Johansen.se

It might seem surprising today in the era of Donald Trump, but Republicans in the United States once championed immigration and supported pathways to citizenship for undocumented Americans.

In January 1989, Ronald Reagan’s final speech as president was an impassioned ode to the immigrants who made America “a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas”.

Contrast this with Trump, who has normalised dehumanising rhetoric and policies against immigrants. In this year’s presidential campaign, for instance, he has referred to undocumented immigrants as “animals” who are “poisoning the blood of our country”.

Both Trump and his vice presidential running mate, JD Vance, also repeated a false story about Haitian “illegal aliens” eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.

Perhaps most troubling, Trump has pledged to launch “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country”, if he’s elected.

Immigration policies throughout history

Nativism, or anti-immigrant sentiment, has a long history in American politics.

In 1924, a highly restrictive immigration quota system based on racial and national origins was introduced. This law envisaged America as a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant nation.

However, there was no restriction on immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. The agricultural and railroad sectors relied heavily on workers from Mexico.

In 1965, the quota system was replaced by visa preference categories for family and employment-based migrants, along with refugee and asylum slots.

Then, as violence and economic instability spread across Central America in the 1970s, there was a surge in undocumented immigration to the US.

Scholar Leo Chavez argues that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, an alarmist “Latino threat narrative” became the dominant motif in media discussions of immigration.

This narrative was frequently driven by Republican politicians in states on the US-Mexico border, who derived electoral advantage from amplifying voter anxieties.

The growing popularity of this negative discourse coincided with a significant increase in income inequality – a byproduct of neo-liberal policies championed by Reagan and other Republicans.

Read more:
Before Trump, there was a long history of race-baiting, fear-mongering and building walls on the US-Mexico border

A dramatic shift in Republican rhetoric

In the early-to-mid 20th century, Democrats were often the party that supported restrictive immigration and border policies.

However, most Republicans at the national level – strongly supported by business – tended to endorse policies that encouraged the easy flow of workers across the border and increased levels of legal immigration.

Prominent conservative Republicans also rejected vilifying rhetoric towards undocumented Americans. They presented all immigrants as pursuing opportunities for their families, a framing that emphasised a shared vision of the American dream. In this telling, their labour contributed to the economy and America’s growth and prosperity.

George H. W. Bush And Ronald Reagan debate immigration in a Republican primary debate in 1980.

Reagan, the most influential conservative of the late 20th century, opposed erecting a border wall and supported amnesty over deportation.

Reagan also strongly supported bipartisan immigration reform. In 1986, Congress passed an immigration act that increased border security funding, but also ensured 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, primarily of Latino background, were able to gain legal status.

Twenty years later, President George W. Bush and Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for a bipartisan bill that would have tightened border enforcement while simultaneously “legalising” an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. It was narrowly defeated.

This vocal support for immigrants by leading Republicans was striking because for much of the period between the late 1980s and the early 2000s, a majority of Americans actually wanted immigration levels reduced.

Then, around 2009, a dramatic shift in political rhetoric took place. The Tea Party movement brought border security and “racial resentment” towards immigrants centre stage, challenging conservative Republicans from the populist right.

Supporters of a controversial new law in Arizona in 2010 that made it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.
Ross D. Franklin/AP

As a result, more and more Republicans began to voice restrictionist and xenophobic rhetoric and support legislation aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

What’s surprising, though, is the number of undocumented immigrants in the US was actually declining at this time, from 12.2 million in 2007 to 10.7 million in 2016.

Donald Trump and the new nativism

In this worsening anti-immigrant climate, Trump descended a golden escalator in mid-2015 to launch his presidential campaign.

In his speech that day, immigration was front and centre. Trump vowed to “build a great wall” and accused Mexico of sending “rapists” and “criminals” to America.

His speeches during the presidential campaign were marked by frequent anti-Mexican assertions and calls for Islamophobic visa policies. This hostile stance on immigration was central to his victory in both the Republican primaries and the general election against Hillary Clinton.

Once in office, Trump then adopted a “zero tolerance” stance towards undocumented immigration. His administration pursued a heartrending family separation policy that split children and their undocumented parents at the border. This approach was celebrated on conservative media outlets such as Fox News.

During his presidency, he also reduced legal immigration by almost half, drastically cut America’s refugee intake, and introduced bans on people from Muslim-majority countries.

Policy expert David Bier concluded the goal of Republican lawmakers had shifted:

It really looks like the entire debate about illegality is not the main issue anymore for Republicans in both chambers of Congress. The main goal seems to be to reduce the number of foreigners in the United States to the greatest extent possible.

Indeed, Trump’s vision of the nation had overtly racial overtones.

In one 2018 meeting, he asked why America should accept immigrants from “shithole countries” like Haiti, El Salvador or the African continent. His preference was for Norwegian migrants.

Immigration as a major election theme

From 2021–2023, undocumented US-Mexico border crossings surged due to natural disasters, economic downturns and violence in many Latin American and Caribbean nations. Many of the recent arrivals are asylum seekers.

Though the numbers have fallen sharply in 2024, immigration and the border are still one of the top issues for voters across the political spectrum. The issue is particularly important in the key swing state of Arizona.

In 2024, Trump’s central immigration promise was encapsulated by the beaming delegates waving signs calling for “Mass Deportations Now” at the Republican National Convention.

The Trump-Vance ticket has blamed undocumented immigrants for almost every economic and social problem imaginable. The two candidates present them as a dangerous and subversive “other” that cannot be assimilated into mainstream American culture.

Yet Trump, as both president and candidate, has worked to prevent the passage of border security legislation. Turmoil on the border benefits him.

And his nativism now encompasses all forms of immigration – he has pledged to curb legal channels for people to enter the country, as well.

All of this rhetoric has had a dramatic impact on public opinion. Between 2016 and 2024, the number of people supporting the deportation of undocumented immigrants jumped from 32% to 47%.

In July 2024, 55% of Americans also said they wanted to see immigration levels decrease, a 14-point increase in one year.

Many Americans do not perceive immigration as a source of vitality and renewal as they had in the past. Instead, reflecting Trump’s language, they are viewing immigrants as an existential threat to the country’s future. Läs mer…

You don’t have to look far to see what climate change is doing to the planet. The word “unprecedented” is everywhere this year.

We are seeing unprecedented rapidly intensifying tropical storms such as Hurricane Helene in the eastern United States and Super Typhoon Yagi in Vietnam. Unprecedented fires in Canada have destroyed towns. Unprecedented drought in Brazil has dried out enormous rivers and left swathes of empty river beds. At least 1,300 pilgrims died during this year’s Hajj in Mecca as temperatures passed 50°C.

Unfortunately, we are headed for far worse. The new 2024 State of the Climate report, produced by our team of international scientists, is yet another stark warning about the intensifying climate crisis. Even if governments meet their emissions goals, the world may hit 2.7°C of warming – nearly double the Paris Agreement goal of holding climate change to 1.5°C. Each year, we track 35 of the Earth’s vital signs, from sea ice extent to forests. This year, 25 are now at record levels, all trending in the wrong directions.

Humans are not used to these conditions. Human civilisation emerged over the last 10,000 years under benign conditions – not too hot, not too cold. But this liveable climate is now at risk. In your grandchild’s lifetime, climatic conditions will be more threatening than anything our prehistoric relatives would have faced.

Our report shows a continued rise in fossil fuel emissions, which remain at an all-time high. Despite years of warnings from scientists, fossil fuel consumption has actually increased, pushing the planet toward dangerous levels of warming. While wind and solar have grown rapidly, fossil fuel use is 14 times greater.

This year is also tracking for the hottest year on record, with global daily mean temperatures at record levels for nearly half of 2023 and much of 2024.

Next month, world leaders and diplomats will gather in Azerbaijan for the annual United Nations climate talks, COP 29. Leaders will have to redouble their efforts. Without much stronger policies, climate change will keep worsening, bringing with it more frequent and more extreme weather.

Bad news after bad news

We have still not solved the central problem: the routine burning of fossil fuels. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – particularly methane and carbon dioxide – are still rising. Last September, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere hit 418 parts per million (ppm). This September, they crossed 422 ppm. Methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, has been increasing at an alarming rate despite global pledges to tackle it.

Compounding the problem is the recent decline in atmospheric aerosols from efforts to cut pollution. These small particles suspended in the air come from both natural and human processes, and have helped cool the planet. Without this cooling effect, the pace of global warming may accelerate. We don’t know for sure because aerosol properties are not yet measured well enough.

Other environmental issues are now feeding into climate change. Deforestation in critical areas such as the Amazon is reducing the planet’s capacity to absorb carbon naturally, driving additional warming. This creates a feedback loop, where warming causes trees to die which in turn amplifies global temperatures.

One of the Amazon River’s two largest tributaries, the Solimoes River, is drying out as drought grips northern Brazil. Pictured is the river on October 3rd, with the water level down to 2.5 metres.
Raphael Alves/EPA

Loss of sea ice is another. As sea ice melts or fails to form, dark seawater is exposed. Ice reflects sunlight but seawater absorbs it. Scaled up, this changes the Earth’s albedo (how reflective the surface is) and accelerates warming further.

In coming decades, sea level rise will pose a growing threat to coastal communities, putting millions of people at risk of displacement.

Sea level rise is already affecting some people, such as residents of Indonesia’s Timbulsloko village. But more is coming.
Dita Alangkara/AP

Accelerate the solutions

Our report stresses the need for an immediate and comprehensive end to the routine use of fossil fuels.

It calls for a global carbon price, set high enough to drive down emissions, particularly from high-emitting wealthy countries.

Introducing effective policies to slash methane emissions is crucial, given methane’s high potency but short atmospheric lifetime. Rapidly cutting methane could slow the rate of warming in the short term.

Natural climate solutions such as reforestation and soil restoration should be rolled out to increase how much carbon is stored in wood and soil. These efforts must be accompanied by protective measures in wildfire and drought prone areas. There’s no point planting forests if they will burn.

Governments should introduce stricter land-use policies to slow down rates of land clearing and increase investment in forest management to cut the risk of large, devastating fires and encourage sustainable land use.

We cannot overlook climate justice. Less wealthy nations contribute least to global emissions but are often the worst affected by climate disasters.

Wealthier nations must provide financial and technical support to help these countries adapt to climate change while cutting emissions. This could include investing in renewable energy, improving infrastructure and funding disaster preparedness programs.

Internationally, our report urges stronger commitments from world leaders. Current global policies are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Without drastic changes, the world is on track for approximately 2.7°C of warming this century. To avoid catastrophic tipping points, nations must strengthen their climate pledges, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Immediate, transformative policy changes are now necessary if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Climate change is already here. But it could get much, much worse. By slashing emissions, boosting natural climate solutions and working towards climate justice, the global community can still fend off the worst version of our future. Läs mer…

Climate change is usually discussed in terms of rising temperatures.

But scientists often use a different measure, known as “equilibrium climate sensitivity”. This is defined as the global mean warming caused by a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere.

We use this measure to describe the range of potential temperature increases on longer timescales, and to compare how well climate models reproduce observed warming.

But the predicted range of rising temperature has remained stubbornly wide, somewhere between 2°C and 5.5°C of warming, as assessed in several generations of reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is despite concerted efforts to narrow it down.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assessed Earth’s climate sensitivity in each of its reports.
IPCC, CC BY-SA

Measuring long-term climate sensitivity is central to future predictions, but we are already seeing the effects of warming across the world with extremes in weather, even at the low end of the range. We argue efforts to boil down Earth’s response to climate change to one number may be unhelpful.

The continued uncertainty could be seen as a failure of climate models to converge on the correct value. Using equilibrium climate sensitivity as a metric for “precisely” predicting the amount of warming expected from a given amount of greenhouse gases is, at best, ambiguous.

History of climate sensitivity

About a century before the first computational estimates of Earth’s climate sensitivity were published in 1967, the Swedish physicist and 1903 Nobel laureate Svante August Arrhenius was the first to estimate values at 4-6°C.

Since the early efforts to model Earth systems, computer simulations have steadily increased in complexity. The first models only simulated the atmosphere, but they have evolved to include vegetation, processes in the ocean and sea ice.

While undoubtedly beneficial to the understanding of fundamental science, each of these added processes has introduced uncertainties in the models’ warming response.

Indeed, given the level of complexity (which differs between models) and resolution of some current models, it is not surprising the estimates of climate sensitivity differ so much.

Self-enforcing feedbacks

Climate feedbacks are central to our argument that equilibrium climate sensitivity is poorly defined. An example of this is the relationship between ice volume and reflectivity.

As highly reflective ice melts on land or sea, the underlying surface is exposed and less sunlight reflected back into space. This increases the amount of warming for a given amount of greenhouse gases. It’s what scientists refer to as a positive feedback loop.

Another such self-enforcing feedback concerns potentially large climate impacts from the release of methane from tropical wetlands and permafrost melt.

Atmosphere models can’t account for this alone, and when they are coupled with an ice-sheet or sea-ice model, the estimate of climate sensitivity changes.

Melting permafrost, such as seen here on Svalbard, represents a climate feedback loop, increasing the amount of warming for a given amount of greenhouse gases.
Getty Images

Overheated arguments

It quickly became apparent when studying some recent climate model results that some simulations are producing equilibrium climate sensitivity ranges noticeably higher than before.

In some models, this has been linked to larger self-enhancing cloud feedbacks and how aerosols are represented.

There has been some hesitancy to trust the results produced by these models. They are considered “too hot”.

But we feel these high equilibrium simulations still have value. While we are not arguing they are correct, they force us to consider the what-if situation of very high climate sensitivity, where a doubling of CO₂ would result in warming of 5°C or higher. We know the impact on our environment would be devastating.

Some view high equilibrium climate sensitivity as more consistent with warmer climates in the past, but others have questioned this.

There are several reasons why past climate sensitivity may differ from modern conditions. We may be in a different phase of Earth’s orbital cycles or the balance between volcanism and weathering.

Of course, we should treat all scientific results with caution, but the potential insights gained for uncertain futures are of particular importance when climate change is already being felt across the globe.

Where to from here?

We are continually improving our understanding of the climate – how it has changed in the past and how we think it may change in the future. Equilibrium climate sensitivity has consequently become the single solution we are seeking from climate models, even though the precise value will arguably never be known.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is undoubtedly a convenient way of distilling future projections. However, it is important not to over-rely on an idealised quantity, because its utility as a useful comparative measure of climate models can give the false impression of a lack of progress in understanding.

There is similarity with the common misconception of a 50% probability of rainfall in a weather forecast, which is often misinterpreted as forecasters not knowing whether it will rain or not.

Communicating uncertainty in projections of future climate conditions is a “wicked” problem. But we risk losing perspective of Earth’s system response by focusing on the effort to make climate models agree on one measure. This is not the answer future generations need. Läs mer…

In 2020, England introduced an opt-out system for organ donation with the aim of making it easier for organs to be donated after a person’s death. The Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019 assumed that unless someone explicitly opted out, they consented to organ donation.

This change was expected to boost the number of organ donations and, ultimately, save more lives. But research by my colleagues and I reveals a different story. Rather than simplifying organ donation, the law has created more confusion and complications. This may help explain why organ donation rates haven’t recovered from the drop seen during the pandemic.

Before the change in the law, organ donation in England required people to opt in to the system by registering their consent. With the new system, unless adults over the age of 18 opt out, their consent is presumed. The law is however “soft”. Families are supposed to support the decision, but can still override it, if they disagree, without consequence.

The law, introduced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, was meant to increase donation rates by shifting the burden from individuals needing to sign up to individuals needing to declare they didn’t want to donate organs or tissue. Similar laws had already been implemented in Wales in 2015 and later in Scotland in 2021.

But the results haven’t lived up to expectations. Consent rates for organ donation in England have dropped since the law came into effect, from 67% in 2019 to 61% in 2023. The same has happened in Wales where donation rates have reduced from 63% to 60.5%, and in Scotland where rates have dropped from 63.6% to 56.3%.

This drop coincided with the spread of COVID-19, and it’s difficult to untangle the consequences of the change in the law with the lasting effects of the pandemic on how people interact with health services. But it does mean that potential organ donors don’t necessarily leave explicit instructions that they wish to donate, which may affect how their families, and the healthcare staff responsible for implementing the law, feel.

Our research involved interviewing the families of potential organ donors and healthcare professionals involved in the process. We found that many families still said they wanted to be the final decision-makers, even though the law presumed their loved one’s consent. This reflects the potential for confusion and stress at an already difficult time.

What went wrong?

An important issue is that the deemed consent law challenges the longstanding norm in healthcare that emphasises explicit consent, and particularly the role of familial consent. This divergence from established ethical practices has placed healthcare professionals in a difficult position. They now face a dilemma – they want to respect the law and increase organ donations, but they also risk being perceived as overstepping ethical boundaries by “taking organs” without clear family consent.

This fear of being seen as disregarding the emotions and rights of bereaved families has led to a high level of risk aversion among those responsible for implementing the law. Consequently, the processes involved in obtaining consent have become increasingly complex and cautious. This has undermined the law’s original purpose.

A sympathetic understanding of this situation is crucial, however. The risk-averse stance adopted by official bodies is not a failure of intention but a reflection of the ethical and emotional complexities surrounding organ donation.

Well-meaning legal changes, while theoretically sound, have encountered practical challenges that stem from the need to balance the law with respect for the sensitivities of grieving families.

The anticipated increase in organ donation has not materialised. Although the pandemic may have played a role in this, our research suggests that legislative changes alone are insufficient without addressing the underlying ethical tensions and the need for clear, compassionate communication with families during such difficult times.

Many families we spoke with didn’t fully understand the concept of deemed consent. This is where a decision to donate is assumed unless a person has actively opted out. In some cases, families struggled with the idea of their loved one undergoing surgery, losing sight of the potential lives saved through organ donation.

The process was also overwhelming. Families were faced with complex consent paperwork and lengthy procedures, adding to the emotional burden of losing a loved one.

shutterstock.
Kmpzzz/Shutterstock

What needs to change?

Our research suggests several possible ways to improve the system. Better public understanding is vital. Clearer public education campaigns are needed to explain to people how the opt-out system works and to healthcare providers the importance of discussing organ donation decisions with family members. Many people still don’t understand that if they don’t opt out, they are presumed to have given consent.

The process needs to be simplified too. Reducing the steps involved in “consenting” to organ donation would help ease the burden on grieving families.

Strengthening donor decisions may also help the situation. Giving more legal weight to decisions made in life, such as registration on the Organ Donor Register, could prevent families from overturning their loved ones’ wishes.

It’s important that healthcare professionals are trained appropriately. Nurses and doctors need better training to navigate the complexities of the law so they can help families during organ donation discussions.

And regular prompts encouraging people to update their organ donation preferences may help to ensure that families are aware of their loved ones’ wishes, reducing confusion at critical moments. Only then can we hope to increase organ donation rates and fulfil the goal of saving more lives. Läs mer…

In the modern world we are all constantly connected, but this comes with risks. As most cybersecurity specialists will tell you, the biggest vulnerability in any system is the user – whether at home or work.

The most common ways in which hackers break into systems are via attacks on users such as phishing, rather than by breaching technical infrastructure. As much as 94% of all malware is delivered via email, while phishing is the primary means of attack in 41% of all incidents. This risk is also increasing, with 75% of security experts reporting an overall rise in cyberattacks year on year in 2023.

Many corporate IT teams have been spending heavily on training users to be more wary of such attacks. However, this has tended to focus on best practice in the workplace. In public areas, where people’s guards might be lowered, it’s quite a different story.

I’ve recently seen several examples of this for myself. As a certified ethical hacker with years of experience in cybersecurity and contributing to cybercriminal investigations, I can’t tell you how easy it is for these kinds of situations to be exploited by bad actors.

In the first incident, I was in a shop buying some household items. While I queued, staff were asking customers for email addresses to send them e-receipts for their items.

‘Yes to the discount code.’
Insta_photos

This might sound innocent, and it’s surely better for the environment than paper receipts, but it could easily be exploited by a savvy hacker who might be listening. Combined with contextual information such as location, item and cost, they could craft a phishing email that would probably fool most people. It could be an invite to complete a feedback survey, for instance, or a discount code for their next visit to the same store.

On another occasion I was at a live concert. While we waited for the show to begin, an individual in front of me was browsing his phone. From observing for just a short time, I ascertained his name, job, address, vehicle, phone number and even bank balance. Again, this could have been used by a hacker in a number of malicious ways, including posing as the individual to steal their identity or even coercing them to act against their employer, say by threatening to reveal sensitive information.

We therefore all need to be mindful of the information that we are exposing to strangers when we are in public. Equally, we need to think about what devices we are using, and what we are connecting them to.

Unsecured network risks

While at the same concert, I saw numerous people connecting to the stadium wifi, which was totally unprotected and required no authentication. When you log in to an unsecured network, it exposes your device to risks such as evil twin attacks.

Evil twin attacks involve the attacker creating a wifi hotspot, which can be set to any name they choose, such as “stadium wifi 2” or whatever. When an unprotected device connects to this network, the attacker can potentially steal the data they are transmitting.

It can also be used for other nefarious purposes such as snooping on confidential networks, injecting malware into downloads or “man-in-the-middle” attacks in which the hacker poses as the other person in a communication, again usually to steal information.

People can be exposed to similar threats on unsecured networks through another hacking ruse known as packet sniffing. This is where a hacker uses a program to monitor the data moving over the network and steal information.

Connecting now …
Alexander Supertramp

You can avoid these risks by logging in from a virtual private network (VPN), not that I saw anyone doing that at the concert. More generally, people can protect themselves from identity theft by, for instance, having anti-phishing systems in their inboxes.

However, the easiest defence of all is to be alert to the risks and take sensible precautions in public. By protecting your data and devices, no matter where you are, you can avoid becoming one of the victims. Läs mer…

The UK government has serious ambition when it comes to solving England’s housing crisis. Shortly after the 2024 general election, it pledged to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years.

It’s a big plan which could help improve the quality of life of millions of people. But is such an ambitious target plausible? Or has the government created a rod for its own back, and embarked on an economic mission that is doomed to failure?

For, at the heart of this mission is a political desire to shape the direction of the economy. And to succeed, this desire needs to be matched with a clear understanding of the economic reality at the heart of the UK’s housing crisis – a reality that is all about affordability.

To be successful, housing policies aimed at helping those on lower incomes need to address this head on. But the government’s emphasis so far has been on “zoning” (allowing houses to be built on land which was previously protected), or speeding up the planning process and tackling nimbyism. All of these factors are distractions from the main and simple point – that too many people simply cannot afford to buy, or even rent, a decent home.

And while there has been some suggestion that a bigger proportion of new housing projects need to be affordable, details have been scant.

Instead, most of the talk has been about “greybelt zones”, where planning permission will be granted more easily and quickly to create new opportunities for house building. But it is far from clear this will help to bring down – or even stabilise – the costs of housing.

Obtaining planning permission is a small fraction of that total cost. And when these permissions are granted, the value of land rises. The landowner makes money, but the hopeful future house buyer or tenant gains nothing, other than the fact there are extra houses on the market.

Imposing a requirement for higher proportions of affordable housing from building companies might be the single most effective thing the government can do. However, those companies may then increase their margins on the larger houses they plan to sell. And higher prices for bigger homes raises demand – and then prices – for smaller ones.

If the government wants to tackle the affordability issue by increasing supply, it should note that just over half the costs of new housing are down to expensive construction. The use of modern pre-fabricated methods to help reduce those costs is still relatively low in the UK.

Sweden uses this approach for over 80% of its new house building, and a faster switch (with government persuasion) to more affordable building methods in the UK could be beneficial.

An expensive business.
Clare Louise Jackson/Shutterstock

More new towns have also been promised. They’re not a bad idea, but building them takes a very long time, so any contribution they make to the housing crisis will take years (decades even) to be seen.

Local knowledge

The government has already announced a series of house-building targets for local areas as part of its five-year plan. But this adds a further complication, in a classic example of regional planning being done from Westminster instead of locally. How do they know that these houses will be built where people actually want to live?

For a good sense of where people do want to live, the government could immediately turn to housing associations – private, non-profit making organisations that already provide low-cost housing to millions. There might be some mileage in seeking to boost their stock by encouraging – and even underwriting – further borrowing by them.

Typically, housing associations charge significantly lower rents as they are not focused on making a return for shareholders, and their long-term stability attracts lower borrowing costs. If the government’s promised increase in the UK’s housing stock leads to an expansion in the housing association sector, this could make a meaningful contribution to limiting the rents paid by those on lower incomes – and enhancing the potential for them to eventually buy a genuinely affordable home.

But for many others, the biggest hurdle over the coming years will be mortgage rates. Even if interest rates come down gradually over the next five years, this is unlikely to make much difference to those who cannot afford a mortgage. And it won’t happen quickly enough to conjure up 1.5 million new homeowners in five years.

It seems doubtful then, that the government will reach its target, however laudible. But if it is to stand a chance, it needs to be thoughtful in its economics. Merely setting targets and expressing frustration when they are not met – as they are unlikely to be – is not enough. Läs mer…

If you’ve been on TikTok or Instagram recently, you’ve likely come across trad wives. The trend features videos of young women influencers showcasing their domestic lives as trad or “traditional” wives.

The clips see them performing domestic activities that have traditionally been seen as the role of wives and mothers: taking care of the home, raising children, baking from scratch and even homesteading.

As with many social media trends, #tradwife has sparked debate and criticism about the content and who it is meant for. There have been attempts to chart the origins and history of the trad wives, their nostalgia for the past and their highly estheticized content.

There are connections to “momfluencers,” the “girl bosses” of the early 2010s and a general backlash against capitalism and the demands for feminized labour. However, there is an equally strong link to fundamentalist Christianity and concerns about white womanhood.

As scrutiny grows, especially given the uproar caused by the recent profile of trad wife Hannah Neeleman, also known as Ballerina Farm, one other connection bears consideration: Christian romance fiction.

Many of the characters of this genre of fiction display key qualities of trad wives.

In recent decades, Christian evangelicals have used cultural tools such as fiction and now social media to romanticize the lifestyle of white, westernized femininity. The stories often contain an emphasis on restricted public and domestic roles for women based on narrow ideas of biblical womanhood. In this way, such characters can be viewed as cultural predecessors to the trad wives.

Christian romance and purity

Mostly marketed to women, the genre gained ground with the publication of Canadian author Janette Oke’s first historical romance novel in 1979. The market for such fiction rapidly expanded, and the genre developed as consumer appetite grew. For example, Amish and Mennonite sub-genres have become very popular since American novelist Beverly Lewis began publishing in the late 1990s.

Though the genre of Christian romance fiction (or inspiration fiction as it is sometimes called) spans many different sub-genres and historical periods, it contains repeated themes about personal faith, sexual purity and heterosexual marriage. These themes encode gender and racial overtones within stories that focus predominantly on white women characters.

The sexual norms of these stories are not surprising, given longstanding Christian evangelical interest in how religious and sexual purity are meshed together.

Purity culture sets out highly prescriptive notions of sex, sexuality and gender roles. Scholars of religion such as Sara Moslener tie these norms directly to white Christian nationalist ideas of femininity. Religious notions of sexual purity become linked to racial purity through a concern for maintaining the integrity of the body of the white woman as well as the body of the nation against the threat of racialized others.

It’s no surprise that both Christian romance fiction and trad wives are overwhelmingly white, and that a number of trad wives have been documented as possessing links to the far right.

Romanticizing a mythical past

Theology professor Emily McGowin has noted how the “tradwife trend looks to a mythic past where everyone knew their role.” Writer Kathryn Jezer-Morton points out that trad wives uphold a romanticized notion of the past that is actually a fantasy. They often wear outfits that look like they are from the 1950s or a previous colonial era, and there is no clear definition of what the “trad wife” label is.

What and whose tradition are these fantasies representing? Certainly not all women, including many racialized and poor women who have never had the option of staying home. This nostalgic re-imagining of a very complex past whitewashes history and ignores how women had few legal or reproductive rights over their own bodies, finances or domestic lives.

So, too, have Christian romances fantasized about different historical moments, often in American history. There is a decidedly white Christian supremacist undertone to many of these stories. They often reiterate the goodness of westward expansionism in North America and erase (or use as a plot device) the physical and cultural genocide of Indigenous peoples across the continent. This is also true of Oke’s work, which features “pioneer” (settler) narratives and romanticizes the RCMP, a problem that continues in television adaptations of her books.

The Amish and Mennonite sub-genre further romanticizes what non-Amish and non-Mennonite authors portray as pre-modern (or even anti-modern) lifestyles. In these novels, there is little technology, an emphasis on agrarianism and homesteading, and hardly any physical contact among potential couples.

As one reviewer who grew up Amish puts it, at times it feels like romance writers and readers “superimpose their values on the Amish.” In other words, many Christian romance novels offer feel-good fantasies about an imagined past. This fantasy has little basis in how women — especially women of colour and Indigenous women — experienced those historical periods.

Like the social media accounts of trad wives, the sub-genre focuses on the aesthetics of a lifestyle rather than the very real legal, domestic, financial and racial implications of that life for women.

Marketing romance — and tradition

Romance fiction is often mocked as not being “serious” literature, but romance writers or readers are not necessarily passive or ignorant. Readers consume romances for a vast array of complex reasons, their faith or their relationships to romantic partners being only part of the mix.

However, the Christian romance genre is a publishing and marketing phenomenon, one that has sold millions upon millions of copies across North America alone. These romance novels are sold not just in niche Christian bookstores but in big box stores — even grocery store check-outs.

As Historian Daniel Silliman notes, the romance fiction genre was part of a larger Christian publishing boom that began in the 1950s in the United States. Fiction became an integral part of evangelical identity and an imagined community. It also played a crucial role in how evangelicals engaged with broader theological, cultural and political currents, though scholars question whether fiction shaped or reflected this engagement.

Their concerns about cultural change — be it sexual, demographic, or otherwise — influence their fiction. Literature and religion professor Christopher Douglas makes the crucial point that evangelical Christians don’t just “get their knowledge primarily through fact sheets or decontextualized data, but rather through the power of narrative.”

Christian romance fiction may not have caused the current iteration of trad wives, but its highly visible place in popular culture deserves greater scrutiny. These romance stories have contributed to ideas of westernized femininity that are notably white and decidedly constraining. They also provide romanticized visions of the past that lay a fictional groundwork for the appeal, and wide acceptance, that trad wives now enjoy on social media. Läs mer…

One in every 100 deaths globally is by suicide. Each year, more than 700,000 people die by suicide. A staggering 77% of suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, with the African region bearing the highest burden at a rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 people. In Kenya, the crude suicide rate is 6.1 deaths per 100,000 people. Men are three times more likely to die by suicide than women. Linnet Ongeri is a psychiatrist and a mental health researcher with a focus on suicide prevention. She examines the factors behind Kenya’s suicide rate and recent efforts to decriminalise attempted suicide.

What are the drivers of suicide?

Suicide is a complex issue. It results from the interplay of various factors, including genetic, biological, psychological, socioeconomic and cultural influences.

There is a strong link between suicide and mental health disorders. However, many suicides occur impulsively during moments of crisis or in response to significant life challenges. These challenges often involve the denial of basic human rights and access to resources. They could also be brought on by stressful events like a loss of livelihood, academic or work-related pressures, relationship breakdowns and other life crises.

Stigmatising views portray suicide as a sign of weakness or failure, rather than a result of deep emotional distress or mental health challenges. Suicide stigma refers to the negative attitudes, beliefs and misconceptions that surround individuals who experience suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide. This stigma often manifests as judgment, shame or social exclusion. This makes it difficult for people to openly discuss their struggles or seek help.

Societal stigma isolates individuals and creates barriers to accessing mental health support. This further compounds the risk of suicide.

What role does the criminalisation of suicide play?

The relationship between stigma and the criminalisation of suicide is especially concerning.

In Kenya, Section 226 of the penal code states that any person who tries to kill him or herself is guilty of a misdemeanour. He or she is liable to imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both. This law, inherited from the English common law, has been repealed in several countries globally.

Suicide was criminalised under British law prior to the 1960s largely due to historical and religious beliefs. These beliefs viewed suicide as a moral transgression and influenced legal systems. In 1961, efforts to decriminalise suicide gained global momentum following growing recognition of the link to mental health. Of the 20 countries that still criminalise attempted suicide, nine are in Africa.

Even though the law is aimed at deterring people from taking their own lives, there is local and international evidence that criminalisation of attempted suicide increases suicide risk. Treating survivors of suicide as criminals worsens the stigma that surrounds mental health. This impedes them from seeking help and support.

The threat of legal sanctions for a suicide survivor, who is already experiencing severe mental anguish and emotional distress, can have serious negative repercussions. Punitive measures can worsen an individual’s mental health, increase their sense of isolation and make them more vulnerable. This heightens the risk of suicidal behaviour.

Further, criminalisation of suicide impedes accurate data collection and prevention-related interventions. A clearer understanding of who is affected and why is critical for designing context-specific prevention strategies that use limited resources effectively.

Kenya has made progress in developing a national suicide prevention strategy. However, several of its proposed interventions are at odds with the existing legal framework.

This legal incompatibility hinders the government and healthcare providers from carrying out the strategy.

Why is decriminalising suicide important?

Decriminalising suicide safeguards individuals’ right to health by enabling them to seek care and support during times of crisis.

It helps shift the narrative from treating attempted suicide as a criminal act to recognising it as a mental health crisis. This reduces stigma and encourages open discussions about mental health. Healthcare providers can focus on offering treatment rather than involving law enforcement. It also allows survivors to get help without fear of legal consequences or discrimination.

Both the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan aim to reduce the global suicide rate by one-third by 2030.

As a WHO member state, Kenya is committed to achieving this target. Kenya’s suicide prevention strategy aims to reduce suicide deaths by 10% by 2026.

What’s being done to decriminalise attempted suicide in Kenya?

A 2020 report from a national task force on mental health emphasised the need to decriminalise attempted suicide. It also called for a national suicide registry to improve access to mental healthcare, suicide crisis support, and data on suicide and suicidal attempts. These recommendations would support the country’s suicide prevention strategy.

In 2022, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights filed a constitutional petition to repeal Section 226 of the penal code, deeming it unconstitutional. The petition argues that the current law violates the rights of individuals living with mental health conditions. A final judgment on this case is expected in November 2024. It would be a crucial step towards aligning Kenya’s legal framework with mental health advocacy and human rights.

In August 2024, Lukoye Atwoli, an associate director of the Brain and Mind Institute at Kenya’s Aga Khan University, launched a petition with the national assembly calling for the decriminalisation of attempted suicide.

These efforts reflect a growing recognition of the need to address suicide as a public health issue rather than a criminal offence.

What needs to happen next?

Lessons from countries like Ghana and Pakistan, which recently decriminalised suicide, emphasise the need for continued advocacy and awareness.

A key next step is to develop an awareness programme to ensure that the shift in law (when it does happen) is accompanied by meaningful changes in practice.

This programme should focus on training first responders – including police officers, emergency healthcare providers, mental health professionals and peer supporters – who interact with individuals at risk of suicide. Proper training will equip them with the skills to offer compassionate support, timely intervention and appropriate care. This would help ensure decriminalisation efforts translate into tangible improvements in suicide prevention and mental health care. Läs mer…

Each day we make thousands of decisions, starting with what to have for breakfast and what to wear. We make so many decisions that we don’t keep count.

But it’s important to understand the way we make choices. This is because the approach we take can influence our mental health.

Over the last eight years, I’ve been researching how young people (15-25) make decisions – especially decisions that have an impact on their mental health. Mental health is a major health and social concern, shaping the lives of young people globally.

In a recent study, I looked at whether decision-making styles contribute to anxiety and depression among young adults in South Africa.

One style of making decisions is to evaluate all the possible options and choose the one that would lead to the best outcome. This is called vigilant decision-making.

The second approach is to make “rushed” decisions, or to put off making a decision.

I found that vigilant decision makers typically had lower anxiety and depression symptoms. Young adults who put off or rushed their decisions had more anxiety and depression symptoms.

In the total study group, 37.3% were at risk of a diagnosis for major depressive disorder and 74.2% were at risk for anxiety disorder. These risks were high because rushed or delayed decision makers made up a big share of the total group.

Understanding the impact of decision-making on mental health helps us recognise whether our choices support or undermine emotional well-being.

High stress levels

My research study included 1,411 young South Africans from eight of the country’s nine provinces. They each completed an online questionnaire which measured how they made decisions together with their levels of anxiety and depression symptoms. The types of questions asked included how they would rate statements such as “I like to consider all the alternatives” or “I put off making decisions”.

The young people in the study were in a stage of development called “emerging adulthood” – between the ages of 18 and 29. Young people in this age group experience high levels of stress and uncertainty, often because of their changing role in society. They are deciding which career path to follow or taking on more adult-like roles.

Participants in the study were at a stage of life when they could easily develop a disorder. Many mental health disorders start to develop by the age of 15. But it is estimated that by age 25 close to 63%-75% of mental health disorders would be present.

When a person has to make a decision, time plays a big role. It can influence whether the person uses a vigilant style or a rushed approach. And that approach, in turn, can reduce or create anxiety.

For example, if a young person needs to decide what contraceptive to use, and they have the time do a thorough search of all the possible contraceptive options and are optimistic about finding the best one, they can arrive at a decision which will be the best for them. The young person is able to evaluate all the possible options without any stress or concern about time.

But when a concern about time arises and it results in a more rushed decision, or when a decision is delayed for a later stage because of the pressure, it is likely to lead to an increase in anxiety and depression symptoms. The decision of what degree to pursue at university, while the deadline for applying is looming, is an example.

In the study, an advanced statistical analysis technique was used to look at the links between styles of decision-making and anxiety and depression symptoms. Using this analysis technique I was able to predict which of the styles of decision-making were linked with the anxiety and depression symptoms among the young people in the study.

Steps to take when making decisions

Having time on your side often allows for better choices. So it’s worth looking at some useful steps when making decisions:

Identify the problem or situation clearly.
Brainstorm all the possible solutions or options available.
Research the pros and cons of each solution or option.
Determine which of the solutions or options would result in the best outcome for you, based on the problem or situation.
Then, if you are still uncertain, you could consult someone you trust and who has made good decisions previously.

These five steps are similar to the vigilant decision-making style.

Looking forward

Globally, there is a gap in our understanding of mental health among young people. Studying how they make decisions allows researchers to better understand how their choices shape their mental health. It’s then possible to develop programmes that support decision-making that leads to positive mental health outcomes.

It’s even more important today, when big trends such as the impact of climate change and the (unsafe) digital world are affecting mental health. Läs mer…

Each day we make thousands of decisions, starting with what to have for breakfast and what to wear. We make so many decisions that we don’t keep count.

But it’s important to understand the way we make choices. This is because the approach we take can influence our mental health.

Over the last eight years, I’ve been researching how young people (15-25) make decisions – especially decisions that have an impact on their mental health. Mental health is a major health and social concern, shaping the lives of young people globally.

In a recent study, I looked at whether decision-making styles contribute to anxiety and depression among young adults in South Africa.

One style of making decisions is to evaluate all the possible options and choose the one that would lead to the best outcome. This is called vigilant decision-making.

The second approach is to make “rushed” decisions, or to put off making a decision.

I found that vigilant decision makers typically had lower anxiety and depression symptoms. Young adults who put off or rushed their decisions had more anxiety and depression symptoms.

In the total study group, 37.3% were at risk of a diagnosis for major depressive disorder and 74.2% were at risk for anxiety disorder. These risks were high because rushed or delayed decision makers made up a big share of the total group.

Understanding the impact of decision-making on mental health helps us recognise whether our choices support or undermine emotional well-being.

High stress levels

My research study included 1,411 young South Africans from eight of the country’s nine provinces. They each completed an online questionnaire which measured how they made decisions together with their levels of anxiety and depression symptoms. The types of questions asked included how they would rate statements such as “I like to consider all the alternatives” or “I put off making decisions”.

The young people in the study were in a stage of development called “emerging adulthood” – between the ages of 18 and 29. Young people in this age group experience high levels of stress and uncertainty, often because of their changing role in society. They are deciding which career path to follow or taking on more adult-like roles.

Participants in the study were at a stage of life when they could easily develop a disorder. Many mental health disorders start to develop by the age of 15. But it is estimated that by age 25 close to 63%-75% of mental health disorders would be present.

When a person has to make a decision, time plays a big role. It can influence whether the person uses a vigilant style or a rushed approach. And that approach, in turn, can reduce or create anxiety.

For example, if a young person needs to decide what contraceptive to use, and they have the time do a thorough search of all the possible contraceptive options and are optimistic about finding the best one, they can arrive at a decision which will be the best for them. The young person is able to evaluate all the possible options without any stress or concern about time.

But when a concern about time arises and it results in a more rushed decision, or when a decision is delayed for a later stage because of the pressure, it is likely to lead to an increase in anxiety and depression symptoms. The decision of what degree to pursue at university, while the deadline for applying is looming, is an example.

In the study, an advanced statistical analysis technique was used to look at the links between styles of decision-making and anxiety and depression symptoms. Using this analysis technique I was able to predict which of the styles of decision-making were linked with the anxiety and depression symptoms among the young people in the study.

Steps to take when making decisions

Having time on your side often allows for better choices. So it’s worth looking at some useful steps when making decisions:

Identify the problem or situation clearly.
Brainstorm all the possible solutions or options available.
Research the pros and cons of each solution or option.
Determine which of the solutions or options would result in the best outcome for you, based on the problem or situation.
Then, if you are still uncertain, you could consult someone you trust and who has made good decisions previously.

These five steps are similar to the vigilant decision-making style.

Looking forward

Globally, there is a gap in our understanding of mental health among young people. Studying how they make decisions allows researchers to better understand how their choices shape their mental health. It’s then possible to develop programmes that support decision-making that leads to positive mental health outcomes.

It’s even more important today, when big trends such as the impact of climate change and the (unsafe) digital world are affecting mental health. Läs mer…