Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Harper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of East London

Donald Trump has paused “Project Freedom”, the US operation aimed at restoring commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. In a post on social media just days after the operation was first announced, Trump said he had made the decision to give US negotiators time to reach an agreement with Iran to end the war.

Iranian state media has framed the suspension as a US failure. Iran had warned that it would target vessels attempting to enter the waterway and subsequently launched missiles and drones at civilian ships and the United Arab Emirates. It is unclear where the conflict will go from here. But whatever happens next, the role of China will be crucial.

China has kept Iran’s economy afloat in the first two months of the war. Before the war, China accounted for up to 90% of Iran’s oil exports, importing over 1 million barrels each day. Iran continued to send large amounts of crude to China during the war’s early stages, with CNBC reporting that at least 11.7 million barrels were shipped between February 28 and March 10.

Payments for Iranian oil have been processed by institutions such as China’s Bank of Kunlun and the Cross-border Interbank Payment System. These are alternatives to the US-dominated Swift global payment system that enable oil trades to be settled in yuan. This has helped Iran bypass western sanctions by putting oil revenues out of the reach of the US Treasury.

The flow of oil from Iran to China has dropped since mid-April, when the US imposed a naval blockade of Iranian ports. But China remains able to provide Iran with a revenue lifeline – albeit a more limited one – moving forward.

On May 2, China’s Ministry of Commerce ordered firms not to comply with US sanctions on five Chinese refiners linked to the Iranian oil trade. This enables the refiners to continue processing Iranian crude that arrives by train or is already outside the blockade area. Roughly 160 million barrels of Iranian crude were in transit or in floating storage at sea as of April 21.

China’s economic support for Iran is emerging as a source of friction between Washington and Beijing ahead of Trump’s upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In an interview with Fox News on May 4, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said China’s continued purchases of Iranian oil amounted to funding global terrorism.

However, the influence of China over Iran’s economy gives it leverage over Tehran. And it does appear to be in the interests of China for the war to end. Rising prices are beginning to affect the Chinese economy, and helping the conflict come to an end would also assist the Chinese government in its push to present itself as the responsible global power.

China has already played an important diplomatic role in the conflict. While Pakistan has served as one of the key mediators between the US and Iran, many analysts have credited China as being the key driving force behind the April ceasefire. At that time, Iranian officials said China had asked them to show flexibility and defuse tensions.

China seems to have continued pressing Iran to negotiate with the US since then. Hours after Trump announced he was pausing the US effort to guide vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Beijing. This is the first time Araghchi has travelled to China since the war broke out.

In a statement released after the meeting, the Chinese foreign ministry said: “China considers that a complete cessation of fighting must be achieved without delay … and that continuing to negotiate remains essential.” Also after the meeting Araghchi said Iran would protect its “legitimate rights and interests in the negotiations”, but will “accept a fair and comprehensive agreement”.

Chinese military support

At the same time, there are some signs that China is hedging its bets. A protracted war involving the US in the Middle East has advantages for China too, primarily because it would divert US attention from the Asia-Pacific region. Reports suggest that China is considering taking steps that would help Iran militarily if a full-blown conflict returns.

According to US intelligence, Beijing has weighed transferring air defence systems to Iran, possibly routing the shipments through other countries to mask its involvement. CNN reported in April that the defence systems in question were shoulder-fired anti-air missiles known as Manpads. China responded by saying it “has never provided weapons to any party to the conflict”.

Chinese technical assistance also enhanced the effectiveness of Iran’s military earlier in the war. Since 2021, Iran has been implementing BeiDou, a Chinese satellite navigation system. As an alternative to the US-run Global Positioning System (GPS), BeiDou has helped guide Iranian missile strikes in the conflict and has enabled more effective monitoring of US military deployments.

China has played a key role in how the conflict has played out so far. And given its position of influence over Iran, it will be a leading factor in whether the war reaches a negotiated end or spills back into open conflict.

Tom Harper 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. China has played a key role in the Iran war – and will continue to do so – https://theconversation.com/china-has-played-a-key-role-in-the-iran-war-and-will-continue-to-do-so-281781

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amy Wilcockson, Research Fellow, English Literature, Queen Mary University of London

A recent trip to Haworth, in West Yorkshire, got me thinking about Anne Brontë, who died 177 years ago this month. Stepping into St Michael and All Angels’ Church, a carved stone pillar prominently declares the location of the Brontë family vault. All members of the Brontë family – parents Patrick and Maria, sisters Elizabeth and Maria who died young, the rebellious brother Branwell, and Emily and Charlotte – are all listed. Yet, not mentioned is Anne Brontë, who is buried in Scarborough, almost 100 miles away.

Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre and Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights are repeatedly included on lists of Britain’s favourite novels and are firmly ensconced in the popular literary canon.

Anne Brontë’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall and Agnes Grey occasionally receive an honourable mention, but are often nowhere in sight. Like their author, they have been too frequently overlooked. Googling for articles on Anne Brontë brings up very few hits. I began to wonder: why is that?

Finding Anne

Agnes Grey, A Novel was the name of Anne’s first book, published in December 1847. She had been working on the text for many months before sending it off to the publisher Thomas Cautley Newby in July of that year. Emily’s Wuthering Heights was also accepted by Newby at the same time. It was a painful two months later that Charlotte finally found a publisher for her book, Jane Eyre.

Unluckily for her sisters, Charlotte’s publisher was more proactive than their own, and Jane Eyre became a sensation. Newby then decided to print Agnes Grey and Wuthering Heights, riding on the coattails of Charlotte’s success. More naturalistic than Charlotte’s Jane Eyre, but similarly focused on the life of a poor governess, Anne’s novel had been upstaged and was received, as the author Samantha Ellis notes, as a “pale imitation of Jane Eyre”.

Even worse, the gender-neutral pseudonyms the sisters had chosen to hide their identities (Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell), had ensured that the three books were thought to have been by only one author. Anne was not disheartened by Charlotte’s success or these authorship disputes however, and soon embarked on her second literary project.

Appallingly, many editions of Anne second and most famous work, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, have been abridged. In 1854, overzealous publisher Thomas Hodgson slashed huge chunks of text which featured controversial subject matter detailing the protagonist’s concerns about her husband’s depraved behaviour, so that the novel would fit neatly into a single volume.

Brontë scholars declare this to be a “corrupt text”, which cuts four pages of the novel’s opening, all expletives (filler words), 25 additional paragraphs and most of chapter 28. While more recent editions of the novel have reprinted the original 1848 text, many of us, without knowing, have read the potted version.

This censorship of Anne’s text is frankly unacceptable, as poor editing aside, much contextual information which she included for a reason has been removed. Charlotte’s opinion of her sister’s book, writing in a letter in 1850 that it “hardly appears desirable to preserve”, also damaged Anne Brontë’s reputation further.

Far from Haworth

Another factor in her neglect is that Anne’s grave is miles away from the rest of her family’s. She travelled to Scarborough in 1849 in an attempt to ease the symptoms of the tuberculosis that killed her only three days after her arrival.

Only a very dedicated Brontë fan would follow in her footsteps and make the pilgrimage to Scarborough in addition to Haworth. This Yorkshire town will always be the main site of the Brontë sisters fandom as long as their home, now the Brontë Parsonage Museum, remains. Anne Brontë does not have a formal memorial in Haworth, while the rest of her family is buried there. This sets her apart even more.

Perhaps it is simply that Anne was the youngest in a remarkable family, and so in death is overlooked as she may have been in life. Or her stories are not the gothic fantasies featuring troubled and problematic literary heroes like Rochester and Heathcliff we immediately associate with the Brontë name.

Instead, Anne Brontë’s works are visceral and real, commenting unflinchingly on the dark sides of human nature: cruelty and violence to children and women, adultery, alcoholism, and coercive control being just some of the topics she covers. Contemporary reviewers called the novel “brutal” and “coarse”.

Utterly shocking at the time, with its descriptions of alcohol abuse and a female protagonist leaving her unhappy marriage, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is often hailed as a feminist masterpiece. Yet, this does not tie into the romantic ideal readers expect. Wuthering Heights grapples with many of the same themes, but while that novel is viewed as a gothic romance, Anne Brontë’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is considered by many as a social-realist text.

This enduring oversight could be for all of these reasons or a combination of some. Still, I resent the descriptions of Anne by journalists such as Charlotte Cory as the “runt of the literary litter”, and urge readers and Brontë fans to give her work a chance in its own right.

The 1996 mini-series of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is available to watch online. To me it is a travesty that it is 30 years since there was an adaptation of this novel. And there has never been a big-screen treatment of Agnes Grey, while Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights have seen myriad film versions. A fine writer and one who is equal to her sisters, Anne Brontë deserves better.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org; if you click on one of the links and go on to buy something, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Amy Wilcockson 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 other Brontë sister: why do we always forget about Anne? – https://theconversation.com/the-other-bronte-sister-why-do-we-always-forget-about-anne-281477

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Erhan Kilincarslan, Reader in Accounting and Finance, University of Huddersfield

The standoff in the Strait of Hormuz has already made fuel and energy noticeably more expensive. But energy prices are only part of the story.

While tensions continue between Iran and the US over that vital stretch of water, another, more subtle economic effect could come into play. “Skimpflation” is the name for a phenomenon that involves a gradual decline in the quality, quantity or service associated with everyday goods.

Unlike shrinkflation, where the size or weight of a product is reduced, skimpflation affects the value that consumers receive. It happens when companies attempt to keep prices the same while quietly reducing quality, ingredients or service levels.

So instead of raising the price of a ready meal, for example, a manufacturer may replace or reduce some of the key ingredients with cheaper substitutes. The price and packaging remain the same, but there may be less pork in your sausages, or less beef in your lasagne.

Similar adjustments can also occur in service industries. Restaurants may keep menu prices stable but switch to cheaper ingredients.

Hotels might choose to subtly cut service levels, such as housekeeping, to reduce costs (as some did during the pandemic). Airlines – already worried about jet fuel supplies – could adopt cost-saving strategies, such as reducing complimentary food or baggage allowances.

In each case, the price paid by consumers may appear unchanged, but the quality or level of service gradually declines, meaning customers effectively receive less value for the same money.

These kinds of adjustments are carefully designed to be barely noticeable. Businesses hope that consumers will continue to buy their products and use their services without being aware of the changes.

But they could become more widespread if economic circumstances mean that organisations need to make more savings. And they represent yet another economic ripple effect that comes from effectively shutting down a major oil and gas shipping corridor.

Energy levels

The world has already seen how quickly oil prices and energy markets react to the possibility of supply shortages. For countries (like the UK) which depend heavily on imported energy, these shocks function like an economic tax, raising fuel costs and inflation.

And energy costs affect nearly every stage of modern production and distribution. When fuel becomes more expensive, so does transport, running factories and producing food. A rise in oil prices can quickly evolve into a broader inflationary shock affecting shipping, logistics and industrial production.

These pressures ultimately reach consumers, but often indirectly. And businesses facing rising costs must decide how to respond. Raising prices is the most obvious option, but after several years of high inflation, many firms worry that consumers are already highly sensitive to price increases.

Eventually though, these costs must be absorbed somewhere in the system, either through higher prices or changes in quality and service.

This is why geopolitical energy shocks are often described as “inflationary events”, even if consumer price indices do not immediately capture their full impact. The real cost of living may rise not only through higher prices, but also through a decline in what those prices buy.

Economists might describe this process as a form of “hidden inflation”, where businesses respond to rising costs by quietly altering product composition or reducing service levels rather than raising prices outright. Analysis of recent cost pressures suggests that recipe reformulation, ingredient substitution and service reductions have become common strategies for firms attempting to manage higher input costs in sectors such as food manufacturing, retail and hospitality.

If instability in the Middle East continues to disrupt shipping routes and energy markets, the UK could face renewed inflationary pressures. But for households, the effects may not always appear in official statistics.

Instead, they may appear in smaller portions at restaurants, reduced service levels in hospitality, or supermarket products that look familiar but contain slightly cheaper ingredients. These incremental adjustments are harder to measure than price changes, but shape everyday consumer experiences through a gradual erosion of value.

Erhan Kilincarslan 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. ‘Skimpflation’: how the Strait of Hormuz is linked to your lasagne – and other everyday goods – https://theconversation.com/skimpflation-how-the-strait-of-hormuz-is-linked-to-your-lasagne-and-other-everyday-goods-282010

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

Whooping cough, medically known as pertussis, is a highly contagious bacterial infection that affects the airways. It gets its common name from the “whoop” sound that some infected children make when they take a deep, gasping breath after a severe coughing fit.

The infection is caused by the bacterium bordetella pertussis, with research suggesting that as few as 140 bacterial cells may be enough to cause infection. The bacterium spreads through infected droplets, which are released when an infected person coughs or sneezes. These droplets can then settle on the lining of another person’s nose, throat or airways.

Doctors usually describe whooping cough in three stages. The first is the catarrhal phase, when symptoms resemble a cold. In this stage, many of the symptoms are similar to other respiratory infections. A person may have a stuffy or runny nose, a low-grade fever and a mild, occasional cough that gradually becomes more severe. This phase typically lasts one to two weeks.

The second stage is the paroxysmal (sudden and intense) phase. During this stage, people experience repeated bouts of uncontrolled coughing. The classic whooping sound is common in infants, but it is often absent in adults. This may be partly because adults have more control over their cough reflex and partly because a child’s larynx, or voice box, is shaped differently from an adult’s. A child’s larynx sits higher in the neck, is funnel-shaped rather than cylindrical and narrower, and has softer cartilage.

The cough can last so long that pertussis is sometimes called the “100-day cough”. It can also cause exhaustion and vomiting, which is one of the most common symptoms reported in adults. One study found that the average duration of coughing was 54 days. The final stage is convalescence, when coughing episodes become less frequent and less severe.

Because pertussis is caused by bacteria, antibiotics can be helpful, especially in the early stages of infection. They can reduce how long a person remains infectious and may reduce the severity of illness if given early enough. The infectious period usually ends 48 hours after starting appropriate antibiotics, or 21 days after the onset of coughing if treatment is not given.

Vaccination remains important because it reduces the risk of severe disease. However, vaccination does not always prevent infection, and protection can weaken over time. This means vaccinated people can still catch pertussis, although symptoms are often milder.

Pertussis cases tend to rise and fall in three to five-year cycles, with increases reported in England and other countries. Possible factors include pandemic disruption to vaccination, mutations in bordetella pertussis, waning immunity and vaccine differences.

Many countries have moved from whole-cell pertussis vaccines to acellular vaccines. A whole-cell vaccine contains killed bacterial cells, while an acellular vaccine contains selected proteins from the bacterium rather than the whole organism. Many countries have shifted to acellular vaccines because they tend to cause fewer side effects. However, they may also provide a shorter period of effective immune protection.

For many adults, whooping cough is unpleasant but manageable. For others, it can be serious. Secondary complications occur in nearly 30% of infected adults. One of the most common is pneumonia, an infection that inflames the air sacs in the lungs.

Pneumonia can develop because bordetella pertussis can directly damage the airway lining, partly by paralysing the cilia, tiny hair-like structures that clear mucus, dust and germs. Damaged cilia make the lungs less able to clear harmful bacteria, including those that cause pneumonia.

The repeated force of coughing can also damage the body. Severe coughing may cause vomiting, exhaustion, disturbed sleep and urinary incontinence. Nearly one-third of women over the age of 50 report urinary incontinence associated with pertussis infection.

Severe coughing can also lead to rib fractures, especially in older people or those with weaker bones. Repeated strain usually affects the fifth to tenth ribs. In rare cases, lung tissue can tear, causing a pneumothorax: air escapes between the lung and chest wall, causing part or all of the lung to collapse. The larynx and vocal cords can also become damaged or dysfunctional from repeated coughing.

Very rarely, severe coughing has been linked to spinal fractures, damage to the discs between vertebrae, organ herniation between the ribs and under the skin, and arterial tears that may interrupt blood supply and lead to stroke.

Some people are at higher risk of secondary complications, including those with respiratory conditions, obesity or weakened immune systems. People who smoke or have asthma may have a longer cough, a higher risk of sinus infection and more disturbed sleep.

Delayed diagnosis can be a problem because early whooping cough overlaps with many other respiratory infections, including respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, flu and COVID. RSV is a common virus that usually causes cold-like symptoms, but it can be more serious in babies, older adults and people with underlying health conditions. One study has estimated that the misdiagnosis rate may be as high as 95% in some cases.

Although early symptoms can look similar, there are clues that may help distinguish whooping cough from other infections. Once the cough develops, whooping cough is often worse at night and can be severe enough to cause vomiting. RSV more commonly causes shortness of breath and wheezing rather than prolonged coughing bouts. Whooping cough also usually causes a low-grade fever or no fever, while RSV, particularly in high-risk adults, can cause a high fever. Timing can help too. RSV is most prevalent from late autumn to early spring, peaking in December and January.

Vaccines are available for both conditions. But antibiotics only work for whooping cough because it is bacterial rather than viral, and they are most useful when given early enough.

The main warning sign is a cough that comes in severe bouts, lasts for weeks, gets worse at night or causes vomiting. Anyone with these symptoms should seek medical advice, especially if they live with or care for babies, pregnant women, older adults or people with weakened immune systems.

Adam Taylor 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 ‘100-day cough’ that adults often miss – https://theconversation.com/the-100-day-cough-that-adults-often-miss-281776

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Turns, Senior Environment Editor, The Conversation

We’re launching a new poetry award to bring science and creativity closer together. Too often, research can stay locked in academic language – but poetry offers a powerful way to make ideas felt, not just understood. This prize is for UK-based researchers who want to explore the climate crisis through a different lens, blending insight with imagination to reach wider audiences and spark new conversations.

For this competition – the first of its kind for The Conversation – we are inviting academics to write a poem inspired by climate change research.

The climate crisis is also a communications challenge: how do we tell stories that move people, not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? That question sits at the heart of our climate storytelling series, and it’s what we want you to consider when writing your poem. The Conversation UK’s climate poetry award 2026 is all about bringing research to life in a different way.

Whether you’re an experienced poet or completely new to writing poetry, we want to hear your perspective on climate change. Your poem can draw on your own research, the work of others or your general field of expertise. Entrants to this competition must be enrolled in a research position at a university in the UK. Poems must be minimum of three lines, maximum of 40 lines. No prior poetry experience is required.

The competition will kick off with a free introductory climate poetry workshop led by poet Professor Sam Illingworth of Edinburgh Napier University on May 13. Entries close on September 1 2026 (11.59pm BST).

The poems will be reviewed by a panel of judges: Senior Environment Editor Anna Turns, Senior Arts and Culture Editor Anna Walker and Professor Sam Illingworth. The winner will be selected from a shortlist by award-winning poet Professor Helen Mort, of Manchester Metropolitan University. Judges will be looking for creativity, a point of view and clarity of research communication.

---

Who can enter: UK-based academics currently enrolled in a research position (including PhD candidates, postdoctoral scholars and lecturers).

What to submit: A climate-themed poem (3–40 lines) and a supporting statement of up to 250 words on the research that inspired it.

Entry window: Open for entries now until September 1 2026 (11.59pm BST).

How to enter: Via the official submission form.

Workshop: Free online climate poetry workshop on May 13 2026

Prizes: First prize: five-day stay at The Little Goat Barn Writing Retreat (North Wales). Shortlisted poems published in a The Conversation ebook anthology.

Judges: Anna Turns, Anna Walker, Professor Sam Illingworth

Final winner selected by: Professor Helen Mort

In need of inspiration? Check out some of our favourite climate poems.

The prizes

Shortlisted entries will be published in an ebook by The Conversation UK in the autumn.

The winner will be hosted for five days at the Little Goat Barn Writing Retreat, in the peaceful and beautiful countryside of the Vale of Conwy in North Wales courtesy of The Ruppin Agency. They’ll be welcomed and fully catered for by husband and wife Dr Emma Claire Sweeney, author and creative writing lecturer, and Jonathan Ruppin, former literary agent and bookseller.

While there, they will have access to the 5,000-volume library, full of places to read, write and relax, and housed in a 400-year-old converted barn vaulted with the timbers of an ancient ship – as well as space to write in their room if they prefer. As well as socialising with a small group of other writers, other activities such as hill walks, wild swimming and a film night will be on offer. See terms and conditions for full details.

The judges

Sam Illingworth is a full professor at Edinburgh Napier University, where his research and practise involve using poetry and generative AI to explore connections between science and society.

“This competition is a great way of exploring the different ways in which scientists can communicate their work outside of traditional academic publishing,” says Illingworth. “Poetry is, in my opinion, an extremely effective way of developing empathy for a subject. I hope that in writing and reading poems about the climate crisis, researchers can better understand the impact that their work is having on different audiences.”

Helen Mort is a professor of creative writing at Manchester Metropolitan University and a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.
She has published four poetry collections with Chatto & Windus and her work has won awards in the UK and Canada.

In 2024, she wrote a poetry collection called Field Notes during a research expedition to Greenland with climate scientists from Manchester Met University. These poems explored the emotional and sensory effects of the changing landscape they experienced while investigating climate change.

Enter your poem here

Terms & Conditions 2026 – please read carefully.

Many thanks to our sponsor for this competition, Little Goat Barn Writing Retreat.

– ref. Introducing The Conversation Climate Poetry Award – for UK-based academics – https://theconversation.com/introducing-the-conversation-climate-poetry-award-for-uk-based-academics-281591

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Turns, Senior Environment Editor, The Conversation

The Promoter

The promoter of this competition is The Conversation Trust (UK), a non-profit company limited by guarantee (number 08158264), with its registered office at Shropshire House (4th Floor), 11-20 Capper Street, London, WC1E 6JA. For queries about this competition, please contact climatepoetry@theconversation.com.

1. How to enter

1.1. The competition will close on September 1 at 11.59pm BST (the “Closing Date”).

1.2. All submissions to be made via the entry form and must be received no later than the Closing Date. All competition entries received after the Closing Date are automatically disqualified. No changes can be made to poems once they have been submitted.

1.3. We will not accept (a) responsibility for competition entries that are lost, mislaid, damaged or delayed in transit, regardless of cause, including, for example, as a result of any equipment failure, technical malfunction, systems, satellite, network, server, computer hardware or software failure of any kind; or (b) proof of transmission as proof of receipt of entry to the competition; or (c) entries in any language other than English or translations (d) entries that have previously been submitted to any other competition.

1.4. Poems must be a minimum of three lines and maximum of 40 lines and can follow any form. They don’t need to address a specific theme, but should be focused on communicating climate research.

1.5 By submitting a competition entry, you are agreeing to be bound by these terms and conditions.

1.6 The competition entries will be reviewed by the judging panel who will draw up a longlist based on the best entries. Winners will be selected by Helen Mort from a shortlist drawn up by the rest of the panel. The full names and credentials of all judging panel members will be made available on request after the Closing Date. The decision of the panel of judges will be final and no correspondence will be entered into regarding judging decisions

2. Eligibility

2.1 The competition is only open to researchers or academics employed by or affiliated to a university or approved research institution (IRO) in the UK, including PhD candidates under supervision by an academic.

2.2 The competition is not open to Masters students or to employees of The Conversation, their immediate families, nor any other person connected with the competition.

2.3 In entering the competition, you confirm that you are eligible to do so and eligible to claim the prize you may win. The winner must pay costs of travel to the prize themselves. You may be required to provide proof that you are eligible to enter the competition.

2.4 We will not accept competition entries that are: (a) automatically generated by computer or created by artificial intelligence (including but not limited to chatbots such as ChatGPT or similar software applications); (b) completed by third parties or in bulk; (c) illegible, have been altered, reconstructed, forged or tampered with; (d) incomplete; (e) already published or in the public domain.

2.5 There is no limit on entries, but each poem must be submitted individually. Entries on behalf of another person will not be accepted and joint submissions are not allowed.

3. The prize

3.1 The prize is as follows: five days and four nights (arrival 2pm or later on day one, departure by noon on day five) on dates to be mutually agreed, within 12 months of announcement of winner at the Little Goat Barn Writing Retreat, in the Vale of Conwy in North Wales. You’ll be welcomed and fully catered for by husband and-wife Dr Emma Claire Sweeney, author and creative writing lecturer, and Jonathan Ruppin, former literary agent and bookseller. The retreat offered is untaught. All food, non-alcoholic drink, bedding, towels and basic toiletries supplied. The retreat will likely be attended by up to four other writers of the retreat’s choosing.

3.2 There is no cash alternative for the prize and the prize is not negotiable or transferable. Winner must organise and pay for their own travel, though if travelling by rail, free collection and return by car from Chester or Chirk stations will be provided.

3.3 The retreat is provided by the owners of Little Goat Barn Writing Retreat, who hold appropriate public liability insurance and are solely responsible for the day-to-day delivery of the retreat experience. The Conversation will use reasonable endeavours to ensure the prize is awarded as described but accepts no liability for matters outside its reasonable control once the winner has been confirmed and the retreat arrangements have been communicated to the retreat owners

4. The winner

4.1 The decision of the judges is final and no correspondence or discussion will be entered into. The winner will be announced in November 2026.

4.2 We will contact the winner personally as soon as practicable after the judges have reached their decision, using the telephone number or email address provided with the competition entry.

4.3 The winner consents to their story being published on The Conversation as per its publishing terms & conditions, including a profile being created on The Conversation to accompany the work, including their first name, surname, institution and country. By winning, the winner grants The Conversation a non-exclusive licence to publish their poem under the terms described. The competition organisers must provide the surname and country of the winner to the Advertising Standards Authority on request.

5. Claiming the prize

5.1 The prize may not be claimed by a third party on your behalf.

5.2 We will make all reasonable efforts to contact the winner. If the winner cannot be contacted or is not available or has not claimed their prize within 30 of days of the Announcement Date, we reserve the right to offer the prize to the next eligible entrant selected from the shortlisted entries that were received before the Closing Date.

5.3 We do not accept any responsibility if you are not able to take up the prize.

6. Ownership of competition entries and intellectual property rights

6.1 All competition entries and any accompanying material submitted remain the property of the entrant. The winning entry will be published under the general terms and conditions of The Conversation, including under a creative commons licence. The Conversation reserves the right to make additions or deletions to the text or graphics prior to publication, or to refuse publication.

6.2 Non-winning competition entries will not be published or used by The Conversation without the express written consent of the entrant. All non-winning entries and associated personal data will be deleted within 90 days of the Announcement Date. The Conversation reserves the right to use anonymized, non-attributable excerpts or statistics about entries received (e.g. “We received over 200 entries from 50 institutions”) for promotional purposes relating to future competitions.

7. Data protection and publicity

7.1 The Promoter will process your personal data (name, email address, telephone number, and institutional affiliation) solely for the purposes of administering this competition, selecting winners, and publishing the winning entry as described in these terms and conditions. Your data will be retained until the prize has been claimed and delivered. Under UK GDPR, you have the right to access, rectify, erase, or restrict processing of your personal data. To exercise these rights or for data protection queries, please contact uk-privacy@theconversation.com. We will not use your data for marketing purposes without your separate consent

8. General

8.1 If there is any reason to believe that there has been a breach of these terms and conditions, the Promoter may, at its sole discretion, reserve the right to exclude you from participating in the competition.

8.2 We reserve the right to hold void, suspend, cancel, or amend the prize competition where it becomes necessary to do so.

8.3 These terms and conditions are governed by English law.

– ref. The Conversation UK Climate Poetry Award Terms & Conditions 2026 – https://theconversation.com/the-conversation-uk-climate-poetry-award-terms-and-conditions-2026-281957

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Barry Langford, Professor of Film Studies, Royal Holloway, University of London

Ulysses, a mild but disillusioned police officer, arrives in icy Minnesota to start an eight-week stint as substitute sheriff in the surprisingly prosperous small town of Normal. The previous sheriff has died in mysterious circumstances.

As he recovers from a traumatic episode in his own career, his aim is to serve out his time as quietly and uneventfully as possible and then leave the town pretty much as he found it. Unsurprisingly, events swiftly take a very different, not to mention ultra-violent, turn.

The snowbound setting, quirky but amiable inhabitants and swift intimations of a darker criminal hinterland all give off unmistakable Fargo vibes. Not least because the sheriff is played by Bob Odenkirk, an alumnus of Noah Hawley’s TV spin-off of the Coen Brothers’ classic 1996 picture. (In an obvious nod, Ulysses’ deceased predecessor, Gunderson, shares his surname with Frances McDormand’s cop in the film.)

The silent apparitions of the town’s near-legendary moose and much discussion of coffee also lend these sequences a certain Twin Peaks (1990-1991) flavour. Later on a severed ear is an obvious shout-out to another David Lynch project, Blue Velvet (1986).

Midway through director Ben Wheatley’s new thriller, however, the stylistic reference points shift from the Coens and Lynch to Quentin Tarantino and John Carpenter. A farcically botched Bonnie and Clyde-style bank heist hurls the film into a spiral of chaotic and very bloody violence which barely lets up for the remainder of the film.

The townsfolk, it transpires, have saved Normal from the blighted fate of other midwestern towns by striking an improbable Faustian bargain to warehouse piles of loot for the Japanese mob – the Yakuza.

Big body count

Once Ulysses stumbles across this dirty little secret, he finds himself pitted against virtually every single inhabitant of Normal as they battle to keep it quiet. An arsenal of guns, explosives, light artillery and a variety of improvised weapons overnight reduce the town’s main street into a blood-soaked, body-strewn wreckage.

Ulysses, along with the hapless pair of amateur bank robbers caught up in the crossfire, fights off hordes of opponents in the fashion of Tarantino’s From Dusk To Dawn (1996). And once the black-suited Yakuza reinforcements arrive, it resembles Kill Bill (2004). The gory violence, mostly played for blackly comic effect, has a comparably weightless feel.

The army of townsfolk stalking the beleaguered, outgunned trio recalls the zombie-like gang in John Carpenter’s B-movie classic Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). Or perhaps even more the demented small-town denizens of George A. Romero’s The Crazies (1973).

As this string of allusions might suggest, Normal makes no great claims on originality. Written by Derek Kolstad, creator of the John Wick franchise – and also 2021’s Nobody, the vehicle for Odenkirk’s late-career swerve into action hero – the film delivers on its simple premise without any great care for complex plotting or plausibility. It serves up modestly inventive pyrotechnics in a businesslike, and at just 90 minutes, very concise fashion.

Fans of Wheatley’s previous efforts in this vein will enjoy his trademark, though not especially unique, combination of humour and extreme violence. Others may feel he does himself few favours with the constant overt nods to far superior filmmakers and risks making his film feel even more derivative and predictable than it confesses itself to be.

There’s certainly little here in the rendering of upstate Minnesota to compare with Roger Deakins’ crystalline cinematography in Fargo. Nor can Wheatley’s energetic but prosaic action choreography ever approach the stylisation of Kill Bill.

Violence aside, then, the film rests heavily on some apt casting and happily the performers are reliably engaging. Odenkirk’s trademark battered decency largely carries the film. But there are also deft supporting turns, notably from Henry Winkler as Normal’s oleaginous mayor and Lena Headey as a tough-dame barkeep. Reena Jolly and Peter Shinkoda are also endearing as the dishevelled slacker bandits (and solicitous dog parents). They vaguely recall the shambolic outlaws of One Battle After Another (2025).

Many of Normal’s influences have serious things to say about modern American life. Normal too gestures in passing to larger issues. The mayor presents the community’s turn to crime as a morally if not legally legitimate reaction to the desperate plight of “flyover states” devastated by industrial decline and corporate predation.

But really this is just window dressing. There isn’t a great deal more to the film than meets the eye, and there probably doesn’t need to be. In its rapid pacing, terse characterisation, brief run time and propulsive, hard-boiled action, Normal positions itself as a latter-day B-movie and mostly delivers on the unpretentious pleasures of that time-honoured form.

Barry Langford 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. Normal: this quirky Bob Odenkirk caper is Die Hard meets Fargo – https://theconversation.com/normal-this-quirky-bob-odenkirk-caper-is-die-hard-meets-fargo-281955

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fraser McMillan, Lecturer in Scottish Electoral Politics, University of Edinburgh

Barring a last-minute surprise, the Holyrood election will probably return the Scottish National Party (SNP) to government for the fifth time in a row. The nationalists have been in office for so long that thousands of Scots who weren’t even born when the party entered office in 2007 are now going to the polls for the first time.

But just 23% of respondents think the Scottish government is doing a good job, according to the Scottish Election Study’s final pre-election Scoop poll in February. This is down from 44% immediately before the 2021 election. And according to the latest opinion polls, the party is on track to drop at least 10 percentage points of the 47.7% constituency vote share it recorded back then.

It was always going to be challenging for the SNP to sustain such high levels of support given the economic climate. As our public opinion tracking data demonstrates, it didn’t take long after 2021 for the public mood to sour as the second-order impacts of the COVID pandemic and longer-running economic woes sank in.

Issues such as inflation, a creaking health service, chronic housing shortages and high street stagnation dented voters’ faith in governing parties at both Westminster and Holyrood. The share of Scots who thought the country was heading in the right direction dropped from just over 40% in 2021 to under 20% by 2025.

Pro-independence voters, who had loyally voted SNP as a bloc since the 2014 referendum, began to point the finger at the party even before long-time first minister Nicola Sturgeon resigned.

The nationalists dropped in the opinion polls after enduring a year of scandal and two fraught changes of leadership, losing most of their Westminster MPs at the 2024 general election. This was their first popular vote loss to Labour since 2010.

Any other unpopular, long-in-the-tooth incumbent would be staring down the barrel of a decisive defeat. And the party’s vote share will undoubtedly decline. But two big factors will combine to buoy the SNP’s seat count at this election and likely propel the party back to power. First, the continued polarisation of the Scottish electorate on the question of independence. And second, an ever-more fragmented opposition.

Crossing the divide on independence

Although the salience of Scottish independence has declined since 2021, the SNP retains the support of two thirds of pro-independence voters. At the same time, the only other pro-independence party, the Scottish Greens, has withdrawn from all but a handful of constituencies.

Voters appear to be more willing to cross the constitutional divide than they did five years ago. But attitudes to independence continue to structure voting behaviour and views on the governments at Holyrood and Westminster. Enough voters still trust the SNP to “stand up for Scotland” within the union to stick with the party, even if they’re less enthusiastic on this occasion.

What’s more, the opposition is now even more divided. Both Labour and the Conservatives also look likely to lose support compared to peaks in recent elections. The Conservatives, the second-largest party in the previous parliament, are set to shed around half their vote from 2021. And Labour look likely to lose much of the ground they had made up by 2024 due to a faltering first two years in power at Westminster.

Combined, these parties and the SNP secured 91% of constituency votes in 2021 – this figure could drop to somewhere between 60% and 70% this time. Reform UK is competing with Labour for second place from a standing start, while the Liberal Democrats are also likely to advance. Voters hoping to unseat the SNP may agree on that, but little else.

When this is fed into the electoral system, with 73 of the parliament’s 129 seats decided by first-past-the-post constituencies, the SNP can afford to lose a sizeable chunk of support and live to fight another day. Its vote is evenly spread around the country, and the splintering opposition (not to mention changing constituency boundaries) make it difficult to unseat when there is no consensus challenger of the kind Labour looked like being two years ago.

There are, however, substantial risks here for the nationalists (assuming they remain in charge). Instead of running a “big tent” campaign resembling the pre-indyref years – and with a two-decade record to defend – the SNP has been forced to pursue a core vote strategy, hoping to maximise turnout of the left-leaning, socially progressive “Yes” base.

To this end, the Scottish Greens have done the party a big favour by retreating in most constituencies and will expect to be rewarded. A Swinney government may find itself with some very difficult budgetary choices in a tightening fiscal environment which are at odds with an expansionary manifesto.

And the so-called “scunner factor” at this election, with low turnout expected and Reform UK and Green gains virtually guaranteed, suggests that patience is running thin with mainstream parties.

While it’s unlikely to bottom out as quickly as backing for Keir Starmer’s Labour government, continued stagnation in living standards could see SNP support erode further. Then again, the nationalists’ superpower has always been to use the political weather to their advantage – and the wide-open 2029 UK general election could provide another such opportunity.

If the nationalists can hang on to power, analysts looking back in another 20 years might regard Swinney’s own “loveless landslide” as the most important SNP victory of them all.

Fraser McMillan receives funding from UKRI/ESRC as part of the Scottish Election Study.

– ref. There’s little love for the SNP – so why does the party look set to win in Scotland? – https://theconversation.com/theres-little-love-for-the-snp-so-why-does-the-party-look-set-to-win-in-scotland-282280

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hannah Bunting, Senior Lecturer in Quantitative British Politics and Co-director of The Elections Centre, University of Exeter

Voters are casting their ballots in elections to 136 English local authorities, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. For most, it’s the first opportunity to cast a ballot since the 2024 general election. This set of elections is complex, taking place in multiple locations with ballots being counted over several days and across three electoral systems.

In England, local elections run on a four-year cycle, which means different sets of seats in various locations are contested in any given year. This is a bumper year, with around 5,000 councillors – predominantly in urban local authorities – being elected in nearly 3,000 wards. There are more than 25,000 candidates contesting them.

There is added complexity in terms of baseline comparisons, which determine what is considered a loss, gain or hold. While most seats will have been last contested in 2022, various changes mean around a fifth of wards don’t have a directly comparable year. Instead, they have been assigned an estimated notional seat winner.

Labour is defending more than half of the seats up for election and control 65 of the local authorities. This includes 21 of the 32 in London and more than two-thirds of the metropolitan boroughs. They are also fielding the most candidates, a title that went to Reform UK last year.

The Conservatives are defending another quarter of the seats but only have control of 18 local authorities with elections this year. This includes five of the six county councils, whose elections were postponed last year.

The remaining fifth of seats are being defended by the Liberal Democrats (13.6%), independents and others (5.3%) and Greens (2.8%). Reform UK did not start contesting most seats until after the 2024 general election, which means they are defending only three seats this year. However, they’re fielding the second largest number of candidates after Labour.

Scotland and Wales

Scotland elects its devolved parliament every five years under what is known as the additional member system (AMS). This combines first-past-the-post constituency winners with a proportional regional top-up. There are 129 MSP seats up for grabs, 73 of which are elected from the constituencies and the remaining 56 allocated proportionally from the regional list.

The SNP is looking to win its fifth successive term in office. In 2021, it won 64 seats in total, and only two of those were from the proportional top-ups. The parties that gained most from the regional lists were the Conservatives (who came second with a total of 31 seats), Labour which won 22 MSPs and the Greens who achieved eight. The Liberal Democrats won all four of their seats via constituencies.

This election is being fought on new boundaries, affecting 42 of the constituencies and all but one of the regions.

Wales has a new voting system for these elections. The Senedd previously used the AMS to elect 60 representatives, but is now moving to a purely proportional closed-list system. Under this, six members are elected for each of the 16 geographies – first-past-the-post is gone and voters get one vote each. As such, it will be more difficult for any single party to win an overall majority.

Beneath all the logistics are thousands of interesting stories. Around 30% of councillors for all principal local authorities in England are being elected, along with all devolved members.

The extent of change that’s anticipated means there will be a swathe of new representatives taking office. That matters for governance. They will almost certainly win on much smaller winning vote shares, making many seats a very close race. In this context, each person’s vote matters more than ever.

But will this motivate electors to the polls? There could be a moderate but noticeable increase in turnout that is somewhat uncharacteristic of these elections.

When will we know the results?

Ballots are being counted over three days, with the closing results not being announced until Saturday afternoon. Around 46 English local authorities are expected to be counting votes overnight – this is about a quarter of all seats.

This means we should have a clear sense of how the elections are going by Friday morning – watch for Labour losing seats to the Greens and Reform, and for London councils shifting to “no overall control”. It will also be interesting to see which places have voted Reform or Liberal Democrat to the detriment of the Conservatives.

Scotland and Wales both count on Friday, along with all but four of the remaining English local authorities. The earliest devolved results could be announced by lunchtime, but we should know for certain who has come out on top before your Friday chippy tea. Birmingham is an all-out election where all seats are being contested. It looks like it will be a real test for Labour, and counting there may not finish until after 6pm on Friday.

What we can be sure of is that the fragmentation of party support at British elections will continue. Labour and the Conservatives could record their worst results in some areas; the Greens and Reform may branch out to places they’ve never won before. But until every vote has been cast, it’s still in the electorate’s hands.

Hannah Bunting receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

– ref. Election day in the UK: what to look out for – and when we’ll know the results – https://theconversation.com/election-day-in-the-uk-what-to-look-out-for-and-when-well-know-the-results-282179

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

Operation Epic Fury is over. Or at least, that’s what the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced on May 5, describing any further US action in the Gulf as purely “defensive”.

Rubio’s insistence that the conflict the US and Israel launched on February 28 achieved its objectives is open for debate. But this change of tone and terminology is likely to reflect arguments that raged in the US Congress as the war approached the two-month mark at the end of April, about whether the Trump administration must seek congressional approval for the conflict as required by US law.

The conflict has become the latest episode in a long struggle between the US Congress and the presidency over which branch of government can legitimately start wars. And, in a surprising way, Donald Trump’s actions seem to be pushing power back towards Congress.

The US constitution splits war powers between the presidency and Congress. It gives Congress the power to raise armies and declare war but makes the president the commander-in-chief of the military. That means that, in theory, you need to get Congress to agree to fund and start a war and the president to agree to wage it.

Since the second world war, this system has been changing. The last time the US formally declared war was in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania – having already declared war on Japan and Germany in December 1941. Since then, presidents have often plunged the country into hostilities on their own authority without getting a declaration of war from Congress.

Congress still needs to fund the military – but, with very few exceptions, the legislature has always done so. Individual members of Congress have generally been happy to let presidents take on the blame for starting wars. After conflicts have started, legislators have been unwilling to cut off funds for the troops in the field. As a result, Congress has given up much of its influence over decisions of war and peace.

---

Read more:
Trump sidelined Congress’ authority over war on Iran – and lawmakers allowed it, extending a 75-year trend

---

But not entirely. The high point of Congressional pushback was in 1973, during the tail end of the Vietnam war, which by then had become extremely unpopular. In this context, Congress challenged the executive branch by passing the 1973 War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Act). It’s this law that is shaping the debate over Iran today.

The War Powers Resolution basically repeats what the constitution says: that Congress has to start wars, but it allows for some flexibility. If there is a surprise attack on US forces, the president can act to repel that attack for 60 days before getting a declaration of war from Congress.

As reasonable as this may sound, every administration since the War Powers Resolution was passed has questioned its constitutionality and refused to be bound by it.

To be sure, some presidents have asked Congress for a statement of political support before launching a major war, as they also had done before the War Powers Resolution was passed. For instance, George H.W. Bush did so before the Gulf war of 1990-91. But when doing so, presidents have generally maintained that they did so purely to ensure national unity, and not because the War Powers Resolution required it of them.

Presidents have also launched many interventions in which they ignored the resolution entirely – as Bush himself did in Panama in 1989.

Unpopular war

As a result, the resolution has never acted as a meaningful constraint on presidential war-making power. But things may be changing. The war in Iran is so unpopular that Congress asserting its authority over war powers more strongly than any time since the War Powers Resolution was passed. In the process, it is turning the resolution into something that might meaningfully affect the course of the war.

One reason for this is that even Trump’s Republican supporters in Congress are aware of how unpopular this war is. Many are worried about losing their seats in the midterms later this year. As a result, Congress is stirring. Even senior Republican figures are treating the War Powers Resolution and its 60-day clock as an important constraint on the administration and demanding that the war stop or be authorised by Congress after it passes that mark.

In response to this political pressure, the Trump administration seems to be paying more attention to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution than most administrations before it.

The White House is too afraid of Republican opposition to ignore the resolution entirely, particularly when it knows that it may soon have to ask Congress for more funding for the war. Even the argument it made that the 60-day clock has paused during the ceasefire is an indication that it sees the clock as a legitimate thing in the first place.

If the war starts up again, Republicans will clamour for the administration to come to Congress for a declaration. This would probably trigger a major debate over the conditions that Congress wants to attach regarding strategy, goals and funding.

What this shows is that many of the checks and balances of the constitution only work when there is the political will to make them work.

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

– ref. US declares war in Iran ‘over’ to avoid row with Congress over whether it was legal – https://theconversation.com/us-declares-war-in-iran-over-to-avoid-row-with-congress-over-whether-it-was-legal-282159