Surconsommation de vêtements : pourquoi la garde-robe des Français déborde

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Pierre Galio, Chef du service « Consommation et prévention », Ademe (Agence de la transition écologique)

En juin 2025, le Sénat a adopté une loi anti « fast fashion » qui doit contrer la montée en puissance de la mode ultra éphémère. Au-delà de ses impacts environnementaux et sociaux ravageurs, cette dernière menace directement l’industrie et le commerce textile français.

Dans ce contexte, l’Agence de la transition écologique a publié, en juin 2025, une étude sur les pratiques d’achats et d’usage des Français en matière de vêtements. L’enjeu ? Mieux comprendre les moteurs de notre surconsommation grandissante.


Depuis plusieurs années, le commerce de l’habillement traverse en France une crise, marquée par les redressements, les liquidations judiciaires, les restructurations, les plans de sauvegarde de l’emploi et les plans de cession. Rien qu’en 2023, le secteur a perdu dans le pays 4 000 emplois, selon l’Alliance du commerce.

Malgré ce contexte peu reluisant, le nombre de vêtements neufs vendus continue d’augmenter : 3,5 milliards en 2024 contre 3,1 millions en 2019, selon le baromètre 2024 de Refashion. Cela représente 10 millions de pièces achetées chaque jour en France.

On dispose de données sur le marché des vêtements et sur la durabilité intrinsèque des textiles, mais les comportements liés aux achats et à l’usage des textiles demeurent, quant à eux, méconnus. Cela rend leur durabilité extrinsèque difficile à appréhender. Il s’agit de mieux connaître les facteurs qui, en dehors de l’usure, amènent les Français à ne plus porter un vêtement.

Bien sûr, des tendances se dessinent. Nous savons que de nouvelles pratiques de consommation ont émergé et que d’autres se sont renforcées. Succès grandissant de la mode ultra éphémère, d’un côté, montée en puissance de la seconde main, de l’autre, en particulier via les plateformes en ligne.

Or, l’impact environnemental du secteur textile représente 4 à 8 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre mondiales. Mais pour impulser des changements, il est essentiel de comprendre ce qui se joue.

C’est pourquoi l’Agence de la transition écologique (Ademe) a mené, avec l’Observatoire de la société et de la consommation (Obsoco), une enquête auprès de 4 000 personnes sur leurs pratiques d’achat et d’usage de vêtements.

Cette étude a été affinée par une approche comportementale auprès de 159 personnes, dont 40 ont également fait l’objet d’une approche ethnographique à domicile.

La moitié de nos vêtements stockés et presque jamais utilisés

Malgré le volume conséquent d’habits vendus – 42 pièces en moyenne par personne et par an, selon les chiffres de Refashion –, les Français n’ont pas conscience de la quantité totale de vêtements qu’ils achètent et dont ils disposent dans leurs armoires, révèle l’enquête.

Ils déclarent ainsi jusqu’à deux fois moins que ce qu’ils possèdent réellement. Ainsi, alors que la moyenne des déclarations est de 79 pièces par personne, le constat atteint plutôt les 175.

Plus de la moitié de ces vêtements est stockée et non utilisée. Dans les armoires françaises, 120 millions de vêtements achetés il y a plus de trois mois n’ont jamais été portés, ou alors seulement une ou deux fois.

Non seulement ils sous-estiment le volume de ce stock, mais seuls 35 % des Français considèrent que la quantité de vêtements qu’ils possèdent excède leurs besoins. Seuls 19 % pensent que leurs achats de vêtements sont excessifs. Il existe une réelle dichotomie entre l’excès de vêtements à domicile et la remise en question de l’acte d’achat.

Une minorité de gros consommateurs

Cette perception paradoxale est problématique, puisqu’elle freine l’atteinte du premier objectif, à savoir réduire le flux d’achat de vêtements.

Là-dessus, l’étude a permis de dresser un profil des acheteurs et mis en évidence qu’une minorité de gros consommateurs – 20 à 25 % – portait le marché. Plutôt jeunes, urbaines et sensibles à la dimension identitaire et esthétique de l’habillement, ces personnes expriment une volonté de renouveler régulièrement leur garde-robe.

Contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait croire, les boutiques demeurent le principal lieu d’achat, malgré une forte poussée de la vente en ligne, d’abord chez les plus âgées mais aussi chez les jeunes.

La grande évolution du marché ces dernières années est qu’il a été inondé par les géants de la mode ultra éphémère, comme Shein et Temu.

Cette mode ultra éphémère de seconde génération se distingue de la mode éphémère de première génération (H&M, Zara, Primark étant quelques-unes des enseignes les plus emblématiques de ce segment), qu’elle concurrence, par sa gamme de prix plus faible, son taux de renouvellement des gammes plus fréquent, son agressivité marketing et l’étendue plus large de son offre.

Acheter plus, moins cher… et parfois inutilement

Aujourd’hui, malgré son omniprésence sur Internet et son ascension fulgurante, elle n’est, à ce stade, plébiscitée que par 25 % des Français – contre 45 % pour la mode éphémère de première génération. Elle est surtout populaire chez un public jeune, féminin, aux revenus plutôt modestes, chez qui est identifiée une légère dominante rurale.

Dans le discours des enquêtés, le choix de se tourner vers ces enseignes est clairement justifié par le fait de pouvoir acheter beaucoup et de renouveler régulièrement grâce à des prix attractifs et à un large choix.

Ceux qui les fréquentent sont deux fois plus nombreux à déclarer que le volume de leurs achats a augmenté. Le taux des achats jugés inutiles a posteriori est également plus important chez ces consommateurs. L’effet rebond de la consommation, lié à des prix toujours plus bas, est ici clairement identifié.

La seconde main en plein essor

En parallèle de cette mode ultra éphémère, une autre pratique de consommation autrement plus vertueuse a connu un regain ces dernières années : l’achat de seconde main.

Fondé sur le réemploi, ce mode d’achat permet d’allonger la durée d’usage de nos vêtements et donc évite ou repousse l’achat d’un habit neuf. Ce qui a du sens, puisque la majeure partie de l’impact environnemental d’un produit tient à sa fabrication.

La pratique s’est surtout popularisée sous l’effet du développement de plateformes en ligne, là où elle se cantonnait auparavant aux friperies et brocantes. Un leader incontesté de la seconde main en ligne, Vinted, s’est imposé. Il capte aujourd’hui 90 % des consommateurs qui passent par Internet pour leurs achats de vêtements d’occasion.

Une pratique à double tranchant

En achetant de seconde main, la majorité des consommateurs ne recherchent toutefois pas une source alternative d’approvisionnement pour des préoccupations environnementales. Pour beaucoup d’entre eux, Vinted et les plateformes concurrentes ne sont qu’un fournisseur supplémentaire, complémentaire du marché neuf. Et, en particulier, de la mode ultra éphémère : on retrouve bien souvent les clients de Shein ou Temu sur les plateformes de seconde main, dans une logique consumériste très claire.

Les produits qui trouvent acquéreurs sur ces sites ont d’ailleurs souvent été très peu portés : ils n’ont en moyenne vécu qu’entre 20 et 30 % de la durée de vie « normale » d’un vêtement. Cela signifie que la rotation des biens augmente, sans garantie que l’habit, malgré ses multiples propriétaires, soit porté jusqu’à l’usure.

En outre, le fruit de la revente de vêtements de seconde main sert dans 50 % des cas à racheter d’autres vêtements, ou est alloué à d’autres postes de dépense. Le risque serait que la démarche alimente une boucle consumériste. Pour éviter que la seconde main ait ces effets rebonds, l’enjeu, pour les consommateurs, est donc de concilier réemploi et sobriété, en limitant les flux entrants et en augmentant l’intensité d’usage des habits, c’est-à-dire en les utilisant plus souvent et plus longtemps.

Mais cela implique d’interroger la notion de besoin. Aujourd’hui, en matière vestimentaire, celle-ci est appréhendée de façon très extensive et dépasse largement le besoin strictement fonctionnel : elle recoupe des besoins de sociabilité, d’intégration sociale, d’identification et de distinction. Cela doit être interrogé, en particulier compte tenu des méthodes marketing et publicitaires toujours plus puissantes.

The Conversation

Pierre Galio ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Surconsommation de vêtements : pourquoi la garde-robe des Français déborde – https://theconversation.com/surconsommation-de-vetements-pourquoi-la-garde-robe-des-francais-deborde-261019

Comprendre le populisme trumpiste, au-delà des anathèmes et des invectives

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Elisa Chelle, Professeure des universités en science politique, Université Paris Nanterre – Université Paris Lumières

Par ses mesures, par son langage, par sa remise en cause régulière de fondements de la démocratie américaine que l’on croyait intangibles, Donald Trump suscite souvent un rejet si viscéral que toute tentative d’analyse dépassionnée peut susciter le soupçon : en expliquant froidement les ressorts du trumpisme et de ses victoires électorales, ne banalise-t-on pas un phénomène profondément dangereux ? De la même façon, il arrive parfois que la remise en cause de l’idée selon laquelle le populisme trumpien aurait déjà précipité les États-Unis dans un autoritarisme débridé soit assimilée à une volonté de minorer les méfaits de l’actuel locataire de la Maison Blanche. Ce double défi – expliquer le trumpisme et mesurer son impact réel à ce stade – est brillamment relevé par Élisa Chelle, professeure des universités en science politique à l’Université de Nanterre, dans La Démocratie à l’épreuve du populisme. Les leçons du trumpisme, qui vient de paraître aux éditions Odile Jacob. Extraits de l’introduction.


Tous mes amis américains sont Démocrates. La campagne présidentielle de 2024 ? Ils l’ont traversée avec anxiété. Jusqu’au 5 novembre qui fut, pour eux, un jour de sidération. Comment un homme politique aussi « menteur », « vulgaire », « raciste » et « misogyne » pouvait-il revenir au pouvoir ? Pas de démonstration de force, pas de coup d’État : la démocratie des urnes avait parlé. Immédiatement s’est posée une question : comment réagir ? Fallait-il s’indigner, manifester, quitter le pays ?

Mes amis français sont, eux aussi, tous Démocrates. Quand bien même ils n’ont jamais vécu aux États-Unis ou subi les conséquences d’une présidence Trump, ils s’emportèrent en dénonçant l’« agaçant ploutocrate », l’« ennemi de la science », le « destructeur de l’État de droit »… Lorsque je leur ai confié écrire ce livre, avec une visée plus analytique que militante, voulant dépasser les effets d’annonce, l’un d’entre eux m’a demandé, quelque peu goguenard : « Tu ne serais pas devenue trumpiste ? »

Les résistances institutionnelles révèlent la force de la démocratie à l’épreuve du populisme. Séparer les pouvoirs : pas de credo plus vénéré dans ce régime. Depuis 1787, des attributions substantielles s’attachent à la présidence, au Congrès, à la Cour suprême, aux États fédérés ou à la justice. Certes, la frontière entre chacune de ces institutions reste objet de débats sinon de conflits. Mais aucune d’entre elles n’est au-dessus de la mêlée. En fonction des équilibres en place, des questions traitées ou de circonstances favorables, c’est l’une qui va tenter d’utiliser ou d’instrumentaliser l’autre.

C’est ce qui fait toute la spécificité de la démocratie américaine : elle est traversée par des forces en concurrence. L’État n’est pas neutre. Il est façonné par les intérêts partisans. Cette plasticité des pouvoirs est mise au service d’une société ouverte et égalitaire, mais la liberté qu’elle offre peut être soumise à des logiques de puissance. Les attaques contre les institutions américaines conduites par Donald Trump en témoignent. Peut-on pour autant parler d’une fuite en avant autoritaire ? ou d’une menace planant sur la Constitution ? Le battage médiatique, qui s’en tient aux effets d’annonce, en nourrit l’accusation. En prétendant lutter contre les « deux ennemis intérieurs » (l’immigré clandestin et le militant de gauche), la droite radicale ferait basculer le pays hors du cercle de la démocratie. Un projet qui aurait pour effet d’abîmer les fondements de la République.

Il est urgent d’interroger la réalité d’une telle inquiétude. Si une forme de privatisation du jeu politique est en cours, les contre-pouvoirs restent actifs. On le verra tout au long de ce livre : l’administration déploie sa force d’inertie ; les institutions judiciaires multiplient les suspensions et les interdictions ; les élus se rebellent contre des politiques jugées injustes. Si la démocratie est un régime de conflictualité, les États-Unis restent fidèles à leur histoire. Le pluralisme y demeure vivant. Et les médias échappent à toute unanimité de surface, de celles qui caractérisent les États autoritaires ou dictatoriaux.

La polarisation des opinions s’est accrue et la confrontation prend des traits toujours plus marqués. Mais faut-il en conclure qu’une « guerre civile » déchire le pays ? L’excès des mots nuit ici à l’analyse véritable de la situation. Après tout, le consensus n’est un horizon que pour quelques esprits éclairés. Il n’a jamais constitué un principe de gouvernement.

Depuis l’arrivée à la Maison Blanche de Donald Trump en 2016, puis sa réélection triomphale, l’Europe observe avec inquiétude les soubresauts de la démocratie américaine. Cette attention fiévreuse a des raisons précises. Les États-Unis sont perçus comme un laboratoire grandeur nature des mutations qui affectent l’ensemble des démocraties occidentales. Le trumpisme n’est pas un accident de l’Histoire. Il est la manifestation paroxystique de tendances lourdes qui traversent l’Atlantique : défiance envers les élites, nostalgie d’un âge d’or, instrumentalisation des peurs identitaires, retour du nationalisme, voire du nativisme… en un mot, du populisme.

Le populisme américain défie frontalement les règles du jeu politique établies. Il interroge les fondements mêmes de la représentation politique. Il teste les limites de la démocratie. Son expression se nourrit des paradoxes propres à la délégation électorale. Le peuple, théoriquement souverain, a peu de prise sur les décisions qui l’affectent au quotidien. Donald Trump entend lui donner sa revanche en brisant l’obstacle qui en fait un « spectateur de sa destinée » ou la « proie d’un monde qui change ». Sa recette est de prétendre faire primer la volonté sur les institutions, l’autorité sur le compromis, la politique sur le droit.

Cette mutation profonde dans l’art de gouverner transforme chaque procédure judiciaire en forum médiatique, chaque contrainte juridique en opportunité de victimisation. Donald Trump a démontré qu’il était possible de mobiliser le suffrage universel contre la démocratie. Oubliée l’accusation d’« élection volée », lors de sa défaite face au Démocrate Joe Biden en 2020 : les primaires l’ont propulsé vers la victoire présidentielle la plus nette depuis Barack Obama en 2012, voire depuis 1988 pour un Républicain. Accablé par de multiples affaires judiciaires – allant de la plainte pour viol à la fraude électorale, sans négliger son rôle dans l’assaut du Capitole le 6 janvier 2021 –, le milliardaire a finalement obtenu l’onction démocratique. Il l’a emporté avec 2,3 millions de voix d’avance et 312 grands électeurs contre 226 à son adversaire démocrate Kamala Harris.

La gauche aurait-elle perdu de vue, dans cette élection, l’« Américain ordinaire » ? Par rapport à 2020, ce sont 6 millions d’électeurs démocrates qui ne se sont pas déplacés. Tandis que le candidat républicain, lui, a renforcé son soutien dans des catégories sociales réputées peu favorables à son camp (Afro-Américains, Hispaniques…). L’inflation et la question de l’immigration ont manifestement été sous-estimées par l’équipe de Kamala Harris. Elles ont largement pesé sur l’orientation des préférences. Les causes démocrates – écologie, défense des minorités, antiracisme – ont d’abord séduit les électeurs urbains les plus éduqués. Mais pour les deux tiers de l’électorat dépourvus de diplôme universitaire, elles furent un repoussoir.

Pour faire leur aggiornamento, les Démocrates devront comprendre ce qui s’est passé, analyser les clés du succès populiste et surtout y apporter une réponse. Trump n’a pas seulement excellé dans un art oratoire accrochant les milieux populaires, avec ses « incohérences » et ses « contradictions » dénoncées par le camp démocrate. Il a su conduire une politique de présence, sinon d’incarnation, qui fait désormais écho aux formes d’adulation propagées via les réseaux sociaux. Face à des adversaires peu offensifs sur l’inflation, le candidat populiste défend un « chauvinisme de la prospérité ». Du mineur de charbon de Virginie-Occidentale à l’étudiant afro-américain de Géorgie, en passant par la famille hispanique du Texas, ses mots d’ordre ont su capter l’attention d’un électorat déçu, déclassé, ou tout simplement exaspéré.

Cette stratégie de conquête des classes populaires a incité les Républicains à défendre un credo protectionniste. Les promesses de taxes douanières et de réindustrialisation résumées dans le slogan « America first » ont redonné espoir à une majorité d’électeurs. Or ces enjeux ont fait oublier les anathèmes lancés par les Démocrates contre l’« extrémiste » Donald Trump. Le « danger » qu’il représenterait pour la démocratie n’a pas été pris au sérieux. Comme si ses propos les plus outranciers n’avaient guère d’effet sur ces segments de l’opinion.

En 2016, le candidat à la Maison Blanche avait déclaré vouloir faire emprisonner son adversaire Hillary Clinton. Il s’était engagé à abroger la grande loi santé d’Obama, à se retirer de l’accord de libre-échange nord-américain, ou à en finir avec le droit du sol. Autant d’annonces tonitruantes qui ont marqué la campagne électorale mais qui n’ont pas été suivies d’effet. Celles lancées en 2024 – terminer la guerre en Ukraine en vingt-quatre heures, baisser les impôts ou encore expulser massivement les migrants en situation irrégulière – ne sont pas moins clivantes. À leur tour, elles seront mises à l’épreuve des faits et de la réalité du pouvoir.

Cet extrait est issu de « La Démocratie à l’épreuve du populisme. Les leçons du trumpisme » d’Élisa Chelle, qui vient de paraître aux éditions Odile Jacob.

Ce livre veut le montrer : le 47e président n’est pas une anomalie qu’il suffirait d’évacuer pour retrouver le cours « normal » d’une histoire séculaire. Il traduit un changement profond des formes de représentation et de mobilisation électives. C’est pourquoi il faut saisir les conditions structurelles de cette arrivée au pouvoir. En somme, répondre à la question : pourquoi des millions d’Américains ont-ils pu voir en lui un recours légitime ? Non pas pour excuser ou cautionner, mais pour s’essayer à expliquer les raisons d’un succès. Un exercice qui suppose de ne pas s’effrayer devant des nuances ou des faits. À rebours du temps des médias, tentons de démêler ce qui relève de l’écume des jours et ce qui a vocation à rester. Saintes colères et polémiques stériles détournent trop souvent le regard des résistances institutionnelles et des compromis passés sous silence. La politique est faite de mises en scène mais aussi de coulisses. Allons voir ce qui s’y passe.

Avec le retour du tribun populiste à la Maison Blanche, les institutions américaines font face à un test décisif. Vont-elles absorber, affaiblir ou annihiler un programme politique qui se veut en rupture avec deux siècles de tradition démocratique ? Observer le résultat de cette secousse, c’est anticiper l’avenir européen. À l’heure où la France se prépare à l’après-Macron, les forces antisystème n’ont jamais été aussi puissantes. Elles se tiennent aujourd’hui aux portes du pouvoir. Le régime politique français, avec son semi-présidentialisme et son scrutin majoritaire à deux tours, résistera-t-il à la tentation populiste ? L’expérience américaine nous enseigne que cette transformation ne constitue pas seulement un péril. Elle est aussi une opportunité de renouvellement démocratique pour l’Europe tout entière si les partis politiques savent se montrer à la hauteur.

The Conversation

Elisa Chelle a reçu des financements de l’Institut universitaire de France.

ref. Comprendre le populisme trumpiste, au-delà des anathèmes et des invectives – https://theconversation.com/comprendre-le-populisme-trumpiste-au-dela-des-anathemes-et-des-invectives-263937

Donald Trump’s penchant for bullshit explains MAGA anger about the Epstein files

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tim Kenyon, Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Brock University

In July 2025, the connection between United States President Donald Trump and his base of supporters was fractured by the announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI that no “Epstein list” exists.

That is, they say, there is no list of clients or participants identified by convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein prior to his death by apparent suicide in 2019. No further documents related to the Epstein case would be released.

This announcement angered and confused many among Trump’s core constituency, including prominent loyalists and influencers. Weeks later, alienation among his base continues.




Read more:
Trump’s Epstein problem is real: New poll shows many in his base disapprove of his handling of the files, and some supporters are having second thoughts about electing him


This is puzzling. But in part, it’s unsurprising. Trump’s support base includes the conspiracist “QAnon” believers who are convinced that Democratic Party politicians and donors run a hidden global ring of child sex abuse.

In QAnon circles, it has been practically an article of faith that the Epstein files would validate these accusations against liberal elites. Trump’s release of the files was keenly anticipated. Naturally they’re upset that he and his appointees have changed their tune.

Longtime friendship

Yet their dismay is surprising nonetheless. Trump’s extensive relationship with Epstein has been well known for years. His repeated well wishes for Epstein’s longtime associate, convicted collaborator Ghislaine Maxwell, were widely reported following her sentencing on child sexual trafficking charges.

His comments about “getting away with” walking into beauty pageants’ backstage areas among young women and underage girls wearing “no clothes” were made prominently, on the Howard Stern Show. His base somehow managed to believe Trump was a secret champion of minors against sexual exploitation in the face of his own boasts.

The role of bullshit

How could this new development somehow be worse for Trump than his own confessions?

One partial explanation centres on Trump’s use of what’s known as bullshit rhetoric as a weapon against political enemies. Bullshit in this context is a quasi-technical notion meaning, roughly, an indifference to truth or to the audience’s right to truth.




Read more:
Why Donald Trump is such a relentless bullshitter


Even most liars respect the truth enough to try and deceive people about it, but the bullshitter doesn’t much care either way. As my colleague Jennifer Saul and I have argued in our research, Trump’s brand of authoritarian speech is deliberate and explicit in its bullshit. It advertises its status in order to show contempt for one audience, typically as part of a performance of strength for another audience.

This helps explain why Trump’s relentless bullshitting never harmed his standing with his base in the past, and has even buoyed it. His supporters know he’s a bullshitter, but they recognize he isn’t bullshitting them. They are in on the joke, enjoying the spectacle as Trump performs his power over mutual enemies, including political opposition, news media and state institutions.

The new tension over the Epstein files reflects the extent to which some among Trump’s base perceive, perhaps for the first time, that they are now targets of his weaponized political bullshit rather than amused witnesses to it. And they don’t like it.




Read more:
Bullshit is everywhere. Here’s how to deal with it at work


Trump responds with more bullshit

In one striking example, news media have reported that, before the FBI/Department of Justice announcement, Trump was informed by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name occurs repeatedly in the unreleased documents.

The significance or context of those occurrences is of course not known; other people who deny wrongdoing are also named in them. But after the existence of a list was denied, Trump responded to questioning about whether his name appears in the documents by claiming that the files were made up by former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and former FBI Director James Comey.

The assertion that the Epstein files are merely hoax documents cooked up by Obama, Biden and Comey is so outrageously false that it can’t be meant even as a serious deception. That makes Trump’s claim a bald-faced lie to many people.

Bald-faced lies count as bullshit, Saul and I argue, because they lack the deceptive intent of other lies. They are a kind of unconcealed bullshit that advertises the speaker’s impunity. For Trump, this sort of overt bullshit has been reserved for liberals and news reporters. This time his own supporters are in the line of fire.

Strongman politics

Trump’s base can’t be truly dismayed by the facts about his relationship with Epstein because they should have been upset long before now in terms of his own past confessions and well-known association with Epstein.

Instead, they seem to be irked they’ve been lumped in with their enemies in being recipients of Trump’s bullshit rather than onlookers to it. And if we focus on polarization and strongman politics, we can better understand Trump’s responses to the criticism from his base.

After all, Trump didn’t say these angry supporters have misunderstood the evidence. He said they were “pretty bad people,” likened them to “fake news” and said he didn’t want their support. He didn’t call them mistaken; he called them weaklings.

To some this might sound absurd or childish. To supporters of an authoritarian figure, being called weak is more serious than being accused of being wrong.

The Conversation

Tim Kenyon 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. Donald Trump’s penchant for bullshit explains MAGA anger about the Epstein files – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-penchant-for-bullshit-explains-maga-anger-about-the-epstein-files-263983

China’s WWII anniversary parade rekindles cross-strait battle over war narrative − and fears in Taiwan of future conflict

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meredith Oyen, Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

World War II casts a very long shadow in East Asia. Eighty years after ending with Japan’s surrender to Allied forces on Sept. 2, 1945, the conflict continues to stir debate over the past, in the context of today’s geopolitical tensions.

China’s high-profile military parade commemorating the conclusion of what Beijing calls the “War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression” is a case in point.

In the run-up to the Sept. 3, 2025, event, the Chinese Communist Party has been criticized in Tokyo for stoking anti-Japanese sentiment and in the U.S. for downplaying America’s role while playing up Russia’s.

But as an expert on Taiwan-China relations, I’m interested in the battle over the narrative between Taipei and Beijing. During World War II, China’s communists and nationalists became uneasy internal allies, putting their civil war on pause to unite against Japan. Afterward, the communists prevailed and the nationalists fled to Taiwan, where they set up their own government – one the mainland has never recognized. Months of bickering over the commemorations shine a light on how both sides view their respective roles in defeating Japan – and what the show of military force by Beijing signals today.

To whom did Japan surrender?

A peculiarity of the current commemorations is that Japan did not actually surrender to Communist China, or technically to China at all. On Sept. 9, 1945, a week after agreeing to the terms laid out by the Allied forces, Japan, at a ceremony in Nanjing, formally surrendered to China’s National Revolutionary Army – the military wing of the nationalist Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek.

A group of men sit around a table.
Gen. Okamura, supreme commander of the Japanese army in China, officially surrenders to Chinese authorities in Nanjing, China.
Bettmann/Getty Images

And this gets to the heart of why many in Taiwan – where the nationalists fled at the conclusion of China’s civil war in 1949 – are unhappy with Beijing’s projection of Communist China as the victors against Japan.

By the time that war in East Asia took hold, in 1937, China was a decade into its own civil war between the nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s communists.

The nationalists and communists fell into an uneasy truce with the creation of the second united front in 1937. But the role of both sides in fighting the Japanese has long been the source of disagreement.

The nationalist army bore the brunt of conventional warfare. But it was criticized for being disorganized and too dependent on men forced into service. Those soldiers were often ill-trained and underfed.

To the communists, the army – and its failings – were the product of the corrupt government under Chiang. And it was largely responsible for China’s inept response to Japan’s initial advances.

In Beijing’s telling today, it was the communist forces, which relied more on guerrilla tactics, that helped push back the Japanese.

Conversely, the nationalists cast events during World War II very differently. China’s nationalist administration under Chiang was the first government in the world to fight a fascist power.

For eight or even 14 years, depending on whether you date the start of the conflict to 1937 or 1931, the nationalist army fought hard and sacrificed a lot as it put up the bulk of the resistance against Japan. To Taiwan’s Chinese nationalists, the Chinese communist contribution was minimal.

Worse, to them, the communists took the opportunity of Japan’s invasion to further their own position against the nationalists. Indeed, when the civil war began again after Japan’s defeat, Mao’s communists had the upper hand, leading to the nationalists’ retreat to Taiwan four years later.

From Japanese to Chinese rule

The status of Taiwan at the end of World War II presents another wrinkle.
By then, the island had been under Japanese colonial control since 1895. Indeed, a second surrender ceremony took place on Oct. 25, 1945, when the Japanese forces in Taiwan surrendered to a nationalist official who had come over from the mainland.

What followed was a period of Chinese nationalist takeover of Taiwan and a corresponding Japanese retreat – it took several years for all Japanese officials and families to be repatriated to Japan.

Meanwhile, the nationalist Kuomintang that came into Taiwan were not terribly well received by the local population, many of whom were hoping for independence and resisted a Chinese nationalist, authoritarian takeover.

Complicating matters was that a 1943 agreement between the leaders of the Allied nations in Cairo declared that in the event of Japan’s defeat, Formosa, as Taiwan was then called, would be returned to the Republic of China.

But now you had two claimants to being “China” – the communists on the mainland and the nationalists on Taiwan. Either way, the Cairo Declaration served the interests of the “One-China” principle – under which both Beijing and Taipei view Taiwan as part of unified China, but differ over which is the country’s legitimate government – over that of those seeking the island’s formal independence from the mainland.

Three men sit in the sunshine wearing suits.
Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Cairo Conference in November 1943.
Keystone/Getty Images

From the past to the future

The conflicting war narratives from Communist China, pro-unification nationalists in Taiwan and those seeking the island’s independence have been present since the end of World War II – and they tend to flare up around commemorations and anniversaries.

They did so, for example, when China held a big military celebration in 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender.

This year’s event seeks to do a couple of things. First, Beijing is using it to reshape the memory of the Chinese Communist Party’s role in the world as a result of World War II.

The war is seen as a critical moment in Chinese history – not just in the context of defeating Japan and its role in the subsequent founding of the People’s Republic, but because in Asia it marked the end of the colonial era. During the war, foreign powers in China gave up their concessions and ended a century of partial colonial control over port cities such as Shanghai.

The war also marked China’s emergence as a major player on the world scene. As a result of its contributions in World War II, China gained a role on the United Nations Security Council. The Republic of China on Taiwan maintained that seat and that vote until 1971, when U.N. recognition finally shifted to the People’s Republic of China.

In recent years, promoting a prominent role in defeating fascism and shaping the postwar world order has been particularly important as China looks to carve out a space for itself in a multipolar world and show an alternative to a world dominated by the United States and Western Europe.

For these reasons, Beijing is keen to keep focus on its preferred narrative, highlighting communist contributions to the war effort.

But given Beijing’s adherence to the one-party principle, Taiwan – as part of China – could not be ignored. So, invites to Taiwanese officials to the commemorative events were sent out.

A pagoda-style building is seen in the sunlight.
Tiananmen Square gears up for a military parade marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
VCG/VCG via Getty Images

Representatives from the pro-independence ruling Democratic People’s Party and the main opposition party, the pro-unification Kuomintang, have largely declined to attend. The executive government has said that no current government officials in Taiwan should attend the military parade. Nonetheless, on Sept. 2, former Kuomintang chairperson Hung Hsiu-chu announced that she would be in Beijing for the event.

For its part, Taiwan has opted for more low-key commemorations of the end of Japanese rule of the island.

Many Taiwanese are much more concerned about current events than those of 80 years ago. The anniversary comes at a time of increased tension across the Taiwan Strait. Echoing concern over Chinese military might and potential intent, earlier this year “Zero Day Attack” – a new series depicting a future, fictionalized invasion of the island by the People’s Republic of China – dropped and has since become hugely popular.

Its streaming launch date in Japan was Aug. 15 – the 80th anniversary of the announcement of Japan’s surrender in World War II.

This article is based on a conversation between Meredith Oyen and Gemma Ware for The Conversation Weekly podcast that will be available later this week. Subscribe to The Conversation Weekly podcast.

The Conversation

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

ref. China’s WWII anniversary parade rekindles cross-strait battle over war narrative − and fears in Taiwan of future conflict – https://theconversation.com/chinas-wwii-anniversary-parade-rekindles-cross-strait-battle-over-war-narrative-and-fears-in-taiwan-of-future-conflict-264401

Pourquoi sommes-nous si fatigués dès la rentrée ?

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Eric Fiat, Professeur de philosophie, Université Gustave Eiffel

Vitaly Gariev/Unsplash, CC BY

La rentrée devrait nous trouver reposés, mais elle s’accompagne souvent d’une lassitude persistante. Pourquoi cette fatigue résiste-t-elle aux congés ?


Poser cette question alors que nombre des Français, qui ont la chance de pouvoir prendre des vacances, viennent de les terminer a quelque chose d’intempestif. Même si les vacances ne sont jamais exactement ce qu’on avait imaginé qu’elles seraient, même si leur fin s’accompagne souvent d’un peu de nostalgie (« Adieu, vive clarté de nos étés trop courts ! », disait Baudelaire), il est légitime d’espérer que ces jours et ces nuits de juillet ou d’août où l’on est un peu plus maître de son temps qu’aux autres mois a permis à nombre d’entre nous de reconstituer ce que l’on pourrait appeler la nappe phréatique du soi.

Puissent en effet les épuisés de juin avoir trouvé dans la sieste ou dans le jeu, dans la nage ou dans les parties de cartes les ressources (les nouvelles sources de vitalité) qui leur manquaient. Tel le vieux Faust retrouvant sa jeunesse, ne sont-ils pas nombreux à pouvoir dire :

« Déjà je sens mes forces s’accroître ; déjà je pétille comme une liqueur nouvelle : je me sens le courage de me risquer dans le monde, d’en supporter les peines et les prospérités ? »

Mais comment ne pas deviner que cet état ne durera guère ? Que si nous ne sommes pas aujourd’hui fatigués, nous le serons sans peu de doutes demain ? Depuis qu’il y a congés payés, cette situation a dû se répéter bien des fois, et doit être à peu de chose près le lot commun.

Il semble pourtant que, depuis quelque années, la fatigue ait cessé d’être un phénomène simplement saisonnier pour s’inscrire plus durablement, plus profondément dans les êtres et que, si la fatigue fait partie de la condition humaine comme telle, elle ait pris désormais certaines couleurs qui rendent plus rares ce que l’on pourrait appeler les « bonnes fatigues ».

Bonnes et mauvaises fatigues

Comme exemples de bonnes fatigues, nous pourrions prendre celle du cycliste du dimanche au retour de ses 30 km, ou celle du travailleur aimant son métier et qui, à la fin de la journée, de la semaine ou de l’année, qui, bien que fatigués, éprouvent ce que Kant appellerait le plaisir moral du travail bien fait ou du devoir accompli. Fatigues du corps mais non point de l’âme, rajeunie par cette joie, par ce plaisir. Fatigues sans lassitude en somme.

Nous espérons à nos contemporains de ce genre de fatigues, légères, printanières.

Mais il nous faut reconnaître qu’elles semblent devenues moins courantes que ces mauvaises fatigues – dont la forme extrême est l’épuisement qui parfois conduit au burn-out, lesquelles ne sont pas que fatigues du corps mais aussi de l’âme, mauvaises en ceci que même le repos n’en est pas le remède. Car si l’être qui connaît la bonne fatigue va au sommeil comme à une récompense, celui qui connaît la mauvaise y va comme à un refuge – refuge où malheureusement ne se trouve pas la paix espérée, car son sommeil n’est pas celui dans lequel un Montaigne se glissait voluptueusement, mais celui dans lequel il « tombe comme une masse » avant de connaître de douloureux moments d’insomnie, ceux que Baudelaire nommait « ces vagues terreurs de nos affreuses nuits qui compriment le cœur comme un papier qu’on froisse ».

Il se dit que les Français dorment de moins en moins et de moins en moins bien.

Certes, l’insomniaque exagère toujours la gravité des situations existentielles – personnelles ou professionnelles – dans lesquelles il est pris, et au réveil d’une nuit agitée souvent se retrouve un pouvoir d’agir dont la perte de conscience était précisément l’une des causes de son insomnie. Mais lorsque le déroulement de sa journée confirme la débilité dudit pouvoir, comment pourrait-il ne pas retrouver la nuit suivante les « vagues terreurs » baudelairiennes évoquées plus haut, c’est-à-dire ses angoisses (car l’angoisse est très exactement ce qui « comprime le cœur comme un papier qu’on froisse », pour cette raison que le mot vient du latin angustia qui signifiait : l’étroitesse, le resserrement) ?

L’hypothèse que cet article voudrait soumettre à la critique, est que cette altération du sommeil et la fatigue qui en résulte tiennent en bonne part au climat d’incertitude durable dans lequel nous vivons désormais.

Une vie saturée d’incertitude

Comme le disait la philosophe Hannah Arendt, dans cet océan d’incertitude qu’est, par définition l’avenir, nous avons besoin d’ilôts de certitude. Or à peine en a-t-on aperçu un qui semble surnager, que la mer des informations inquiétantes le submerge : changement climatique, guerre en Ukraine et au Proche-Orient, trumpisisation du monde… Pour qu’il y ait sentiment que la vie est bonne ne faut-il pas que s’y équilibrent la certitude et l’incertitude, l’habitude et la nouveauté, l’organisation et l’improvisation, le retour du même et la surrection de l’autre, la fidélité et la liberté, la circularité et la linéarité, ou bien encore, comme dirait Simone Weil, l’enracinement et le déracinement ?

La nécessité dudit équilibre vient de ce que, sans un minimum de certitudes, nous ne saurions accueillir l’incertitude comme un piment, qu’il faut avoir des habitudes pour regarder la nouveauté comme une chance et que, sans un minimum d’enracinement, nous ne vivrions pas le déracinement comme une heureuse libération. Saturée de certitudes, d’habitudes et de fidélités, la vie est ennuyeuse ; mais infernale est la vie où rien n’est certain et où tout se renouvelle sans cesse.

Or il est peu contestable que nous avons perdu cet équilibre.

Perdu, ce que l’écrivain Jean Giono nommait la « rondeur des jours », c’est-à-dire le retour reposant du même, l’enchaînement de ces tâches habituelles qu’une force obscure au fond de nous – la force des habitudes comme secondes natures – appelait, invoquait, implorait que nous accomplissions. Qu’on ne se méprenne : il ne s’agit nullement de céder à la tentation nostalgique, pour cette raison que le geste nostalgique, dont l’origine est souvent le trop peu d’effort pour comprendre son présent, est toujours précédé d’un geste d’idéalisation du passé. Non, la vie des paysans du début du siècle dernier n’était pas moins fatigante que la nôtre, que Brassens a si bien décrite dans Pauvre Martin :

« Pour gagner le pain de sa vie,
De l’aurore jusqu’au couchant,
En tous lieux, par tous les temps !
Il retournait les champs des autres,
Toujours bêchant, toujours bêchant. »

Mais comme le dit George Orwell dans Un peu d’air frais :

« Les gens avaient pourtant alors quelque chose qu’ils n’ont pas aujourd’hui. Quoi ? C’est simplement que l’avenir ne leur apparaissait pas terrifiant. Ils ne sentaient pas le sol se dérober sous leurs pieds. »

Un point de côté à l’âme

Trop nombreuses, les incertitudes fatiguent, finissant parfois par décourager celui ou celle qui tente de comprendre son monde, si peu maîtres de leur temps qu’ils éprouvent quelque chose comme le sentiment d’une aliénation temporelle. Monde liquide et même gazeux, que le progrès technique ne cesse de transformer, au point que le système néolibéral semble exiger des travailleurs d’aujourd’hui qu’ils se réadaptent de manière permanente à un monde impermanent.

Ceux qui après avoir couru après ce monde où tout s’accélère se sentent un point de côté à l’âme et sont tentés de se laisser glisser au bord du chemin méritent d’être compris.

Nous ne pensons pas qu’à la façon de l’essayiste Paul Lafargue il faille leur conseiller, comme remède à leur fatigue, cette paresse qui à petites doses est un bien, mais qui devenant une façon d’être est un égoïsme – car pour que le paresseux puisse paresser il faut que beaucoup s’activent. Mais que l’organisation du travail leur permette de retrouver les bonnes fatigues dont nous parlions plus haut nous semble urgent, et, en un sens, l’une des inspirations possibles d’une réorganisation à la fois politique et sociale du monde du travail.

Bonne rentrée à toutes, à tous !

The Conversation

Eric Fiat ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Pourquoi sommes-nous si fatigués dès la rentrée ? – https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-sommes-nous-si-fatigues-des-la-rentree-263574

Three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Duncan Depledge, Senior Lecturer in Geopolitics and Security, Loughborough University

Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

Earth’s average temperature rose more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in 2024 for the first time – a critical threshold in the climate crisis. At the same time, major armed conflicts continue to rage in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere.

What should be increasingly clear is that war now needs to be understood as unfolding in the shadow of climate breakdown.

The relationship between war and climate change is complex. But here are three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war.


Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.


1. War exacerbates climate change

The inherent destructiveness of war has long degraded the environment. But we have only recently become more keenly aware of its climatic implications.

This follows efforts primarily by researchers and civil society organisations to account for the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from fighting, most notably in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as to record emissions from all military operations and post-war reconstruction.

One study, conducted by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Conflict and Environment Observatory, has made a best guess that the total carbon footprint of militaries across the globe is greater than that of Russia, which currently has the fourth-largest footprint in the world.

The US is believed to have the highest military emissions. Estimates by UK-based researchers Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger suggest that, if it were a country, the US military would be the 47th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. This would put it between Peru and Portugal.

These studies, though, rest on limited data. Sometimes partial emissions data is reported by military agencies, and researchers have to supplement this with their own calculations using official government figures and those of associated industries.

There is also significant variation from country to country. Some military emissions, most notably those of China and Russia, have proved almost impossible to assess.

Wars can also put international cooperation on climate change and the energy transition at risk. Since the start of the Ukraine war, for instance, scientific cooperation between the west and Russia in the Arctic has broken down. This has prevented crucial climate data from being compiled.

Critics of militarism argue that the acknowledgement of war’s contribution to the climate crisis ought to be the moment of reckoning for those who are too willing to spend vast resources on maintaining and expanding military power. Some even believe that demilitarisation is the only way out of climate catastrophe.

Others are less radical. But the crucial point is that recognition of the climate costs of war increasingly raises moral and practical questions about the need for more strategic restraint and whether the business of war can ever be rendered less environmentally destructive.

2. Climate change demands military responses

Before the impact of war on the climate came into focus, researchers debated whether the climate crisis could act as a “threat multiplier”. This has led some to argue that climate change could intensify the risk of violence in parts of the world already under stress from food and water insecurity, internal tensions, poor governance and territorial disputes.

Some conflicts in the Middle East and Sahel have already been labelled “climate wars”, implying they may not have happened if it were not for the stresses of climate change. Other researchers have shown how such claims are deeply contentious. Any decision to engage in violence or go to war is always still a choice made by people, not the climate.

Harder to contest is the observation that the climate crisis is leading militaries to be deployed with greater frequency to assist with civilian emergencies. This encompasses a wide range of activities from combating wildfires to reinforcing flood defences, assisting with evacuations, conducting search-and-rescue operations, supporting post-disaster recovery and delivering humanitarian aid.

Chinese soldiers stacking sandbags in a flooded area.
Chinese soldiers stacking sandbags in a flooded area of Hebei province.
chinahbzyg / Shutterstock

Whether the climate crisis will result in more violence and armed conflict in the future is impossible to predict. If it does, military force may need to be deployed more frequently. At the same time, if militaries are depended upon to help respond to the growing frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters, their resources will be further stretched.

Governments will be confronted with tough choices about what kinds of tasks should be prioritised and whether military budgets should be increased at the expense of other societal needs.

3. Armed forces will need to adapt

With geopolitical tensions rising and the number of conflicts increasing, it seems unlikely that calls for demilitarisation will be met any time soon. This leaves researchers with the uncomfortable prospect of having to rethink how military force can – and ought to be – wielded in a world simultaneously trying to adapt to accelerating climate change and escape its deep dependence on fossil fuels.

The need to prepare military personnel and adapt bases, equipment and other infrastructure to withstand and operate effectively in increasingly extreme and unpredictable climatic conditions is a matter of growing concern. In 2018, two major hurricanes in the US caused more than US$8 billion (£5.95 billion) worth of damage to military infrastructure.

My own research has demonstrated how, in the UK at least, there is growing awareness among some defence officials that militaries need to think carefully about how they will navigate the major changes unfolding in the global energy landscape that are being brought about by the energy transition.

Militaries are being confronted with a stark choice. They can either remain as one of the last heavy users of fossil fuels in an increasingly low-carbon world or be part of an energy transition that will probably have significant implications for how military force is generated, deployed and sustained.

What is becoming clear is that operational effectiveness will increasingly depend on how aware militaries are of the implications of climate change for future operations. It will also hinge on how effectively they have adapted their capabilities to cope with more extreme climatic conditions and how much they have managed to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

Soldiers delivering humanitarian aid.
Soldiers delivering humanitarian aid.
photos_adil / Shutterstock

In the early 19th century, the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz famously argued that while war’s nature rarely changes, its character is almost constantly evolving with the times.

Recognising the scale and reach of the climate crisis will be essential if we are now to make sense of why and how future wars will be waged, as well as how some might be averted or rendered less destructive.

The Conversation

Duncan Depledge receives funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council. He is an Associate Fellow of the London-based Royal United Services Institute and a Non-Resident Fellow of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Climate Security (part of the Council on Strategic Risks).

ref. Three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war – https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-the-climate-crisis-must-reshape-how-we-think-about-war-262469

Reform v the Nottingham Post: why local media is crucial to democracy

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Jones, Director of Journalism, Politics and Contemporary History, University of Salford

Steve Travelguide/Shutterstock

The proposed reorganisation of council boundaries was probably not the issue which prompted British voters to elect hundreds of Reform councillors at May’s local elections.

Nigel Farage’s surging party won 677 seats and gained control of ten councils, including Nottinghamshire in the East Midlands. There, a choice about whether the districts of Gedling or Rushcliffe should be included in a redrawn Nottingham city council has led to an apparent split in the new Reform council contingent. This was reported by Nottinghamshire Live, the online brand used by venerable local newspaper the Nottingham Post.

Council leader Mick Barton was so angry, he banned all his Reform councillors from speaking to Nottinghamshire Live. Its journalists won’t be sent press releases or be invited to council events.

Requests for interviews will be rejected, although they can still attend council meetings held in public. The same goes for its BBC-funded local democracy reporters.

Branding the article “misinformation”, Barton said he welcomed “scrutiny” but added: “We also have a duty to protect the credibility of our governance and the voices that we represent. For this reason, we will not be engaging with Nottinghamshire Live or with any other media outlet we consider to be consistently misrepresenting our policies, actions or intentions.”

Nottinghamshire Live editor Natalie Fahy pointed out this rather goes against Reform’s stated interest in upholding free speech and transparency, and warned: “When the press is not welcome, you know democracy itself is in danger.”

A Guardian editorial called Barton’s decision “petty and alarming”. Spokespeople for the other main UK parties chimed in, with the Liberal Democrats fretting about Donald Trump-style politics. Even Reform UK backed away, with a national party spokesperson saying it supported free speech and it was up to the local party to explain its decision.

There was already a bit of history between local reporters and Nottinghamshire Reform’s group of mostly inexperienced politicians. An excruciating video interview with Reform councillor James Walker-Gurley was widely shared online in June. It’s fair to say he was not yet fully across his cabinet portfolio of economic development.

Local journalism and democracy

This gets us to why it matters. Reporting local politics is a classic function of journalism. The fact that our politicians regularly meet, consider business and debate issues in public has long been part of democracy.

But hardly anyone actually goes to council meetings. It is journalists who can keep a close eye and tell us all what’s happening, including Nottinghamshire’s 800,000 plus residents.

Not that scrutiny means constant criticism. While councillors and reporters often do bump up against each other, studies of the local press have generally bemoaned it for being more of a lapdog than a watchdog, guilty of skirting controversy and avoiding proper scrutiny of institutions.

In their seminal 1973 book on local government and the media, researchers Harvey Cox and David Morgan argued local newspaper editors have always been interested in “the good of the town” as a general concept, and those editors are therefore in favour of anything that fits into this theme rather than being too negative.

A broadly constructive connection between town hall and local paper is normal and helps both sides, in turn allowing citizens to be better informed. Reform’s posturing in Nottinghamshire harms its relationship with a key player that may be as likely to help trumpet the party’s successes as point out its failures.

Nottinghamshire County Hall
In Nottinghamshire and elsewhere, local journalists keep an eye on what’s happening in council meetings and other democratic business.
Destinos Espetaculares/Shutterstock

While Reform’s attitude to reporters in Nottinghamshire is a concern, a far bigger threat to local journalism than grumpy politicians is money, or the lack of it. The business model of newspapers has been under desperate stress for two decades, as advertising cash floods to digital platforms and print sales decline.

In 2007, the local sector employed about 9,000 journalists and had revenue of £2.4 billion. By 2022, those figures had declined below 3,000 and £600 million.

Consigned to regional hubs and home offices, local journalists are no longer working for grand civic institutions. However, flexible use of digital publishing tools and a continuing commitment to public interest journalism, alongside lighter content, has kept titles such as Nottinghamshire Live prominent in our social feeds.

In the US these trends have moved faster, so we can see where we might be heading. In last year’s presidential election, Donald Trump won 91% of counties which are so-called “news deserts”. These are areas without a remaining professional source of local news. Voters in these places turn more to national media and therefore make choices based on national issues, not local ones.

American academics Danny Hayes and Jennifer Lawless have argued this decline in local media makes it harder for citizens to hold politicians accountable. There becomes less incentive for politicians to do their jobs ethically, and their policies may be less likely to reflect the will of the local electorate.

This is what we can see the beginnings of in Nottinghamshire. Where journalists face a battle to find out what’s going on at the council, residents will know less about their areas. Politicians can operate more in the shadows, only appearing to deliver prepared soundbites on their own channels.

These fraying connections in local public-life mean residents may soon discover the council is not following their wishes, whether on boundary changes or anything else. If Reform’s example becomes the new normal, everyone loses.


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 from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

The Conversation

Richard Jones 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. Reform v the Nottingham Post: why local media is crucial to democracy – https://theconversation.com/reform-v-the-nottingham-post-why-local-media-is-crucial-to-democracy-264218

Cats can get dementia too – here are the eight signs to look out for

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Blackwell, Senior Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and Welfare, University of Bristol

Behavioural changes can be a sign of dementia in cats. larisa Stefanjuk/ Shutterstock

Many cat owners don’t realise that just like humans, cats can suffer from dementia. A recent paper has even found many similarities between feline and human dementia, finding that cognitive impairment may develop in similar ways.

Some of the symptoms of dementia in cats are even similar to what we might see in humans – though not all of them, of course. Knowing what signs to look out for is important so you can provide your cat with the best care during this phase of its life.

Feline cognitive dysfunction syndrome (also known as feline dementia) is an age-related decline in a cat’s cognitive abilities. It’s generally characterised by behavioural changes that cannot be attributed to other medical conditions.

Feline dementia is thought to be very common in older cats. One study found that by 15 years of age, more than half of cats showed signs of dementia. However, some behaviour associated with the condition has also been identified in cats as young as seven. A separate survey of cat owners also found that around 28% of cats aged between 11 and 14 exhibited at least one behavioural change associated with dementia.

Behavioural changes are often the first indication that there may be something wrong. There are eight signs to look out for that might indicate your cat has dementia.

1. Unusual vocalisation: Your cat might start to vocalise excessively, or in new situations. A common example of this is meowing loudly at night.

2. Altered interactions: Cats with dementia sometimes seek attention more often or become “clingy”. Equally, cats with dementia might interact less than previously, appear irritable or seem not to recognise familiar people.

3. Sleep changes: You may notice changes in your cat’s sleeping habits – often becoming restless at night and sleeping more during the day.

4. House soiling: Changes in toilet habits can be a sign of several different conditions, but toileting outside the litter tray can be a common sign of dementia in cats.

5. Disorientation: Just like people with dementia, cats may show signs of confusion or wandering behaviour. This might appear as losing their bearings, staring blankly at walls, getting stuck behind objects or going to the wrong side of the door.

A black and white tuxedo cat lays on its owner's stomach while he pets it.
Cats with dementia may become more clingy than they were previously.
Creative Family/ Shutterstock

6. Changes in activity levels: A cat with dementia may be more or less active than usual. They may play less often or be less inclined to explore. You might also notice them spending less time taking care of themselves, for example grooming or washing themselves less.

7. Appearing anxious: A cat with dementia might show signs of anxiety in situations that they were previously confident with – such as around familiar people, places or sounds. An anxious cat might hide more often, going under the bed or on top of cupboards to escape.

8. Learning problems: Cats with dementia may be less unable to perform previously learned tasks, such as finding their food bowl, and may have difficulty learning new tasks.

Caring for your cat

There’s significant overlap between symptoms of feline dementia and other common conditions, such as arthritis and kidney disease . So if you see any of these behavioural changes in your cat, you should speak to your vet to rule out these other conditions.

Research into feline dementia is limited. Much of what we know about prevention and treatment is extrapolated from research into humans and dogs. And, as with these other species, there’s no cure for dementia in cats. But there are ways of limiting the impact of the disease.

Certain environmental modifications can help stimulate cats, activating their brains and causing nerves to grow. But the severity of your cat’s dementia must be considered before making any of these changes.

In healthy or mildly affected cats, promoting play or simulating hunting with interactive toys and encouraging exploration using hide and seek games is thought to delay the progression of cognitive dysfunction.

But in cats with severe cognitive impairment, changing their environment could lead to confusion and anxiety – worsening behavioural symptoms.

Diet changes – specifically the addition of supplements containing antioxidants (vitamin E and C) and essential fatty acids – may also help to reduce inflammation in the brain, slowing the disease’s progression.

However, only dog-specific supplements have been tested in scientific research and proven to enhance cognition in dogs. But if you do want to try giving these supplements to your cat, be sure you only give them supplements approved for felines. Dog supplements should not be given to cats as they may include substances that are toxic to cats – such as alpha lipoic acid.

Feline dementia is a condition both highly prevalent and challenging to manage. Knowing what symptoms to look out for can ensure your cat gets diagnosed earlier on. This will also ensure you’re able to make the necessary changes to its environment or diet that will ultimately improve its quality of life.

The Conversation

Emily Blackwell receives funding from Cats Protection, Zoetis, Defra and Waltham Petcare Science Institute.

Sara Lawrence-Mills receives funding from Zoetis.

ref. Cats can get dementia too – here are the eight signs to look out for – https://theconversation.com/cats-can-get-dementia-too-here-are-the-eight-signs-to-look-out-for-263148

Our survey of Green party members suggests Zack Polanski has the mandate to take his party in a more radical direction

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London

Thanks to the media interest in his election as leader of the Green party of England and Wales, there’s now plenty of information available about Zack Polanski, the so-called “eco-populist” who won a landslide victory over his arguably more moderate rivals.

But what do we know about the nearly 65,000 grassroots members who gave Polanski an overwhelming 85% of the vote, albeit on a turnout of just 38%? A survey we conducted of party members following the 2024 election sheds light on why he won so convincingly. It also gives us some idea of how easy Polanski will find it to achieve his goal of moving the party in a more radical, left-liberal direction.

As part of the Party Members Project, we’ve surveyed members of the country’s five most popular nationwide parties, including 732 people who belonged to the Greens.

The Greens had easily the most gender-balanced membership, coming in at a satisfyingly precise 50:50. However, in common with those of other parties, Green members are no spring chickens: fewer than one in 20 were in the 18-24 age group. The rest were evenly spread across the 25-49, 50-64 and 65+ groups.

And, like most other parties (Reform UK being a partial – but only a partial – exception) Green members are overwhelmingly middle class. Indeed, to use a commonly employed classification, some 83% of Green members we surveyed were ABC1s – meaning they come from one of the three higher (and generally better-off) social grades.

Geographically, they are rather more likely than the population as a whole to live in London, the south and the east of England rather than in the north or the Midlands.

How leftwing are Green members?

In terms of attitudes and values, some 88% of Green members voted Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum compared to just 5% who plumped for Leave. And when asked whether “the government should increase taxes and spend more on public services or cut taxes and spend less on public services?” agreement with the first option was near universal at 96%. This beats even the 89% of Labour and Lib Dem members who said the same.

When asked to place themselves on a left-right scale, some 27% of Green members labelled themselves “very left wing”, with 54% picking “fairly left wing” and 16% going for “slightly left wing”. This again suggests the Greens’ grassroots stand somewhere to the left of Labour’s membership.

More broadly, Green members are clearly at the far end of what political scientists sometimes refer to as the green alternative libertarian v traditional authoritarian nationalist, GAL-TAN scale. This appears, these days, to be as if not more important than its left-right equivalent.

Predictably enough, some 98% of Green members supported cutting emissions to get to net zero. On immigration only 18% thought it had been too high over the last decade, with 29% thinking it had actually been too low and 41% “about right”. Eight out of ten disagreed with the notion that men and women had different roles in society, and three quarters said they weren’t proud of this country’s history.

Were we betting people, then, all the above would have led us to put a fair bit of our spare cash on Polanski to win the Green party leadership – and to do so fairly easily. Our findings suggest, too, that he’ll have considerable support in his bid to take the party in a more radical direction.

We also, incidentally, asked party members what qualities they thought it important for a leader to possess, getting them to pick their top three from a list we gave them. For the Greens, having “a strong moral compass” came in at number one, selected by two thirds of members.

Second was being “a good communicator”, picked by just over half. Number three on their list, mentioned by just under half of Green members, was “the ability to empathise with others”.

Reading the portraits of him published since his big win, and judging by his media appearances both during and after the contest, Polanski would appear to be just the kind of leader the Green grassroots is looking for. Whether that’s also true of voters remains to be seen.

The Conversation

Tim Bale has received funding from the ESRC and Research England (via QMUL) to conduct research on party members.

Paul Webb has previously received funding from the ESRC to conduct research on political parties.

Stavroula Chrona 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. Our survey of Green party members suggests Zack Polanski has the mandate to take his party in a more radical direction – https://theconversation.com/our-survey-of-green-party-members-suggests-zack-polanski-has-the-mandate-to-take-his-party-in-a-more-radical-direction-264510

Indonesia violence: state response to protests echoes darker times in country’s history

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Soe Tjen Marching, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, SOAS, University of London

Indonesians have taken to the streets over the past week to protest against elite corruption. The demonstrations began peacefully on August 25 with protests outside parliament in the capital, Jakarta. They soon spread across the country.

The Indonesian People’s Revolution, a group at the centre of the demonstrations, is demanding an investigation into corruption allegations involving the family of former president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. Jokowi has strongly rejected these accusations, painting them as a smear campaign.

Protesters are also calling for the dissolution of parliament and the impeachment of the current vice-president, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, who is Jokowi’s son.

Gibran’s path to the vice-presidency was controversial. In Indonesia, presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be at least 40 years old, yet he was only 36 during the 2024 election. The constitutional court – led by Gibran’s uncle, Anwar Usman – changed the rules to grant an exception for regional leaders. Usman was dismissed from his post by an ethics council less than a month later.

The group’s demands resonate with wider public anger over the gulf between privilege and poverty in Indonesia. Parliamentarians pocket high salaries, while millions of workers scrape by on some of the lowest minimum wages in the world. News in mid-August that MPs had secured another pay rise only added fuel to the fire.

The protests have now erupted into violence in several areas of the country. The trigger for this came on August 28, when an armoured police vehicle struck and killed a motorcycle taxi driver in Jakarta, before fleeing the scene. Listyo Sigit Prabowo, Indonesia’s national police chief, issued an apology to the victim’s family and has confirmed the case is being investigated.

Indonesia’s current president, Prabowo Subianto, initially denounced demonstrators as “traitors” and “terrorists”, vowing decisive action against them. But he has now backtracked, pledging on August 31 to heed public demands and even cut lawmakers’ allowances.

In the days leading up to this abrupt reversal, echoes of a darker chapter in the nation’s history resurfaced – one marked by state-led violence and intimidation, the mobilisation of Islamist groups, and the scapegoating of minorities.

Indonesia prides itself on bhinneka tunggal ika, unity in diversity. But Prabowo has long relied on conservative Islamist groups to strengthen his power, push through hardline policies and help silence dissent. This includes the Islamic Defenders Front, which the Jokowi government banned in 2020.

Back in 2014, when Jokowi and Prabowo contested presidential elections, Islamist hardliners perpetrated smear campaigns against Jokowi, accusing him of being a communist agent. They also orchestrated the mass mobilisation that toppled Jakarta’s ethnic Chinese Christian governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, in 2017.

The alliance cooled after Prabowo entered Jokowi’s coalition at the end of 2019, but has seemingly been revived amid the current protests. On August 30, the president summoned 16 Islamic organisations to his private residence, reportedly urging them to work with the government to “guard security and peace”.

Meanwhile, racist threats targeting Chinese Indonesian women have flooded online platforms. Popular content creator Elsa Novia Sena, among others, have received rape threats from an account named @endonesaatanpacinak (“Indonesia without Chinese”). I too received rape threats online after criticising the government on X.

For many in Indonesia’s Chinese minority, the atmosphere is chillingly reminiscent of May 1998. That month saw hundreds of women brutally raped – some with sharp tools – in riots characterised by widespread looting and killing. Human rights activists say the 1998 riots were orchestrated or exacerbated by the military to divert public attention from anti-government demonstrations.

Prabowo, an army general at the time, is suspected of being involved in human rights violations during the 1998 riots. He has rejected his alleged involvement in any acts of violence – but was discharged from the military over the allegations, and banned from entering the US for two decades.

Departure from the past

During the blackouts on August 31 in parts of Jakarta (which also occurred prior to the 1998 riots), looting broke out. Yet, in my opinion, something feels different this time. Protesters deliberately targeted the homes of four MPs accused of sneering at the public after securing a pay rise.

The house of Sri Mulyani, Indonesia’s finance minister, was also attacked. She is seen by many Indonesians as complicit in imposing draconian tax policies on ordinary people while sparing elite lawmakers. Sri has dismissed the accusation, stating that any laws are passed in an “open and transparent manner”.

No Chinese Indonesians have been attacked so far. A new slogan, “people looking after people”, has circulated on social media. Many insist the old trick of scapegoating Indonesia’s Chinese minority no longer works.

In May 1998, public anger against the then-president, Suharto, was driven by an economic crash. Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese population – seen as disproportionately successful in business – became convenient scapegoats. This time, however, many Indonesian people have turned against the army.

The protests are no longer only about economic grievances or corruption – they seem to be a stand against the authoritarian playbook of divide and rule. Many even suspect that some of the looters in the current demonstrations are soldiers in disguise.

In Surabaya, a city on the Indonesian island of Java, suspicions deepened when several police posts were torched. People online pointed out that the arsonist, caught in a viral photo, wore an outdated motorcycle taxi uniform paired with Adidas Terrex shoes worth millions of rupiah (hundreds of pounds). The caption asked: “Why would a taxi driver wear a uniform no longer in circulation and, if he really were one, how could he possibly afford such shoes?”

Prabowo may not have anticipated such a reaction from the Indonesian people, forcing him into a U-turn. But despite his gestures of appeasement, many remain unconvinced, dismissing his offers as merely cosmetic.

That scepticism appeared vindicated almost immediately. Late on September 1, the Islamic University of Bandung and Pasundan University came under attack as security forces fired tear gas and rubber bullets at student protesters.

The mass protests, which have spread to 32 provinces of Indonesia, are unlikely to subside soon. The question is whether the government can still weaponise fear and prejudice to cling to power – or whether ordinary Indonesians will stand firm and united against corruption and state violence in demanding justice.

The Conversation

Soe Tjen Marching 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. Indonesia violence: state response to protests echoes darker times in country’s history – https://theconversation.com/indonesia-violence-state-response-to-protests-echoes-darker-times-in-countrys-history-264374