MIL Submissions Engine

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

In the 2024 UK general election, Reform came third with a 14% share of the vote, capturing five seats in the House of Commons. This was a breakthrough election for the party. In the previous general election in 2019, when it was known as the Brexit party, it won a 2% vote share and captured no parliamentary seats at all.

This success is part of a trend. Radical right-wing populist parties are making gains in elections across many democracies and, in plenty of cases, they’re winning power. Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has been in government in Italy since the election of September 2022, when they took 26% of the vote and captured 119 seats in the national parliament.

In the National Assembly elections of June 2024, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally increased its representation from 89 seats to 125 seats. And in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party (PVV), led by right-wing populist Geert Wilders won the largest vote share in 2023 with 24%, capturing 37 seats in the House of Representatives.

Perhaps most significantly, Donald Trump won the US presidential election in November 2024 with a rightwing populist agenda – a victory that has created turmoil in American politics and the economy, along with the rest of the world.

Expert views

The American political scientist, Larry Bartels, argued in a recent book that democracy erodes from the top. He explains that contemporary democracies die not by military coups or revolutionary overthrows but by populist leaders winning elections and then subverting the institutions of democracy from within. Once in power, they restrict the freedom of the courts, squeeze the fairness out of elections and attack the press.

The Chapel Hill expert surveys, a database that classifies political parties into ideological groupings, helps illustrate the stakes at play here.

The 2024 survey data covers 31 countries and it was administered in all the European Union member states plus a few others including Britain, Norway and Turkey. It shows that there are more radical right-wing parties than any other kind of party in these countries and they are growing in number and in support.

The 2024 data was compiled by 609 political scientists, who looked at party ideologies, their policy preferences, electoral performances and the extent to which they participate in government. There are 279 parties in the database altogether and so they are classified into “party families” to make the analysis manageable.

A party family is a grouping of parties which the experts think are similar to each other, even though there may be some differences between them. For example, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Rally (RN) in France, the Party for Freedom (VVD) in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria (FPO) and Reform in Britain are all classified as right-wing populist parties in the dataset. The chart shows the extent to which these 11 party families have been successful in winning votes in the most recent elections.

The Performance of Party Families in 31 Countries in 2024:

The radical right family consisted of 48 parties, and on average they won 11% of the votes and 17% of seats in the various national legislatures. They are growing in support and influence, coming fourth after the conservative, socialist and Christian democrat party families in voting support and representation in parliaments.

The threat to democracy

We can get some idea of how likely such parties are to undermine democracy by looking at responses to a question in the Chapel Hill survey. This asked the experts to judge the extent to which parties think power should or should not be concentrated in the executive. It is measured on a ten-point scale where zero means that the party is strongly in favour of constraining the power of the executive, whereas ten means that a party opposes any restrictions on executive powers.

The chart shows the average scores for each of the party families on this executive power scale. It is readily apparent that the radical right parties are significant outliers on the scale, being very much more likely to support executive dominance than the other party families.

Scores on the Executive Power Scale

The survey showed that parties of the right such as the Conservatives, Agrarian and Religious parties are rather more likely to support executive dominance than parties of the centre or left. But the radical right parties stand out as really strongly supporting this. This is in sharp contrast to radical left parties, which are quite suspicious of such executive dominance.

This is important since it shows that once in power these parties are tempted to subvert the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. This is likely to be accompanied by attacks on an independent media, the use of the courts against opponents and attempts to gerrymander elections.

All this comes from the belief that a strong leader is the best form of government, a sentiment shared by many Trump supporters in the United States. Anne Applebaum’s recent book Twilight of Democracy illustrates this dynamic in the case of eastern European countries such as Poland and Hungary.

The implication is that if these parties grow stronger and dominate governments they are quite likely to try to subvert democracy. Reform supporters in Britain could get more than they bargained for.

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.

This article contains references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and this may include 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.

Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

– ref. Two charts that lay bare the threat posed by radical right parties to western democracies – https://theconversation.com/two-charts-that-lay-bare-the-threat-posed-by-radical-right-parties-to-western-democracies-262070

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Politics; Director, Lau China Institute, King’s College London

Taiwan has often compared itself to being a “shrimp between two whales”. That expression has never been more apt than today with the US and China – which considers Taiwan to be part of its territory – locked in a standoff over the future of the island.

At an event I attended some years ago, a Chinese scholar remarked when the issue of the US-China rivalry came up that they believed there was an African saying: “When two elephants are either having a fight, or making love, the grass around them gets trampled.”

It was best for everyone, they advised the other attendees, for the two superpowers to have a workmanlike, unexciting relationship rather than take the risk of things getting too friendly or hostile.

But whether or not the current period of conflict continues or the US and China magically become more aligned, the challenges facing Taiwan are severe.

First off, Taiwan is itself in a period of domestic turbulence. The government of Taiwanese president William Lai Ching-te, leader of the Democratic Progressive party, was elected in January 2024 with a little over 40% of the vote. This was considerably less than his predecessor from the same party, Tsai Ing-wen.

One of the main opposition leaders, Ke Wen-je of the Taiwan People’s party, has since then been arrested on corruption charges. He is accused of accepting half a million US dollars in bribes during his term as mayor of Taipei as well as misreporting campaign finances during his presidential run.

Most recently, in late July, recall votes were held where citizens in 24 districts of Taiwan chose whether or not to remove their legislator from office. This is the result of a law in Taiwan stipulating a new vote if 10% of the electorate in a specific constituency express dissatisfaction at the previous outcome. Activists supporting the government mobilised to achieve this.

The votes seem to be associated with frustration that, while the Democratic Progressive party controls the presidency, it cannot get legislation through a parliament dominated by its opponents. All of the votes were directed at seats held by the Kuomintang, the main opposition party in recent years that is accused by its critics of being pro-China. Not a single seat was overturned.

When the steady nationalism of Xi Jinping’s leadership in Beijing is factored in, with its conviction that the global influence of the west is slowly declining and the east – dominated by China – is in the nascent, one can see why the issue of Taiwan might look more precarious and worrying. This is regardless of the various predictions that 2027 is the date that China has set to go for reunification.

Ambiguous US position

For the US, President Donald Trump’s fixation has remained on correcting what he sees as China’s unfair trade advantages with its largest single economic partner – something he has long talked about.

The White House proclaimed in March, when the first set of trade negotiations with China concluded after tariffs were imposed by both sides, that: “for too long, unfair trade practices and America’s massive trade deficit with China have fuelled the offshoring of American jobs and the decline of our manufacturing sector.”

The aim at the most recent set of talks in Stockholm, Sweden, in late July was to drive towards a new deal. Trump has also reportedly talked of taking a huge delegation of business people to China at some point later in 2025. This is despite the fact that so far since his inauguration in January, and despite many reasons to talk, Xi and Trump have yet to physically meet.

Taiwanese people are therefore right to feel increasingly uneasy. Under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, they received verbal commitments that the US would come to Taiwan’s aid if it was attacked. This was not formal US policy, which has long maintained an ambiguous stance on Taiwan.

Ambiguity has returned with a vengeance under Trump. His secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, has said that the US stands by Taiwan. But these days in Washington all roads lead to the Oval Office, and Trump’s stance is far harder to predict.

If China were to dangle a trade deal in front of the US president – committing to buy more US goods, put in more investment that is non-problematic on security grounds in the US and generally abide by American demands – would Trump be able to resist?

It could be presented as a historic achievement, a new concordant between the world’s two greatest powers who had seemed until then set on conflict and clash. There might even be the much desired Nobel Peace Prize in it for the US leader.

Trump, for his part, appears increasingly reluctant to back Taiwan in ways that risk provoking Beijing. Lai delayed a trip to Latin America in July after the Trump administration reportedly told him to cancel a proposed stopover in New York. And the US cancelled a meeting with Taiwan’s defence minister one month earlier.

The likelihood remains that, if a real crisis occurs, then the US will climb down from the middle wall and do something to defend Taiwan. Any trade deal between Beijing and Washington will also probably be a highly circumscribed one. China is not an easy partner to negotiate with, and it is unlikely to offer Trump the kind of capitulation he is seeking.

Even so, these are very unpredictable times. The key calculation going forward will be the simple one of what the US gains and loses from all its relationships – and that includes Taiwan.

Kerry Brown 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. Taiwan faces a precarious future – whether or not US and China continue on path to conflict – https://theconversation.com/taiwan-faces-a-precarious-future-whether-or-not-us-and-china-continue-on-path-to-conflict-262294

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Seamus Higgins, Associate Professor Food Process Engineering, Chemical & Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham

Baby food pouches came under scrutiny earlier this year, following a report from the University of Leeds and consumer group Which?.

The findings were troubling. Many pouches are high in sugar, nutritionally inadequate, and potentially harmful if consumed regularly. The report also warns that parents are being misled by so-called “halo” marketing claims – labels like “nutritionally balanced,” “no added sugar” and “organic” – which often obscure poor nutritional profiles.

This isn’t the first time these products have raised concerns. A 2023 study published in BMJ analysed 276 baby food pouches from 15 major manufacturers. It concluded that many were “nutritionally poor, high in sugars, and not fortified with iron”. In 2025, a BBC Panorama investigation found that pouches from six leading UK brands failed to meet essential nutritional standards for infant feeding.

In my forthcoming book, Food and us: the incredible story of how food shapes humanity, I explore how food technology has evolved alongside human history.

The preservation of food by way of heat treatment dates back to the early 19th century, when Frenchman Nicolas Appert developed heat-based methods to extend shelf life for Napoleon’s army rations. Fast-forward to the 1970s, and the US Army developed the first retort pouch: a flexible, heat-resistant food package made from layers of plastic and metal foil, designed to be sterilised under high heat and pressure.

The retort process kills harmful bacteria and allows food to be stored safely at room temperature for up to 18 months, without the need for refrigeration or preservatives. Originally intended for military rations, this packaging method would later revolutionise the baby food industry.

It was around 2006, when Ella’s kitchen and Plum Organics introduced this pouch technology to the baby food market, sparking a global trend. Today, baby food pouches make up over a third (38%) of baby food market.

It’s easy to understand their appeal. These pouches offer ultimate convenience for busy parents: no prep, no refrigeration, no cleanup. Many are designed with built-in spouts, allowing infants to self-feed by sucking directly from the pouch: no spoon or bowl required.

Pouch problems

The trouble lies in how these foods are made. To achieve long shelf life manufacturers subject the pouches to high heat and pressure. To mask any off-tastes caused by this intense processing, they often use fruit concentrates: ingredients high in sugar that appeal to babies and make the product more palatable.

Consider milk as an example. Fresh milk pasteurised at 71°C for 15 seconds tastes natural and requires refrigeration, with a shelf life of about a week. But process that same milk at 130°C–150°C, and it becomes UHT (ultra high temperature) milk – shelf-stable for up to six months, but with a markedly different taste. Process it further in a retort system, and it can last up to 18 months – but at the cost of flavour and nutritional integrity. Now apply the same logic to baby food.

But these pouches don’t just fall short nutritionally – they may also interfere with vital developmental stages.

When infants feed directly from spouts, they miss out on practising essential oral motor skills like chewing, swallowing and tongue lateralisation: the ability to move the tongue from side to side. This movement is crucial for shifting food around the mouth and preparing it for safe swallowing.

Without opportunities to develop these skills, children may struggle to transition to solid foods, increasing the risk of fussy eating and feeding disorders later in childhood.

International child feeding recommendations – from the UK, EU and World Health Organization – all advocate breastfeeding for the first six months where possible, followed by the gradual introduction of safe, nutrient-dense, age-appropriate foods.

These guidelines consistently recommend limiting added sugars and encouraging a variety of tastes, textures and colours to promote long-term acceptance of healthy foods.

But the food industry doesn’t always follow this advice.

Mum’s milk v the market

The global baby food market was worth over US$88 billion (£65 billion) in 2022 and is projected to grow more than 6% annually until 2032. With profits and market share on the line, it’s no surprise that manufacturers prioritise shelf stability and scalability over optimal nutrition.

So how do these pouches compare to breast milk?

Breast milk is a living, dynamic fluid. Its composition changes throughout the day and based on the mother’s diet, helping expose babies to a range of flavours early in life. It contains fat, protein, carbohydrates (mainly lactose), vitamins, minerals and over 200 complex sugars that support gut and immune system development. These sugars are believed to play a crucial role in shaping a baby’s microbiome.

By contrast, baby food pouches processed under high heat and pressure lose many of the original nutrients and flavours found in whole, fresh ingredients, particularly in sterilised, long-life versions.

But we don’t have to choose between convenience and health. Emerging non-thermal technologies – such as high-pressure processing (HPP), pulsed electric fields (PEF), and cold plasma – offer promising alternatives that preserve taste and nutrition without resorting to extreme heat.

HPP works by applying intense pressure to destroy harmful bacteria while retaining flavour, texture and nutrients. PEF uses short bursts of electricity to break down microbial cells, gently preserving food without cooking it.

Cold plasma, meanwhile, relies on ionised gas to inactivate pathogens on food surfaces, making it particularly effective for packaging and delicate ingredients. These innovative methods extend shelf life and ensure food safety, all without compromising the quality of the food itself.

This is a pivotal moment for reflection and action. As the science evolves, so too should our policies. By aligning regulation more closely with expert recommendations, we can help ensure that baby food products support the health and development of the children who rely on them.

After all, what we feed our youngest citizens shouldn’t just fill their bellies – it should nurture their growth, development and long-term wellbeing.

Seamus Higgins 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. Baby food in pouches is stripped of nutrients – but convenient, healthy alternatives are on the horizon – https://theconversation.com/baby-food-in-pouches-is-stripped-of-nutrients-but-convenient-healthy-alternatives-are-on-the-horizon-262570

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Phoebe Lewis, PhD Candidate in Marine Science, Newcastle University

If you walk the harbour in Hastings in south-east England or the beach further north in Cromer at dawn, you’ll see the signs of a centuries-old way of life: small boats landing their fresh catch and crews unloading crates of crab, lobster or bass.

But there are fewer boats than a generation ago, fewer working fishers, and fewer incentives for young people to enter the industry. What was once the beating heart of a coastal community is at risk of becoming a memory in many areas.

Inshore and small-scale fishing boats are those vessels that fish predominantly within 6 nautical miles of the coastline and are usually under 10 metres in length. They make up nearly 80% of the UK fishing fleet. Since they operate close to shore, these boats supply local markets and often land directly onto beaches and into small harbours. Inshore fisheries don’t just catch fish, they sustain local economies, cultures and ways of life – but they are disappearing.

Research conducted by ourselves and colleagues confirms that the entire fleet is in decline across the UK. However, this decline is being unevenly felt around the country.

In England alone, between 2008 and 2022, 495 active fishing vessels were lost, equivalent to 20% of the total. Smaller boats were hit hardest: vessels less than 10 metres long declined by 22% – nearly double the 13% fall in larger boats.

These losses are even more severe when fishing activity is taken into account. Days at sea for the under-10 metre fleet fell by 44%, and employment dropped by nearly half (47%).

These numbers don’t just reflect a shrinking fleet. Smaller vessels are less able to fish further afield in response to changing fish stocks, bad weather or increasing pressure from other sea users. This suggests that inshore and small-scale fishing families bear a disproportionate share of the challenges faced across the entire fleet.

And once the last boat has gone from a harbour, with all the knowledge of where and how to fish, it is a way of life that could be lost forever.

Why are we losing boats?

The reasons for the decline are complex and shaped by local contexts. Competition for space, restricted access to fishing grounds, insufficient quotas to target diverse fish stocks, limited access to markets, an ageing workforce – all of these things contribute. But there is a deeper problem: a policy framework that prioritises fish stocks and economic yield over people and places.

Too often, fisheries policy in the UK and internationally has focused on sustainability as predominantly a biological problem. Are fish stocks recovering? Are total catch levels within safe limits? These are important questions, but they miss half the story.

A fishery is not just an ecosystem, it’s a community. The people who fish, mend nets, manage harbours and sell seafood are integral to the sustainability of coastal life. Without them, we lose not just jobs but a whole chain of economic and social support. Fish processors, boat builders, local shops and, in more rural or island locations, even the basic viability of essential services like schools and healthcare can depend on the continued presence of fishing families.

While small-scale fisheries may be marginal from the perspective of national GDP, fewer boats often means fewer families – and the erosion of a community which makes a seaside town more than just a tourist backdrop. As fishing fades, so too does a sense of local character and identity: elements that distinguish these towns and connect them to their maritime heritage.

What would it take to stem the loss?

A number of solutions are frequently discussed, including quota systems designed to meet community needs, improved harbour facilities for small boats, more visible training opportunities and clearer pathways for young people to enter fishing.

Inshore and small-scale fishers also need to have their voices heard, and to trust their experiences and insight will help shape the future of coastal communities. But lasting change also requires a shift in mindset: to see fishing not just as a source of seafood but as part of a sustainable future for coastal Britain.

The UK government has an important role to play in recognising and addressing the challenges faced by smaller vessels. This aligns with international commitments the UK has already made to support small-scale fisheries, which call for the fair distribution of marine resources and protection of cultural heritage.

But it is not just policymakers who can make a difference. Buying locally landed fish, supporting fishing festivals, learning about local seafood and simply chatting to fishers on the beach or at the harbour – these small acts all help show that people value this work and want it to continue.

The small fishing boats still seen bobbing in UK harbours are more than working vessels – they are signs of a living culture. For those willing to learn the trade, fishing offers a viable independent livelihood and a strong connection to community and the sea.

If we want our coastal communities to thrive, not just survive, action is required before the last boats leave the shore for good.

Sarah Coulthard receives funding from the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

Ainsley Hatt and Phoebe Lewis do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The UK is losing its small fishing boats – and the communities they support – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-is-losing-its-small-fishing-boats-and-the-communities-they-support-262092

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward White, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Kingston University

Director Zach Cregger’s new horror film Weapons explores the unsettling notion that the real monsters might not be lurking under your bed, but can instead be found within your own mind.

More than merely a scare tactic, the film illustrates how someone’s own brain can transform them from a decent person into the villain in someone else’s story.

Following his breakout hit with the horror flick Barbarian (2022), in Weapons Cregger presents a psychological nightmare that serves as a twisted exploration of human behaviour. It shows how quickly normal people can turn into agents of cruelty, all while still believing they’re the heroes of the story.

The film opens with the chilling premise of 17 children from the same classroom vanishing without a trace, leaving behind only grainy security footage of them running like helpless little planes. However, the true horror unfolds as the community of Maybrook – a small town in Pennsylvania – spirals into chaos instead of unity.

Parents accuse teachers, neighbours distrust one another and innocent lives are upended in the search for a culprit. This breakdown is grounded in psychological research, showcasing how human behaviour can deteriorate under pressure.

The psychology behind Weapons

Social identity theory is a scientific concept that theorises that your brain is wired to compartmentalise the world into “us” (those we consider good) and “them” (those perceived as threats). This process intensifies when people face fear or stress.

In Weapons, we see this theory in action as the community dismantles itself. Teacher Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) becomes an easy target, not due to concrete evidence, but because she fits neatly into the role of the other – “them”. The parents of the missing children seek someone to vilify, and she becomes the scapegoat of their fears.

This idea is based on decades of research showing that even the flimsiest group divisions can trigger vicious “us versus them” thinking. In laboratory experiments, people assigned to completely meaningless groups (like “overestimators” versus “underestimators”) will immediately start favouring their own group and discriminating against the other.

Here’s where things get truly frightening. The film shows characters doing horrible things while convinced they’re being righteous – this is a phenomenon psychologists call “moral disengagement”.

Think of it as your brain’s built-in excuse generator. When you want to do something that violates your normal moral standards, your mind helpfully provides justifications, such as:

• “it’s for the greater good”

• “they deserve it”

• “everyone else is doing it”

• “I’m just following orders.”

Recent studies show that this isn’t just about film villains – it’s how ordinary people convince themselves that cruelty is justified.

One 2025 study found that when people are under stress (like, say, dealing with missing children), they become much more likely to make cold, calculating decisions that prioritise results over moral principles. Your stressed-out brain rewrites your ethics in real time.

Weapons taps into these, and other, unsettling psychological findings. Take, for instance, the controversial 1971 Stanford prison experiment, where participants tasked with being “guards” quickly adopted sadistic behaviours towards the “prisoners”. Or the equally contentious obedience experiments by American psychologist Stanley Milgram, which demonstrated how ordinary people administered what they thought were lethal electric shocks under authority’s command.

Both the Milgram obedience experiment and Stanford prison experiment are now universally condemned by psychologists as deeply unethical, with experts agreeing that ethics gatekeepers would swiftly bar such studies from proceeding if they were proposed today. These controversial experiments were so harmful to participants that they directly led to major reforms in research ethics, including the National Research Act of 1974 and modern institutional review boards that protect human subjects.

But many still believe that these experiments revealed a chilling truth – almost anyone can become a “bad guy” under the right circumstances. Alarmingly, in Milgram’s tests, around 65% of participants proceeded to maximum voltage shocks, indicating that normal people are vulnerable to psychological manipulation within group settings.

Weapons presents this same dynamic, but within the context of a seemingly idyllic suburban neighbourhood.

The empathy trap

Weapons also shows that the people who care the most about a situation can become the biggest targets. The film doesn’t punish characters for being cruel – it punishes them for being kind.

Take teacher Justine Gandy (Julia Garner). Her downfall isn’t that she’s evil or incompetent. It’s that she cared too much about a neglected student and crossed the invisible boundaries of the “proper” teacher-parent relationship. Her empathy makes her an outsider, and outsiders make perfect scapegoats. The community turns her compassion into evidence of her guilt.

Even more chilling is what happens to Marcus (Benedict Wong), the school principal. In a moment where he shows concern for a child, his care gets twisted into something sinister. His empathy is punished with extreme prejudice, transforming his human decency into malice and destruction.

Recent studies have explored “virtue signaling”: when people perform moral outrage not because they genuinely care, but because it makes them look good socially. The research shows that online moral crusades often have little to do with actually helping anyone and everything to do with personal image management.

Even worse, psychologists have identified “weaponised empathy” – using people’s natural desire to help others to manipulate them into supporting harmful causes. Your compassion becomes the weapon someone else uses against you.

Weapons succeeds as horror because it doesn’t rely on supernatural monsters or gore. Instead, it shows us the real monsters – the ones we become when our psychology works exactly the way evolution has led it to.

The film suggests that the greatest threat to any community isn’t some external evil. It’s the collective decision to abandon empathy, critical thinking and basic human decency in favour of tribal warfare and moral theatre.

As the credits roll over the film’s blood-soaked finale, you’re left with an uncomfortable question: In a crisis, which side of that warfare would you be on? And more importantly, would you even know?

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.

Edward White is affiliated with Kingston University.

– ref. Weapons: the film’s horror stems from moral disengagement – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/weapons-the-films-horror-stems-from-moral-disengagement-a-psychologist-explains-262828