associate Professor in Politics and Islam, Durham University

As the Israeli military advances its ground invasion of Gaza City, Egypt is coming under mounting pressure to accept a mass expulsion of Palestinians.

The Israeli military has already confined Gaza’s 2.2 million Palestinians into a small area of the occupied strip. And the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has now accused Egypt of choosing “to imprison residents in Gaza who would prefer to leave the war zone”.

US president Donald Trump has also supported the idea of forcing out the Palestinians. In February, he made the extraordinary proposal that Egypt and Jordan should accept all of Gaza’s population and said the enclave should be rebuilt as a “riviera”.

Egypt responded quickly by drafting an Arab-funded plan to reconstruct Gaza for the Palestinians. The project was soon taken up and advanced by the Arab League, with UK and European support. However, it was rejected by both Israel and the US.

Egypt’s leaders have since hardened their position against Israel over its brutal war, which the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry has just concluded constitutes genocide.

---

Read more:
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, says UN commission. But will it make any difference?

---

There are three primary reasons why Egypt objects to any expulsion of Palestinians. First, Cairo argues it cannot be complicit in what would amount to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, a grave violation of international law.

Forcing Palestinians out of Gaza would erode any remaining prospect of Palestinian statehood. Previous forced expulsions of Palestinians in the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948, and again in the 1967 war between Israel and its neighbours, proved permanent. Many of the Palestinians in Gaza are already from refugee families who were displaced from their homes in pre-1948 Palestine.

As Egypt’s foreign minister, Badr Abdelatty, warned in early September: “Displacement is not an option and it is a red line for Egypt, and we will not allow it to happen.” Jordan’s King Abdullah has been just as firm in opposing the expulsion of Palestinians into his country.

Second, the sudden arrival of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, possibly including Hamas fighters, would present an immediate security concern. Egyptian security forces have long confronted a local Islamist insurgency in the northern Sinai desert near Gaza.

Egypt deployed more troops into the Sinai in 2024 after Israeli forces seized control of the Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow strip of land along Egypt’s border with Gaza. Egypt said Israel’s move violated their peace treaty. More Egyptian troops were mobilised ahead of the Gaza City offensive.

Third, a mass influx of refugees would create serious instability and incur heavy costs. Egypt already hosts at least 9 million migrants, including around 150,000 Palestinians.

The state has also suffered economic losses from Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and, in 2024, was forced to expand a loan from the International Monetary Fund to as much as US$8 billion (£5.9 billion) to rescue its ailing economy.

Egypt-Israeli relations

Egyptian president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who Trump once described as his “favourite dictator”, has toughened his position against Israel. In July, he called on Trump to use his political influence to end the war and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. He also accused Israel of mounting a “systematic war of genocide”.

Then, at a recent Arab-Islamic summit in the Qatari capital Doha, Sisi described Israel as “the enemy”. He and other Arab leaders warned their existing peace agreements with Israel were now at risk.

Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, after the Camp David Accords. But it has been a cold peace. Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 in part because he signed the normalisation deal.

The hardening in Sisi’s rhetoric comes after Israel’s brazen attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar on September 9, which revealed the hollowness of the US security guarantee for its Gulf allies. The strike raised concerns of further Israeli attacks on Hamas leaders elsewhere in the Middle East, possibly including Cairo.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian government has faced escalating anger at home over the war. In July, protesters attacked a police station in the town of Helwan, south of Cairo, demanding their government open the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Sisi’s authoritarian regime, which relies on coercion to survive, has moved to stifle pro-Palestinian protests. It has even reportedly forced the leading cleric at Al-Azhar university to withdraw a statement condemning the starvation of Palestinians.

But Egypt’s peace treaty has tied it into complex obligations with both Israel and the US. Egypt relies on US$1.5 billion in annual aid from the US, most of it in military support, in return for upholding the agreement. Egypt and Israel coordinate on security and, for many months, worked together on negotiations with Hamas to establish a ceasefire and an end to the Gaza conflict.

The two states are also economically linked. An Egyptian firm signed a US$35 billion deal in August to import natural gas from Israel to avoid blackouts in hot summer temperatures. That deal alone provides around one-fifth of Egypt’s gas needs. Reports suggest Israel has now threatened to suspend the deal as tensions between the two countries mount.

Egypt will be calculating whether losing this financial aid and these gas imports would be less costly than giving in to an Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza.

Rory McCarthy receives funding for his academic research from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust.

– ref. Why Egypt is not bowing to pressure to accept Palestinian refugees – https://theconversation.com/why-egypt-is-not-bowing-to-pressure-to-accept-palestinian-refugees-265517

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas Dickinson, Lecturer in Politics, University of Exeter

Conservative party leader David Cameron gave a speech in 2007 on social justice which is remembered as the “hug a hoodie” moment. In it, he laid out the foundations of what would become the “big society” social programme and called for more compassion towards young people. The speech was written by his adviser Danny Kruger – the MP who has just defected to Nigel Farage’s Reform party.

Back then, Kruger, Philip Blond and Steve Hilton were seen as the key intellectual forces behind compassionate conservatism. But we now realise that the big society was really informed by a much darker vision of society than the hug a hoodie speech implied.

It was based on the belief that the country had been hollowed out by the moral vacuousness of governments (both left and right) since the 1960s. The picture the Conservatives painted even at the time was not one of optimism and progress but of crisis and decline.

This was exemplified by Kruger in particular. As he puts it in his essay On Fraternity, published the same year as Cameron’s speech: “Our culture is in the grip of this pernicious alliance, between … self-seeking individualism … and the bloated, all-aggrandising, all-powerful state … Between the two, society is being squeezed to death.” The political left is apportioned the majority of the blame for this state of affairs.

Blond was critical of every post-war government for creating a managerial welfare state which destroyed the old mutualism of the British working class while facilitating social permissiveness. This, he thought, had led to the commodification of sex and the creation of “empty pleasure-seeking drones” who looked to the state to solve problems. Today the right calls this being an NPC – a non-player character.

As a result of his links to Cameron, Blond became a feted public intellectual, founding a think-tank to promote his ideas. Kruger, meanwhile, pursued a career in the third sector before moving into politics. He became an MP in 2019 after a stint at the pro-Brexit Legatum institute.

Reading Cameron’s speech alongside Kruger’s essay today reveals not a coherent political philosophy but a carefully sanitised version of traditional conservatism designed for public consumption. What emerges is not genuine conservative compassion, but social conservativism dressed in progressive language.

The vanishing act

Kruger’s essay is replete with references to classic thinkers and concerns itself primarily with the abstract concept of fraternal bonds in society. Like Cameron, he defines British nationalism as primarily civic and not ethnic. Yet cultural change, including immigration’s effect on social cohesion, are rarely far from the surface.

He identifies “the presence of large communities with different national origins” as one of Britain’s three major challenges, contrasting today’s diversity with an allegedly more homogeneous past. This anxiety about rapid demographic change runs quietly throughout his analysis of social breakdown.

Cameron’s speech, by contrast, made these concerns disappear almost entirely. While discussing youth crime he avoids any suggestion that cultural diversity might complicate social cohesion. The “hoodie” instead becomes a deracinated symbol of alienated youth. Likewise, Cameron avoided golden age rhetoric by focusing entirely on the present and future.

Both texts struggle with a fundamental question: who gets to define the social values that supposedly bind communities together? Kruger writes extensively about “social authority” but rarely distinguishes benevolent community pressure from oppressive conformity except by implication. His requirement that “acts of public liberty” be “compatible with the interests and values of British society as a whole” sounds reasonable until you ask who determines that compatibility.

Cameron dodges this entirely by focusing on consensual values as well as, somewhat ironically, an appeal to expertise. But serious social problems often involve contested values around family structure, sexual morality, work ethic, and cultural integration. Compassionate conservatism had no mechanism for addressing these conflicts beyond hoping voluntary organisations would somehow resolve them.

This vagueness wasn’t accidental. It was essential to the compassionate conservative project. Specific policies force difficult choices between competing values. Better to speak in generalities about “love” and “relationships” while avoiding the hard questions about resources, priorities and trade-offs.

The collapse of compassionate conservatism

Understanding the collapse of compassionate conservatism requires recognising its primary function: electoral coalition-building. It allowed conservatives to appeal to socially liberal voters while maintaining traditional supporters. The problem is that this coalition was always unstable because it papered over genuine philosophical disagreements rather than resolving them.

Kruger’s defection represents the collapse of this synthesis. When migration pressures intensified, cultural conflicts sharpened, and mainstream conservative parties failed to address underlying tensions, the intellectual architects of compassionate conservatism abandoned the project for more explicitly populist alternatives.

Hilton abandoned British politics in the 2010s for Fox News, eventually siding with Trump and the MAGA movement. He is presently running for governor of California against progressive incumbent Gavin Newsom.

Blond still comments on British politics, using his X account in support of a variety of socially conservative positions on abortion, assisted dying, and trans rights. Today he believes the “most oppressed groups in the UK are white working-class males”, though he still interprets this as a progressive position.

Cameron’s speech worked as political rhetoric because it tells everyone what they want to hear – conservatives get individual responsibility and support for voluntary organisations, while progressives get structural understanding and emotional empathy. But when it comes to actual governance, these tensions become impossible to ignore.

Compassionate conservatism wasn’t a serious attempt to synthesise liberty and social justice. It was a marketing campaign that promised voters they could have conservative economics and progressive social policy simultaneously. The intellectual incoherence was a feature, not a bug. Politicians could avoid making difficult choices by pretending they didn’t exist.

The result was a politics of good intentions that consistently failed to deliver meaningful change, leaving both conservative and progressive goals unmet. Now that the electoral rewards of this approach have diminished, even its creators seem to have moved on to more authentic (or lucrative) expressions of their actual beliefs.

Nicholas Dickinson 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. The latest Tory defector to Reform wrote David Cameron’s ‘hug a hoodie’ speech – here’s why that matters now – https://theconversation.com/the-latest-tory-defector-to-reform-wrote-david-camerons-hug-a-hoodie-speech-heres-why-that-matters-now-265561

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

A recent episode on the West Bank when hundreds of Palestinian men were detained by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has highlighted the IDF’s tactic of “collective punishment”. This is defined as “a form of sanction imposed on persons or a group of persons in response to a crime committed by one of them or a member of the group”. Is it illegal under international humanitarian law.

Acting in response to the detonation of “an explosive device”, which hit a military vehicle and injured two soldiers, IDF troops are reported to have arrested about 1,500 men in the city of Tulkarem in the northern West Bank. Troops imposed a curfew and sealed off entrances to the city.

A Telegram message posted by the IDF reported that “soldiers are encircling the city, conducting roadblocks and inspections in the area”. Footage shared by residents showed soldiers marching Palestinians in lines through the streets.

These events came just days after six Israelis were killed and 12 were injured in Jerusalem, when two Palestinians boarded a bus and opened fire. In response, the IDF began laying siege on the villages from which the shooters came. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowed that: “We will get everyone who helped them, everyone who sent them, and we will carry out even tougher measures.”

Defence minister Israel Katz subsequently ordered sanctions to be imposed on the two villages where the gunmen lived. The Independent has reported that this included the demolition of their homes and every structure in the two villages that had been built without a permit. In addition, 750 Palestinians will also have their permits to work in Israel revoked.

Israel has operated a policy of collective punishment for decades. Israeli human rights organisations B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, and Yesh-Din: Volunteers for Human Rights, have documented these policies which include curfews, roadblocks, house demolitions, administrative detention and expulsion. In these cases, individuals who have done no wrong are intentionally harmed, thus defying the law.

The legal debate

The West Bank – and the Gaza Strip until 2005 – are defined as “Occupied Territories” under international law. This means that they are governed by laws of occupation as laid down by the law of international armed conflict. These are codified in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which sets down the laws for treatment of civilians in warfare.

They also draw on customary international humanitarian law to protect those living under occupation and to determine the obligations of the occupying force. Following two rulings by the International Court of Justice in 2004 and 2005, international human rights law also became applicable to Occupied Territories.

Thus, Israel is subject to article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that “no protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or terrorism are prohibited”.

However, certain clauses within the laws recognise the legitimacy of the occupying force to protect its own security against what is likely to be a hostile population. The rights of the occupied population are therefore balanced against the security of the occupying population.

On this basis, the Israeli army claims that the measures they impose following an attack is to deter other Palestinians from carrying out similar attacks. They are therefore justified out of military necessity. The Israeli high court of justice (HCJ) has ruled, more often than not, that the demolition of the house of an assailant, even if other family members also live there, is legal. This is because of its deterrence potential.

Despite this legal wrangling, my research into the relationship between human rights and the law in Israel and Palestine discovered various reports that have questioned the HCJ’s independence. They argue that since it is an institution within the system of occupation, it does not have the neutrality to assess such cases.

B’Tselem reported that the HCJ often “accepts the state’s position and engages in legal acrobatics in order to sanction a severe violation of human rights”. Similarly, a report by Palestinian human rights organisation, Al-Haq, reached the same conclusion. It said the HCJ “tends to endorse the position of the Israeli military and government authorities through flawed and often politically subservient legal reasoning”.

Given the flaws in appealing to the HCJ, it’s more appropriate to look to international law to determine the legality of Israel’s actions. The International Red Cross makes clear that under international law any form of “sanction, harassment or administrative action taken against a group in retaliation for an act committed by an individual/s who are considered to form part of the group” is illegal.

If justice is to be served, these acts of collective punishment – which, based on international humanitarian law, appear to qualify as potential war crimes – need to be tested in a court or tribunal.

Leonie Fleischmann 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. What international law says about Israel’s collective punishments against Palestinian civilians – https://theconversation.com/what-international-law-says-about-israels-collective-punishments-against-palestinian-civilians-265510

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anthony Bloxham, Lecturer in Psychology, Nottingham Trent University

Why do we dream? Vishnu, aged nine, Kerala

That’s a really interesting question, and people have been asking it for thousands of years. But it’s difficult to answer because dreams are difficult to study scientifically.

Think about it: how easy do you find it to remember your dreams every night? Not everyone can do this. If we can’t remember our dreams, we can’t study them.

---

Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation that gives children the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.com and make sure you include the asker’s first name, age and town or city. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we’ll do our very best.

---

Some ancient cultures like the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans believed that dreams were important messages from the gods. But even they could not agree about exactly where dreams come from, why they happen or what they might mean.

In the last 100 years, many scientists across the world have learned a lot about the science of dreaming. But even still, there is disagreement.

Some scientists think dreams have an important job, others do not. I’ll explain some of the most well-known ideas.

Around the year 1900, an Austrian psychologist (someone who studies how we think) called Sigmund Freud published an influential book called The Interpretation of Dreams. In it, Freud wrote about his experiences of talking to other people about their dreams (and his own dreams too).

He believed that dreams came from wishes or desires buried deep in the mind. He thought these wishes were usually transformed in some way to disguise them in the dream, as they could be quite scary or rude.

Freud would help people to work out what these hidden wishes and desires might be, so they could address them in waking life. He also wrote that dreams are a part of the process that helps keep us asleep, that dreams protect sleep from disturbances. And there is some evidence to support that idea.

Freud’s ideas had a great influence on thinking about dreams for many decades. But since Freud’s time, we have learned much more about how sleep works. And that has inspired new ideas about what dreams might (or might not) be doing.

In the 1970s, scientists like Allan Hobson started to reject Freud’s ideas about dreams, and suggested that perhaps dreams don’t do anything important. In Hobson’s view, dreams had no hidden meaning or function to them.

He thought they might just be random side-effects of chemical processes going on in the brain during sleep. It is one good explanation for why dreams often seem so strange. Hobson thought little bits and pieces of knowledge and imagination get activated and merge together meaninglessly.

But other scientists since then have noticed that not all dreams are strange. Many of them are in fact quite ordinary, and some have content that is important to the dreamer.

Perhaps you have dreamed about something that happened in your life recently, like a fun day out with your school friends or family, or maybe you dreamed you were in a film you watched the day before.

We often dream about things that had a significant effect on us in waking life, or are related to worries we carry with us. And this I think is the most important thing we need to realise: our dreams are connected with our waking lives.

Some scientists now believe that dreaming about these things might help us to process them, or give us new ideas about what to do in our waking life. This is still difficult to test though. Whether or not this is what dreams are really doing by themselves, you have the choice to look at your dreams and decide what new ideas you can draw from them.

Another interesting idea is that dreams evolved long ago to help us survive threats. A lot of people seem to report dreaming about being chased by monsters or dangerous animals. Maybe you have too.

Some scientists see this as evidence for a threat simulation system that emerged back when we were living in caves and had to hunt for our food while trying not to be hunted ourselves.

If we survive a threatening encounter in a dream, that could better prepare us for surviving real threats when we are awake. The problem with this idea though is that it is too dangerous to test properly.

Even if someone dreams about fighting a tiger, for example, scientists cannot then lock people in a cage with a real tiger and see how well they survive!

That’s one of the exciting things about being a scientist. There are still lots of questions to answer and we’re learning new things all the time.

Anthony Bloxham 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. Curious kids: why do we dream? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-we-dream-264817

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dominique Townsend, Visiting Researcher, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton

At the end of the last ice age, billions of boulders and cobbles were left scattered over southern Scandinavia. Huge ice sheets had dragged the rocks from mountainous regions further north down to the Baltic Sea areas. When those ice sheets retreated and sea levels rose, these colossal boulders became rocky reefs, rich with marine life. These rocks formed part of a naturally resilient coast, proving a rugged structure for waves to break and reducing pressure on the seashore.

For centuries these reefs have been exploited as building materials. This practice of “stonefishing” occurred extensively across Denmark and was only banned in 2010 by which time the rocky shore had been depleted, leaving only smaller rocks on the seabed. Now that it’s illegal, Denmark is scrambling to recover marine life and prepare for rising sea levels by restoring these reefs.

In the century between 1900 and 2000, approximately 8.3 million cubic metres of rock covering an area of about 21 square miles were extracted from Danish shallow coastal waters for building purposes on land. Although this is a relatively small area, boulder reefs are biological hotspots, supporting hundreds of marine species. These rocky reefs act as a base for everything from oysters to seaweed to thrive, plus a safe haven for young fish.

---

Read more:
How Denmark’s oysters are transforming foodies into citizen scientists

---

Now numerous projects are being carried out to bring the stones back to coastal areas. At least eight stone reef restoration projects are currently underway, with the earliest having begun even before stonefishing was prohibited. The first project happened in northern Denmark, conveniently close to Norway where a quarry provided the needed rocks. Since then, interest in restoring lost reefs has grown tremendously.

The restoration projects reveal that marine life returns when given the time, space and right conditions to do so. Seaweed forests recover, creating necessary structural complexity and associated species reenter the restored areas. Atlantic cod, once a culturally and economically important species in the region, are especially attracted to the restored reefs. One study showed cod numbers increased by 60-129 fold over the course of the five to six months after a rock reef was rebuilt.

While working on a stone reef restoration project on the island of Als, in southern Denmark, one of us (Jon C. Svendsen) spotted an opportunity. With rising sea levels, weather getting more severe and being a low-lying country, Denmark is becoming increasingly concerned with coastal erosion. Rocky reefs can help dissipate wave energy, providing a form of protection and so it just made sense to combine the two.

Although Denmark is not as low lying as the nearby Netherlands, the coastline is 4,600 miles long. This makes it one of the longest coastlines in Europe, with around 40% of the population living within a couple of miles of the sea. As sea levels rise, larger waves will be able to reach the shore, leading to increased risk of flooding and erosion, especially on coasts with very small variation in tide levels such as Denmark.

Our stone barrier reef project tests the idea of combining both the protection of the coastline and enhance biodiversity along a section of coast on the island of Samsø. The boulder reef was constructed earlier this year, and extends about 100m long and 16m wide. Sitting roughly 1m below the sea surface, it resembles a medieval rock wall rising from the seabed and runs parallel to the shore.

This reef design is expected to partially shelter the coastline from waves, causing large waves to break along its crest. This reduces the amount of energy available for coastal erosion and encourages the build up of sediment. It is hoped that within this newly created sheltered area, meadows of seagrass (a marine flowering plant) can colonise and flourish.

We’ll be monitoring the progress through an extensive monitoring programme, recording changes in species richness and the sea bed. By snorkelling, we can survey the changes in marine plant and animal life. Underwater cameras will be used to unobtrusively identify and count the number of species moving around the reef over the next three years. With evidence of how marine life recovers, we’ll explore whether these rocky reefs can jointly stabilise the coastline and improve biodiversity in the area.

Globally the fundamental problem with coastal management is that we cannot see vast changes as they occur below the sea surface. Various initiatives across the UK are also trying to make amends for the large historic loss of marine habitats.

Oyster reefs are one such example. Following the collapse of the oyster industry in the 1980s, there are now more than a dozen restoration projects underway in a bid to restore populations of these ecologically and environmentally important species. By working with nature, not extracting from it, we finally stand a chance of building truly resilient coastlines.

---

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

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

---

Jon C. Svendsen receives funding from the Velux Foundation and Vattenfall to conduct the BARREEF project.
Research is further funded by A) the Danish Rod and Net Fish License Funds, Denmark, B) the Horizon Europe project MARHAB (grant no. 101135307) (Improving marine habitat status by considering ecosystem dynamics), and C) the BlueBioClimate project (Interreg, grant no. 2021TC16RFCB025).

Dominique Townsend 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. Stones have been ‘overfished’ from the sea – here’s how Denmark’s rocky reefs are being restored – https://theconversation.com/stones-have-been-overfished-from-the-sea-heres-how-denmarks-rocky-reefs-are-being-restored-263151

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicholas Dickinson, Lecturer in Politics, University of Exeter

Conservative party leader David Cameron gave a speech in 2007 on social justice which is remembered as the “hug a hoodie” moment. In it, he laid out the foundations of what would become the “big society” social programme and called for more compassion towards young people. The speech was written by his adviser Danny Kruger – the MP who has just defected to Nigel Farage’s Reform party.

Back then, Kruger, Philip Blond and Steve Hilton were seen as the key intellectual forces behind compassionate conservatism. But we now realise that the big society was really informed by a much darker vision of society than the hug a hoodie speech implied.

It was based on the belief that the country had been hollowed out by the moral vacuousness of governments (both left and right) since the 1960s. The picture the Conservatives painted even at the time was not one of optimism and progress but of crisis and decline.

This was exemplified by Kruger in particular. As he puts it in his essay On Fraternity, published the same year as Cameron’s speech: “Our culture is in the grip of this pernicious alliance, between … self-seeking individualism … and the bloated, all-aggrandising, all-powerful state … Between the two, society is being squeezed to death.” The political left is apportioned the majority of the blame for this state of affairs.

Blond was critical of every post-war government for creating a managerial welfare state which destroyed the old mutualism of the British working class while facilitating social permissiveness. This, he thought, had led to the commodification of sex and the creation of “empty pleasure-seeking drones” who looked to the state to solve problems. Today the right calls this being an NPC – a non-player character.

As a result of his links to Cameron, Blond became a feted public intellectual, founding a think-tank to promote his ideas. Kruger, meanwhile, pursued a career in the third sector before moving into politics. He became an MP in 2019 after a stint at the pro-Brexit Legatum institute.

Reading Cameron’s speech alongside Kruger’s essay today reveals not a coherent political philosophy but a carefully sanitised version of traditional conservatism designed for public consumption. What emerges is not genuine conservative compassion, but social conservativism dressed in progressive language.

The vanishing act

Kruger’s essay is replete with references to classic thinkers and concerns itself primarily with the abstract concept of fraternal bonds in society. Like Cameron, he defines British nationalism as primarily civic and not ethnic. Yet cultural change, including immigration’s effect on social cohesion, are rarely far from the surface.

He identifies “the presence of large communities with different national origins” as one of Britain’s three major challenges, contrasting today’s diversity with an allegedly more homogeneous past. This anxiety about rapid demographic change runs quietly throughout his analysis of social breakdown.

Cameron’s speech, by contrast, made these concerns disappear almost entirely. While discussing youth crime he avoids any suggestion that cultural diversity might complicate social cohesion. The “hoodie” instead becomes a deracinated symbol of alienated youth. Likewise, Cameron avoided golden age rhetoric by focusing entirely on the present and future.

Both texts struggle with a fundamental question: who gets to define the social values that supposedly bind communities together? Kruger writes extensively about “social authority” but rarely distinguishes benevolent community pressure from oppressive conformity except by implication. His requirement that “acts of public liberty” be “compatible with the interests and values of British society as a whole” sounds reasonable until you ask who determines that compatibility.

Cameron dodges this entirely by focusing on consensual values as well as, somewhat ironically, an appeal to expertise. But serious social problems often involve contested values around family structure, sexual morality, work ethic, and cultural integration. Compassionate conservatism had no mechanism for addressing these conflicts beyond hoping voluntary organisations would somehow resolve them.

This vagueness wasn’t accidental. It was essential to the compassionate conservative project. Specific policies force difficult choices between competing values. Better to speak in generalities about “love” and “relationships” while avoiding the hard questions about resources, priorities and trade-offs.

The collapse of compassionate conservatism

Understanding the collapse of compassionate conservatism requires recognising its primary function: electoral coalition-building. It allowed conservatives to appeal to socially liberal voters while maintaining traditional supporters. The problem is that this coalition was always unstable because it papered over genuine philosophical disagreements rather than resolving them.

Kruger’s defection represents the collapse of this synthesis. When migration pressures intensified, cultural conflicts sharpened, and mainstream conservative parties failed to address underlying tensions, the intellectual architects of compassionate conservatism abandoned the project for more explicitly populist alternatives.

Hilton abandoned British politics in the 2010s for Fox News, eventually siding with Trump and the MAGA movement. He is presently running for governor of California against progressive incumbent Gavin Newsom.

Blond still comments on British politics, using his X account in support of a variety of socially conservative positions on abortion, assisted dying, and trans rights. Today he believes the “most oppressed groups in the UK are white working-class males”, though he still interprets this as a progressive position.

Cameron’s speech worked as political rhetoric because it tells everyone what they want to hear – conservatives get individual responsibility and support for voluntary organisations, while progressives get structural understanding and emotional empathy. But when it comes to actual governance, these tensions become impossible to ignore.

Compassionate conservatism wasn’t a serious attempt to synthesise liberty and social justice. It was a marketing campaign that promised voters they could have conservative economics and progressive social policy simultaneously. The intellectual incoherence was a feature, not a bug. Politicians could avoid making difficult choices by pretending they didn’t exist.

The result was a politics of good intentions that consistently failed to deliver meaningful change, leaving both conservative and progressive goals unmet. Now that the electoral rewards of this approach have diminished, even its creators seem to have moved on to more authentic (or lucrative) expressions of their actual beliefs.

Nicholas Dickinson 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. The latest Tory defector to Reform wrote David Cameron’s ‘hug a hoodie’ speech – here’s why that matter now – https://theconversation.com/the-latest-tory-defector-to-reform-wrote-david-camerons-hug-a-hoodie-speech-heres-why-that-matter-now-265561

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura O’Flanagan, PhD Candidate, School of English, Dublin City University

After 15 years on screen, Downton Abbey limps to its conclusion with The Grand Finale. Directed by Simon Curtis and billed as the ultimate farewell, it reunites the ensemble cast for one last bow.

Marketed as the crowning chapter of a much-loved, award-winning series that once defined Sunday night television in Britain and became a transatlantic hit, the film carries a weight of expectation.

What audiences have been given, however, is a perfunctory epilogue, as though everyone involved knew something had to be delivered but couldn’t quite summon the spark to make it worthwhile.

At the film’s centre lies the long-anticipated moment when Lord Grantham (Hugh Bonneville) prepares to hand the reins of Downton Abbey to Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery). This plot is further complicated by Mary’s divorce, a scandal rippling through society as she assumes leadership of the estate.

This culmination of a story where responsibility is passed on, continuity is assured and change is accepted ought to feel momentous, but it is bogged down by dozens of minor storylines, quickly raised and neatly resolved. The slack pacing and uneven tone reduce it to a carousel of passing titbits. The Grand Finale seems determined to include all of the characters at once, and in doing so, loses its way.

With such a sprawling cast, there is no room to dig deeply. Scenes are crowded with so many characters that the effect often resembles a curtain call – each actor stepping forward for a line or two, then retreating again. It keeps faces in circulation, but it does not serve the audience.

This lack of focus highlights how far the films have drifted from what once made Downton Abbey irresistible. The television series thrived on a delicate balance of upstairs-downstairs drama. Modest conflicts, such as who might inherit, who might marry and whether a servant’s job was secure, were magnified through sharp writing and careful pacing into something greater than the sum of their parts.

It was a series about character, rhythm and mood as much as Edwardian glamour. The series let tensions simmer, mysteries unfold and gave its ensemble cast space to shine without overwhelming the story. Enormously popular, Downton Abbey became woven into Sunday nights in the UK, the kind of viewing that people looked forward to.

After a long week, Sunday evening would come, curtains were drawn, tea was brewed, and Downton Abbey was on TV. The familiar grand Victorian house with its rituals upstairs and downstairs helped close out the weekend with something warm, elegant and comforting. For me, it was a balm earlier this year while I was waiting on medical results and caught in restless uncertainty.

In this limbo, I returned to Downton Abbey on TV. It was comforting and familiar, yet still compelling enough to hold my attention when little else could. Back in good health, however, The Grand Finale could barely hold my attention for the two-hour running time.

Still, there is some pleasure in seeing the actors again. Michelle Dockery settles effortlessly back into Mary, and her warm exchanges with Laura Carmichael’s Edith highlight the positive development of the sisters’ relationship. Joanne Froggatt has a gentle and kind presence as Anna, and there are glimmers of the magic of the series in the scenes with Daisy (Sophie McShera) and Mrs Patmore (Leslie Nicol).

Maggie Smith’s absence is deeply felt; without the dowager countess’s sharp wit and perfectly timed barbs, the film misses the comedy of her character and veers too far towards sweetness and politeness.

Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale should have been the story’s crowning achievement, a chapter that tied its themes together and gave long-time viewers reason to cherish the journey one last time. Instead, it is a poor imitation of past glories.

A series that once made the smallest stakes feel monumental ends with an instalment that is both thin and tedious. Lord Grantham, resorting to cliche, remarks: “So this is how the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.”

The whimper of this finale plays out in orchestral swells, becoming glossy and hollow, with a sentimental montage at the end which resembles a John Lewis Christmas advert. On the other hand, if you have found yourself invested in Downton over the years, how can you not take this chance to wave off old friends and find out how it ends? Just don’t expect a bang.

Laura O’Flanagan 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. If you’re a fan of Downton Abbey, this Grand Finale is a big letdown – https://theconversation.com/if-youre-a-fan-of-downton-abbey-this-grand-finale-is-a-big-letdown-265434

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophia Komninou, Lecturer in Public Health Nutrition, Swansea University

Protein is everywhere nowadays. From yogurt to breakfast cereal, bread to pasta or even chocolate bars, the obsession with making sure we get enough protein has seemingly taken over our diets.

This push for protein has even started to trickle down to children, with parents now worrying their kids aren’t getting enough of it. While protein is certainly an important nutrient for growing children, most will already get more than enough protein from their regular diet and won’t need fortified foods to “boost” their intake.

Adults usually need between 0.8g and 1.2g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight. But infants, toddlers and children all have high protein needs relative to their body size because of their very rapid growth – so this factor is much higher.

That might lead to parents to think they need to provide large amounts of protein to their child or worry that if their child isn’t getting enough it will stunt their development. But because children have a much lower body weight compared to adults, the amount they actually need is still significantly less than what the average adult needs daily.

For babies under a year old, recommended protein intake is between 12-15g of protein per day. They require such a high amount of protein in proportion to their body weight because of how fast they grow – doubling their birth weight in the first six months and tripling it by their first birthday. Their protein needs are usually covered by their normal breast milk or formula intake.

Up to three years of age, as their development gets less rapid, children need around 15g of protein a day. From age four to six, children need around 20g of protein per day as their body weight increases. From six to ten, they need around 28g of protein per day.

From then on, the recommendations differ between boys and girls as they reach puberty at slightly different rates. From the ages of nine to 13, boys and girls both need around 34g of protein per day. But from age 14-18, girls need approximately 46g of protein while boys need 52g.

Protein intake

Your child’s daily protein needs are probably already being adequately met through their usual diet. To illustrate how when it comes to actual food intake, a cup of milk (240ml) or half a cup of lentils or beans contains 8g of protein, an egg or one slice of cheese has around 6g of protein and 100g of Greek yoghurt or 40g of chicken contains 10g of protein.

There’s also protein in many foods that we don’t normally associate with protein. For instance, pasta has 5g of protein per 100g, rice around 3g per 100g and bread has around 2g per slice.

So, unless your child is an extremely picky eater, it’s unlikely you need to actively count their protein intake daily or find ways of sneaking extra protein in with fortified foods, protein powders or adding high-protein ingredients to recipes. Their diet alone should be sufficient.

What’s more, focusing too much on specific nutrients could create a stressful environment around mealtimes. This could affect a child’s relationship with food in the long term.

Focusing solely on protein consumption could also potentially lead to under consumption of other nutrients that offer different health benefits. For example, when focusing on high-protein diets for toddlers and children, the rest of their diet might end up lacking fruits and vegetables as they’re considered low protein. But fibre is essential for gut health, so this could lead to health problems such as constipation.

Fast-growing toddlers and children also need more that just protein for growth and development. They need a combination of many macro- and micronutrients – including carbohydrates and unsaturated fats, which are often found in foods that aren’t protein rich.

Protein increases feelings of fullness by slowing stomach emptying. This could reduce hunger and overall food intake – including intake of these other nutrients that are important for development. For more picky eaters that could lead to even more restricted diet.

Too much protein has also been shown to have a negative effect on the kidneys, liver and bone density in adults. However, the evidence is still not there yet for children on how much is too much. But what we do know is that high animal protein diets have been associated with excessive weight gain early in life so too much protein may best be avoided.

Protein is an essential part of your child’s diet, important for their growth and development. But most will get more than enough from the foods they normally eat and won’t need products such as protein shakes or protein supplements.

Sophia Komninou 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. Does your child need more protein? The answer is probably not – https://theconversation.com/does-your-child-need-more-protein-the-answer-is-probably-not-263744

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Whyte, Associate Professor of Metabolic Medicine, University of Surrey

A higher dose of the weight loss drug semaglutide (better known by its brand name Wegovy) may help people lose up to 25% of their body weight – without the risk of severe side-effects. These findings are based on the results of two recently published clinical trials.

Semaglutide has proven to be effective in helping people lose weight. But weight loss tends to plateau after about one year of use – even when taking the highest approved dose of the drug. This means patients may not reach their weight loss goals.

So researchers set out to understand whether a higher dose can be effective without the risk of severe side-effects.

In the first trial, researchers studied the effect of a 7.2mg dose of semaglutide in adults with obesity. This is three times the currently approved 2.4mg dose found in Wegovy. Participants were randomly assigned to either receive the higher dose, the standard dose or a placebo drug once a week for a period of 72 weeks.

---

Read more:
Semaglutide: beware of buying the weight-loss drug online

---

Participants were also told to reduce their daily calorie intake by around 500 calories per day and increase the amount of physical activity they did each week (aiming for around 150 minutes).

The participants who received the 7.2mg dose lost an average of nearly 21% of their body weight – compared with 17.5% for those on the standard dose. Participants who took the placebo only lost 2.4% of their body weight. These figures are based on those who fully adhered to the treatment regimen.

Around 33% of the participants on the higher dose also experienced very high levels of weight loss – losing 25% or more of their total body weight. This is roughly double the proportion seen in the standard-dose group, where just under 17% achieved this degree of weight loss.

The participants who used semaglutide also saw greater improvements in their cardiometabolic health compared to those who only received the placebo.

As might be anticipated, side-effects were more common in people taking the higher dose of semaglutide than those taking the lower dose. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal issues, such as nausea or diarrhoea. Around 3% of participants using the higher dose and 2% of participants using the standard dose stopped using the drug because of these gastrointestinal issues.

A second trial then investigated what effect a higher dose of semaglutide would have in people with type 2 diabetes.

It’s well established that people with type 2 diabetes tend to lose less weight on semaglutide compared to those without diabetes. It’s not currently known why this is. So the second trial sought to understand whether a higher dose of semaglutide would also have a significant effect on weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes.

This time they recruited 512 participants with obesity who also had type 2 diabetes. They used the exact same study design as they did in the previous study.

Those treated with 7.2mg of semaglutide lost just over 13% of their body weight. The standard dose group lost around 10% of their body weight, while the placebo group lost just under 4% of their total body weight.

Beyond weight loss, the 7.2mg dose of semaglutide brought measurable improvements in metabolic health. On average, waist circumference decreased by 6.5cm compared to the placebo group. Blood glucose levels (HbA1c, a measure of diabetes control) also fell by nearly 2% in those taking the higher dose.

Gastroinstestinal problems were again the most commonly experienced side-effects in those taking semaglutide – with around 6% of the study’s participants stopping the trial because of these side-effects.

Patient benefit

Semaglutide promotes weight loss by mimicking the body’s natural GLP-1 hormone, which helps regulate blood sugar and appetite. These drugs act on brain pathways that control energy balance and food intake, leading to reduced hunger and an earlier sense of fullness (satiety) after eating. This can help people to eat less, leading to weight loss.

---

Read more:
Eight conditions weight-loss jabs might be beneficial for

---

Higher doses of semaglutide lead to greater weight loss by more strongly activating the brain regions that control appetite, resulting in reduced hunger and increased feelings of fullness. They also slow stomach emptying more effectively, helping to decrease overall food intake.

The results from these two trials show that a higher dose of semaglutide is both safe to use and very effective. Being able to use a higher dose of semaglutide offers more options for patients when it comes to managing their weight and controlling their blood sugar. It also gives an option to people who may not respond to the standard 2.4mg dose or whose weight loss may plateau.

These findings also show that semaglutide can compete against other weight loss drugs, such as tirzepatide (Mounjaro). In an earlier head-to-head trial, a 10gm-15mg dose of tirzepatide resulted in a 20% loss of body weight in participants – while a standard dose of semaglutide only resulted in an approximately 14% loss in body weight. But these recent studies now show that a higher dose of semaglutide can lead to comparable levels of weight loss.

These results may also raise questions about whether dose escalation may become a future standard of care in obesity treatment.

Martin Whyte 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. Weight loss drug semaglutide shown to be safe and potentially more effective at higher dose – new findings – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-drug-semaglutide-shown-to-be-safe-and-potentially-more-effective-at-higher-dose-new-findings-265312