The pesticide Cruiser SB has the potential to kill off populations of bees. Photograph: Creative Touch Imaging Ltd/NurPhoto/Rex/Shutterstock
Emergency use of Cruiser SB, a neonicotinoid pesticide highly toxic to bees, to be outlawed in UK in line with EU
Bee-killing pesticides have been banned for emergency use in the UK for the first time in five years after the government rejected an application from the National Farmers’ Union and British Sugar.
The neonicotinoid pesticide Cruiser SB, which is used on sugar beet, is highly toxic to bees and has the potential to kill off populations of the insect. It is banned in the EU but the UK has provisionally agreed to its emergency use every year since leaving the bloc. It combats a plant disease known as virus yellows by killing the aphid that spreads it.
Prof Dave Goulson, a bee expert at the University of Sussex, has warned that one teaspoon of the chemical is enough to kill 1.25bn honeybees. Even at non-fatal doses it can cause cognitive problems that make it hard for bees to forage for nectar and the chemicals can stay in the soil for years.
The previous Conservative government repeatedly agreed to its use against the advice of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Expert Committee on Pesticides.
This year, ministers say they are refusing the application based on “robust assessments of environmental, health and economic risks and benefits, and advice from Defra’s chief scientific adviser, its economists, the Health and Safety Executive and the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides”.
The 2024 general election was the first in the UK’s history to be run under a system of voter ID. When heading to the polling station, people could only vote if they proved their identity first. This was the result of a law brought in in 2023 and that had already applied to local elections in England that year.
Using data from the British Election Study, we tracked people eligible to vote between 2023 and 2024 and found that 5% of people eligible to vote – nearly 2 million people – didn’t own any recognised voter identification. This lack of ID was concentrated among poorer and less educated voters.
Of course, lacking photographic ID is not necessarily a permanent state. Some people will have been in the process of renewing passports and driving licences during this period. All of these people would also have been eligible for a voter authority certificate, a form of identification brought in with the new law – although we found take up of these was low.
We found that around 0.5% of all voters reported being turned away at polling stations as a result of lacking ID in the local elections of 2023. We also found that four times as many people (around 2%) reported not voting because they knew they didn’t have the right ID.
The equivalent figures were slightly lower at the general election of 2024, but a meaningful contingent still did not participate. Around 1.3% of electors – or over half a million people – were turned away or didn’t show up at all because of voter identification requirements.
While administrative records can provide accurate numbers about how many people were turned away at the polling station, they tell us little about people who were discouraged from even trying to vote because they didn’t have the right ID. So it is clear from our analysis that the impact of voter ID on turnout is likely larger than previous estimates based on polling station returns.
The general election was the first time ID was mandatory across the country. Alamy
Who benefits?
We also found that the Conservatives were more likely to benefit from the voter ID law than other parties.
This is not surprising when we consider demographic factors. As our research shows, Conservative voters are more likely to own ID, because they are more likely to be older and more affluent. Despite changes in social patterns of party support since the 2016 Brexit referendum, this pattern still holds true.
The types of identification which are allowed under the new law – and especially the decision to allow older people but not younger people to use travel passes – exacerbates these differences.
Who didn’t have ID?
Percentage of party supporters (general election vote intention) without photo ID, May 2023 (lighter column) and 2024 (darker column) British Election Study, CC BY-ND
The chart above shows the percentage lacking photo ID by general election vote intention, as measured in May 2023 (lighter bars) and May 2024 (shaded bars), shortly before the general election was called.
In 2024, only 2.4% of Conservative supporters were likely to not have photo ID, while 3.8% of Labour supporters and 4.1% of Reform supporters were lacking.
One notable difference is an increase in Liberal Democrats and non-voters with no photo identification in 2024, although this is almost entirely due to a change in the number of people supporting the Liberal Democrats or deciding not to vote rather than changes in people’s actual ownership of ID.
Liberal Democrat voters had the lowest proportion of supporters without voter ID in 2023 (1.3%), but in 2024, the Liberal Democrat rate exceeded that of the Conservatives (2.9%).
There are still opportunities to mitigate the risks posed by voter ID. Ahead of the next election the new government should extend the forms of identification allowed (especially for those younger than state pension age).
Improving public awareness around the law and the availability of voter authority certificates is another important step. There are also suggestions that a system of allowing people to vouch for others who don’t have voter ID would be an option.
In an electorate of 49 million, if almost two million aren’t able to vote because they don’t have the right ID, there is a problem. Those interested in building trust in our democracy should consider not only minimising electoral fraud but reducing this number by as much as possible.
A pro-Palestinian protester holds a placard accusing U.S. President Joe Biden, former U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of war crimes at a demonstration against Israeli attacks on Gaza in central London, U.K. (Photo: Andy Soloman/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
In less than a year, more than a dozen U.S. officials publicly resigned in protest of Biden’s policy on Israel-Palestine. I was one of them.
Every so often, countless young hopefuls arrive in Washington, D.C., eager to help implement policies that improve the lives of Americans. But some quickly come to find out that U.S. imperialism bleeds into all areas of policy, it impacts all facets of government directly or indirectly, and sometimes at the expense of Americans in need. That was my rude awakening, at least.
I was one of those young hopefuls, and two years later, I publicly resigned from my post as a political appointee in the Biden-Harris administration because the cost of U.S. imperialism occupied every one of my thoughts. I felt I strayed away from my goal of pursuing justice through policy every time I thought about the cost of funding destruction and death in Palestine at the expense of us Americans, roughly half of whom are struggling to afford food, clothing, and housing.
And I am not the only one who resigned under President Joe Biden. In less than a year, more than a dozen U.S. officials publicly resigned in protest of Biden’s policy on Israel-Palestine, and many others left quietly. This level of dissent within the realm of government is unheard of and it can be characterized as a fight against imperialistic policy.
If, in his final days, Biden strayed away from the norm far enough to pardon his own son, exemplifying the instinct we have to protect our family and keep them safe, he should have known of the hypocrisy in enabling the orphaning and killing of children in Palestine.
The imperialistic features of our government disillusion passionate people, it turns them away from a life of public service. It is difficult to stay motivated while seeing the military spending in our country grow astronomically by the year while education and transportation face steep budget cuts. Americans do not get to see the benefits of high military spending materialized, but they would directly benefit from sufficiently funded schools and public transportation. And imperialism only succeeds abroad in ruining the United States’ reputation, casting it as a force wreaking havoc in the Global South. So, when I think about the United States’ role in supporting Israel’s aggression in Palestine, I wonder what it is all for in the grand scheme of bettering the lives of Americans.
If the administration’s insistence on supporting Israel no matter the cost was about maintaining the status quo, something the Biden-Harris administration had no trouble straying away from in other cases, then it was both a failed and hypocritical policy. Biden did not mind the status quo when he chose a woman as a vice president in a historic first or when he nominated the first Black female Supreme Court Justice. One can argue those steps were superficial, but regardless, they signaled progress to some. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the same administration that took those steps tarnished their legacy when they, time and time again, failed Palestine on a catastrophic level.
My generation and community will remember this administration for one thing: genocide. It will go down in history as the administration that could not stray away from the status quo on Israel-Palestine policy at the expense of Americans in need, the lives of American activists like Ayşenur Eygi, and the safety of Arab and Muslim Americans. Not to mention, the Biden-Harris administration and Democratic Party leadership at large sacrificed the 2024 presidential election and Democratic voters in the process when they refused to campaign differently on Palestine.
As the Biden-Harris administration departs, their legacy is being immortalized. The hundreds of thousands of Americans who have advocated for a change in policy since October 2023 can argue that the legacy of the administration becoming stained permanently was avoidable.
If, in his final days, Biden strayed away from the norm far enough to pardon his own son, exemplifying the instinct we have to protect our family and keep them safe, he should have known of the hypocrisy in enabling the orphaning and killing of children in Palestine. If he was able to use his authority for good to commute the sentences of 37 prisoners on federal death row, he should have known to uphold the law and ensure Israel is not receiving an endless supply of weapons illegally. What may be worse than ignorant leaders are ones who are aware and indifferent, willingly complicit, and that may very well be the Biden administration’s legacy.
Some updates have been made throughout this piece at the author’s request.
A meeting of the child poverty taskforce. From left to right: Mayor of the North East Kim McGuinness, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall and education secretary Bridget Phillippson. Image: Department for Education/ Flickr
Tory ministers presented reforms to disability benefits as a way to support disabled people into work – and they would have seen many worse off by at least £416.19 per month
The Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) consultation into plans to slash billions of pounds from disability benefits has been ruled unlawful in a damning High Court judgement.
In a judgment published this morning (16 January), Mr Justice Calver said that the judicial review, brought by disability activist Ellen Clifford, had “surmounted the substantial hurdle of establishing that the consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful”.
Repeatedly describing the DWP consultation in autumn 2023 as “misleading”, “rushed” and “unfair”, he said:
• The consultation documents failed to highlight the “substantial” loss of benefits facing those affected by the proposals.
• The consultation gave the “misleading impression” that changes were required to ensure deaf and disabled people could access employment support, when they could already choose to access this voluntarily.
• Despite the consultation presenting the changes as being solely about helping disabled people into work, in reality “costs savings was at least one of the two bases, if not the central basis, on which decisions would be taken on which policies would be taken forward by the government”.
• The eight-week consultation was unlawfully short in the circumstances.
For more than 500 years, no lynx had roamed the British countryside. That changed with the recent release of four of these large cats in the Cairngorm mountains of Scotland.
This was an action that is widely assumed to be linked to attempts to reintroduce species that had been wiped out in Britain, as part of a wider rewilding movement. Supporters of these reintroductions typically want to atone for past extinctions, and want to create richer, more dynamic ecosystems.
The lynx were soon recaptured, with one dying shortly after. For now, foxes and badgers remain Britain’s largest predatory mammals.
While many conservation organisations are working with the authorities to bring back species, from microscopic fungi to half-tonne bison, some people are reintroducing them without seeking guidance or approval. In fact, such illicit and unregulated reintroductions are surprisingly common.
Illicit beaver populations have sprung up across Europe, from southern Italy and Spain to Wales, Scotland and England. The phenomenon is so widespread it is referred to as “beaver bombing”, now matched by “boar bombing” in Scotland and across southern England.
In Britain, there have also been illicit reintroductions of smaller mammals, as well as insects and wildflowers that are much easier and cheaper to obtain, transport and release. Wildflower seeds and butterfly pupae or eggs can be easily bought online and delivered to your door, then let loose during a nice country walk.
Transforming political debates
Illicit and unregulated reintroductions matter. They can lead to new populations of previously missing species – there are over a thousand beavers living in the Tayside region of Scotland, for instance, widely thought to descend from beavers deliberately, and illegally, released in the early 2000s. In England, the New Forest population of pine martens are similarly thought to originate from illegal releases in the early 1990s.
Beavers were reintroduced in Scotland deliberately and illegally. Digital Wildlife Scotland / shutterstock
This can transform political debates. While there were proposals to reintroduce beavers as an experiment before the illicit Tayside reintroduction, self-sustaining populations increased political and public support for more widespread, approved releases. The presence of wild beavers in Scotland changed what was a theoretical notion of having beavers into something more tangible that the public could relate to, and it forced decision makers to address the issue rather than avoid it.
Illicit and unregulated reintroductions can be controversial. Farmers and other land managers do not always take kindly to new species popping up on their land without warning or consultation. In Tayside, beavers have been killed by farmers who were angry at the damage caused to their properties by dams and burrows.
All this sheds light on important differences among conservationists. As these reintroductions are illicit, it is difficult to have clear understanding of who is behind them, and why. We are aware of only one case – of beavers in Belgium – where an illicit reintroducer has been publicly identified and prosecuted. But they reflect a frustration with official reintroduction processes and regulations, seen by some as too slow, bureaucratic and risk averse.
Lynx have been successfully (and officially) reintroduced in many of their original habitats across Europe. Ondrej Prosicky / shutterstock
Opinions within conservation range from seeing illicit reintroductions as reckless and harmful to lauding them as heroic, game-changing acts. This reflects real disagreements on what species belong in a given country, and how reintroductions should be done. Releasing animals and plant material is considered a major biosecurity risk by some, whereas others see this as overstated.
There are also concerns about genetic contamination. While regulations and recommendations say that animals and plants for release should be a close genetic match for those which existed in a place previously, to ensure that they are best suited to the conditions, other conservationists say this is a pedantic irrelevance given climate and other environmental changes.
Many conservationists also worry about whether released animals are able to cope with the shift from life in captivity. Given that lynx in the wild are extremely shy, the ease by which the Cairngorms foursome were captured shows they were too tame to survive in Scottish woods.
Likewise, the black-veined white butterflies that have appeared in the past few years in south-east England, the first UK sightings in a century, probably came from unlicensed releases, but are thought unlikely to breed and survive. Yet, the thriving beaver and pine marten populations show this is not always an issue.
Coexistence is difficult
Predators like lynx are the most contentious reintroductions, because they are big enough to target livestock and scare humans. Coexistence between people and predators is difficult, involving careful strategies to minimise harm and create trusting relationships. Of all the different ways a predator might come back to an area – natural colonisation, a planned reintroduction or an illicit release – the last is most contentious because such relationships and strategies are missing.
In remote hills and forests across Europe, people have learned to live with lynx. Jens Otte / shutterstock
That’s why existing campaigns to reintroduce lynx to Scotland are strongly condemning the Cairngorms release. They see it as undermining their work to carefully build bridges with farmers. Judging by reactions of land managers to illicit beaver releases in Scotland, it may also generate opposition to any kind of reintroduction. By feeding into narratives of “arrogant” conservationists, it might undermine support, especially in rural communities that may one day have to live with reintroduced lynx.
If conservationists want to see a free-living, healthy and self-sustaining population of lynx, they’ll need to build careful relationships with local people and other interest groups. They’ll need to put forward a clear idea of how to live successfully alongside lynx, and what to do when either people or lynx overstep the mark. Illicit reintroductions are unlikely to get us there.
