Johansen.se

Over the past half-decade, the state of Texas has been pushing an evolution in the administration and enforcement of immigration law. Stepping into a traditional federal role, state lawmakers in 2023 passed Senate Bill 4, allowing Texas police to arrest those illegally crossing the border from Mexico.

But that law, which survived court challenges, is not the only place where the state has taken on traditional federal responsibilities. The Conversation’s senior politics editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with Texas A&M professor Dan DeBree, a former Homeland Security official and Air Force veteran, about the other moves Texas has made that likely put it in a position to be a key player in carrying out immigration enforcement actions by the Trump administration.

What role has Texas taken in immigration enforcement at what levels of government?

Texas is the epicenter of the struggle between federal and state entities.

Traditionally, immigration and border security has been the role of federal law enforcement agencies, first and foremost Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol.

Another essential federal agency is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more commonly known as ICE. One portion of ICE – enforcement and removal operations – is responsible for conducting deportations and taking people back to their country of origin.

Customs and Border Protection is concentrated along the southern border. They cooperate closely with Texas and its Department of Public Safety.

By the nature of law enforcement, they’re generally cooperating very closely with them at all times. As an example, in a search and rescue mission, whichever agency is closest – the local sheriff’s department or state Department of Public Safety or federal Border Patrol – cooperates on a very granular level with the nearest available assets to find the missing person.

A Maverick County sheriff searches a migrant as a group of migrants of different nationalities arrive at the Mexico-U.S. border in Maverick County, Texas, on Feb. 4, 2024.
Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

Traditionally, the Texas Department of Public Safety would not be primarily responsible for apprehending border crossers. On the border, that is purely the purview of Customs and Border Patrol. And for a long time now, the National Guard, whether it be the Texas National Guard or from other states, has had a role in border security too. The Texas National Guard is deployed within Texas.

But there’s also National Guard from around the country who, in small batches, usually are deployed to either take some of the pressure off of a state, whether it be Arizona or Texas, to help them with that mission. Those are not federal troops. They’re state troops, serving under and deployed by the governor. There are also some federal troops in a joint task force used primarily for support purposes and not deployed in the field to do apprehensions.

It’s not every border state that has its police function getting involved in border enforcement. How did that develop over the past five years?

That developed mainly because this is an unprecedented migration. So at times – both geographically and temporally – Border Patrol would be overwhelmed. They’ve got a thin green line out there – they wear green uniforms – that just can’t hold it all back. And obviously there was tension between the administration in Texas, with the Biden administration in particular.

Some of these cities on the border were quite overwhelmed. You know, I remember seeing at a conference a representative from El Paso speaking to a representative from New York City, and the person from New York City was complaining about being overwhelmed by migrants. The detective from El Paso, from the Department of Public Safety, calmly responded with his corresponding numbers, and they were just staggering for a city of that size.

And you know, in El Paso, you can say, “Hey, this is a federal responsibility to take care of this all you want.” But if, in reality, it’s not happening because the federal assets are being overwhelmed through no fault of their own, then something needs to be done, right?

So that’s basically a political conflict between the state government and the federal government over what’s not being done. And I do have sympathy for all border states, but Texas in particular, and these border areas. There is a humanitarian crisis. That’s what I call it. It’s a humanitarian crisis going on on the border – caused by an unprecedented worldwide migration – and it does need to be addressed.

Texas Tactical Border Force guardsmen arrive at the Million Air El Paso, Texas, airport on March 26, 2024, to provide extra security along El Paso’s southern border.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Besides the federal presence, this state involvement includes everything from the National Guard down to local police. It’s pretty much every level of government in Texas that’s involved in this?

I have a capstone research project with the Brooks County Sheriff’s Department. The immigration or humanitarian crisis on the border is overwhelming them. They have many, many, many unrecovered remains out in the desert over 942 square miles.

With few deputies patrolling that wide area, it will take generations to address that. And then, every day, particularly in the summer, they must conduct search and rescues for migrants who are in distress. There’s a steady flow of migrants through Brooks County. When they realize that they’re not going to make it they call 911, and every level of law enforcement is involved at some point or can be involved.

How do you see what Texas is doing meshing with a new federal immigration and border policy from the Trump administration?

The Texas state government will probably be lined up more closely with the new administration in their contention that there’s an invasion at the border. While I personally don’t like that term, I think there are sympathetic ears in the Trump administration to that argument, so I think that there will be cooperation or more support or funding from federal agencies.

I think, though, at the tactical level, such as the Brooks County sheriff dealing with the state Department of Public Safety and dealing with Customs and Border Patrol, I don’t think there’ll be much change.

When I was at the Department of Homeland Security, I worked for the Obama administration. Then I worked for the Trump administration, and then at the end I worked for the Biden administration. And you know, you would have thought that there would be drastic changes and big rudder movements, but there really weren’t.

The behemoth of a federal bureaucracy is pretty tough to move. Every administration comes in promising big, big changes, and in the end it usually falls short of the drastic promises.

There will be executive orders on immigration at the federal level, and we have seen the same tool used at the state level. And I understand this is part of politics. As an example, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared Mexican drug cartels or criminal organizations as terrorist organizations via executive order. I’m not necessarily on board with that – again, definitions are important – but sometimes words are used for emphasis or to even be inflammatory. I think we’ll see less of that from the state, because I think that the two administrations will be more aligned, so there won’t be a need for it.

My border security classes tends to result in more emotion than almost any other class I teach. When I talk to the students, I like to back up a second and go, “Whatever we think about this, it is a humanitarian crisis.”

I don’t know that it can be solved, but we have got to figure out a way to mitigate it, and what we’re doing when we mitigate a humanitarian crisis is we’re reducing human suffering. And I don’t think there’s anybody on any side of the aisle who can’t get on board with that, and that’s the way I frame it. Läs mer…

As Donald Trump prepares for his inauguration, the world is preparing for the beginning of the second Trump Revolution. Trump’s second term will be very different from his first, when his powers were more limited and restrained. In 2016 he did not win a majority of the popular vote.

Now things are different. He received more votes than his opponent. His cabinet supports his radical agenda. He has control of both houses of Congress and of the Supreme Court. Despite what some critics say, the situation is not the same as Germany in 1933. But it is a rightist revolution, nevertheless.

It is unprecedented for the US. Trump’s election threatens to dismantle the country’s liberal democratic institutions and lead to further global political instability. Trump will reverse policies and undo agreements to inhibit climate change.

One way or another, we are all going to be affected. The world we have occupied, and the things that many of us have taken for granted since the Allied victory over fascism in 1945, could be profoundly challenged.

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

How did the US come to elect a convicted felon accused of trying to overturn an election? And what does the new Trump era mean for the world economy? Is he simply just the latest manifestation of the 1980s neoliberal “greed is good” political motto? Or will his extreme nationalism and isolationism put him on a collision course with other world powers?

I have been an economist for five decades. My research in economics has also led me to consider the roots of authoritarianism, the limits of socialism and the crises of left-wing politics. Since 2019 I have also been involved with colleagues, including political scientist Gerhard Schnyder, on a research project looking into the growth of populism.

One question that’s vital to understanding the current situation is whether neoliberalism led to the rise of Trump. The difficulty is that the word neoliberalism has been stretched enormously in meaning, to cover many leading politicians, including Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, Emanuel Macron, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Trump himself. The leaders of the Hungarian, Yugoslavian, and Chinese Communist parties, who introduced more markets into their planned economies (after 1956, in the 1950s and 1980s respectively), have all been described by prominent academics as neoliberal. Seemingly, anyone who supports some markets is neoliberal.

Since the late 1970s, I have supported a mixed economy with a private sector and markets, alongside public regulation, strategic planning and a strong welfare state. Some of the prominent critiques of neoliberalism seem to reject a mixed economy. Yet mixed economies with strong welfare states are among the best performing systems in the world.

Trump’s economic protectionism contrasts with the free trade rhetoric of Reagan and Thatcher, which was inspired by influential Chicago economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Instead of using an overstretched term, we should identify more specific forces and events. Here, the rise of Chicago style economics, and the election of Thatcher in 1979 and Reagan in 1980 are highly relevant.

Read more:
Three possible futures for the global economy if Trump brings in new trade tariffs

Hayek and Friedman revived a 19th century strand of liberalism that promoted free markets with minimal government regulation, and a reduction of the size of the state. Although their analyses differ in some important respects, they both underestimated the vital role of the state in sustaining a modern market economy.

In increasingly complex economies, more state regulation is required to make market competition work. Even from a business point of view, increasing state intervention is needed to educate and train the workforce and to reduce absences due to ill health. To serve human welfare, as well as business interests, the majority of 20th century liberals became promoters of a welfare state.

But by the late 1950s, as a curious anomaly, the Chicago school of economists had abandoned the free market policy of opposition to oligopolies and monopolies. With this major concession to the large corporations, Chicago economics inspired Thatcher, Reagan and other leading politicians around the world.

From 1980 onwards, their policies led to reductions in taxes for the rich and rising inequalities of wealth and income, as French economist Thomas Piketty and others have demonstrated. Trade union power was reduced and real wage levels began to stagnate. As Piketty has shown, more wealth and power was passed to the rich.

Globalisation created some economic insecurity. Manufacturing jobs moved to China and other countries where labour was cheaper, as deindustrialisation accelerated in the developed west. Where there was inadequate retraining in alternative skills – as in the US and the UK – the traditional working class lost out.

Corporate power started to become increasingly concentrated. And, contrary to Chicago aspirations, during the 1980s, and after, in the US and UK, there was no significant reduction in the overall burden of taxation or in the size of the state. But the rich and the large corporations have prospered. Huge companies like Amazon, Google and Walmart (founded in 1994, 1998 and 1962 respectively) now dominate the global corporate landscape.

Using some core ideas in mainstream economics, intellectual developments since the 1980s have led to an enhanced celebration of greed and self-interest over the virtues of public service and care for others. Notions of duty or public service have become unfashionable. They are excluded from many economic models, where it is typically assumed that everyone maximises their own satisfaction or utility.

Rising inequality and threats to democracy

Like all revolutionaries, Trump did not come from nowhere. The Chicago economists had promoted the virtues of private property over the survival of representative democracy. They saw the latter as a virtue, but property mattered much more. In fact, the evidence suggests that both are vital. Consider the (nominal) GDP per capita of the top 30 economies in the world, excepting smaller countries such as Hong Kong, Iceland, Luxembourg, Macau, Qatar, San Marino and Singapore. All 30 are currently democracies, except the oil-rich United Arab Emirates. All are capitalist mixed economies, but with welfare states of various sizes.

The best performers are Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the US. In seven of these countries in the full list, the welfare state is much stronger than in the US. By several criteria, social democratic welfare capitalisms, with larger public sectors and higher levels of taxation, have performed better than Anglo-American capitalism.

For prosperity, the existence of a private sector is important, but so too is democracy. Representative democracy can counter any slide toward dictatorship, help protect human rights and encourage pluralism and tolerance. There is also evidence that democracy reduces the chances of war and famine, and that it helps to put pressure on governments to deal with pollution and other environmental problems.

The proportion of the global population living in liberal democracies increased markedly in the second half of the 20th century. I am a member of the babyboom generation, born just after the end of the second world war. This generation has witnessed the forward march of democracy. In the 1970s, dictatorships fell in places like Greece, Portugal and Spain.

The 1980s and 1990s saw another surge of democratisation, with new democracies emerging in Latin America. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the cold war brought democracy to much of central and eastern Europe. But since the beginning of the 21st century, liberal democracy has been in retreat. It is now threatened in one of its first and most important homelands.

A world ripe for populism

Under Reagan and his Republican successors, the US Republican party was transformed from a pragmatic political organisation, which was capable of compromise and reaching some consensus with its opponents, to a party with an uncompromising ideology in favour of the rich.

Both Reagan and Thatcher ensured that political developments in favour of the rich were not reversed. Research shows that economic inequality can lead to a greater inequality of political power. In other words, politics reverts to an elite activity, by those and for those with money and influence.

Gordon Gekko’s ‘greed is good’ speech from Wall Street (1987).

Inequality of power leads to further economic inequality – a circular and cumulative process. It can lead to politicians being seen as out of touch with ordinary people.

In the US, the issue is compounded by how the parties are funded. The Citizens United organisation, for example, was founded in 1988 in the US to promote a deeply conservative agenda. In 2010 it won a case in the Supreme Court that ended restrictions on corporate spending in federal election campaigns. Since 2010 Citizens United has supported Trump.

The information ecosystem

Years before the political rise of Trump, the information ecosystem had already been undermined by monopoly ownership of big media, and the rise of social media as a home for conspiracy theories, misinformation, and attacks on experts.

In the past, most news and information was filtered and guided by specialists, working in accredited institutions. Science itself is an institutionalised system to screen and authenticate knowledge. Such a system is always imperfect. The new digital technologies of the 1990s raised hopes of open information systems, free and unfiltered.

But mass and social media have undermined these established mechanisms of accreditation and led to different outcomes. Even more seriously, big money and powerful political influencers have learned to manipulate the information ecosystem to their own advantage, with some experts saying this is an “industrial scale” problem.

As Walter Lippmann showed in his classic 1922 book, Public Opinion, information overload can often prompt people to adopt “cultural stereotypes” rather than evidence-based opinions. Today we now know much more about how people can select and interpret information in biased ways. For example, there is “confirmation bias”, where people seek information that confirms a belief and ignore contradictory evidence. Biases like this are profuse in echo chambers like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook where algorithms insure users are largely exposed to information that confirms their preexisting beliefs.

There is also the “framing effect”, where the same evidence presented in different ways can lead to different responses. For example, people might react differently to a statement about a success rate (“This procedure has a 70% success rate”) compared to a failure rate (“This procedure has a 30% failure rate”), even though the information conveyed is identical.

The information explosion led by 24-hour news, smart phones and social media has greatly exacerbated these problems. These major limitations present difficulties in a democracy.

Read more:
The dynamics that polarise us on social media are about to get worse

Repeated politico-economic shocks

In recent years, the problems of dealing with information overload have become much worse. When people lose trust in experts, then they often turn to populists, who provide easy answers instead of addressing real underlying problems. We have seen this in recent years with right-wing populist governments and representatives being elected across Europe.

In the UK, right-wing politics is grappling with an ideological transformation in many ways similar to that the US Republican party has undergone. Nigel Farage’s populist party, Reform UK, has surged to 25% in the polls. And the traditional centre-right Conservatives are debating to what degree it should adopt Reform’s approach, with some arguing for an electoral pact with Farage.

But we’ve already seen the Conservatives deploy many tactics used by Trump during the last 14 years of their time in government. Condemn experts. Promote simple solutions to complex problems. Endorse prejudice. Claim to represent the will of the people. The world has become ripe for such populism.

Thumbs up for populism: former Prime Minister Boris Johnson at Downing Street in 2021.
Shutterstock/ITS

At the same time, globalisation continues to undermine job security, particularly in manufacturing, in the US and other western economies. Real wage growth has stagnated in the US for decades. There have been significant increases in US real wages since 2019, but not enough to restore confidence in government economic policies.

Confidence in government was also undermined by the Iraq invasion in 2003, led by then George W. Bush and Tony Blair, following false information that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When no such weapons were found, trust in establishment politicians was severely damaged. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the war and subsequent instability in Iraq.

The 2008 financial crash and subsequent austerity measures led to widespread political discontent and stimulated various forms of populism. Capitalism had suffered its biggest financial crisis since the 1930s. Banks had to be bailed out and governments had to rescue financial markets. In the US, 8 million jobs were lost in two years. World trade dropped by 20%.

Markets eventually recovered, but the crash brought suffering to millions. In November 2008, Queen Elizabeth II asked a UK group of economists why they did not see the crash coming. Adequate answers were not forthcoming. All this added to a growing mistrust of politicians and scientific experts.

There is some evidence that these trends were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Inundated with misinformation on social media, large swathes of the population lost faith in the current political and economic system. Information abundance led not to enlightenment, but to a mistrust of experts, the blaming of other groups, and to a resurgence of racism and nationalism.

Trump built on these economic and political developments. He successfully courted the new billionaire elite and the owners of mass media. For many, it did not matter that President Biden’s policies had grown the US economy and greatly reduced unemployment. Many focused instead on the surge in prices, which was partly due to COVID-19 and the Ukraine war.

The rightist populist mindset was not dented by this economic success. Anti-immigration rhetoric won out. Trump made much use of the anti-immigrant card, referring to them as “stone-cold killers”, “monsters” and “vile animals”.

Historian and complexity scientist, Peter Turchin and his team have collected data on long-term political cycles, which reveal patterns and processes of decay that undermine the viability of states. They examine how and why past societies collapsed.

Read more:
History’s crisis detectives: how we’re using maths and data to reveal why societies collapse – and clues about the future

Writing for The Conversation last year, Daniel Hoyer, who works alongside Turchin, said that one of the most common patterns that in the historical record was how extreme inequality shows up in nearly every case of major crisis. “When big gaps exist between the haves and have-nots, not just in material wealth but also access to positions of power, this breeds frustration, dissent and turmoil.”

“Ages of discord”, as Turchin dubbed periods of great social unrest and violence, produce some of history’s most devastating events, including the US civil war of the 1860s, the early 20th-century Russian Revolution and the Taiping rebellion against the Chinese Qing dynasty, often said to be the deadliest civil war in history.

Hoyer writes: “All of these cases saw people become frustrated at extreme wealth inequality, along with lack of inclusion in the political process. Frustration bred anger, and eventually erupted into fighting that killed millions and affected many more.”

Turchin calls this “elite overproduction”, where aspiring groups try to gain shares of concentrated wealth and power. Discontent increases, with battles between existing and new elites, vying for power. Some elites gain control of parts of the media, undermining public trust. Norms of public discourse and behaviour are undermined. States fracture internally and key public institutions decline.

Trust in government

Trump has achieved power in a country that records a low level of trust in government. This mistrust was fertile ground for misinformation and the abuse of social media in Trump’s election campaign. Although distrust in government is not the only causal factor, it is useful to look at levels of trust in other democracies for comparison.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has researched trust levels in 50 governments over 2019-23, which covers the years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The countries with the highest trust levels, expressed in percentage scores, are shown in the chart below:

They all have trust levels of 60% or above. Nine of these ten countries are in Europe. Four of them are Nordic states. All of them elect their governments by some system of proportional representation, including Ireland that uses a single transferable vote system.

Now consider the levels of trust in government in three other highly developed democracies: France has 43%, the UK 40%, and the US 31%.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the ten countries with the highest trust in government have systems of proportional representation. By contrast, France, the UK and the US, which have much lower levels of trust in government, do not have proportional representation. France and the US are also systems where the elected presidents have substantial executive powers.

In UK constituencies the first-past-the-post electoral system creates a flip-flopping process of alternate periods of Tory and Labour government.

In France the presidential system has created movements from the right to the left and back. Although Emmanuel Macron is another centre ground politician, his main challenge in recent presidential electoral contests has been from the far right.

In the US, two parties – Democrats and Republicans – have been the only viable choices, not only for president, but for two houses of Congress, for more than a century. Since the 1960s, the system has become more polarised. Because of voting logjams in Congress, presidents have used executive orders and other powers to get things done.

Proportional systems also mean that coalitions are more likely. Coalitions do not please everyone, but they can reduce shifts to the extremes and encourage the search for consensus positions.

But research by political scientists on the effects of proportional representation versus other systems is in some respects inconclusive. And recent elections in places like Sweden, Austria and Germany show this system can help populist parties into power and prominence. So there is no perfect electoral solution, and there never has been.

Read more:
All British politicians should immediately distance themselves from the foreign interference of Elon Musk

How then can populist politics be countered? The control of the media by a few super-rich moguls must certainly been seen as factor, and legislation assuring greater competition should be prioritised if we are to have well-balanced democracies.

And without restricting free expression, there must be measures to counteract fake news – fact-checkers are needed now more than ever.

Economic and political reasons for popular discontent must be tackled. Governments cannot continue to duck the problem of extreme inequalities of wealth and power. Tighter legislative controls on large corporations would encode their responsibilities to people and to the planet.

Schools also need to prepare young people for their duties as citizens, to educate them in the dangers of dictatorship, and in the need to defend a vibrant, pluralist system of representative democracy, where we have duties to others and not simply to ourselves.

What next?

So what will the next four years bring? As it was in his first term as president, Trump’s focus will be maintaining his grip on power and lucratively serving himself and the billionaire elite around him. He has already indicated plans to cut welfare programmes including Medicaid, and has said that he will abandon policies to deal with the climate crisis, which will accelerate global warming.

Trump has also announced that he will reduce the size of the federal state and has tasked Elon Musk with identifying areas to slash, promising mass job cuts. Unlike his first presidency in 2017-21, he is now facing less constraints on doing this.

Trump is no economic liberal. His reckless tariff policy reflects this. He has threatened large tariffs of between 10% and 100% on Canadian, Mexican and Chinese imports into the US. These will be imposed by his government as taxes on imports. Companies will react by raising their prices, thus raising inflation in the US. He does not believe in free trade. Neither does he appreciate the potential inflationary and other adverse economic consequences of high tariffs and a global trade war.

Talking of war, Trump has suggested that he will wind down or terminate support for Ukraine. He would placate Russia, unwary of the consequences of appeasing dictators. This raises the question of by how much is he being influenced by the Russians. The situation in the Middle East also remains volatile. There is no guarantee that Trump, having made several reckless foreign policy statements regarding Canada, Greenland, Panama and elsewhere, will be able to provide diplomatic solutions.

Trump’s plan to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants will lead to further discord within the US itself. The US is already a deeply fractured country. These policies will greatly exacerbate internal divisions. Some US states will resist Trump by providing safe havens for immigrants.

Despite the promise of so much turmoil, so far, the stock markets have not reacted adversely. In the short term, it is possible that tax cuts for billionaires and some other Trump measures will stimulate the financial markets. But this is unlikely to last long. Cuts in the federal government could create havoc. Internal battles could undermine political and economic confidence. A global trade war would contract the global economy, leaving the US adversely affected.

The rich may gain a lot, at least for a while, and until the adverse consequences develop in magnitude. But the poor and disadvantaged will suffer. Their plight will be blamed on immigrants and the resistance within the federal and state machines. The economic and political failings will be used to justify greater authoritarianism, including limitations on free speech. We live in very dangerous times.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter. Läs mer…

Tragedies in social housing, such as the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 and the death of toddler Awaab Ishak due to damp living conditions in 2020, remain shocking. As a coroner commented at the time, “How in the UK in 2020 does a two-year-old child die as a result of exposure to mould?”

Since then developments like Awaab’s Law have increased landlords’ accountability for delivering decent homes. However, improvements to housing stock may appear to be happening at a snail’s pace, as shown by the tower block fire in Dagenham, east London, in 2024.

But capturing data and feedback from social housing tenants is notoriously tricky. This can be due to the range of ways tenants prefer to communicate (from digital tools to landlines, physical post and in-person) as well as limited willingness to engage with authorities. This means that tenant perspectives are frequently unheard.

As customers, if we purchase a product and something is wrong, we know we have consumer rights and can have the complaint acted upon. The social housing sector is different. It has become increasingly stigmatised, resulting in areas of social housing being associated with higher crime rates, social deprivation and inequality, mental health issues and addiction.

Consequently, social housing tenants include vulnerable people on low incomes, who often experience digital inequality and less agency and control over their home environment. They rely on social housing stock availability and on landlords for the state of repair of their home.

While tenants can of course raise concerns over quality and maintenance with their housing provider, their voice has frequently gone unheard, as exemplified by the case of Awaab’s parents. But it shouldn’t be difficult to change this.

My colleague and I share a longstanding interest in social housing service performance. We wanted to understand how technology might support improvement in the sector and help guard against issues like the ones mentioned above.

Social housing is not typically associated with high technology, due to the financial constraints typical across the public sector, combined with a sometimes limited appetite for innovation. Yet the potential opportunities to use tech to improve the tenant experience appeared bountiful. Or at least, that’s what we thought.

Our research was designed to explore how tenants’ future experiences of social housing might be improved through the application of technology. We collected data from 35 experts from global tech organisations, including Amazon Web Services, as well as organisations dealing with social housing policy, senior social housing leaders (chief executives, directors or heads of service), frontline staff and tenants.

While we weren’t surprised by the broad improvement areas identified (around property standards, service delivery, integration of technology and empowerment), we did not expect that so many of the issues could be solved with low-tech (or even no-tech) solutions.

We used the Delphi method, which is a way of getting an overall picture of the future by aggregating responses from experts in different disciplines. We asked how each expert thought the “tenant of the future” might look.

In our findings, it emerged that they believed customers (that is to say, tenants) will have higher expectations in a number of areas associated with their housing.

1. Property standards

This emphasised the need for decent homes. This means social housing organisations and landlords being more aware of the quality of their properties and, in particular, paying greater attention to insulation to help with the cost of living.

2. Human-centred services

This would emphasise the importance of a contact model where tenants can raise concerns or complaints face to face through a designated housing officer. This theme also suggested that re-evaluating the core purpose of social housing would be helpful, including the role of and contribution to the wider community.

For example, respondents suggested increasing levels of community engagement by involving tenants in decision making. This would not only increase their agency, but also help to reduce stigma and stereotypes around social housing. This is an area where low or no-tech solutions are possible. One respondent said: “Whilst digital can yield massive improvements to service delivery, it should not be a replacement for … conversations with tenants, including face-to-face engagement.”

3. Making use of technology

While we expected demands in this area to be high, suggestions were in fact surprisingly modest. Respondents suggested things like online forms or live chat functions, and the use of smart devices to reduce energy consumption, detect mould or monitor things like boilers, for example.

4. Tenant empowerment

Collecting feedback allows landlords to understand tenants’ needs and work with them to develop a more customer-centred approach to social housing.

Damp and mouldy property is one of the biggest issues in social housing.
epiximages/Shutterstock

Realisation of these humble findings doesn’t feel unattainable or spectacularly unaffordable, yet history has shown us that the sector has struggled to overcome stigma and prejudice to effect change.

So what could be done? The government is moving to build new homes at speed. While this will improve availability of housing stock nationally, it won’t address issues around the quality of existing stock without substantial investment. Greater transparency around the quality of social housing is vital, alongside more robust reporting and repair processes.

While we don’t have all the answers, the importance of direct personal contact that we uncovered in our research actually feels quite heartwarming, giving the sense that tenants’ views and concerns actually matter.

Ensuring personal contact points between tenant and social housing provider should be a straightforward and affordable allocation of existing resources. This isn’t too much to ask and is definitely not rocket science. Läs mer…

Donald Trump’s return to the White House on January 20 2025 is widely seen as ushering in a period of significant upheaval for US foreign policy, and a change in the way diplomacy is done.

Trump’s favoured style of bluster and threats against foreign leaders already seems to have paid off in helping to craft a peace deal, however shaky, in Gaza. The deal was negotiated by Joe Biden and his team, in co-ordination with Trump’s incoming administration.

But analysts suggest Trump’s fierce comments on January 7 that “all hell would break lose” if the hostages weren’t soon released were actually a threat to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu to get something done quickly. And this forced the Israeli government to commit to a deal.

Trump used this abrasive style in his first term. And his recent threats to buy Greenland, annex Canada and resume control of the Panama Canal suggest this will happen again. This may not bode well, especially for traditional allies of the US.

Not only that but Elon Musk, one of Trump’s close confidants, is openly bragging about his attempts to change governments in the UK and Germany – in an apparent move to shore up a global alliance of populist leaders.

Add to that a promised deal with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, a renewal of the maximum-pressure campaign against Iran and doubling down on confrontation with China, and you have all the ingredients of a fundamental remaking of US foreign policy.

Three particular aspects stand out and give an early indication of what the Trump doctrine of foreign policy might look like. First is the focus on the western hemisphere. Trump’s focus here appears to be simultaneously asserting US dominance in the affairs of the Americas and eliminating any perceived strategic vulnerabilities.

While Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal have dominated the headlines, there are also implications for US relations with Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, with Trump’s pick as secretary of state, Marco Rubio, being known for his hawkish approach.

Trump may inaccurately hype up China’s role in the Panama Canal, but Beijing has unquestionably increased its (mostly economic) footprint in Latin America. A Chinese-funded deep-water port in Peru has raised US security concerns. Chinese investment in Mexico has created an important backdoor into the US market, and contributed to the fact that Mexico is now the largest trade partner for the US. In 2024, Mexican exports of goods to the US stood at just under US$467 billion, compared with China’s US$401 billion.

Trump is likely to dial up the pressure in the western hemisphere using a mixture of threatening rhetoric, tariffs and political pressure. In an early demonstration of how serious the incoming administration takes the issue, his allies in Congress have already introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to “authorize the President to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland by the United States”.

Senate hearings for Marco Rubio.

The second feature of the emerging Trump foreign policy doctrine is the scaling back of US involvement in regions the administration considers of secondary importance. The two main areas in this context are Europe and the Middle East.

Ukraine war deal

Trump’s promised deal with Russia to end the war in Ukraine is one key component of his strategy to free up US resources to focus on China and “un-unite” Russia and China.

His simultaneous insistence that US allies in Nato step up their defence spending, however, is an indication that the incoming administration continues to place value in transatlantic security. It just does not want to be the one mostly paying for it. And Trump has a point: Washington currently shoulders 68% of all Nato expenditure, compared with European members’ 28%.

Trump’s approach to the Middle East is underpinned by the same calculation of US-brokered deal-making that protects US interests while enabling a scaling down of commitments. With a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas now in place that will facilitate a release of Israeli hostages, a much clearer path to normalising relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia exists. This is still contingent upon an Israeli nod towards Palestinian statehood, but when this materialises, Israel’s relations with the rest of the Arab world will also improve.

This will then shift the burden of containing Iran to a probably more effective and capable coalition of US allies in the region, and allow Washington to resume its maximum-pressure campaign against Tehran.

What next for China?

While Trump’s approach to the western hemisphere and to Washington’s future relations with Europe and the Middle East is reasonably clear, there is an abundance of questions over his China strategy. His national security team is generally considered hawkish on Beijing – with the exception of Musk, who has significant business interests in China.

Trump himself oscillates between aggressive and conciliatory rhetoric. Alleged Chinese control of the Panama Canal is one of his justifications for seeking to reassert US control of the strategic waterway. But he also name-checked Chinese president Xi Jinping as being able to help with a Ukraine deal, and even invited him to his inauguration.

Trump may be open to a deal with China – and China, in turn, has signalled interest in this as well. While Xi will not attend the inauguration, his vice-president, Han Zheng, will.

Trump and Xi also have a track record of deal-making, even though their 2020 agreement did little more than stop an escalating trade war. That deal took two years to negotiate and left many of the tariffs imposed by Trump early in his first term in place, albeit in some cases at a reduced rate. Something similar could happen again now, with Trump fulfilling one of his campaign pledges for higher tariffs on Chinese goods while simultaneously starting negotiations on a new deal with Beijing.

In all likelihood, this is Trump’s last term as president. For the next two years, at least, he controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives. He has every incentive to make good on his promises – and faces few, if any, restraints. He sees himself as a disrupter, and his Maga base expects him to be just that. Instability is all but guaranteed.

What is not clear, though, is whether Trump’s vision of an ultimately more stable international order with clearly defined spheres of influence for the great powers of the day – the US, China and possibly Russia – will emerge, let alone whether such an outcome would be desirable. Läs mer…

Norway is set to make history by becoming the first nation to sell only zero emission (electric- or hydrogen-powered) vehicles by the end of 2025. While this doesn’t mean that fossil fuel-powered cars already on the road will suddenly disappear there, it marks a decisive shift towards their eventual obsolescence.

Imagine a world where petrol and diesel vehicles are no longer an option – a bold step towards a greener future. Norway is strikingly close to this goal.

If it succeeds, this will redefine what’s possible in the green transition. Consider this: in 2024, fully electric cars accounted for a staggering 88.9% of all new vehicle sales in Norway. Every year, this number draws nearer to the elusive 100% target (the zero emission category includes a small fraction of hydrogen-powered vehicles, most are electric).

Could Norway reach 100% by this year’s end? It’s a gripping challenge – but there is a barrier that it needs to address to achieve this. Among Norway’s top ten zero emission cars sold last year, there are no small non-SUV vehicles. Can Norway, and other countries, reach their targets selling only large cars?

Our recent research shows that affordability is a tool to get everyone on board. When lower-income households face affordability barriers, it’s not just their problem – it’s the missing link to achieving 100%. Smaller, more affordable electric cars could be the game changer needed to bridge this gap.

For every 100 cars sold in Norway, nearly 90 are electric. In Denmark, the runner-up in this global ranking, it’s just over 50. Elsewhere, few countries have reached or are even approaching a one-third market share for electric vehicles (EVs). Most of these are in Europe, with China also nearing that benchmark. The UK sits at just 19.6%, falling short of the top ten.

Why is Norway so far ahead? A mix of policies, cultural attitudes and the sheer availability of EVs play a role. But one factor stands out: subsidies. Generous, comprehensive subsidies are driving this change.

In Norway, buying an electric car isn’t just a green choice – it’s an affordable one. Subsidies and incentives bring electric car prices in line with, or below, those of petrol and diesel cars. Substantial exemptions from purchase tax and VAT, along with other perks, make electric car ownership remarkably appealing. And it’s financed not only through taxes but by Norway’s oil and gas revenue. Even with some limits on luxury models, the support remains unmatched.

Oslo, Norway is the capital of car electrification.
George Trumpeter/Shutterstock

But what about the UK? With the purchase grant – a government scheme that helped reduce the cost of buying an electric car – scrapped, the remaining modest subsidies pale in comparison to Norway’s all-encompassing support. If there’s one takeaway from Norway’s success, it’s that half-measures won’t cut it.

The challenge lies in addressing the affordability gap. Subsidies don’t always reach those who need them most. In Ireland, our research reveals a troubling trend. Grants often end up in the hands of wealthier households – those who could afford an electric car without help. Meanwhile, lower-income households, the ones who would benefit most, are left behind. The result? People buy the vehicles they can afford, which are often fossil fuel-powered.

The consequences are hard to ignore. In cities like London, low-emission zones penalise drivers of polluting vehicles. If you can’t afford an EV, you’re stuck paying more to drive or park in city centres. It’s a vicious cycle that disproportionately affects those with fewer resources.

Targets worth reaching

This isn’t just about fairness. It’s about meeting climate targets. Take Ireland, for example. To achieve its emissions goals, the country needs a significant increase in electric car adoption. Falling short means penalties for the country and missed opportunities to reduce emissions. Relying on households to shoulder the burden of the green transition is neither fair nor effective.

The UK faces similar challenges. Slow adoption rates suggest cost is a barrier. The lack of strong leadership and a roadmap to 2035 only adds to the problem. It becomes clear that more targeted support is needed.

Smaller, more affordable vehicles could play a crucial role in meeting climate targets. Even in a wealthy country like Ireland, 77% of households cannot afford medium-sized electric cars, while 38% cannot afford smaller EVs when factoring in car loans. Without price cuts or higher subsidies, larger EVs will stay out of reach and fail to drive the transition forward.

So do we even need big, luxury EVs? The trend towards larger vehicles, particularly SUVs, isn’t new – but it’s growing rapidly. In Europe, sales of electric SUVs have jumped from one-tenth to half of all EVs sold in just five years.

Larger cars are more expensive, more resource-intensive, and more wasteful. Smaller vehicles, by contrast, are lighter, require fewer materials and emit fewer harmful particles from tyre and road wear. They’re also safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

Smaller vehicles play a crucial role in clean and inclusive mobility. Achieving climate goals hinges on their adoption. Without them, meeting emissions targets – at least in Ireland – becomes far less likely. And if electric vehicles fail to deliver significant emissions reductions, their entire purpose in the transition to a greener future comes into question.

Smaller vehicles aren’t just practical; they are essential for meaningful progress. But electric cars – even the smaller ones – remain burdened by the cost pressures of private car ownership.

Ultimately, though, we also need fewer cars on our roads. A successful green transition must involve more car share schemes, improved access to public transport, and active travel such as walking and cycling.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

Donald Trump has already walked back on his claim that he would solve the Ukraine conflict within 24 hours of taking office.

Just as he once stated that he would resolve the healthcare crisis in the US easily, then backtracked to say “nobody knew that health care was so complicated”, Trump’s advisors have now admitted the war in Ukraine can’t be easily negotiated. Trump’s “art of the deal” does not really work in the real world of conflict resolution.

Trump’s original plan was to give Ukraine additional military aid to provide a deterrence against further Russian aggression. This would incentivise it coming to the negotiating table.

Another possible tactic was halting aid to Ukraine to get it to negotiate. Once “peace talks” began, Trump would urge Ukraine to capitulate territory, and create an 800-mile demilitarised buffer zone (to be guarded by Nato or European troops).

On the issue of Nato, Trump is sympathetic with Russian president Vladimir Putin’s view that Ukraine joining Nato is a threat to Russian security. So, Ukraine would have to abandon its dreams of ever joining the regional security bloc. Russia in turn would get major sanctions relief, while a portion of the proceeds from tariffs on Russian energy exports would be allocated to Ukraine.

Trump’s peace plan was engineered by incoming Russia-Ukraine special envoy Keith Kellogg (a highly decorated three-star general), who recently cancelled an upcoming trip to Kyiv. In spite of this, Trump has signalled that he wants to engage in diplomatic talks with Putin to “get the war over with”.

While the plan faces many hurdles, the biggest obstacle is that Putin does not really want to make a deal. Yes, in October Russia was losing 1,500 troops a day and the country was, and still is, struggling to recruit men. The Russian economy has had to endure a lot, with the onslaught of comprehensive sanctions while being forced to spend tens of billions of dollars on defence instead of other government services.

Yet all of this doesn’t matter because Putin is obsessed with Ukraine and total victory. Russia could even face a recession (as has been forecast in 2025) and this would still not be enough for it to agree any deal where it would have to compromise.

Donald Trump’s Ukraine plans under analysis.

Putin simply does not want Ukraine to be a sovereign nation. He either wants to destroy or control it. A weaker or non-existent Ukraine is not only a boon to Putin’s legacy as a strongman in Russia, but would be a huge blow to American global power.

Not surprisingly, Russia has already rejected these unofficial proposals from the US, even though it has yet to see an official document on the matter. Putin prefers to be a wartime president, and many Russian people are willing to live in this new normal when threatened by repression and motivated by patriotism.

Russia’s lack of compromise

Russia doesn’t think it needs to compromise. Putin knows he is far more committed to taking over Ukraine than the west is to defending it.

There are certainly signs of fatigue in Europe for supporting Ukraine indefinitely. In a YouGov poll of seven European countries (France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, Sweden and Denmark), continuing support for Ukraine until Russia withdrew was found to be as low as 31% on average, compared with around 40% for encouraging a negotiated end to fighting, even if Ukraine lost territory.

There is also fatigue in the US among lawmakers and the public. So, the provision of additional weapons to Ukraine might face resistance in Congress, which is now fully controlled by the Republican party.

Support for Ukraine already faced Republican opposition in 2023, which led to huge delays. And while the Biden administration recently announced a new tranche of military aid of about US$500 million (£408 million) – part of a total of US$175 billion since the 2022 invasion – there has been waning support for maintaining aid levels to Ukraine among Republicans in Congress.

This largely reflects how the American public feels. Based on a Gallup poll taken in December 2024, there is 48% support for the US helping Ukraine reclaim the territory it has lost in the war to Russia, marking the first time this has slipped below the majority. Support for Ukraine is also very split along partisan lines, with 74% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats wanting to end the war quickly. Additionally, 67% of Republicans think the US is doing too much.

Ultimately, it is likely there will be no peace deal any time soon because Trump does not really care about Ukraine, and doesn’t understand foreign policy. Former Republican congressmen Adam Kinzinger stated recently that Trump conducted foreign policy like a “three-year old”.

Trump cares more about impressing Putin (or being seen as a deal-maker) than supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty. His vice-president, J.D. Vance, has been more direct about it, stating in 2022: “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.” This view could have a devastating effect on willingness, and commitment, to negotiate.

According to analysis by US historian Robert Kagan, without US aid, Ukraine will lose the war within the next 12-to-18 months. Yet, for every square mile Russia gains, it loses 40 men – a heavy price to pay (Ukraine’s total area is 233,100 square miles).

The initial proclamations that Trump would resolve the Ukraine crisis in 24 hours were campaign bluster, showing little understanding of the intractability of the conflict and the challenges of setting up a new administration.

A few weeks ago, Trump stated that part of his plan “is a surprise”. The element of surprise is not just limited to the public. Maybe Trump has no idea what his next moves will be either, when it comes to ending this conflict. And that could play perfectly into Putin’s hands. Läs mer…

As the world has watched the Los Angeles wildfires, seeing the loss and destruction that accompanies environmental disaster, some influencers have seen opportunity.

Selfie-seekers have been spotted using the wildfires as a backdrop for their social media content. Videos have circulated of would-be influencers filming dances and videos in the shadows of the disaster area. Others have faced backlash for making “get ready with me while I evacuate” videos or using the fires to promote wellness products.

As long as there have been front-facing smartphone cameras, people have snapped selfies in inappropriate settings – from Auschwitz to the 9/11 memorial. It also happens at more localised disasters such as motorway accidents and funerals.

Selfie-style content was also rampant during the Maui wildfires in 2023 and, as a result, the local Hawaiian community expressed how troubling it felt that their devastating losses were being turned into a social media spectacle.

In a personal example, I can remember going to Buckingham Palace in London immediately after the announcement of Queen Elizabeth II’s passing, and seeing people filming TikTok dances in front of the palace gates – even breaking out specialist filming equipment like ring lights.

The sight of someone filming for social media amid a sombre physical setting can appear strange. But as someone who researches how people photograph themselves in the social media era, I have come to understand the nuances that cause and accompany this behaviour.

Very often, the background of a photograph or video only carries meaning for the creator insofar as it can be part of their brand. This might, unfortunately, mean there is less concern for the people around them in favour of the audience that will eventually view their post.

As is the case with most self-focused content, the purpose of taking a video is often not to document a memory or to capture something beautiful. Instead, the aim is to perpetuate and maintain one’s own brand through social media.

Influencers’ posts are infused with symbols and subliminal messaging – often through a backdrop – that communicate their social status to their audience. I have researched the social signifiers that creators aim for with their content.

Surrounded by wildfires, the influencer might be trying to communicate heroism, empathy, suffering or understanding. A post from an area with global news attention might show them to be in the “centre of the action”, which carries social capital itself.

Cognitive dissonance

Much content on social media is about self-presentation. To understand it, it’s helpful to turn to the work of influential Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman, whose 1956 theory compares self-presentation to an actor performing in a play. This “theatre of the self” includes a frontstage and backstage, with corresponding behaviours for each.

The frontstage is where the performance takes place and is tailored for its intended audience in mind. The backstage is where the preparation for the performance takes place and can often be messy or untidy. Sacrifices are usually made in the backstage in preparation for the frontstage performance.

Today, many frontstage performances happen online. Scholars refer to this as impression management 2.0. When the frontstage is virtual, the backstage remains in our physical world. The sacrifices made to achieve an ideal online impression all fall into our physical surroundings, and wherever the influencer or content creator finds themselves – even in the centre of a natural disaster.

The normalisation of narcissism?
Marcos Mesa Sam Wordley

Obviously, creating content amid an unfolding disaster can be considered quite exploitative and widely miss the mark as far as the intended social meanings.

Research shows that those who are more likely to engage in this type of performance for impression management are also more likely to demonstrate a level of cognitive dissonance towards what is unfolding in the physical world around them.

This can be described as narcissism normalisation and is often considered within the context of tourism and social media. Tourists now take photos of themselves with the sites they are visiting as backdrops with the aim to post on social media, rather than taking photos of the sites themselves. The prioritisation of one’s online social environment, where they are the “main character”, can impede concern for the physical world.

Read more:
Selfies and social media: how tourists indulge their influencer fantasies

Many of the LA selfie-seekers will have a genuine concern for the local community suffering in the wildfires, or they may themselves be part of that community. But their pursuit of impression management could potentially be taking priority over that empathy.

On the other hand, we should not forget that taking selfies and creating content are now normal parts of everyday life. For some, this might be the only (or best) way they know how to express their empathy.

Much good can come out of social media in response to disasters: fundraisers, safety instructions or even the comfort of a shared experience. But as climate change inevitably leads to more frequent natural disasters such as wildfires, this kind of content will become more widespread.

This presents a dilemma – that as we become increasingly exposed to “natural disaster content”, we may become desensitised to it, and even stop feeling the empathy that accompanies these images. Läs mer…

It’s fair to say me and my team-mates at the non-league football club Tamworth FC were pretty keyed up as we prepared for our FA Cup third-round match against Premier League giants Tottenham Hotspur on January 12. We’re 96 places below them in the football pecking order and we all have day jobs (in my case as a sports psychology lecturer at Nottingham Trent University).

Unusually for us, we met at Drayton Manor Hotel for “pre-match”, where we could eat and relax prior to the game. Usually, especially if it’s a Tuesday night game, it’s a manic rush to eat, prepare and get yourself from work to the game. So under normal circumstances it’s hard to establish a set pre-performance routine to focus on regulating arousal and anxiety levels and build confidence. But as someone who teaches this sort of thing for a living, I’m always telling students how important it is to prepare properly.

On this occasion, though, we were playing one the the most famous sides in England, if not the world, and a team renowned for being successful in cup competitions. So the preparation was particularly important when you’re so highly motivated and trying to control your nerves and excitement.

To the match itself. Spurs played a strong side, including England international James Maddison among others. By all accounts, we matched Tottenham for 90 minutes, holding them to 0-0, and even having chances to nick the tie in the final late on – in which case we which would have etched ourselves into FA Cup folklore.

For extra time, Spurs turned to the cavalry. They brought on club captain Heung-min Son and Dejan Kulusevski – the last thing I personally wanted to see when cramp had started to set in. Spurs’ fitness, and the introduction of those top-quality players, eventually saw them break our resistance. They ended up strolling to a somewhat flattering 3-0 win. It had almost been one of the unlikeliest shocks in modern FA Cup history, but wasn’t quite to be.

Making a match for Spurs

So why were a part time team, who train twice a week, with most players working full-time, able to match international footballers for 90 minutes? Undoubtedly, an important factor was the game being played at Tamworth’s home ground. Much was made of the fact Tottenham’s players, who are used to world class facilities and luxury, had to get changed in portacabin changing rooms.

Tamworth’s fans at their ground, The Lamb, were treated to an exciting match up against Spurs which went to extra time.
Action Plus Sports/Alamy Live News

But perhaps the biggest leveller of all was our artificial 3G pitch. Most teams, even at our level, find it difficult to play on if they don’t use one regularly – let alone Spurs’ players, who are used to playing on surfaces like grass carpets akin to a billiards table or bowling green.

Previous research has defined home field advantage as “the consistent finding that home teams in sports competitions win over 50% of the games played under a balanced home and away schedule”. It found that football teams whose home games are played artificial pitches have a distinct advantage.

Then there was the added motivation of it being the game of our lives. We all love an underdog right? For David v Goliath, read Tamworth v Spurs. Research suggests that when you are labelled as the underdog it can serve to increase the emotional psyching up for the event and motivate the underdog to exert an even greater effort to achieve victory.

More than thinking about winning the tie, before the match we told ourselves we just wanted to do our team and our fans justice and at the very least make it competitive. This helped us to more than match Spurs over the course of the game – and, for a few minutes at least, believe the most unlikely of wins was possible.

Back down to the ground

So, what’s next for us? As I discussed in an interview with ITV straight after the match, for me and the rest of the players, it was back to the reality of work on Monday morning. To say that was quite a comedown is probably a fair understatement. I was asked by a colleague, “How are you feeling?” and I found myself struggling to answer, as I couldn’t really make sense of that myself.

Back to the the day job: Beck-Ray Enoru of Tamworth works during the week at fashion retailer, Zara.
Action Plus Sports/Alamy Live News

You often hear the term “post-Olympic blues” from Olympians who have achieved a lifetime ambition by winning a Gold at the Olympic Games, and wonder what’s next or how anything else in their life will compare to that one momentous moment.

Playing an FA Cup game against Tottenham is not quite in the same stratosphere as competing at the Olympics. But I was asked in an interview on Monday morning if it would be the highlight of my career, and it was tough to process that. For most of us in the team, that’s likely to be the biggest and best game we ever play in.

The UK Sports Institute, which provides psychological support to Olympic athletes, has coined the phrase “performance decompression” for the process of “embracing and making sense of what you’ve gone through at an important competition, and then moving on” after an Olympic games. Or post-Spurs, in my case.

As part-time players, we don’t have that chance to decompress. Instead we come crashing back down to Earth with the Monday morning alarm clock. But it’s starting to sink in what an achievement it was for a non-league team like ours to not only get to the third round of an FA Cup, but to more than match Spurs for 100 minutes or so.

A surreal day, amazing experience, and one that I’m so proud to have been part of. Memories to last a lifetime. Läs mer…

Alcohol is often used as a sleep aid – with some people crediting a “nightcap” with helping them fall asleep more easily. But while it might be nice to unwind after a long day with a glass of wine or a beer, alcohol may not be as beneficial for sleep as some think. In fact, it may actually lead to a worse night’s sleep overall.

If alcohol is consumed before bed, it can initially have a sedative effect – making you fall asleep more quickly. But while we may think a nightcap shortens the time it takes to fall asleep, recent research shows this sedative effect only really occurs after drinking higher doses of alcohol – between 3-6 standard glasses of wine, depending on the person – within three hours of bed.

And while this might seem beneficial, using alcohol to fall asleep is not recommended. This is not only because of the negative health effects of drinking alcohol, but also because alcohol disrupts sleep later in the night.

This disruption mainly affects REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Alcohol delays the first episode of REM sleep – and reduces the subsequent amount of REM sleep you get throughout the night. It can also make you wake up more often or lead to lighter sleep in the latter part of the night. This is significant, as REM sleep – sometimes called “dreaming sleep” – is thought to be important for memory and regulating emotions.

These disruptions to REM sleep are even seen after drinking low doses of alcohol (around two standard drinks) within three hours of bedtime.

Sleep disruptions of any kind can make you feel more tired the following day. Disturbed REM sleep can also lead to impairments in the consolidation of memories, cognitive function and how you regulate your emotions.

It’s worth noting that most research only focuses on the effect of alcohol on a single night of sleep. Generally, less is known about the effect that multiple nights of drinking has on sleep – with only a small number of studies (which had low numbers of participants) showing inconsistent results.

However, one study did indicate that after multiple nights of drinking, disruptions to sleep were still apparent during the first night without drinking. This suggests it may take time for sleep to recover after repeated nights of drinking.

Why alcohol affects sleep

While there’s still more research to be done to understand exactly why alcohol affects different components of sleep – particularly in those who drink large amounts on a regular basis – we do know of a few mechanisms linking alcohol consumption to sleep.

First, alcohol increases the action of a chemical messenger in the brain called GABA. This has a sedative effect, thought to contribute to the sleepy feeling many people experience when drinking alcohol. Alcohol may also increase levels of adenosine, a chemical messenger that is important for sleepiness.

But the increase in these chemicals when drinking is short-lived. Once the body has metabolised the alcohol, there’s often a “rebound effect” in which the body tries to compensate for the alcohol-induced changes in physiological functions and sleep. This causes the light and disrupted sleep that people experience during the latter part of the night after drinking.

You may experience light or disrupted sleep after a night of drinking.
TheVisualsYouNeed/ Shutterstock

Alcohol also affects circadian rhythms – the 24-hour body clock that responds to environmental light cues in order to synchronise our sleep-wake cycle. One of the ways our circadian rhythm does this is through the release of specific hormones at certain times of the day. For instance, our body will release melatonin during the hours of darkness to help us feel tired – and stay asleep throughout the night.

But alcohol affects the production of melatonin and alters our body temperature. The timing and amount of melatonin that’s released and a decrease in core body temperature are important for sleep. Changes in these will result in changes in sleep.

Further, alcohol relaxes the muscles in the airways, which can exacerbate snoring – potentially disrupting the sleep of your partner too.

Finally, due to its diuretic effect, drinking alcohol before bed may mean more bathroom visits during the night – further disrupting sleep.

How to get a better night’s sleep

If you sometimes use alcohol to help you fall asleep, here are some things you can do instead to get a better night’s sleep:

Keep a regular schedule. Going to bed and waking at the same time each day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms and improve sleep.

Create a peaceful sleep environment. A cool, quiet and dark room is ideal for getting a good night’s sleep.

Create a consistent bedtime routine. Do some relaxing activities before bed to help the brain wind down – such as reading or taking a bath.

Limit your afternoon caffeine intake. Caffeine is a stimulant – and its effects can last many hours, with half of it remaining in our bodies four-to-six hours after consuming it, on average. Only consume caffeinated foods and drinks earlier in the day.

Get active. Physical activity can be beneficial for regulating circadian rhythms and helping us feel tired at the end of the day. Even better if you can do your workout in the natural morning light, as morning light exposure regulates circadian rhythm and improves sleep quality.

The good news for people who enjoy a nightcap or the odd night out is that many of the negative effects of alcohol on sleep are relatively short-lived, and can be reversed by avoiding alcohol or reducing intake. While it may take longer for sleep and circadian rhythms to return to normal in people who drink more often in higher amounts, quitting alcohol can help.

Better sleep will not only leave you feeling more refreshed, it will also benefit your overall health and wellbeing. Läs mer…

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the global average since 1979. Svalbard, an archipelago near the northeast coast of Greenland, is at the frontline of this climate change, warming up to seven times faster than the rest of the world.

More than half of Svalbard is covered by glaciers. If they were to completely melt tomorrow, the global sea level would rise by 1.7cm. Although this won’t happen overnight, glaciers in the Arctic are highly sensitive to even slight temperature increases.

To better understand glaciers in Svalbard and beyond, we used an AI model to analyse millions of satellite images from Svalbard over the past four decades. Our research is now published in Nature Communications, and shows these glaciers are shrinking faster than ever, in line with global warming.

Specifically, we looked at glaciers that drain directly into the ocean, what are known as “marine-terminating glaciers”. Most of Svalbard’s glaciers fit this category. They act as an ecological pump in the fjords they flow into by transferring nutrient-rich seawater to the ocean surface and can even change patterns of ocean circulation.

Where these glaciers meet the sea, they mainly lose mass through iceberg calving, a process in which large chunks of ice detach from the glacier and fall into the ocean. Understanding this process is key to accurately predicting future glacier mass loss, because calving can result in faster ice flow within the glacier and ultimately into the sea.

Svalbard (in red) belongs to Norway and is one of the northernmost places int he world.
Peter Hermes Furian / shutterstock

Despite its importance, understanding the glacier calving process has been a longstanding challenge in glaciology, as this process is difficult to observe, let alone accurately model. However, we can use the past to help us understand the future.

AI replaces painstaking human labour

When mapping the glacier calving front – the boundary between ice and ocean – traditionally human researchers painstakingly look through satellite imagery and make digital records. This process is highly labour-intensive, inefficient and particularly unreproducible as different people can spot different things even in the same satellite image. Given the number of satellite images available nowadays, we may not have the human resources to map every region for every year.

A novel way to tackle this problem is by using automated methods like artificial intelligence (AI), which can quickly identify glacier patterns across large areas. This is what we did in our new study, using AI to analyse millions of satellite images of 149 marine-terminating glaciers taken between 1985 and 2023. This meant we could examine the glacier retreats at unprecedented scale and scope.

Svalbard is slightly smaller than Scotland yet has more than 2,000 glaciers.
RUBEN M RAMOS / shutterstock

Insights from 1985 to today

We found that the vast majority (91%) of marine-terminating glaciers across Svalbard have been shrinking significantly. We discovered a loss of more than 800km² of glacier since 1985, larger than the area of New York City, and equivalent to an annual loss of 24km² a year, almost twice the size of Heathrow airport in London.

The biggest spike was detected in 2016, when the calving rates doubled in response to periods of extreme warming. That year, Svalbard also had its wettest summer and autumn since 1955, including a record 42mm of rain in a single day in October. This was accompanied by unusually warm and ice-free seas.

How ocean warming triggers glacier calving

In addition to the long-term retreat, these glaciers also retreat in the summer and advance again in winter, often by several hundred metres. This can be greater than the changes from year to year.

We found that 62% of the glaciers in Svalbard experience these seasonal cycles. While this phenomenon is well documented across Greenland, it had previously only been observed for a handful of glaciers in Svalbard, primarily through manual digitisation.

Svalbard’s many glaciers grow and shrink with the seasons.
Wildnerdpix / shutterstock

We then compared these seasonal changes with seasonal variations in air and ocean temperature. We found that as the ocean warmed up in spring, the glacier retreated almost immediately. This was a nice demonstration of something scientists had long suspected: the seasonal ebbs and flows of these glaciers are caused by changes in ocean temperatures.

A global threat

Svalbard experiences frequent climate extremes due to its unique location in the Arctic yet close to the warm Atlantic water. Our findings indicate that marine-terminating glaciers are highly sensitive to climate extremes and the biggest retreat rates have occurred in recent years.

This same type of glaciers can be found across the Arctic and, in particular, around Greenland, the largest ice mass in the northern hemisphere. What happens to glaciers in Svalbard is likely to be repeated elsewhere.

If the current climate warming trend continues, these glaciers will retreat more rapidly, the sea level will rise, and millions of people in coastal areas worldwide will be endangered.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…