Kategori: News in English

The fierce electoral competition in Somaliland – coupled with clan politics and governance challenges – makes it important to understand the implications of the de facto independent state’s recent presidential election outcome.

The opposition coalition Waddani won the November election over the ruling party, Kulmiye. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi (also known as Cirro/Irro) secured a five-year mandate.

This election represents a pivotal moment for Somaliland, the Horn of Africa and international politics. Waddani’s victory shows Somaliland’s democratic resilience and potential for inclusive governance.

The election was held after a two-year delay brought on by financial and technical challenges, according to outgoing president Muse Bihi. Waddani has promised to include political voices from marginalised regions. Bihi’s administration had been accused of sidelining some clans.

Somaliland has been de facto independent from Somalia for 33 years, but remains unrecognised internationally. It occupies an 800km coastline on the Gulf of Aden. It has become a beacon of relative peace in the Horn of Africa, a region battling political instability, piracy and transnational conflicts. The region includes Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia.

Read more:
Somaliland elections: what’s at stake for independence, stability and shifting power dynamics in the Horn of Africa

I have researched Somaliland’s politics for over 10 years. Ahead of the November election, I held interviews with Abdihakim Saeed, a founding member of Waddani. I also spoke in person with Saeed and Mohammad Abdullahi Omar, a former foreign minister and high-ranking leader in Waddani, in the Somaliland capital of Hargeisa. These interviews covered what a Waddani victory would mean for Somaliland, its independence from Somalia, and peace and security in the Horn of Africa.

From these conversations, and my research into Somaliland’s challenges, it’s clear that Waddani has three major priorities:

equitable governance across Somaliland’s six regions to address clan-based tensions
international recognition for Somaliland’s independence from Somalia
upholding Somaliland’s reputation for peaceful democratic transitions of power from one party to the other and solving domestic problems on its own without outside help for over 30 years – a marked contrast to its neighbour, Somalia.

Waddani’s victory could herald a new era for Somaliland as a stable, independent and democratic state in a volatile region.

Equitable governance

The election was Somaliland’s fourth successful one-person, one-vote presidential election. Despite a shaky few years, the poll demonstrates a commitment to democracy, rule of law and peaceful power transitions.

Waddani’s victory signifies a strong public endorsement for change – 64% of Somalilanders voted for the opposition party. This ended 14 years of rule under the Kulmiye party.

In the lead-up to the election, Waddani said it would prioritise equitable governance. This would move away from what many Somalilanders saw as Kulmiye’s approach of centralising power and growth in the capital city. Kulmiye was also perceived as favouring the Isaaq majority clan, which outgoing president Bihi belonged to. In shifting the approach, Waddani hopes to ease clan-based tensions.

Read more:
Somaliland crisis: delayed elections and armed conflict threaten dream of statehood

These efforts, if successful, would foster the political integration of clans in Somaliland. They would also help direct economic and social support to regions far from the capital and the major trade corridor centred around the Berbera port.

Independence quest

Waddani will remain committed – like the majority of Somalilanders – to gaining international recognition as an independent state. Somaliland joined the Somali Republic in 1960 but departed in 1991.

In doing this, Waddani will build on the Kulmiye party’s achievements. These include diplomatic representation in some western countries. In 2022, Bihi made an unofficial visit to Washington, DC, and a UK parliamentary delegation visited Hargeisa.

Waddani party leaders, however, intend to shift away from Kulmiye’s complete reliance on the west. They hope to get independence recognition faster from African and global south states.

The pace of recognition from the US and UK has been slow. And the west condemned Somaliland’s deal with Ethiopia. This deal gives Ethiopia access to a strip of Somaliland’s coastline in return for acknowledgement of Somaliland’s independence.

But Waddani must carefully navigate that deal, signed by the previous administration. The leaders I spoke to said:

We don’t know the details of the MOU (memorandum of understanding). How can we implement it before we evaluate it in light of the interests of our country and its people?

Washington’s rejection of the agreement surprised Bihi and his administration. Disappointment with the US for its on-again, off-again approach to Somaliland’s independence was palpable. However, the election of Donald Trump as US president has rekindled reports of potential US cooperation with Somaliland that may lead to recognition.

Waddani officials implied that if Somaliland continues to be ignored by the US on account of Washington’s “one Somalia” policy, Hargeisa may have to engage with other actors.

Beacon of democracy

Waddani’s victory comes at a critical time for the Horn of Africa. Tensions between Ethiopia, Somalia and Egypt over the use of Nile waters and the Somaliland-Ethiopia deal are rising.

However, Somaliland’s stable and democratic governance contrasts sharply with Somalia’s instability and the authoritarian regimes throughout the rest of the Horn. This is a chance to appear as a beacon of democracy in a sea of autocracies in the region.

Somaliland could come to be seen as a potential regional stabiliser.

Read more:
Somaliland has been pursuing independence for 33 years. Expert explains the impact of the latest deal with Ethiopia

Somaliland’s case will be strengthened if Waddani’s time in power brings greater economic and political inclusion with the marginalised eastern regions.

However, internal divisions could hinder the coalition’s ability to carry out reforms. Security challenges, particularly in the eastern regions, are likely to demand immediate attention.

Economic revitalisation is another pressing concern. Youth unemployment stands at 70% and skilled Somalilanders are being lost to other nations via a brain drain.

Waddani’s governance model will be tested by tensions like the deteriorating relationship between Ethiopia and Somalia and Somaliland-Somalia dynamics.

What next

Waddani has the potential to transform Somaliland’s domestic scene and burnish its international standing. It will have to put inclusivity first within Somaliland, and address economic and security challenges. The new leadership will also need to broaden Hargeisa’s diplomatic outreach, while courting the US.

Success will depend on the party’s ability to navigate the complex political dynamics and rifts in Somaliland’s society, and the Horn of Africa. Läs mer…

Turnout at the 2024 general election was just 60% – one of the lowest in modern history. This is not an isolated phenomenon: there was a decline in turnout for the 2024 local elections, and the byelections held during the 2019-2024 parliament had the lowest recorded average turnout since 1945.

Given the critical role that elections play in democratic societies and how turnout affects the legitimacy of a government, it’s important to understand why citizens choose not to vote. New evidence suggests that these low levels of participation can be explained by the rise of undecided voters. In a system that offers more parties to choose from than ever but is also characterised by voters’ weakened attachment to political parties, the result seems to be people staying home on election day.

Voter indecision has grown in many western democracies over the past 50 years. In the UK, polling data from February and March 2024 showed that roughly 17% of voters were undecided and 45% of those who had decided said they might change their mind before polling day. In a YouGov poll reported as late as two days before the July 4 election, 12% of voters said they had not made up their minds.

This level of uncertainty was not always the case. The British electorate’s voting behaviour used to be far more predictable because of strong partisan attachments. Historically, most voters in Britain identified with either Labour or the Conservative party, and a smaller subset preferred the Liberal Democrats. Deciding who to vote for was relatively straightforward. If turnout dropped it was most likely because people did not feel the election was a particularly important one or because they felt the outcome was certain. It was not driven by voter indecision.

This is no longer the case, partly because there are so many parties to choose from. It was once thought that choice-rich environments increase participation because it’s easier for people to find a party they like when there are more parties on offer. But recent evidence contests this. Theory from the decision-making literature shows that complex choice environments can lead to what’s called choice avoidance – that is, not making a choice at all. When a person does not have a clear singular preference, and therefore likes two or more of the options to a similar degree, they defer their choice until later.

British elections have a deadline of polling day, meaning citizens can’t postpone choosing. And they’re majoritarian, which means only one option can be chosen. Without a singular preference, the decision to vote becomes psychologically burdensome, as these voters must weigh the competing party platforms.

New evidence shows that the British electorate is exhibiting choice avoidance. Undecided voters who like two or more parties to a similar degree are ten percentage points less likely to vote than those who have a clear party preference. This is a substantial difference in participation rates. Somewhere between 28% and 42% of adults in Britain fall into this category – a significant proportion of the electorate.

Party representatives take part in a seven-way debate ahead of the 2024 election.
Alamy/Jeff Overs

The new evidence also shows that constituency marginality has no effect on turnout intention. In other words, it is not the closeness of the election that turns people off voting but rather how certain or uncertain they feel about their choice.

Our reduced attachment to parties also plays a role here. Those with a party identity are significantly more likely to vote, even if they are somewhat undecided between parties. Similarly, voters who pay more attention to politics are less likely to experience indecision and are more likely to vote.

There was some evidence that voting indecision decreases with age, and that those living in Scotland were more likely to have a clear preference than those in England. Those with similar preferences for two or more parties are also much more likely to switch the party they vote for between elections.

Volatile voters

In the 1960s, approximately 90% of Britons identified with a party. Now the highest estimate shows only around 45% of the electorate report having a strong party identity. Voter volatility, which is when citizens switch parties between elections, is the highest it has ever been.

And those volatile voters have more options than ever. Britain was, for a very long time, a two-and-a-half party system in which votes were concentrated almost entirely among the Conservatives and Labour, with the Liberal Democrats on the fringes. In 2024, 90% of seats had five mainstream parties on the ballot – the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Reform UK, plus the SNP in all of Scotland and Plaid Cymru in all of Wales. On top of that, there were more than 900 independents or other parties fielding candidates.

Keir Starmer hunts for voters at Hucknall Town FC in Nottinghamshire during the election campaign.
Alamy

A non-partisan voter therefore has more parties than ever competing for their vote. It takes more cognitive effort to choose and voters are also absorbing often conflicting, or strikingly similar, arguments from multiple sources. A 2024 voter could have been moved by Lib Dem leader Ed Davey’s personal story, but thought that Reform’s Nigel Farage was a more truthful politician than others, and also wanted some of the Greens’ policies enacted. The same voter might have thought that former prime minister Rishi Sunak was best to handle the economy, but that then opposition leader Keir Starmer would overall make the better prime minister, all at the same time. Who are they supposed to vote for if they’re cross-pressured like that? It’s a difficult choice.

These findings show that citizens find it difficult to settle on a choice in first-past-the-post elections with multiple parties on offer. The electoral system was never meant to accommodate these numerous parties. Some have revisited calls for electoral reform since the 2024 election.

If Britain were to move to a more proportional system, it might alleviate some of the participation problem. Certain voting systems allow voters to express more than one preference, meaning their choice becomes a little easier. That might make people currently staying at home more likely to cast a vote. Läs mer…

There is a cognitive bias called “the curse of knowledge” (sometimes also called “the curse of expertise”). It happens when you incorrectly assume that everyone knows as much as you do on a given topic. As a clinical microbiologist, I assumed everyone knew that it was a terrible idea to kiss a newborn baby anywhere on its head.

Dr Karan Raj, an NHS surgeon, recently made a TikTok warning people of the dangers of kissing a baby and judging by the thousands of comments, this was news to many on the social media platform.

Late last year, a UK charity called The Lullaby Trust published the result of a survey which revealed that 54% of new and expectant parents would “let friends and family kiss their newborn baby, unaware of the risk of serious infection”.

But why is it so dangerous to kiss a newborn?

A baby’s immune system is not fully developed when they are born, so their risk of catching a serious infection is much higher.

For the first three months or so, the infant’s immune system has fewer innate infection-fighting immune cells, such as neutrophils and monocytes, compared with adults, which means that infections that cause mild symptoms in adults or older children can be life-threatening for babies.

The herpes virus infection is one such example. In adults, herpes causes cold sores, but babies can quickly become seriously ill after catching the virus. If the herpes only affects the baby’s eyes, mouth or skin, most will recover after antiviral treatment. But if the virus becomes systemic and affects the baby’s organs, the infection is much more serious and can even be deadly. The younger the baby, the more vulnerable they are to infection by herpes, particularly in the first four weeks after birth.

Newborn babies are also more vulnerable to infectious bacteria than older children and adults and are especially susceptible to infections with intracellular pathogens (bacteria that can enter and survive inside the cells of the host organism), such as group B streptococci (GBS). These bacteria often live in their host’s gastrointestinal and genital tracts without causing illness. GBS infections in babies cause sepsis, pneumonia, meningitis and blood infections.

Babies are also susceptible to infections by E coli strains that are not harmful to adults, causing them pneumonia, meningitis and sepsis, all of which can have serious outcomes.

E coli can also cause serious, even life-threatening, infections in newborns.
Alexey Kotelnikov / Alamy Stock Photo

Showing affection – safely

Parents of very young babies should not feel uncomfortable about asking visitors to avoid kissing or touching their child. If the visitor really cares for the wellbeing of the infant, they should not feel offended by the request. And the parents should not feel they are overreacting.

The kindest action of any visitor is to not put a baby at risk, but if for good reasons you must kiss the baby there are some things that can reduce the infection danger you pose.

First, make sure you wash your hands thoroughly. And avoid kissing the infant on the mouth or face. Kiss their foot or the back of their head. If you have an active infection of any kind, think about whether you really need to visit the baby at all, particularly if the child is less than a month old.

Herpes infections are particularly serious for very young babies, so cover up any cold sores with a dressing.

If you are unwell but feel you cannot stay away from visiting the child, wear a mask and avoid closely approaching the newborn, particularly if you have a respiratory illness.

Always keep in mind that babies are very vulnerable to infection. Although kissing them is a sign of love, it can make a newborn seriously unwell – and you’d feel terrible if that happened. Läs mer…

Peer review is a central feature of academic work. It’s the process through which research ends up published in an academic journal: independent experts scrutinise the work of another researcher in order to recommend if it should be accepted by a publisher and if and how it should be improved.

Peer review is often assumed to guarantee quality, but it doesn’t always work well in practice. Every academic has their own peer-review horror stories, ranging from years-long delays to multiple tedious rounds of revisions. The cycle continues until the article is accepted somewhere or until the author gives up.

On the other side, the work of reviewing is voluntary and also invisible. Reviewers, who often remain anonymous, go unrewarded and unrecognised, even though their work is an essential part of research communication. Journal editors find recruiting peer reviewers is increasingly difficult.

And we know peer review, however much it is lauded, often does not work. It is sometimes biased, and too often allows errors, or even scholarly fraud, to creep through.

Clearly the peer-review system is broken. It is slow, inefficient and burdensome, and the incentives to carry out a review are low.

Publish first

In recent years, alternative ways to scrutinise research have emerged which attempt to fix some of the problems with the peer-review system. One of these is the “publish, review, curate” model.

This reverses the traditional review-then-publish model. An article is first published online, then peer reviewed. While this approach is too new to understand how it compares with traditional publishing, there is optimism about its promise, suggesting that increased transparency in the review process would speed scientific progress.

We have set up a platform using the publish, review, curate model for the field of metaresearch – research about the research system itself. Our aims are both to innovate peer review in our field and to study this innovation as a metaresearch experiment of sorts. This initiative will help us to understand how we can improve peer review in ways that we hope will have implications for other fields of research.

The platform, called MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review), has just been launched. It is a partnership between an academic society, the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science, and a non-profit metaresearch accelerator, the Research on Research Institute.

In the case of MetaROR, authors first publish their work on a preprint server. Preprints are versions of research papers made available by their authors before peer review as a way of accelerating the dissemination of research. Preprinting has been common in a few academic disciplines for decades, but increased in others during the pandemic as a way of getting science into the public domain faster. MetaROR, in effect, builds a peer-review service on top of preprint servers.

Authors submit their work to MetaROR by providing MetaROR with a link to their preprinted article. A managing editor then recruits peer reviewers who are experts on the article’s object of study, its research methods, or both. Reviewers with competing interests are excluded whenever possible, and disclosure of competing interests is mandatory.

The publish, review, curate model provides the opportunity to build a more collaborative, transparent process.
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

Peer review is conducted openly, with the reviews made available online. This makes the work of reviewers visible, reflecting the fact that review reports are contributions to scholarly communication in their own right.

We hope that reviewers will increasingly see their role as engaging in a scholarly conversation in which they are a recognised participant, although MetaROR still allows reviewers to choose whether to be named or not. Our hope is that most reviewers will find it beneficial to sign their reviews and that this will significantly reduce the problem of anonymous dismissive or otherwise bad-faith reviews.

Since articles submitted to MetaROR are already publicly available, peer review can focus on engaging with an article with a view to improving it. Peer review becomes a constructive process, rather than one that valorises gatekeeping.

Evidence suggests preprints and final articles actually differ surprisingly little, but improvements can often be made. The publish, review, curate model helps authors engage with reviewers.

Following the review process, authors are left to decide whether to revise their article and how. In the MetaROR model, authors can also choose to submit their article to a journal. To offer authors a streamlined experience, MetaROR is collaborating with several journals who commit to using MetaROR reviews in their own review process.

Like other publish, review, curate platforms, MetaROR is an experiment. We will need to evaluate it to understand its successes and failures. We hope others will too, so we can learn how best to organise the dissemination and evaluation of scientific research – without, we hope, too many peer-review horror stories. Läs mer…

Donald Trump’s second term as president could witness fractious breaks with many of America’s established constitutional norms. He has hinted at trying to get rid of senior US military figures whose views do not align with his, and even using legal action to pursue people who have “wronged” him over the past few years.

In this second Trump term, ultra-Maga loyalists are being lined up to serve in key positions and Trump will be free to embrace the new American right agenda, unlike in 2016 when he had to turn to the Republican party establishment for guidance.

There are over 1,000 posts to be filled in Trump’s new administration – including cabinet positions and ambassadorships. These roles normally require an approval vote in the US Senate (upper chamber of the US Congress).

The Senate vetting process was intended to be extensive and thorough, and designed to ensure presidential nominees are qualified and in good standing, and is also part of the checks and balances on the president.

The last presidential cabinet nominee not to be approved by the Senate was John Tower, nominated for defence secretary by George H.W. Bush in 1989.

But more recently Trump and other presidents have withdrawn candidates for cabinet roles if it seemed unlikely they would get nominations through the Senate, or when Senate investigations made information public that undermined their candidacy. Candidates have also withdrawn themselves under public scrutiny.

Trump has suggested that the Republican leadership in the Senate call a recess after he assumes the presidency, allowing him to unilaterally make all of his governmental appointments.

Many of Trump’s early picks had caused consternation] among Democrats such as Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education. But on their own they don’t have enough votes to stop a nomination going through, they would need some Republican votes. Matt Gaetz, who had been Trump’s nominee for attorney general, has just withdrawn from consideration.

There is a way, however, for Trump to bypass parliamentary procedure and confirm his preferred choices for all high-level government positions – recess appointments. Under Article II of the US constitution, known as the “recess appointments clause”, the president can make temporary appointments when the Senate is not in session, bypassing the need for congressional approval or vetting. Recess appointments are meant to be temporary and expire at the end of a congressional session, which is a year at most.

1. Recess appointments

For Trump’s plan to work the Senate would need to agree, by majority vote, to adjourn for at least ten days. The House of Representatives must also consent to this move.

If it dissents, either with the decision to recess or the duration, then as law and politics professor at Georgetown University Josh Chafetz has explained, the president has the constitutional power to adjourn both the Senate and the House of Representatives (the lower house) for a time of his choosing.

This provision, under article II, section 3, of the constitution, states that in a case of disagreement between the Senate and House, the president “may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper”.

Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (an American thinktank), said that in the past when the Senate was out of session for months rather than weeks, recess appointments were a logical way for presidents “to fill important vacancies without waiting until the Senate returned … (and this) authority … was rarely challenged”.

MSNBC reports on a Trump plan to get rid of ‘woke’ generals.

Senators are bestowed with “advise and consent” powers, which come into focus when a president forms their cabinet. But, are there any Republicans willing to openly defy Trump’s demand for recess appointments? Perhaps some. Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn recently said: “I don’t think we should be circumventing the Senate’s responsibilities.”

2. Use of executive orders

Trump has also made clear his desire to use executive orders to assert his control over the US military and accelerate the process of removing generals found to be “lacking in requisite leadership qualities”. Executive orders are signed directives from a president that do not require Congressional approval.

The president-elect said during the election campaign that he would purge the military of so-called “woke” generals. Trump’s transition team has reportedly drafted a “warrior board” executive order that would establish a group with the power to dismiss three- or four-star generals.

This panel would send its dismissal suggestions to Trump and these job losses would be expected within 30 days. Concerns have also been raised by current and former US defence department officials that many within their ranks could be subjected to loyalty tests, and that Trump could use further executive orders to cut thousands of civil servants’ jobs and replace them with conservative allies.

3. Legal manoeuvres

Since winning his first presidential election in November 2016, Trump has made regular references to seeking revenge against political opponents. He has threatened investigations, prosecutions and even imprisonment.

In the weeks leading up to November’s election, Trump repeatedly referred to Democrats as the “enemy from within” and mused that the US National Guard may be needed to address this “danger”.

However, how could Trump, in a second administration, follow up on this? His pick for attorney general could in theory direct the Department of Justice to open investigations.

As Trump prepares to assume the presidency for the second time and continues to signal his desire to contravene many of America’s established constitutional conventions, a US Supreme Court ruling from earlier this year may take on more ominous significance. In July 2024 the court gave serving presidents sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution.

This may serve to deepen worries on the lengths Trump will go to get his way, and achieve what he told an audience in July 2019 during his first term: “I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Läs mer…

The mass rape trial that shook France is entering its final phase after 10 weeks. But its implications for how we think about sexual violence and who experiences it will last much longer.

Gisèle Pelicot, 72, testified to her ex-husband’s repeated, long-term sexual abuse. Dominique Pelicot admitted in November 2020 to drugging his then wife over nearly a decade, and recruiting dozens of other men to rape her. There are 50 other men on trial beyond Pelicot’s ex-husband.

Gisèle Pelicot decided to waive her right to anonymity, which victims of sexual offences are entitled to in France. In doing so, she has opened the door on a tough conversation about rape in relationships and marriages. As this case exemplifies, the realities of sexual violence can be very different from what people consider to be “typical”.

The stereotypical rape (and other sexual offences broadly) involves a lone, young, attractive, female victim being attacked by a male stranger, at night, in a public place. The attacker may use a weapon, and the victim resists the attack physically.

Very few cases meet all of these criteria, and most cases are drastically different. For example, many survivors of rape may be male, older or disabled. Their attackers may be people they know and trust or may be charming and generous, and the attack may take place behind closed doors. For female victims, the most commonly reported perpetrator is an intimate partner (46%), and for male victims, it is an acquaintance (38%).

Pelicot is an older survivor, victimised in her own home by her former husband and others she knew. This is far departed from the “stranger danger” stereotype and speaks to a harsh reality that most cases of sexual violence occur between people who know each other, and within private spaces – often the perpetrator’s or victim’s home.

If a victim does not feel they meet the typical criteria for rape or sexual assault, they may minimise their own experience or not realise what has happened. This experience is especially prevalent in cases of marital or relational abuse and among male victims, where survivors may not realise their consent was important or needed for sex to occur.

As a result, non-stereotypical survivors are less likely to seek support following their victimisation and are sometimes more likely to experience negative outcomes in their physical, mental and sexual health.

Believing victims

Victims or cases that are different to the stereotype can often be discounted, experience shame, guilt and victim blaming from others, including the justice system.

Research has shown that non-stereotypical cases of sexual violence are more likely to be disbelieved or discounted, and that their cases are more likely to result in a not guilty verdict. Male, disabled, and older survivors of rape or sexual assault are less likely to report or disclose their experiences to the police or social circles because of a fear of not being believed or treated well.

Many victims, stereotypical or not, have negative experiences when seeking help or disclosing. These cases are less likely to be taken on by the police and victims face more barriers to accessing support through sources such as domestic abuse charities.

Having positive experiences when disclosing their experience, either socially or with the police, has been found to greatly improve victim outcomes and post-traumatic growth. It also makes them more likely to seek support and report future incidents. It is important to treat all survivors with the same degree of belief and respect, even if they do not fit your idea of what rape or sexual assault victims “should” be.

Anyone can be a victim of sexual assault. Gisèle Pelicot’s case, while extreme in its nature, is a landmark. She has become a feminist hero in France, and rightly so. Her willingness to speak openly about her experiences is already helping dispel stereotypes about who experiences domestic or sexual abuse, and how they are expected to act.

This conversation must continue, to increase the likelihood that more victims will access the support they need and, if they report or disclose, that the experience will be positive and supportive one.

If you or someone you know has been affected by sexual assault or rape, you can contact Rape Crisis England and Wales, Survivors UK or SafeLives. Läs mer…

British farmers are protesting against proposals in the recent budget to change inheritance tax relief on farms. They claim the change will force many farm families to sell land in order to pay tax bills. While that is debatable, this is only the latest grievance for farmers who have had to face rising costs, volatile prices, disadvantageous trade policies and controversial post-Brexit reforms of farm subsidy schemes.

Over 20,000 protesters gathered in Whitehall on November 19 to protest the inheritance changes. They have been led to believe that Labour needs their votes for its majority, which puts them in a position of power. But does it?

Labour won 41 of the 140 most rural constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales in July’s general election. That’s a significant increase on the three it took in 2019.

Across all rural seats, it polled 24.4% of the vote. However, rural constituencies can be won without farmers’ votes. Statistics for employment by industry are not yet known because new constituency boundaries were used in 2024. But under the old boundaries, used until 2019, there were only 16 constituencies in England and Wales with more than 5% of the workforce employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Labour won just four of the main successor seats to these constituencies in the election.

The shifting rural vote.
Rural Spatial Justice Project via datawrapper, CC BY-ND

A poll of 434 farmers for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit in May found that 35% planned to vote Labour. An unscientific self-selecting internet poll by Farmers’ Guardian during the election campaign put Labour’s support at 23%.

All this indicates that probably between a fifth and a third of farmers voted Labour in July. Putting these figures together and adding in turnout, we can estimate that in rural constituencies won by Labour there were typically around 150-300 farmers who voted for the party. These are small numbers, but potentially enough to overturn majorities in marginals such as Forest of Dean, Derbyshire Dales, South West Norfolk, and Ribble Valley.

The farming lobby

We also need to take into consideration the precedent of the last Labour government. In May 1997, Labour unexpectedly won a tranche of rural constituencies, yet less than three months later, over 120,000 demonstrators joined a countryside rally in Hyde Park against a Labour MP’s bill to ban hunting with hounds.

Over the following winter, tumbling farmgate prices prompted Welsh farmers to picket Holyhead docks. Sporadic protests culminated with blockades of fuel depots in September 2000. Farmer discontent with the New Labour government deepened with the foot and mouth disease epidemic in early 2001. By the general election in June 2001 there was a widespread expectation that Labour would lose many of its rural seats.

What did you think of my budget?
Alamy

In the event, Labour’s vote fell only marginally more in rural areas than it did overall. The party’s vote share was down by 2.3% in the top 20 farming seats, down 2.4% in the strongest hunting constituencies, and down 3.3% points in constituencies worst hit by foot and mouth disease, compared with a 2.2% decrease across Great Britain. The loss of only one Labour seat could arguably be attributed to rural discontent, in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, gained by Plaid Cymru.

Labour cannot be complacent, though. Farmers have an outsized influence in rural areas. They have relatives, neighbours and business partners who are sympathetic to agricultural interests.

Come election time, well-attended farmers’ hustings can shape candidates’ priorities. The farm protesters’ message that Labour “doesn’t understand the countryside” could resonate with non-farming rural residents who feel ignored over issues such as housing, public transport, energy costs or planning disputes over new windfarms, solar arrays or pylons.

This happened in the general election in Wales, where farmers had been protesting since the start of the year against the Labour Welsh government’s new farm subsidy scheme, which requires farms to have 10% of land under tree cover. Welsh farmers’ discontent combined with wider rural dissatisfaction with cuts to public services and lack of investment in infrastructure, hurting Labour.

Labour’s vote in rural constituencies in Wales decreased by 1.25 percentage points, despite increasing in rural seats in every region in England and Scotland.

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.

New Labour weathered the countryside protests in the early 2000s by directly challenging claims that it was out of touch with rural Britain. Ministers, including Tony Blair, gave speeches asserting that rural voters had the same concerns as urban voters, emphasising social justice issues, not farming or hunting. This was backed up by policies crafted by the Rural Group of Labour MPs and outlined in a rural white paper for England in 2000.

There are lessons for both sides. If farmer activists want to pose an electoral threat, they need to enrol non-farming rural residents and connect their concerns with wider issues of rural inequality. Equally, if Labour intends to overcome farmers’ opposition without political damage, it needs to be seen to take rural policy seriously and to start articulating an alternative vision for the countryside. Läs mer…

Australia has a seriously big “nest egg”. The Future Fund – our sovereign wealth fund set up in 2006 – now manages about $230 billion.

Specifically, its remit is to “invest for the benefit of future generations of Australians”. That’s long been interpreted as earning the best possible return on investment, without unacceptable risk.

Along with a few other smaller public wealth funds, it’s managed independently, on behalf of the government.

So the government ruffled feathers this week when it announced a new investment mandate which, for the first time, will require it to prioritise specific investments in Australia:

increasing the supply of residential housing
supporting the energy transition
delivering improved infrastructure

These might all seem like reasonable priorities for Australia. But from those who thought this directive was a deviation from the Future Fund’s founding aims, criticisms came thick and fast.

Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor accused Labor of “raiding Australia’s nest egg” for its own “pet projects”.

Peter Costello, who set up the fund when he was treasurer, said it would undermine the fund’s independence and lead to lower returns.

It’s quite possible, albeit unclear, that requiring the fund to prioritise certain kinds of investments will lead to lower returns.

There’s a more pertinent question. Why can’t the government fund these priority projects through debt rather than by spending sovereign funds?

Read more:
Australia’s $230 billion Future Fund encouraged to invest in housing, energy transition, infrastructure

History of the fund

The Future Fund’s initial purpose was actually to generate an asset pool that could cover government liabilities for future public sector pensions.

When it was established in 2006, the Australian economy was in a golden era of budget surpluses and revenues generated by mining and the China boom.

Peter Costello set up the Future Fund as Treasurer back in 2006 and later served as chair of its board.
Detail from Bianca De Marchi/AAP

With public debt paid off, there were suddenly questions about the need for a government bond market (used to borrow money).

Australia was also asking whether it should invest its wealth in a new sovereign wealth fund.

The thinking behind the Future Fund was that Australia’s surpluses would not last forever, and a major liability that the government would one day have to face would be defined pension payments to the public service.

A decision was made to build a sovereign wealth fund to fund this liability, and relatedly, a decision to keep the government bond market alive.

Read more:
Investors have bid against each other to buy Australia’s first green bond. Here’s why that’s a great sign

The return of government debt

As we now know in hindsight, the global financial crisis brought an end to the era of budget surpluses. That created new questions about the role of the Future Fund.

With government debt rising, it was not obvious that maintaining a separate giant asset like the Future Fund continued to make sense. Why not simply use it to pay down debt?

As always, these questions come down to basic financial engineering.

If, hypothetically, the government was paying 5% interest on its debt, but could generate 6% on Future Fund earnings, it would be better to keep the Future Fund going than to spend it on debt reduction.

The Future Fund now manages assets of around $230 billion. National net debt is forecast at more than $880 billion for 2024–25 and is expected to keep rising.

The government also used this week’s announcement to promise there would be no drawdowns from the fund until at least 2032–33, by which time it’s expected to grow to $380 billion.

Nonetheless, this financial engineering equation will remain a key question for the government.

The government will direct the fund to invest in ‘national priorities’ – such as increasing housing supply.
Jono Searle/AAP

Will the new mandate affect returns?

Currently, the Future Fund’s mandate is to maximise returns, to build the biggest pool possible to fund the government’s future liabilities. Specifically, its mandate currently targets a return of 4–5% per year above the rate of inflation.

Will restricting what the fund can invest in reduce its total returns? It is reasonable to think that any constraint on investment decisions could have some negative impact on returns – and critics have certainly made that case this week.

There’s mixed evidence on how much prioritising certain kinds of investments can affect returns.
Jacqui Martin/Shutterstock

The evidence on how mandates such as sustainability requirements affect investment returns is mixed. Analyses have shown that carefully constructed portfolios can perform well, but this is not always the case.

The key questions for the Future Fund become how much money gets allocated to these types of projects and how binding the mandates turn out to be.

Reasonable instructions to focus on green energy investments, housing and similar alternative assets might make sense in a national sense, but in terms of government debt and the purpose of the Future Fund, they muddy the waters.

Should the government just borrow for projects instead?

An alternative to having the Future Fund allocate funding to preferred government priorities would be to have the government simply borrow the money itself and keep the Future Fund assets separate.

If the government is going to support and fund these activities in either event, whether it does so via its debt or its assets doesn’t matter. The government’s net asset position is the same.

Australia is still in the position of having a relatively low national debt position relative to OECD countries, and funding costs are low. As long as we maintain fiscal discipline, this will continue to be the case. Läs mer…

With the start of summer just days away, many of us will be looking forward to long sunny days spent at the beach, by the pool, out camping or picnicking in the park.

Insects also love summer. This is when most of them breed and feed. But this shared appreciation of the season can sometimes lead to conflict.

Insects have long been prey to many species, including birds, mammals, amphibians and other insects. As such, they’ve evolved a diverse range of defences – perhaps none more familiar to humans than the sting.

Many ants have a sting at their rear end which they use to deliver venom. It’s not the sting itself that causes pain, but rather the venom. Ant venom contains a cocktail of different chemicals, some of which have evolved specifically to manipulate nerve endings in our skin to cause pain.

Let’s look at some of the different ant stings you might experience this summer in Australia, and how to respond.

Bull ants

Bull ants (also known as bulldog ants, jumper ants, or jack jumpers) are large, for an ant. Some species can reach a length of 4 centimetres. They are easily recognisable with their large eyes, long mandibles (jaws) and aggressive nature.

Their sting is immediate, hot, sharp, and unmistakable, not dissimilar to that of a honeybee. The intense pain will last only a few minutes, before it’s replaced by some redness and swelling around the sting site.

There are many different types of bull ants in Australia.
Sam Robinson

Green-head ants

Green-head ants are also called green ants (but not to be confused with the green tree ants of northern Australia which do not sting). Green-head ants are common, and love our grass lawns.

At around 6 millimetres long, they are significantly smaller than bull ants. They can be recognised by their shiny green and purple exoskeleton.

Green-head ants tend to be less aggressive than bull ants, but they can still deliver a meaningful sting. The pain of a green-head ant’s sting can build more gradually, and create an intense, sticky ache.

Green-head ants can be recognised by their colour.
Sam Robinson

Fire ants

Fire ants (or red imported fire ants) are originally from South America. They were first detected in Brisbane in 2001, thought to have hitched a ride in shipping containers, and have since spread across south-east Queensland.

Fire ants are reddish-brown and black and range in size from 2–6 millimetres long.

You’re most likely to encounter fire ants at their nests, which look like a pile of powdery soil. A fire ant nest doesn’t have an obvious entry, which is a good way to distinguish them from other similar ant nests.

Disturbing a fire ant nest will awaken an angry mass of hundreds of ants and put you at risk of being stung.

The initial pain from an individual sting is like an intense, hot itch, though manageable. But fire ant stings rarely occur in single digits. One ant can sting multiple times, and multiple ants can sting one person, which can lead to hundreds of stings. Fire ant stings can lead to pus-filled ulcers and scarring in the days afterwards.

If you live in an area where there are fire ants, it’s worth taking a few minutes to educate yourself on how to recognise and report them.

Electric ants

Electric ants are another nasty accidental import, originally from Central and South America. Currently restricted to Cairns and surrounds, these are tiny (1.5 millimetres long) yellow ants.

Like fire ants, these ants will typically defend en masse, so many will sting at once. Their sting is more painful than you’d expect from such a tiny creature. I liken it to being showered in red hot sparks.

If you think you see electric ants, you should report this to Biosecurity Queensland.

Aussie ants aren’t the worst

You might be surprised to hear Australian ants don’t even make the podium for the most painful ant stings. Among the prize winners are harvester ants (North and South America) which cause an extreme, sticky ache, likened to a drill slowly turning in your muscle – for as long as 12 hours.

The gold medal goes to the sting of the bullet ant of South and Central America, which has been described as:

Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail embedded in your heel.

How to avoid getting stung (and what to do if you do)

Fortunately, the solution is usually very simple. Look before you sit on the ground or lay out your picnic blanket, avoiding areas where you see ant nests or lots of foraging ants.

Choice of footwear can also be important. In my experience, perhaps unsurprisingly, most stings occur on thong-wearing feet.

If you do get stung, in most cases it’s going to get better on its own. Pain will usually subside after a few minutes (sometimes a little longer for a green-head ant sting). The redness, swelling and itch that typically follow can last for a few days.

In the meantime, if needed, an ice pack will help with the pain. If it’s particularly bad, a local anaesthetic cream containing lidocaine may offer some temporary relief. You can get this over the counter at the pharmacy.

A small proportion of people may have an allergic reaction to ant stings. In very severe cases this might involve trouble breathing or swallowing. If you or someone you’re with experiences these symptoms after an ant sting, seek urgent medical attention. Läs mer…

The federal government’s proposed social media ban for under-16s has sparked widespread debate, affecting millions of young Australians, their families and educators. But will it actually work?

While the aim behind this ban is to protect children from online harm, it appears to be more of a kneejerk reaction to win votes.

In a world where technological advancement is accelerating and online communication is part of our everyday lives, teaching children about safe online use, rather than imposing bans, is a more effective way to protect them from harm while still allowing them to be technologically savvy.

Critics such as independent MP Zoe Daniel highlight potential issues such as social media sites becoming less safe as adults increasingly share any content, believing that children no longer have access:

What we’re doing is saying, ‘Well, we’re going to lock everyone under 16 out, and then everyone else can do whatever they want in there’. And also, we know that some people under 16 will get in.

Daniel is not the only person to express concern. Former Labor and now independent Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman used TikTok slang to highlight that young people often feel unheard in parliament.

Why a ban is the wrong way to go

Young people live a lot of their social lives online. Shielding youth entirely could disconnect them from peers and affect their social wellbeing. This has been demonstrated in a study on international high school students, who are particularly at risk of loneliness and isolation and are often living away from family and friends. While this study was on international students, the results have implications for others who are at risk of feeling lonely and isolated.

At 16, teens might face harmful content for the first time, including behaviours glorified on social media, which could be seen as “exciting”. This risks amplifying the very problems policymakers aim to prevent.

Australia recently revoked the visa of an OnlyFans star attempting to recruit 18-year-old boys at “schoolies” to create explicit content for her OnlyFans page.

While this star’s visa was revoked, other Australian-based OnlyFans creators have posted to TikTok showing videos of young men lining up to meet them.

This is being considered by many as new predatory behaviour to which young people might be exposed for the first time, with no education or support systems in place.

If young people are not allowed to navigate social media until they are 16, how will they navigate the risks once they can? Instead, teaching young people digital resilience offers a more sustainable approach.

The Finnish approach

Finland’s approach to digital literacy education is comprehensive and integrated. It aims to equip citizens of all ages with the skills to navigate the digital world effectively.

Finland’s education system embeds digital literacy as a fundamental component of its curriculum, integrating technology across all grade levels to prepare students for the digital age.

From preschool education, students are introduced to digital tools, safety and technology to learn responsible online behaviour. As Finnish academics Sirkku Lähdesmäki and Minna Maunula highlight:

creating a secure and empowering connection with media is a shared educational responsibility that necessitates the active participation of both schools and families.

Integrating digital literacy into the education system ensures skills are not taught in isolation, but embedded across the system.

Digital literacy in Finland extends beyond formal schooling. Public libraries and community centres offer programs to improve skills among adults, ensuring that digital literacy is a lifelong pursuit. As they say, digital competencies are civic skills.

This approach has been in place, with considerable success, for a decade. In 2014, in response to the rise of misinformation, Finland’s government launched an anti-fake news initiative aimed at teaching residents, students, journalists and politicians how to counter false information designed to create division.

This initiative is part of a multi-pronged, cross-sector approach to prepare citizens of all ages for the complex digital landscape.

In addition, the education system was reformed to emphasise critical thinking. This taught students to identify bots, understand image and video manipulations, and recognise half-truths and false profiles. The approach has been practical, with Finland ranking first out of 35 countries in a digital media literacy index measuring resilience six times in a row.

Similarities to smoking

Some politicians have likened social media use to smoking in terms of addictive qualities and potential to cause harm. For example, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said:

The evidence shows early access to addictive social media is causing our kids harm […] This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol. When a product or service hurts children, governments must act.

Drawing comparisons to smoking highlights the long-term challenges with tackling the issue. The proportion of Australians aged 14 and over who have ever smoked has significantly declined over the past two decades. But this is the result of a long-term change campaign that the government committed to in the 1990s. It has been successful largely due to a concerted public education campaign.

The government’s proposed legislation oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. Protecting young people requires long-term solutions such as fostering digital literacy, informed choices, and robust safeguards — not rushed, over-the-top, short-term measures. Läs mer…