Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Scarfe, Lecturer in Economics, University of Stirling

After the resignation of Angela Rayner, the UK government faces an urgent question: what will happen to its flagship employment rights bill? The former deputy prime minister was an important champion of the bill – and businesses have seized an opportunity to call for it to be diluted. At the same time, unions are pressing hard in the opposite direction.

Shortly after Labour won office in 2024, prime minister Keir Starmer described the bill as “the biggest levelling up of workers’ rights in a generation”, adding it was designed to give people “security, dignity and respect at work”.

In its manifesto, Labour had promised to “make work pay” – so the ambitious draft bill introduced in October 2024 contained 28 reforms to employment rights. These include requiring employers to guarantee workers a minimum number of hours; strengthening redundancy rights; rights to parental leave and protection from unfair dismissal from a worker’s first day; and expanding trade union rights.

Not only are the changes wide-ranging, they also affect a very large number of workers. There are, for example, nine million people in the UK who have been in their job for less than two years and who will gain the right to claim unfair dismissal.

The bill passed the House of Commons in March 2025. The House of Lords made some important amendments, giving workers a “right to request” rather than a “right to have” guaranteed working hours, increasing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to six months (rather than one day), and reinstating the previous 50% turnout threshold for a trade union to vote for industrial action.

The planned legislation addresses a clear problem in the UK. In-work poverty and precarious work (characterised by low wages, uncertain income and insecurity) have been increasing. More and more people do not earn enough to make ends meet – between 1996 and 2024 the proportion of people in poverty who lived in families with at least one person working increased from 44% to 65%).

This is expensive – benefits paid to working people cost the government around £50 billion a year.

Introducing the bill, Rayner described it as “pro-growth, pro-business, pro-worker”. The UK’s slow productivity growth has been a problem since the financial crisis, and the government hopes that the better retention and higher job satisfaction that the bill could bring about will increase productivity. This view is broadly supported by academic research.

What do its critics say?

The government estimates that the bill will cost businesses between £900 million and £5 billion annually. This seems small, especially in comparison to total wage costs in the UK of more than £1.3 trillion.

However, it was introduced at a time when employers’ costs were already increasing. In April 2025, employers’ national insurance contributions increased from 13.8% to 15% of earnings, and the threshold for paying contributions fell from £9,100 a year to £5,000.

The minimum wage increased from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour for those over 21 and from £8.60 to £10 per hour for 18 to 20-year-olds. These changes hit sectors with lots of young, low-paid workers – hospitality and retail, for example – hardest. Employers in these sectors often use flexible working (such as zero-hours contracts) to offset the costs of higher minimum wages.

If this becomes more difficult because of restrictions imposed by the bill, employers can attempt to pass increased costs on to customers by raising prices. But if food prices increase, for example, this will hurt lower-paid workers (who spend a high proportion of their income on food) – the very people the bill is intended to help.

Of course, not all employers can pass on higher costs. Universities, for instance, have already estimated that national insurance increases cost them £430 million per year.

Restrictions to “fire and rehire” (where employers fire employees and rehire them under different terms, such as less generous pensions) may affect employers looking to restructure. In such cases, employers may instead cut jobs. With the number of UK vacancies falling for three years, this could accelerate the decline.

The UK’s new business secretary, Peter Kyle, has taken over the role of supporting the bill through parliament. He has previously supported it, although he has also committed to lowering regulation, which is seemingly at odds with this bill.

Both business and union leaders are lobbying hard ahead of the Commons debate on September 15. Unions are demanding Labour MPs be whipped to oppose the Lords’ amendments, and some have threatened to disaffiliate from the party if not. For now, the government insists it will pass the bill and reject the amendments. But businesses will hope that new ministers will be more sympathetic to their concerns.

There are still lots of details to be worked out. For example, the bill does not define what counts as the “minimum hours” workers would be guaranteed. With the timeline for introducing all the changes stretching to 2027, business leaders will have plenty of time to lobby for delayed implementation or to reduce its coverage.

Rachel Scarfe is a member of the Labour Party

– ref. After Angela Rayner’s exit from government, what’s the future for employment rights in the UK? – https://theconversation.com/after-angela-rayners-exit-from-government-whats-the-future-for-employment-rights-in-the-uk-265141

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

The line between pulling off a diplomatic masterstroke and setting up an accident waiting to happen can be a fine one. In the seven-month fable of Peter Mandelson’s UK ambassadorship to the US, the crossing of that line has created a political polycrisis for which it is hard to think of a parallel.

In the week after the prime minister, despite his efforts, lost his deputy, and the week before the American president arrives in the UK for an unprecedented – and unpopular – second state visit, Keir Starmer, despite his efforts, has lost the person he controversially personally appointed to the UK’s highest diplomatic post. Worse, over a matter that also happens to implicate Donald Trump – a matter journalists could conceivably raise at the president’s and prime minister’s press conference during the forthcoming state visit.

The risk in the main was in the ambassadorship itself. The US is the UK’s closest and most important international ally and the Washington ambassador is the lynchpin of that relationship. They are the UK’s eyes and ears, permanently operating at the centre of the political and social life of the US capital in the way that no other country’s ambassador has been, is, or could be.

But the risk was also in the man. Prince of Darkness, Third Man, (only last week: “my familiar role as professional villain”), possessed of a public career already involving two high-profile reputation-wracking resignations, Mandelson has always been weapons-grade Marmite.

It was a reflection of post-Brexit British weakness, rather than strength – the desperate need for a trade deal – that Starmer turned to him. Yet personal relations being so important with this president, it can now be seen to have made less sense to have replaced a scandal-free ambassador – Karen Pierce – who was on the best possible terms with Trump and his people. She may return.

Its prominence is why, perhaps, DC is usually the only British ambassadorship that is ever “political” – that is, that a prime minister personally chooses someone who isn’t a diplomat. And even then, it’s rare. One may now see now why. The previous political appointment – in the 1970s – also ended inauspiciously, in a welter of recriminations over nepotism and extra-marital affairs resulting in best-selling novelisation and a hit movie.

The main grounds for Mandelson’s appointment were his public prominence (his “weight”), his experience as an EU trade commissioner, and his almost preternatural networking skills. The latter has been his undoing, given that for years he networked with the man who was to become the world’s most infamous sexual abuser of children.

To describe the appointment as high risk and high reward matters because of the supreme importance of the office and the singular character of the officer. If one can screen the Epstein stain momentarily, the widespread frustration in government was that Mandelson had been justifying that risk.

He was clearly an effective ambassador. Only the week before he delivered a trenchant statement of the contemporary special relationship; the day before he was sacked he had spent an hour with Trump. Ambassadors tend not to have meetings with presidents.

Fundamentally this falls on the fallen. Mandelson knew of the Epstein material that has come to be made public, knowing that it might be made public. He admitted only this week that even more was likely to come after the initial, highly embarrassing, disclosure.

Mandelson took the UK’s most important diplomatic post knowing he was sitting on a ticking bomb. Given the precise nature of the explosive, the political obituary can certainly now be written about one of the most vivid public figures of the past 30 years.

But the more consequential damage will be to the man who appointed him. Downing Street’s statement that security vetting took place without its involvement is not credible.

Much may hinge on what the vetting files reveal – if they are revealed. The decision on whether to release them is a matter for MPs, and how Labour backbenchers choose to vote will be a significant indicator as to the mood in the party.

A crisis from Hades, replete with shadowy associations of global elites and paedophile rings; a hot buffet for online conspiracists, who may be more numerous and prominent in the US, but are far from reticent in the UK. And so the political class undergoes another detention.

The political damage to the government in general and to the prime minister in particular is hard to overstate. That is in part a matter of misfortune: that this particular major crisis comes a week after the previous one. But it has nevertheless provided the leader of the opposition with the most palpable success of her own benighted tenure. Seldom can a relaunch have relapsed so quickly.

However hapless he may increasingly appear, it’s too early to write Starmer’s political obituary. The election may be over three years away, his parliamentary majority is unassailable, and his party – unlike that of the leader of the opposition – has no culture of regicide (although mayor Andy Burnham, observing and pronouncing from Manchester, seems increasingly prepared to test that). Yet the very size of that majority, and the near certainty that many Labour MPs will be one-term, makes public expressions of discontent consequence-free, and consequently freer.

It’s more than curious that so innately risk-averse a person as Keir Starmer appointed so risk-taking a person as Mandelson to his country’s highest-profile international office. That misgivings were aired at the time, including in these very pages, is the least of it.

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

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

Martin Farr 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. Peter Mandelson was always a high risk appointment – his departure will not end the matter for Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/peter-mandelson-was-always-a-high-risk-appointment-his-departure-will-not-end-the-matter-for-keir-starmer-265159

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Silver, Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sheffield

The US and Israel have sparked international condemnation over their leaked vision for the reconstruction of a shattered Gaza. The urban development plan seems to have evolved since its emergence earlier in the year. It now includes economic drivers such as blockchain-based trade initiatives, data centres and “world-class resorts”.

And its alignment to the proposed regional logistical network, the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (Imec) aims to put it at the centre of a pro-American regional architecture.

The images and details that have emerged in the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation (Great) Trust blueprint indicate a vision that clearly pays homage to Gulf urbanism. Similar mega-projects, towers and speculative real estate ventures have driven the transformation of Dubai and other Gulf cities since the 1980s.

The 38-page document, initially published in the Washington Post, is an architectural fantasy of a hyper-modern, coastal enclave. Its planning origins seem twofold. First, it’s rooted in the libertarian ideologies of what’s known as a charter city – urban development spaces with different laws and institutions than the jurisdiction they sit within, such as Prospera in Honduras.

Second, it appears to take inspiration from the authoritarian control of oil-rich monarchies such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia. These states are now intimately aligned with US president Donald Trump and Israel itself.

The plan was reportedly aided by the Boston Consulting Group, with staff from the Tony Blair Institute apparently privy to previous discussions. Boston Consulting Group has since said that two of its former partners took part in the work without its knowledge. The Tony Blair Institute has also distanced itself, saying it has never “authored, developed or endorsed” plans to relocate residents from Gaza.

The US$100 billion (£74 billion) investor-led plan has all the standard ingredients of a new city. This includes prestige waterfront developments for the international elite. It envisages apartment blocks owned by international real estate developers, whether Saudi state-owned funds or US corporate trusts.

Special economic zones with favourable tax conditions supposedly promise advanced manufacturing potential. And various kinds of green and sustainable technologies are also proposed – potentially greenwashing the massive carbon footprint of the conflict.

Gaza is unlikely to be the next Dubai though. The plan includes massive Israeli security buffer zones, suggesting the likelihood of resistance from Palestinian militant groups to occupation. In all likelihood, it would also finally extinguish any prospect of a two-state solution.

The risks for financial investors will be massive. These include possible legal liabilities around land theft and potential incorporation into court proceedings on genocide at the International Court of Justice should these happen. It’s no wonder the plan has been described as “insane” by a senior associate at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, and opposed by some parts of the Israeli media.

Understanding the urban dimensions of the “Gaza Riviera” plan needs more than a planning lens though. It involves placing its development within the wider history and geography of Palestine. Doing so arguably positions the initiative less as a reconstruction effort and more as the next step towards the erasure of the Palestinian presence in the territory.

Scholars of settler colonialism have shown that its logic is one of elimination. This, it’s explained, is to enable territorial control and to establish a new settler society on the land. As Theodor Herzl, founding father of Zionism and held in high regard by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argued: “If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I construct.”

Israel has previously asserted territorial control over Gaza, including the forced transfer of Palestinians to the territory in 1948, which they refer to as the Nakba (the catastrophe), as well as with illegal settlements between 1967 and 2005, and the blockade of the strip from 2007. All these forms of control should be understood within the logic of elimination. The most recent military onslaught in Gaza demonstrates the latest phase in this process.

The plan is reliant on two on-the-ground factors beyond the financial and geo-political – urbicide and expulsion. First, establishing this new society involves demolishing centuries of historical built environment and the support networks of urban life. This urbicide of Gaza is the deliberate destruction of its civil infrastructure, built environment, roads and hospitals, removing its physical character and functionality as a settlement.

What the plan would mean for Palestinians

Forensic Architecture is a group of researchers who use architectural techniques to investigate state violence and human rights abuses. Its Cartography of Genocide database has documented that the Israel Defense Forces’ spatial violence has been nearly complete in many areas of Gaza. This sets the necessary conditions for the plan to proceed.

The plan has little space for the 2.3 million Palestinians living in Gaza. There are reports of residents being offered up to US$5,000 to make way for the “Riviera”, supposedly on a temporary basis.

Meanwhile the Israeli military continues killing Palestinian civilians and pushing massive displacement within Gaza itself, while far-right Israeli politicians make public their desire to remove Palestinians from the territory.

Claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza – including from the International Association of Genocide Scholars – are becoming more widespread. Israel’s actions have resulted in death and injury to tens of thousands of Palestinians. The plan for the redevelopment of Gaza can also be understood within this settler colonial logic: an urban idea that, in order to be achieved, necessitates the erasure of all that stood before through the expulsion of the population and urbicide of the built environment.

Jonathan Silver 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 ‘Gaza Riviera’ is a fantasy plan that relies on urbicide and expulsion – https://theconversation.com/the-gaza-riviera-is-a-fantasy-plan-that-relies-on-urbicide-and-expulsion-264811

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Elin Pigott, Senior Lecturer in Neurosciences and Neurorehabilitation, Course Leader in the College of Health and Life Sciences, London South Bank University

Cats may have a reputation for independence, but emerging research suggests we share a unique connection with them – fuelled by brain chemistry.

The main chemical involved is oxytocin, often called the love hormone. It’s the same neurochemical that surges when a mother cradles her baby or when friends hug, fostering trust and affection. And now studies are showing oxytocin is important for cat-human bonding too.

Read more:
Your dog can read your mind – sort of

Oxytocin plays a central role in social bonding, trust and stress regulation in many animals, including humans. One 2005 experiment showed that oxytocin made human volunteers significantly more willing to trust others in financial games.

Oxytocin also has calming effects in humans and animals, as it suppresses the stress hormone cortisol and activates the parasympathetic nervous system (the rest and digest system) to help the body relax.

Scientists have long known that friendly interactions trigger oxytocin release in both dogs and their owners, creating a mutual feedback loop of bonding. Until recently, though, not much was known about its effect in cats.

Cats are more subtle in showing affection. Yet their owners often report the same warm feelings of companionship and stress relief that dog owners do – and studies are increasingly backing these reports up. Researchers in Japan, for example, reported in 2021 that brief petting sessions with their cats boosted oxytocin levels in many owners.

In that study, women interacted with their cats for a few minutes while scientists measured the owners’ hormone levels. The results suggested that friendly contact (stroking the cat, talking in a gentle tone) was linked to elevated oxytocin in the humans’ saliva, compared with a quiet resting period without their cat.

Many people find petting a purring cat is soothing, and research indicates it’s not just because of the soft fur. The act of petting and even the sound of purring can trigger oxytocin release in our brains. One 2002 study found this oxytocin rush from gentle cat contact helps lower cortisol (our stress hormone), which in turn can reduce blood pressure and even pain.

When is oxytocin released between cats and humans?

Research is pinpointing specific moments that cause the release of this hormone in our cross-species friendship. Gentle physical contact seems to be a prime trigger for cats.

A February 2025 study found that when owners engaged in relaxed petting, cuddling or cradling of their cats, the owners’ oxytocin tended to rise, and so did the cats’ – if the interaction was not forced on the animal.

The researchers monitored oxytocin in cats during 15 minutes of play and cuddling at home with their owner. Securely attached cats who initiated contact such as lap-sitting or nudging showed an oxytocin surge. The more time they spent close to their humans, the greater the boost.

What about less-cuddly felines? The same study noted different patterns in cats with more anxious or aloof attachment styles. Avoidant cats (those who kept their distance) showed no significant oxytocin change, while cats who were anxious (constantly seeking their owner but easily overwhelmed by handling) had high oxytocin to begin with.

Oxytocin of avoidant and anxious cats was found to drop after a forced cuddle. When interactions respect the cat’s comfort, the oxytocin flows – but when a cat feels cornered, the bonding hormone is elusive.

Maybe humans could learn something from their feline friends on managing attachment styles. The key to bonding with a cat is understanding how they communicate.

Unlike dogs, cats don’t rely on prolonged eye contact to bond. Instead, they use more understated signals. The most well known is the slow blink. It’s a feline smile, signalling safety and trust.

Purring also plays a role in bonding with people. The low-frequency rumble of a cat’s purr has been linked not only to healing in cats themselves, but also to calming effects in humans. Listening to purring can lower heart rate and blood pressure; oxytocin mediates these benefits.

The companionship of a cat, reinforced by all those little oxytocin boosts from daily interactions, can serve as a buffer against anxiety and depression – in some cases providing comfort on par with human social support.

Read more:
Is your cat vocal or quiet? The explanation could be in their genes

Are cats just less loving than dogs?

It’s true that studies generally find stronger oxytocin responses in dog–human interactions. In one widely discussed 2016 experiment, scientists measured oxytocin in pets and owners before and after ten minutes of play. Dogs showed an average 57% spike in oxytocin levels after playtime, whereas cats showed about a 12% increase.

In humans, oxytocin levels rise during meaningful social interactions. Studies show that contact with a loved one produces stronger oxytocin responses than contact with strangers. So, a happy dog greeting is akin to that rush of seeing your child or partner.

Dogs, being pack animals domesticated for constant human companionship, are almost hard-wired to seek eye contact, petting and approval from us – behaviour that stimulates oxytocin release in both parties. Cats, however, evolved from more solitary hunters which didn’t need overt social gestures to survive. So, they may not display oxytocin-fueled behaviour as readily or consistently. Instead, cats may reserve their oxytocin-releasing behaviour for when they truly feel safe.

A cat’s trust isn’t automatic; it must be earned. But once given, it is reinforced by the same chemical that bonds human parents, partners and friends.

So, next time your cat blinks slowly from across the sofa or climbs on to your lap for a purr-filled cuddle, know that something invisible is happening too: oxytocin is rising in both your brains, deepening the trust and soothing the stress of daily life. Cats, in their own way, have tapped into the ancient biology of love.

Laura Elin Pigott 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 owning a cat does to your brain (and theirs) – https://theconversation.com/what-owning-a-cat-does-to-your-brain-and-theirs-264396

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kate McNicholas Smith, Senior Lecturer in Screen, University of Westminster

This piece contains spoilers for On Swift Horses

On Swift Horses, directed by Daniel Minahan and adapted from the novel by Shannon Pufahl, is a romantic drama set in the US in the 1950s – an era familiar from classic Hollywood cinema and countless nostalgic films and TV series. Daisy Edgar-Jones plays Muriel, who is quickly (if somewhat reluctantly) engaged to be married to Lee (Will Poulter) – a working-class man with aspirations to the American dream. The arrival of Lee’s brother Julius (Jacob Elordi), however, reveals cracks in the young couple’s seemingly perfect relationship.

That this is a queer film is not immediately obvious from its publicity. In fact, promotional materials might lead audiences to assume that Muriel and Julius embark upon an affair.

While the pair are drawn to one another, the connection between them is more complex. Muriel is struggling with the gendered expectations of the era and, as the film will go on to explore, both characters are queer.

Upon moving to California with Lee, Muriel meets two queer women who will open up new possibilities. The first is the glamorous Gail (portrayed by queer, non-binary artist Kat Cunning), who kisses Muriel and leads her to a local gay bar. The second is Sandra (Sasha Calle), her Latinx, visibly queer coded neighbour.

Both meetings showcase the lingering looks and subtle flirtations of queer romance – codes forged out of necessity and often used, or interpreted, as queer subtext. In On Swift Horses, however, queerness takes centre stage as Muriel and Sandra begin an affair.

Meanwhile, Julius abandons plans to join Lee and Muriel in suburban California in favour of a wilder, freer life in Vegas. It’s in the desert city where, finding work in a casino, he meets and falls in love with Henry (played by Mexican actor Diego Calva).

In both romances, the iconography of 1950s Americana are reimagined, making visible, to an extent, the very real queer subcultures of the era. For example, in the gay bar that Gail leads Muriel to, the lesbian party Muriel stumbles upon at Sandra’s house, and the secret haunts of gay men. In these scenes, the hidden but vibrant worlds of 1950s queer people are represented.

This was, after all, the era of butches (masculine-presenting lesbians), studs (Black masculine-presenting lesbians) and femmes (feminine-presenting lesbians) – these were identities that emerged in queer women’s bar communities that resisted the heteronormativity of the era. It encompassed clothing, roles and relationships. It also saw the rise of the homophile movement, which was early LGBTQ+ activism that challenged social stigmas and sought acceptance, albeit on limited terms.

Both secretive subcultures and social movements were necessary as this was a period of significant legal and social repression, with the government viscously targeting communists and those deemed “deviants”. Included in this was the Lavender Scare where queer people were targeted. The film portrays this too, with police raids and violent attacks always on the periphery of queer lives. As Gail warns Muriel, “We’re all just a hair’s breadth from losing everything.”

This poignant line has contemporary resonances. As Calle notes in an interview: “…even though the movie is based in the 50s, everything that happened – the oppression that was happening at that time – is so relevant today.”

The film is enjoyable and the ending hopeful. However, I ultimately found it unsatisfying as the characters and narrative never really go deep enough. While Sandra insists to Muriel that she is a real person, the film doesn’t really give her much room to be one – her life and story remain unknown, her function is largely to facilitate Muriel’s journey (a familiar trope). Similarly, while Henry does point out that, as a Mexican queer man, things are different for him than they are for Julius, the queer Latinx characters remain secondary and the racialised context of the period is never fully explored.

Interestingly, director Daniel Minahan is best known for television – having directed hit series such as Six Feet Under, True Blood, Game of Thrones and Fellow Travellers (a series that also depicts closeted queer lives in the 50s). As the critic Mike McCahill notes in The Guardian, On Swift Horses might similarly have worked better as a television series. In this format, the more expansive possibilities of a TV show would have offered more space to flesh out the characters and their trajectories.

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

Kate McNicholas Smith 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. On Swift Horses: a film that fails to go deep enough on the complex queer lives of people in the 50s – https://theconversation.com/on-swift-horses-a-film-that-fails-to-go-deep-enough-on-the-complex-queer-lives-of-people-in-the-50s-265119

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Trevor Treharne, Doctoral Researcher, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

Each day, we’re confronted with headlines about death: millions lost to disease, disasters, overwork or unhealthy lifestyles. But much of this reporting doesn’t reflect reality – and it may be doing more harm than good.

Journalism is meant to help the public make sense of health risks. But the way media outlets report death often distorts our understanding of what’s actually killing people. Dramatic causes like terrorism, pandemics and natural disasters receive disproportionate attention, while chronic illnesses such as heart disease, kidney disease and stroke – the world’s biggest killers are underreported or ignored.

This matters. Public perceptions of risk shape everything from government health spending and research priorities to individual behaviour and policy responses.

A large body of research suggests that people consistently overestimate the risk of rare or sensational causes of death and underestimate common ones. A 2014 study found that people were far more likely to think of deaths from suicide, homicide, or air crashes than from stroke, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease — even though the latter are far more common.

These misperceptions closely mirror media coverage. A comparative content analysis of UK, US and Australian newspapers found that cancer, aviation accidents and violent crime were disproportionately represented, while leading causes of death like heart disease received relatively little attention.

Pandemics tend to dominate headlines, especially when early estimates or modelling studies are reported without context. One example is the widely shared claim that overwork causes 2.8 million deaths a year. The original report from the World Health Organization and International Labour Organization put the figure closer to 745,000 – a significant number, but one that became inflated as it was repeated across headlines and outlets.

Meanwhile, major killers such as kidney disease, lower respiratory infections, and hepatitis C barely register in news cycles.

This gap between coverage and reality – known as the perception gap – shapes how people think, feel and act. Research shows the public tends to panic over rare events while ignoring everyday risks. For instance, someone might worry about dying in a plane crash (an exceedingly rare event), while overlooking high blood pressure — which contributes to more than 8.5 million deaths each year.

Why the media gets death wrong

Journalists often focus on stories with novelty, controversy or emotional impact. Cancer and heart disease are common, but overwork or climate-related deaths feel more urgent or politically relevant. New research or modelling studies also tend to get picked up quickly, especially when they come with a striking number or bold claim.

Reporters frequently rely on press releases and preprints, which may present tentative findings as hard facts. Mortality statistics are also often shared without context. For example, an article might claim “high blood pressure causes 10 million deaths a year” – without explaining that this figure includes associated risks and overlaps with other conditions.

Another issue is how deaths are categorised. Especially among older adults, a single death may involve multiple conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness. Media reports rarely account for these comorbidities, which means the same death might be counted under several causes across different articles further inflating the apparent death toll.

The result isn’t usually intentional misinformation – but the impact can still be deeply misleading.

What responsible reporting looks like

To improve public understanding and avoid unnecessary alarm, media outlets should adopt three core principles:

1. Provide context

Always relate a figure to the global picture. For instance, around 295,000 people drown each year – a tragic number, but just 0.5% of global deaths. Without this kind of framing, it’s easy for even modest risks to feel overwhelming.

2. Clarify cause v correlation

There’s a critical difference between saying “X causes Y” and “X is associated with Y.” For example, ice cream sales and sunburns tend to rise together – not because one causes the other, but because both are linked to summer weather. Precision in language matters: unless a direct causal link has been firmly established, it’s more accurate to describe a risk as “associated with” a particular outcome.

3. Avoid sensationalism

In a crowded news landscape, it’s tempting to chase clicks – but public trust relies on accuracy. Exaggeration undermines credibility, especially in health journalism.

What readers can do

It’s not just journalists who shape the narrative – readers do too. When you see a health statistic:

• ask whether it comes from a reputable source like the WHO, UN, or IHME

• check whether the figure is put in context or presented in isolation

• look for signs of double-counting, exaggeration or causal overreach

• be cautious with headlines that include words like “explosion,” “soar” or “epidemic” without numbers to back them up.

Death is a serious subject but our understanding of it shouldn’t be shaped by exaggeration. With better reporting and more critical reading, we can build a clearer picture of global health and respond to real risks, not just frightening headlines.

Trevor Treharne receives funding from the Oxford-McCall MacBain Graduate Scholarship.

Carl Heneghan holds grant funding from the NIHR and previously from the WHO for a series of ongoing Living rapid reviews on the modes of transmission of SARs-CoV-2 reference WHO registration 2020/1077093. He is an advisor to Collateral Global, the Sir James Mackenzie Institute for Early Diagnosis at St Andrew’s University, and the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). He is a member of the Board of Preventing Overdiagnosis. He is also the co-director of the Global Centre for Healthcare and Urbanisation and a Board member of the Speed Trust.

– ref. What the media gets wrong about death – and how to fix it – https://theconversation.com/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-death-and-how-to-fix-it-256830

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Darling, Professor in Human Geography, Durham University

Over recent weeks, the interim injunction to halt the housing of asylum seekers at the Bell hotel in Epping has thrown government plans into crisis. The Home Office has now successfully appealed this judgment but does still need to come up with another plan for housing asylum seekers in the longer term.

The case has highlighted the need to rebuild relationships with local government. In trying to stop the Bell hotel from housing asylum seekers, Epping Forest district council argued that an initial ruling in its favour was an important step in “redressing the imbalance” between the priorities of the Home Office and the interests of councils and residents. Long-standing concerns about a lack of consultation over where, and how, asylum seekers are housed suggest we should expect to see further legal challenges in places where these hotels are located.

The lack of communication with communities over the hotels has generated fertile ground for anti-migrant protests. The outcome has been an accommodation model that works for no one and increasingly fraught relationships between central and local government.

Hotels are used as emergency accommodation because the last government failed to process asylum claims, leaving a backlog of people trapped in the asylum system. They are unable to work or secure their own housing.

The Labour government has made a commitment to end the use of hotels by 2029 and has made some progress in reducing hotel use since its peak in 2023. But there are no easy alternatives.

It has tried to use former RAF bases and military barracks as sites for mass accommodation but conditions are extremely poor. The short-term holding facility at Manston has seen outbreaks of disease, severe overcrowding, and accusations of racism by contracted staff. Accommodation at RAF Wethersfield in Essex has been likened to a prison by those housed there with charities warning of a mental health crisis unfolding as a consequence of insufficient support. And the costs of running these sites are greater than hotels.

Alternatives

The government could instead look to European neighbours like Germany and Sweden, where asylum seekers are able to work after set periods in the asylum system. This means a reduced reliance on the state for housing and greater pathways to integration. Despite campaigns to support the right to work for asylum seekers, the UK continues to deny such a right. This limits the ability of asylum seekers to secure their own housing. In the current political climate, willingness to change course and grant asylum seekers the right to work seems unlikely.

The Epping Forest case should force the government to rethink. The immediate priority must be to work closely with local government to provide safe and secure community-based housing for people seeking asylum.

Achieving this will require ending the privatisation of asylum accommodation and returning control to local authorities. Empowering councils to have a stake in the future of asylum accommodation will mean that the asylum system can benefit from the knowledge and expertise of local government on housing conditions, markets and standards.

Moving asylum accommodation back under public control means an end to the excessive profiteering of private contractors. It can also offer scope for experimenting with housing models that have been ignored by profit-driven housing providers.

For example, approaches to co-housing show how investments in accommodating asylum seekers can be shared with other groups in need of housing. In Amsterdam, co-housing projects have provided accommodation for young refugees alongside Dutch students who choose to live in specially designed housing units with shared facilities and social spaces. In Berlin, co-housing accommodates asylum seekers alongside residents with German citizenship and dedicated community hubs. These models show that alternatives can both involve the local community and deliver dignified housing.

Respecting refugee rights

This summer the government has shown no leadership on asylum. Reform UK and an increasingly radical Conservative party have promised simplistic and hardline policies that show no respect for the lives and rights of asylum seekers.

In response, the government should be bold. To change the failing asylum accommodation system the government needs to make a public case for why housing asylum seekers with dignity matters. The government should communicate the importance of respecting international law and the right to asylum. That means defending the 1951 Refugee Convention against those who are seeking to remove protections for people fleeing conflict and persecution.

It also means rejecting the idea that those seeking asylum in Britain are “illegal” – a term that has become mainstream. Asylum seekers have a legal right to seek safety and their actions in doing so are not illegal. Calling asylum seekers “illegal” makes it easier to dismiss their need for protection and to justify their poor treatment.

Leadership involves challenging the divisive language used to describe asylum seekers, rather than allowing terms such as “invasion” to remain uncontested. Divisive language pits vulnerable groups in society against one another.

Legally, and morally, the state has responsibilities to support all those facing homelessness. Denying these responsibilities and restricting the rights of asylum seekers will not advance the rights of others. Instead, focus should be on developing public housing options that combine resources for all those who are homeless.

Innovative and inclusive ways to provide safe, secure, and dignified accommodation to asylum seekers and other people are available. The Epping Forest case should give the government the imperative to explore them.

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

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

Jonathan Darling has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is affiliated with the No Accommodation Network as a trustee.

– ref. After the Epping Forest case, the government needs to be bold and build asylum housing that works – https://theconversation.com/after-the-epping-forest-case-the-government-needs-to-be-bold-and-build-asylum-housing-that-works-264060