No wonder Jim Chalmers was anxious to use every opportunity on Sunday to weigh in on the Liberals’ “bloodbath” in Farrer.

It was extremely good news for a treasurer who is having to explain a budget in which key election promises on taxes will be broken.

The Liberals’ utter disaster provides an ideal “look at them” opportunity for the government to capitalise on.

When Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson appeared on the ABC for a pre-budget interview on Sunday, he was inevitably peppered with questions about One Nation.

Were the Liberals right or wrong to preference One Nation in over independent Michelle Milthorpe? “Well it was a call that was made and it’s obviously one that you know has delivered a result”, Wilson said, although he went on to argue that another course wouldn’t have made any difference – many people did their own thing with their preferences.

The truth is the horse bolted some time ago in the internal Liberal argument about whether they should or should not preference One Nation. They will do so when they feel it’s to their advantage. For most (albeit not all) Liberals, preferencing One Nation has become a matter of pragmatism rather than morality.

On pragmatic grounds there would have been a case to help Milthorpe rather than One Nation, but the Liberals would have faced a revolt from supporters and didn’t seem galvanised by the dangers of platforming the surging party.

If the Liberals had preferenced Milthorpe, she would have done better but still not won.

Wilson was also pressed on whether he was “open to forming any sort of minority government with One Nation MPs”.

Now that the preference question is no longer a beach head, this issue – despite being one for the distant horizon – will dog the Coalition from now on. It is a sort of reprise of the questions Labor MPs used to face about whether they’d be willing to form government with the Greens.

Wilson’s position was confusing. “My objective is to make sure that the Liberal Party is in a position to govern as strongly as possible. Of course we traditionally form a coalition with the National Party, but it’s up to the Australian people to decide who they want to vote for. But I can tell you quite clearly my objective is to make sure that Liberals beat One Nation candidates.”

The Liberals not only don’t know what they themselves stand for – unsurprisingly, they now don’t know the answer to the related question of how closely, when it came to the point, they’d be willing to embrace One Nation.

Some voters won’t care about the answer to that question. But others, especially in urban areas, will demand to know.

Back at Tuesday’s budget, Chalmers was attempting to mimic escape artist Houdini as he tried to avoid being burned by the fire of broken promises.

His explanation, reiterated in his Sunday Sky News interview, went like this. Before the election the government’s housing policy was focused laser-like on supply. But he had increasingly come to the view “we need to go beyond supply” although supply remained “the main game”.

Given the election was just a year ago, it’s hard to see how this line is credible. Moreover, the perception last term was Chalmers was interested in pursuing changes to negative gearing at some stage, reinforced by the fact that he had treasury undertake some modelling.

It will be even more telling to hear, post-budget, how the prime minister squares his old and new positions on tax changes. But he will be confident he can ride out the politics of the U-turn. After all, he has a huge majority and haven’t critics been calling for him to be bolder and spend political capital?

Of course there is a recent precedent for a budget of broken promises and ambitious reform doing massive harm to a government with a thumping majority – the Abbott-Hockey budget of 2014.

But we are unlikely to see such an outcome from Tuesday’s budget. Politically, Albanese and Chalmers are cleverer than Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey were. The government will lose some paint for breaking its word, but the budget will go out of its way to keep the chassis in solid shape.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In the grasslands and highlands of western Cameroon, some animals are believed to be sacred. Within the region’s indigenous kingdoms (fondoms), many of these animals are also considered to be royal. They include wild cats (like cheetahs, leopards, lions, tigers), buffaloes, elephants, porcupines, cowries (sea snails), and a brightly coloured bird called the Bannerman’s turaco.

These species carry deep cultural and spiritual significance. They are, for example, often used to decorate royals (kings, queens and queen mothers) or to award royal distinctions to deserving individuals. Their body parts can be used to make crowns, bedding, footstools, bangles or necklaces for royalty. Red feathers from the Bannerman’s turaco are used to distinguish warriors and hunters.

Here, indigenous cultural practices can both sustain and decimate biodiversity. The names of some of these animals, especially wild cats, are used as praise names for kings. But custom dictates that when these animals are found, they must be killed and taken to the palace as a tribute.

Most are either locally extinct or critically endangered. Except for cowries and porcupines, all these animals are included on the red list of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Biodiversity loss caused by humans is accelerating at alarming rates around the world. This includes biodiversity hotspots like the Congo Basin in central Africa, which Cameroon is part of. Thousands of species have been identified in the basin, 30% of which are endemic (native).

Read more: Nuer people have a sacred connection to birds – it can guide conservation in Ethiopia and South Sudan

I am a scholar who works across disciplines. These include the arts, literature and cultural studies; environmental humanities; sustainability science; anticipatory governance and future generations; strategic foresight and futures studies.

In a recent study, I explored how literary creativity combined with foresight workshops might help change how people view these animals. Could they offer more hopeful futures for these unique species?

The role of literature

Literary texts like plays, poems and novels offer insights into dealing with climate and ecological challenges in the Congo Basin. (Even in the case of less popular but highly important species such as insects.)

This is the case in many works by anglophone Cameroonian authors, like Athanasius Nsahlai, Kenjo Jumbam, J.K. Bannavti, and John Nkengasong.

Read more: ‘A healthy earth may be ugly’: How literary art can help us value insect conservation

Their stories have the potential to warn against the destruction of royal and sacred animals. They can also help shape new visions for the future of biodiversity conservation.

I draw on postcolonial ecocriticism (the relationship between literature, culture, the environment and history) and narrative foresight (what stories can reveal about the future) in my study. I analyse how these books engage with royal and sacred animals in ways that challenge environmentally unfriendly cultural practices, and how they propose new forms of relations between humans and other animals.

Jumbam’s novella, Lukong and the Leopard, for instance, tells the story of a young man called Lukong. The son of an outcast from the Nso kingdom, he helps capture a lion. Surprisingly the king demands it be brought to his palace alive. Just as Lukong is to be decorated by the king, his father sneaks in. Fearing for his son’s life, he sets the lion free.

In a sense, the story challenges the old cultural practice of killing royal animals. It invites readers to change how they see and relate with these animals in order to protect them.

Workshops

Stories like this can then be taken into foresight workshop sessions. Narrative foresight meets group participation to create what is called participatory foresight. Participants and stakeholders from diverse backgrounds are brought together to explore future scenarios, the challenges that shape them and what can drive change.

As part of my research, I organised a day of participatory foresight workshops on #CongoBasinFutures and #RoyalAnimalsFutures in Yaoundé, Cameroon.

Over 30 participants across a range of ages, genders and interests were brought together. They included teachers, researchers, environmentalists, farmers, nurses, writers, filmmakers, musicians, journalists, students, civil society workers, policymakers, and indigenous kings (fons).

Using foresight tools, participants were asked to discuss motivations as well as historical barriers while envisioning more hopeful futures for royal and sacred animals. The workshops were designed to include literary narratives on the plight of these animals.

They drew on current trends and signals of change, like climate change, biodiversity loss and indigenous cultural practices. They imagined new futures and then collectively proposed several policy interventions that could be practical solutions.

Shaping better policies

Cameroon does have environmental laws aimed at protecting biodiversity, but they are not effectively implemented. My study – and our workshop – seeks to complement these laws and contribute to their effective use in practice. Ideas coming out of the workshop include:

• Creative arts and education should be used to help raise awareness about protecting royal animals and biodiversity. This could include programmes like our workshop, creative competitions and updating educational curricula.

• Instead of decorating those who kill, local hunters should be rewarded when they spot and report the presence of royal animals for monitoring and preservation. The use of artificial animal parts for traditional ceremonies should be encouraged.

• Policy should encourage research into the controlled breeding of endangered royal and sacred animals and the promotion of ecotourism around these animals. Special parks and reserves could combine arts and royal animals to attract tourists. Revenue could improve livelihoods, sustain cultures, and promote environmental conservation.

• Environmental regulation should be strengthened through collaboration with all stakeholders, including indigenous authorities and local communities. Hunting of certain animals could be regulated. Hunting seasons and quotas for certain species could be in place. Indigenous leaders and communities could be engaged to adapt and modernise cultural practices in an era of environmental collapse.

Read more: Literature from the Congo Basin offers ways to address the climate crisis

But we must move from recommendations into action. Otherwise, ideas from studies like this will remain good on paper only, like most environmental laws in Cameroon. If so, royal animals and other species will continue to be threatened by extinction.

Kenneth Nsah Mala receives funding from the University of Cologne (Germany), the British Council, and the School of International Futures (SOIF).

One Nation’s surge can no longer be seen as a blip or an aberration. As the results in the Farrer byelection showed, the right-wing populist party – which has been hovering on the fringes of Australian politics for 30 years – is now a serious electoral force.

While the byelection was considered likely to be a close contest between One Nation’s David Farley and independent Michelle Milthorpe, in the end voters delivered an easy win to Farley. His is the first One Nation victory in a federal House of Representatives seat.

Results on Sunday morning showed Farley attained 57.3% of the two-candidate preferred vote against Milthorpe’s 42.7%. Primary votes for One Nation surged from 6.6% in the 2025 election, to 39.4% as of Sunday morning. Milthorpe’s primary increased 20% to 28.4%, likely benefitting from Labor’s decision not to contest the byelection.

The increased support for One Nation was largely drawn from the previous Liberal vote. One Nation was also helped considerably by the Liberals opting to preference Farley over Milthorpe. Farley received approximately 60% of Coalition preferences. The Liberal total declined from the 43.4% primary achieved by Sussan Ley in 2025, to an anaemic 12.4% for new Liberal candidate Raissa Butkowski.

This outcome represents a dramatic collapse in Coalition support. But it also shows a huge surge in support for One Nation, which is now eyeing November’s Victorian state election and the next federal poll in 2028.

Dissatisfaction in the regions

Farrer is now the third strong result for One Nation in 2026, following the South Australian state election and the Nepean state byelection in Victoria. Each of these contests has seen high polling results for One Nation translate into real election results.

Farrer is centred around the inland City of Albury and surrounding agricultural areas in south-west New South Wales. Local issues that came to the fore throughout the campaign were funding for the Albury hospital, and the Albanese government’s increase of water buybacks, which have driven up costs for irrigators.

While these are not issues that resonate in metropolitan Australia, they are certainly felt in other regional and rural electorates. Combined with One Nation’s focus on cost of living and immigration, the party effectively harnessed voter dissatisfaction with long-term Coalition representation.

Coalition in deep water

Traditionally, byelections have been considered an opportunity for voters to deliver a “free kick” against sitting governments, without the prospect of changing the government. By this reading, the Farrer result could be understood as an opportunity for voters to express dissatisfaction with the establishment political parties, exacerbated by a cost of living crisis.

However, this result could also be read as more akin to the Aston 2023 and Wentworth 2018 byelections. In Aston, the Liberals lost a seat in Melbourne’s leafy eastern suburbs they had held since 1990. It also represented the first seat lost to an incumbent government in a byelection since 1921. Labor went on to hold the seat in the 2025 federal election, also gaining the seats of Deakin and Menzies in eastern Melbourne.

In Wentworth, Kerryn Phelps defeated the Liberals in a byelection caused by the resignation of Malcolm Turnbull. Wentworth went on to become the prototype for other independents – particularly the “Teals” – across northern Sydney. These socially progressive and fiscally moderate-conservative independents have since been successful in traditional moderate Liberal bastions such as Warringah, Mackellar and Bradfield.

The loss of Wentworth heralded a wave of losses for moderate Liberals in the inner city. This has left the Coalition mainly composed of rural and regional members. The Coalition’s existential task is to prevent the Farrer result from being replicated in similar seats and decimating its remaining conservative rural and regional base.

One Nation’s trajectory

This is a landmark result for One Nation. However, the party has had difficulty maintaining the loyalty of its elected members, both in the 1990s, and since 2016. For example, after its breakthrough in the Queensland 1998 state election, none of the 11 members the party elected remained in the organisation throughout the parliamentary term.

Throughout the Farrer campaign there were questions around Farley’s party loyalties. With a background in agribusiness, Farley had been affiliated with the Nationals. More contentious, however, was his involvement with the Labor party as recently as 2023, his consideration of an independent candidacy, and his endorsement of Milthorpe in 2025.

Farley also contradicted One Nation’s immigration policy on the campaign trail, stating net annual migration of approximately 306,000 per year was “probably not” too high. This is far beyond One Nation’s position of capping net migration at 130,000.

The Farrer result helps to solidify One Nation as a political force in rural and regional Australia. It may encourage Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce to contest lower house electorates rather than the Senate in the 2028 federal election. This could see One Nation become a party with explicit coalition bargaining power.

This exacerbates the Coalition’s dilemma in handling One Nation, with it seeming to open the door to potential future cooperation in government.

However, Labor also faces a challenge – with Joyce signalling its Western Sydney heartland as an electoral target and the beleaguered Allan government in Victoria facing an election in November.

Josh Sunman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Elections in England, Scotland and Wales have put further pressure on Sir Keir Starmer’s already troubled leadership of the United Kingdom’s Labour government.

These results are further evidence of significant trends in all liberal democracies – not least Australia.

First, they suggest the era of dominance by two major parties is coming to an end, if not already over. Support for the major parties is withering on the vine.

Second, the Greens have peeled young and Muslim voters from Labour, many of whom are dissatisfied with Starmer’s approach to the conflict in Gaza and its domestic spillovers.

Finally, nationalism had a good night. Scotland, Wales are all now governed by centre-left secessionist parties, albeit without majorities. The radical right populist Reform UK is ascendant in England.

Given the scale and significance of Labour’s losses, many will be tempted to push the eject button on Starmer’s leadership. An orderly transition to a new leader would be ideal for Labour.

However, the party will need a change of philosophy as much as a change of leader to overcome the deep structural problems facing all centrist parties in liberal democracies.

The fragmentation of Britain

Two voting blocs have solidified since Brexit: one is conservative; the other progressive.

However, there is significant contestation within these blocs. The progressive bloc is a coalition of urban, educated, younger voters and minorities (some of whom may be quite conservative on social issues).

Conversely, the right of British politics now exists in the “upside down” from the progressive side: these are older, less educated voters living in the shires.

Rarely do people from the two blocs meet in person, with the possible exception of Christmas dinner when inter-generational divides in political attitudes are given voice over roast beef/chestnut Wellington and Yorkshire pudding.

Importantly, the United Kingdom has shifted from a party system dominated by two main parties – Conservatives and Labour – into a multi-party system within a pluri-national polity. This makes governing more complex, and is partly the reason why Britain has become the “new Italy”, regularly ditching its leaders in a poll-driven attempt to address structural changes in British politics.

Labour and the Greens

In a similar result to the 2025 Australian election, the British Labour party won government in 2024 with a scoreline that flattered the victors. Labour won 411 out of 650 seats in the Westminster parliament; or 63% of the seats from 34% of the vote.

This has been described as a “loveless landslide”. True to form, Labour quickly set about alienating its own supporters, further weakening its already fragile electoral coalition. Admittedly, all centre-left governments tend to do this, but this alacrity with which this happened in Britain sets this Labour government apart.

The Greens have gained significant momentum over the past two years. Its membership has swelled, although many of these are disaffected Jeremy Corbyn supporters from the Labour left. How these newbies and older environmentalists will mix remains to be seen.

However, the Greens will be relishing some experience of local government to take with them into future elections.

The rise of Reform UK

Having suffered its worst ever election defeat in 2024, the venerable and adaptable Conservative Party has struggled to prevent its former voters – and many high profile politicians – from defecting to Reform UK.

Reform UK is now the ascendant right wing force in local government. It will take a lot of political momentum into the next UK-wide elections scheduled for 2029. It is not impossible that its high profile leader, Nigel Farage, may be the next UK prime minister.

The future of the United Kingdom

Labour lost Wales – where it had dominated for 100 years – to the notionally secessionist party, Plaid Cymru.

The Scottish National Party – similarly secessionist – defied political gravity to remain the largest party in Scotland for almost 20 years, even though Reform had its first major breakthrough into Scottish politics.

In England the picture was different: British nativism is ascendant in English politics. Hard-liners within Reform will be emboldened by seeming support for their anti-immigration policies.

The future of Sir Keir Starmer

All of this makes Starmer’s leadership more precarious than it was before (which was pretty shaky). There are several contenders to take Starmer’s place. Yet leaving aside how the electorate might take to yet another defenestration of a British prime minister, each prospective candidate is problematic in some way.

Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and so-called “King of the North” is not actually an MP; Angela Raynor has a potentially damaging tax investigation hanging over her head; Ed Miliband already lost an election as Labour leader in 2015; and Wes Streeting is not popular on the left of the party, or in his constituency for that matter, which he holds by a very slim margin.

Whoever becomes prime minister will have a difficult job on their hands. Reform is easy to determine but difficult to enact.

Major structural changes – such as building a new economy, or changing the first-past-the-post voting system – would be a good start, but will be far from easy. Voters will also need to be patient, but they will want to see evidence of the new direction that the insurgents are promising. Of course, there is no consensus either about what needs to change – more wind farms versus fewer immigrants – further complicating a fragmented political landscape.

But one result from the elections is clear: business-as-usual from the “grown-ups in the room” is not what this political moment requires.

Ben Wellings does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

One Nation’s smashing victory in Farrer fires up the insurgent party, and casts fresh doubts over the future of the Liberal Party.

The result could not be a more devastating rebuff for Liberal leader Angus Taylor, who has been found wanting after only months in the job. This puts him under even more pressure for next week’s budget reply.

The result will raise more doubts about whether, or for how long, Taylor will survive as leader, given Andrew Hastie, a political freelancer, waits in the wings.

Taylor said after the result, “For too long, we have been a party of convenience, not of conviction, and that must change”, and again defaulted to his immigration lines. He repeated his slogan, “If the vote sprays, Labor stays”. In Farrer, it was less a matter of spraying as deserting.

One might say deposed Liberal leader Sussan Ley extracted her ultimate revenge in triggering the byelection. Once she announced she was quitting the seat, it was always potentially bad news for her successor and her party.

Ley, overseas and invisible for the campaign, re-emerged on Saturday night with a statement rejecting the argument Taylor has been making about the impact of the Coalition bust ups. She also declared: “On the day the leadership spilled in February, the new leader said the Liberal Party needed to ‘change or die’. Three months later, the result in Farrer demonstrates that statement to be far truer today than it ever was then.”

The Liberal vote has collapsed to an extraordinary low. Last election Ley received a primary vote of about 43%. This time, on Saturday night’s numbers, the Liberals were polling about 12%.

The Liberals had a weak candidate in Raissa Butkowski. One reason was the local party was in no state to throw up a strong contender.

The Nationals, able to be in the field for the first time in a quarter of a century, were polling just behind the Liberals (about 10%) on Saturday night. Their leader Matt Canavan, in contrast to Taylor, was conspicuous by his presence in the campaign, figuratively and often literally camped in the electorate.

This is the first time One Nation has won a House of Representatives seat.

The result is a case study of the wider mood of disillusionment and anger in the Australian electorate. The “parties of government” are on the nose, and their situation will likely only get worse. Commentators were noting the comparison with the United Kingdom, where Labour was taking a towelling in local elections.

One Nation had a scratchy campaign towards the end, after revelations that its candidate, David Farley, had previously wanted to be a candidate for Labor and in the 2025 election embraced independent Michelle Milthorpe, his opponent at this election, as a “straight shooter”. He also had slip ups in his public comments.

The voters didn’t care. Their mood was sour; their eyes were on Pauline Hanson, who articulated their grievances.

The Farrer seat tells a tale of two electorates – Albury, the urban area and about a third of the voters where Milthorpe did extremely well in 2025, and the sprawling scattered areas of small towns and rural holdings.

Milthorpe, who has had a swing of about 8% to her, could not lift her vote to catch the One Nation surge, which had a swing to it of 34% (having polled under 7% last time). Labor’s decision not to contest the seat did not give Milthorpe the assistance that might have been expected.

Milthorpe’s primary vote is about 28% to Farley’s 40%. On a two candidate basis Farley leads Milthorpe about 59-41%.

A year ago the time suited Milthorpe, when Farrer voters wanted to give a slap to its Liberal MP. This year, the voters wanted to take an axe to the system.

One Nation’s victory in Farrer follows a successful result in South Australia, where the party snatched four lower house seats and three in the upper house.

On Saturday night Hanson was ecstatic, projecting the vote to a much wider success:

“This is a journey that we’re going to go on, that we are going to look forward to in the future and the people out there who may be watching this - we’re coming after those other seats. If they have not represented you, you are not going to be the forgotten people anymore”.

The Farrer triumph comes before the crucial Victorian poll in November. The state Liberals, despite retaining Nepean in last weekend’s byelection, will be unnerved by the Farrer result. Many regional areas appear to be for the taking, given Victorians’ desire to rid themselves of the Allan government but their apprehension about the Liberals’ state of unreadiness. One Nation will present a vehicle for a primal political scream.

Federal Labor knows that while One Nation is presently the Coalition’s problem, it could become Labor’s too. At the raucous One Nation function on Saturday night, Barnaby Joyce declared, “Western Sydney here we come”. It might be hubris of course, but if the community mood doesn’t change, some outer suburban Labor seats could become vulnerable.

Helen Haines, the community independent who holds the Victorian seat of Indi across the Murray from Farrer, declared the result was “the end of business as usual in Farrer”.

We might say it’s also the end of business as usual for the Liberal Party, whatever that will mean.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

One Nation has won the Farrer federal byelection – the first time the party has won an election for a federal House of Representatives seat. At the same time, the Liberal vote has crashed, with independent Michelle Milthorpe running second on Saturday night.

The byelection in the regional New South Wales seat was triggered by former Liberal leader Sussan Ley’s resignation. At the 2025 general election, Ley had defeated independent Michelle Milthorpe in Farrer by 56.2–43.8.

With 41% of enrolled voters counted for the byelection, The Poll Bludger’s results system is projecting that One Nation’s David Farley will defeat Milthorpe by 58.0–42.0 when all votes are counted.

Current primary votes are 42.3% Farley (up 35.1% on One Nation’s 2025 vote), 25.6% Milthorpe (up 7.0%), 11.2% Liberals (down 32.2%) 9.7% Nationals (new), 2.7% Legalisse Cannabis (new), 2.4% Greens (down 2.8%) and 2.0% Shooters (down 1.7%). Labor didn’t contest after winning 15.1% in 2025.

Projections for final primary votes are 41.7% Farley, 27.0% Milthorpe, 11.3% Liberals and 9.9% Nationals. The majority of preferences come from the Liberals and Nationals to One Nation, and Milthorpe’s preference share of 48.0% is higher than I expected given the unfavourable sources. But One Nation’s large lead on primary votes will give them an easy win after preferences.

National polls have recently had One Nation in second place on primary votes behind Labor and ahead of the Coalition. If these polls are accurate, One Nation should be winning seats like Farrer, which is rural and strongly conservative.

YouGov poll: Labor rebounds from slump in prior poll

A national YouGov poll for Sky News, conducted April 28 to May 5 from a sample presumably of 1,500, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (up three since the April 14–21 YouGov poll), One Nation 24% (down three), the Coalition 21% (up one), the Greens 14% (steady), independents 5% (steady) and others 6% (down one).

By respondent preferences, Labor led the Coalition by 54–46, a one-point gain for Labor. Labor led One Nation by a blowout 57–43, a five-point gain for Labor.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval was up five points to -14, with 54% dissatisfied and 40% satisfied. Angus Taylor’s net approval was up one point to -4 (42% dissatisfied, 38% satisfied). Albanese led Taylor as better PM by 45–36 (44–39 previously). He led Pauline Hanson by 54–35 (50–39).

Asked about their personal financial situation in the past three months, 47% of those polled said it was worse, 43% no change and just 7% better. On what Labor should prioritise in Tuesday’s budget, 36% selected budget savings, 33% energy subsidies or a fuel excise cut, 20% more social services and welfare and 11% income tax cuts.

Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted April 27 to May 3 from a sample of 1,681, gave Labor 29.5% of the primary vote (down 0.5 since the April 20–26 Morgan poll), the Coalition 24% (up 1.5), One Nation 21.5% (down one), the Greens 13% (down one) and all Others 12% (up one).

By respondent preferences, Labor led the Coalition by an unchanged 54.5–45.5. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led by 53–47, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

UK Labour’s dismal performance at Welsh, Scottish and English local elections

On Thursday, Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections and English local government elections occurred, which I covered for The Poll Bludger. Labour has dominated Wales since the first devolved election in 1999, but won just nine of 96 seats, with the left-wing nationalist Plaid Cymru taking 43 seats and the populist right Reform 34.

In Scotland, the left-wing nationalist SNP (58 of 129 seats) and the Greens (15 seats) combined retained a clear majority, with Labour tied for second with Reform on 17 seats.

In England, Labour has lost over 1,400 council seats, while Reform won over 1,400. The BBC’s Projected National Share that estimates a national vote share from council elections had Reform on 26%, the Greens 18%, Labour 17%, the Conservatives 17% and the Liberal Democrats 16%.

Updates on Tasmanian upper house elections

I covered the May 2 Tasmanian upper house elections for Huon and Rosevears last Monday. After postals were counted Thursday, a full distribution of preferences in Huon resulted in left-wing independent Clare Glade-Wright defeating conservative independent incumbent Dean Harriss by 52.5–47.5.

Primary votes were 30.8% Harriss, 27.5% Glade-Wright, 16.7% Labor, 15.0% Greens and 10.0% combined for two other independents.

In Rosevears, the electoral commission will wait until the final postal votes are received on Tuesday before commencing the distribution of preferences owing to a close margin between the bottom two candidates that could be affected by late postals. The Liberals are almost certain to retain.

Final SA upper house results

At the March 21 South Australian election, eleven of the 22 upper house seats were elected using statewide proportional representation with preferences. A quota for election was one-twelfth of the vote or 8.3%. Upper house members have eight-year terms with half elected every four years.

ABC election analyst Antony Green has analysis of the upper house result. Final primary votes gave Labor 4.41 quotas, One Nation 2.93, the Liberals 2.13, the Greens 1.22, Legalise Cannabis 0.28 and Family First 0.26.

The electronic distribution of preferences was finally conducted last Monday. As expected, Labor won five of the 11 seats (up one since 2018, the last time these seats were up), One Nation three (up three), the Liberals two (down two) and the Greens one (steady). SA-Best lost its two seats.

In the distribution of preferences, One Nation’s third candidate made a full quota, while Labor’s fifth was elected with 0.57 quotas. The Greens’ second surpassed both Legalise Cannabis and Family First, to be runner-up with 0.46 quotas.

Preferences beyond a “1” for an above the line group are entirely optional in the SA upper house. With the final seat decided between Labor and the Greens, right-wing voters were likely to exhaust their preferences.

In 2022, Labor won five seats, the Liberals four, the Greens one and One Nation one. One Nation’s winner at that election, Sarah Game, has defected. The upper house total is ten Labor out of 22, six Liberals, three One Nation, two Greens and Game. Labor and the Greens combined have 12 seats, a majority.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

After all the predictions, projections and polling permutations, Welsh Labour’s defeat has been confirmed.

In 1985, Welsh historian Gwyn Alf Williams described Labour majorities standing “like Aneurin Bevan’s memorial stones”. Forty years on, the stones have finally been eroded. On the worst day for the party in its history in Wales, even its leader, Eluned Morgan, lost her seat.

After more than a century as Wales’ dominant political force, the figures and symbols that once anchored Welsh Labour now lie broken.

The scale of the defeat is difficult to overstate. Losses in historic heartlands that have voted Labour consistently for more than a century represent a devastating indictment of a party that has long mistaken dominance for consent. This is not a routine electoral setback, but a collapse.

Short-term factors played their part. Welsh Labour’s decision to abandon its “standing up for Wales” rhetoric and attach itself to an unpopular Keir Starmer-led UK government led the party to surrender one of its strongest political identities.

Read more: Elections 2026: Experts react to the Reform surge and Labour losses

Furthermore, the short-lived, scandal-ridden leadership of Vaughan Gething, and an incumbency backlash among certain voters, contributed to Labour’s worst-ever Senedd result. But while these factors shaped the timing and scale of the loss, they cannot by themselves explain it.

This election marks a reckoning that has been coming for a while. After more than a century of political dominance, the myths and symbols that sustained Welsh Labour (and the idea that Labour is Wales, and Wales is Labour), have finally withered. The defeat reflects not simply a bad campaign or unpopular leaders, but a party that has run out of steam and ideas.

Since devolution, Welsh Labour has spoken the language of radical politics while failing to realise radical outcomes. Limited powers and constrained budgets are real obstacles, but they do not excuse the absence of political ambition from a party that has governed Wales uninterrupted for nearly three decades. Few parties in democratic systems have enjoyed such long-term dominance; Welsh Labour has failed to take advantage of it.

Longer-term decay

The electoral collapse reflects a deeper unwillingness to confront Wales’ long-term material decline. Across health, housing, education and the economy, rhetorical ambition has been undermined by narrow, managerial interventions. Child poverty remains entrenched, educational standards have declined and the NHS is under sustained pressure. Progressive language has failed to translate into material improvement.

In defending Wales against Tory austerity, Welsh Labour neglected the harder task of articulating what Wales could become and how devolved powers could be wielded effectively to improve people’s lives. The result has been a politics that speaks the language of progress while leaving the structures of inequality largely untouched.

Over time, this gap between promise and experience has eroded trust. In an era of weakening party attachment and fluid political identities, historical loyalty can no longer be relied upon. The continued invocation of figures such as Aneurin Bevan may still resonate within the party but beyond this, their power has faded. Nostalgia has become a liability, especially when it substitutes for critical reflection or ideological renewal. Welsh Labour came to mistake familiarity for consent.

The Senedd election result is not a rejection of progressive values, but of Labour’s symbolic performance of them. Many voters were not turning away from radical ambition when they voted for Plaid Cymru; they were seeking a party they believed could still embody it. Welsh politics has often been defined by its radical traditions – and progressive voters have put their faith in Plaid to inherit them.

One-party dominance insulated Welsh Labour from the pressures that force political renewal. When that dominance finally fractured, the party found itself unable to articulate an alternative sense of purpose.

The collapse, therefore, is not a sudden termination, but the culmination of a prolonged period of stagnation. The majorities once symbolised by Aneurin Bevan’s memorial stones have been gradually eroded, enduring for decades but now standing merely as reminders of a Labour legacy that no longer finds resonance in Wales.

Nye Davies does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The MV Hondius cruise ship, where a hantavirus outbreak began that killed three passengers and infected at least five others, left Cape Verde on May 6. It is due to arrive in Tenerife, in the Spanish Canary Islands, on May 9. From there, the evacuation of passengers, including some Canadians, is expected to begin on May 11.

The strain that caused the outbreak is the Andes virus, the only one in the hantavirus group that is transmissible between humans, notably through saliva droplets and urine.

It is unlikely that the first person infected with this hantavirus contracted it on board the MV Hondius or at a port of call. The incubation period suggests that infection occurred before the ship’s departure from Ushuaia, in southern Argentina, in early April. Several cruise passengers had travelled to Argentina and Chile, where the virus is endemic.

The risk posed by this hantavirus is “low” for “the rest of the world,” the World Health Organization (WHO) stated, which dismisses any similarity with the COVID-19 pandemic.

But what do we know about this hantavirus? We spoke to Professor Benoît Barbeau from the Department of Biological Sciences at the Université du Québec à Montréal. He is an expert in virology whose research focuses on human retroviruses and coronaviruses.

The Conversation Canada: What exactly is the Andean hantavirus?

Dr Benoît Barbeau: It belongs to a group of viruses classified under the genus Orthohantavirus. The Andean strain can occasionally be transmitted to humans by rodents (via particles in their feces or urine) and cause potentially fatal pulmonary syndromes.

What we understand, although we are not yet certain, is that a person may have visited places in Argentina where infected wild mice were present. After coming into contact with particles of feces or urine without realizing it, they may have inhaled these or any other similar material. This is the most likely scenario. This person is thought to have been infected before they boarded the ship. The infection of other passengers continued from there.

It is important to note that the Andean hantavirus is not highly transmissible between humans. Transmission occurs via urine, saliva or repeated contact, for example, on a ship, in the same cabin, with frequent contact. The virus is not transmitted via aerosols, like the flu or COVID. That is reassuring, at least.

TCC: It is not that easily transmitted, but it is far more deadly…

B.B.: Indeed. Hantaviruses cause two types of illness: a hemorrhagic fever, similar to that caused by Ebola, which has a high mortality rate (Editor’s note: up to 40 per cent), or a pulmonary syndrome, which is just as lethal. At present, there are no antiviral treatments. We can only alleviate the symptoms.

TCC: This virus is less effective at spreading, but its incubation period can be long…

B.B: Indeed, the incubation period can be up to eight weeks, compared to two to three days for COVID. This obviously complicates the chain of transmission. That said, the person will not be contagious during those eight weeks, but most likely will become more so when symptoms appear or just before.

TCC: Why is South America more affected by this form of hantavirus?

B.B.: We’re not entirely sure. In fact, generally speaking, we know very little about the virus, which was only identified in the late 1970s. So it is a relatively recent virus for us, even though we know that, throughout history, certain outbreaks may have been linked to it. It is present in several places (including Canada), but remains very rare. Since 1989, around 100 cases have been recorded in humans in Canada. Of these, about 20 have died. That said, other people may have been infected but the cases weren’t recorded.

What we do know is that the deer mouse is the main source of infection. It can carry the virus but is more resistant to the infection, so it does not become ill, which makes the risk of transmission higher. It acts as a reservoir, much like the bat does for several viruses, such as Ebola, coronaviruses and the rabies virus.

TCC: Will this current, highly publicized outbreak spur further research?

B.B.: Possibly… we hope it will prompt governments to pay attention to it. It would be in our interest to investigate further. But more funding is directed towards research into viruses that have the greatest impact on a country and its population. And since the majority of hantaviruses are not transmissible from human to human, there is not much incentive for governments to invest in research.

Putting energy and money into developing a vaccine might not be the best approach for that matter, since a vaccine effective against the Andean type, for example, would very likely be ineffective against other hantaviruses, and there are many of them. That adds to the complexity. It’s better to invest in treatments; that’s more effective. We could start by repurposing or testing other known antivirals.

TCC: What can we expect next?

B.B.: It all depends on the findings of the epidemiological investigations. Some passengers left the cruise ship before it was known there was an outbreak. We need to trace them, and the people they have been in contact with. The transfer of passengers still on board the ship is due to take place in the coming days from the Canary Islands. People will then be repatriated to their respective countries. They will be isolated and confined under measures that will certainly be strict, so there is no risk of transmission within the general population.

I believe we can be confident. But we must remain very vigilant.

Benoit Barbeau ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

For decades, Antarctica seemed to defy global warming. Since satellites began monitoring the poles in the late 1970s, the seasonal growth and retreat of Antarctic sea ice – frozen seawater that expands around the continent each winter – appeared remarkably resilient. It was often described as the “heartbeat of the planet”.

Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice declined rapidly as the planet warmed, Antarctic sea ice showed little overall loss. It even expanded between 2007 and 2015. But that resilience has now broken.

Since 2015, Antarctic sea ice has declined sharply. In 2023, winter sea ice extent fell to record lows — so far below the long-term average that scientists considered it an event with roughly a one-in-3.5-million probability of occurring by chance.

Antarctica was long considered a part of the climate system expected to change slowly. The speed of the recent sea ice decline has therefore come as a shock.

Scientists did expect Antarctic sea ice to shrink as the planet warmed, but not this quickly. The downturn over the past decade was not predicted by the climate models used to understand how the continent responds to warming. This makes the recent decline especially concerning: it suggests things may be unfolding faster, or in different ways, than our models can fully capture.

This matters because sea ice reflects sunlight back into space and helps drive ocean currents that lock away heat and carbon deep underwater. Its decline will have consequences for the climate and for Antarctica’s unique ecosystems that rely on it.

A fundamental shift

In our new scientific study, we show that the ocean around Antarctica has undergone a fundamental shift. Heat that had been trapped deep below the surface is now rising upwards, where it can melt sea ice.

The chain of events that triggered this change began decades ago. Around Antarctica, winds strengthened as a result of the ozone hole and greenhouse gas emissions. These stronger winds acted like a pump, gradually drawing warm, salty deep water closer to the surface.

For years, the sea around Antarctica – the Southern Ocean – was strongly layered, with cold fresh water sitting on top of warmer, saltier water below. That layering stopped the heat from reaching the surface.

But eventually the barrier weakened. By 2015, warmer deep water had risen close enough to the surface for storms and strong winds to churn it upwards.

The waters around Antarctica have since become trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle. Rising deep water brings heat and salt to the surface. The heat melts sea ice, while the extra salt makes the surface waters denser and easier to mix with warmer waters below. That allows even more heat to rise upwards, making it harder for new sea ice to form, and so on.

The consequences are not only physical. Antarctic sea ice supports one of the world’s most distinctive ecosystems. Algae grow on and under the ice, feeding krill, which in turn sustain penguins, seals, whales and seabirds. Low sea ice has already been linked to mass drowning of emperor penguin chicks – putting the entire species at risk. A long-term shift to lower sea ice cover would therefore reshape not only the climate itself, but also the living Southern Ocean.

This is not just a regional story. Antarctic sea ice acts like a mirror, reflecting sunlight and helping keep the planet cool. As it shrinks, more heat is absorbed by the ocean. At the same time, changes in the Southern Ocean circulation could reduce the ocean’s ability to store heat and carbon.

In the past, Antarctica helped buffer global warming. Our results suggest it may now be shifting in the opposite direction.

Whether this marks a permanent change remains uncertain. But if low sea ice conditions persist, the Southern Ocean could start to accelerate global warming rather than limit it.

Aditya Narayanan received funding from the NERC DeCAdeS project (NE/T012714/1).

Alessandro Silvano receives funding from NERC (NE/V014285/1).

Alberto Naveira Garabato does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

I recently lost one of my cocker spaniels, Bobbi. She was fit, healthy and active, but had a catastrophic diagnosis of oral melanoma two months before I had to make the decision that anyone with deeply loved pets dreads.

It is easy to presume that only humans have a true concept of death and what it means. However, death is universal in biology and many animals experience death within their social groups, and even as an intrinsic part of meeting their nutritional needs.

After Bobbi’s initial diagnosis, I entered a state of anticipatory grief. This is where there is rehearsal and awareness of the emotions associated with the death of a loved one.

I was reassured that Bobbi was largely unaware of her situation and what it meant. She still ran, played, carried sticks (her favourite walk activity), barked as I joined video calls and acted as the “fun police” with my other spaniels, keeping them firmly in check.

But I found myself trying to negotiate how to manage my other dogs and their emotional states. This got me wondering and exploring how animals experience death and what their behaviour around death can tell us. After all, we are simply one species trying to understand how another species experiences and perceives the world – they cannot directly tell us and we can only ever work from our own experiences and awareness.

Understanding death

The most basic concept of death is where a living being understands that a death results in the total loss of function of another who was once alive, and that the situation is irreversible. The loss of companions, family or social group members is clearly widespread in all animal societies, so it is likely that these animals have some consistent reactions to death.

Indeed, many behaviours associated with death have been observed in non-human animals. Some species such as the opossum, “play dead” as a survival mechanism, to make predators then leave them alone. This behaviour, known as thanatosis or tonic immobility, is also seen in some birds, snakes and insects. “Playing dead” behaviour relies on the ability of other species to recognise and react to the apparent “death” of another species.

Domestic cats have shown behaviour associated with grief, such as a decrease in eating, sleeping or playing, after the loss of a close companion dog or cat. Female dolphins often show attentive behaviour to their dead calves, sometimes carrying them for days. In 2018, a female orca was observed carrying her dead calf for 17 days, creating debate about how other species experience loss and grief.

A range of other species including elephants, non-human primates and birds have all been observed displaying grief or “funeral-like” behaviour. Bumblebees have been seen to avoid rose flowers containing either the scent or the body of a dead bumblebee, suggesting an awareness of death which is a likely anti-predation response.

Although these observations do not prove that a human-like understanding of death is universal across the animal kingdom, it is clear that different species, including reptiles, fish and invertebrates,, have the capacity for conscious awareness of the world around them although they differ in their cognitive capabilities.

Read more: Elephant calves have been found buried – what does that mean?

Taking a human-centric view to death means that we may fail to appreciate the sentience and emotional complexity of the way other animals might respond to death and dying. Wild and domestic animals have many opportunities to experience death and develop a concept of death even without the complex cognitive skills that humans possess. A concept that probably differs to our own, which is often linked to anxiety and fear of death.

For some species such as insects, reactions to death are probably intrinsic and functional responses without emotion or deep cognition. For example red ants demonstrate necrophoresis, where the bodies of dead group members are removed from the colony, probably to reduce disease risk.

Conversely, in species considered to have more complex cognitive skills such as chimpanzees and other primates, death can be linked with behaviour patterns more akin to human grief, loss and sadness. For example, mothers carrying their dead offspring, sometimes for prolonged periods, or animals apparently cleaning the body of a deceased of a group member.

What Bobbi taught me

Bobbi is not the first companion animal I have said goodbye to. However she taught me something about how her canine companions experienced her loss.

I brought her home from the vet that Friday afternoon, peaceful, pain-free and wrapped in her blanket. I laid her body out on our grass with the sun shining and birds singing and I let my other spaniels out to see her. After a cursory sniff all but one left her alone and went off exploring. However, Bobbi’s nephew, Bertie sat with her. He sniffed. He licked. He examined. For almost half an hour we sat together quietly while the others “spanielled” around the garden. Bertie was Bobbi’s friend, and for all my scientific training, I knew he knew she was gone. I am glad I gave him the time to process however it was that he experienced her change.

Since then, our family group dynamics have shifted. Not negatively or positively, but they are different. Perhaps my other dogs were simply responding to my emotions but it seems more likely that they too had an awareness of her death and we have each coped in own own way.

In addition to her academic affiliation at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and support from the Institute for Knowledge Exchange Practice (IKEP) at NTU, Jacqueline Boyd is affiliated with The Royal Kennel Club (UK) through membership, as advisor to the Health Advisory Group and member of the Activities Committee. Jacqueline is a full member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT #01583). She also writes, consults and coaches on canine matters on an independent basis.

In the shadow of the 2008 global financial crisis, trust in the financial system was at a historic low. Banks had failed, markets had collapsed, and confidence in central institutions had been deeply shaken.

It was in this moment of uncertainty that an anonymous figure, Satoshi Nakamoto, published the Bitcoin white paper – a nine-page document that quietly introduced a radical new idea: a financial system that would not rely on trust in institutions at all.

Rather than banks or governments, transactions would be verified by a shared digital network run collectively by its users – a system that became known as blockchain. But blockchain was never just about technology – it was about rethinking mechanisms of trust, so it could be engineered rather than delegated.

Nakamoto’s vision was made possible through a consensus mechanism known as “proof of work” (PoW), which required participants to solve complex computational problems to validate transactions. The system was intentionally costly to operate. That cost was precisely what made it secure: changing the shared record of transactions would require immense resources, making manipulation economically unviable.

But as bitcoin’s popularity grew rapidly – from a niche experiment in 2009 to a network processing hundreds of thousands of daily transactions within a decade – so did its demands. Maintaining trust through continuous computation proved expensive – not just financially but environmentally.

The energy consumed by PoW systems began to rival that of entire countries, raising an important question: was this the most efficient way to produce trust?

A blockchain revolution

In 2022, the major global blockchain Ethereum – which underpins the second-biggest cryptocurrency after bitcoin – adopted another model of trust known as “proof of stake” (PoS). This was a response to the growing concern about the bitcoin blockchain’s excessive energy demands.

Rather than relying on large numbers of computers competing to solve mathematical problems, PoS selects validators based partly on how much cryptocurrency they lock into the network as a financial stake. They then help confirm transactions and maintain the system, without the energy-intensive process of mining used in bitcoin.

Read more: How do you mine Bitcoin – and is it still worth it?

Ethereum’s energy consumption fell by more than 99% following the shift, according to the Crypto Carbon Rating Institute. This suggested blockchain systems could be used at much greater scale without proportionately increasing their environmental footprint.

This chart illustrates Ethereum’s claimed energy use compared with some other industries and activities, demonstrating the large drop after its switch from a PoW to PoS blockchain system:

However, this increased energy efficiency introduced another kind of trade-off. Under PoW, influence is determined by access to computational resources. Under PoS, it is tied to ownership of financial assets – raising questions about whether control of this technology would be increasingly unequal.

This is not necessarily a flaw, but a reflection of a broader reality. Trust is never costless, and different systems distribute that cost in different ways.

Today, many newer blockchain platforms including Ethereum, Cardano and Solana use PoS. Bitcoin, though, continues to rely on PoW – in part because supporters argue its high computational cost remains central to both its security and principle of decentralisation.

Beyond cryptocurrencies, different blockchain systems are increasingly being explored for applications ranging from tracking goods in supply chains and energy trading to digital identity systems and cross-border payments. And this is ushering in a third evolution in blockchain trust technology: “proof of authority” (PoA).

Trust reconfigured again

Unlike its predecessors, PoA relies on a limited number of pre-approved validators – typically, organisations whose identities and reputations are known. This means only approved or verified participants can validate transactions within a particular network.

PoA-style systems and permissioned blockchain networks have already been adopted or tested by hundreds of organisations worldwide – particularly in finance, supply chains and energy infrastructure. In finance, banks including JP Morgan have explored private blockchain networks where only approved participants can validate and share transaction records.

This might seem like a major departure from blockchain’s original ethos. If trust is placed back in the hands of identifiable institutions, what remains of Nakamoto’s decentralised vision?

But in many real-world situations, such as tracking goods or processing financial transactions, participants do not require anonymity. They prioritise reliability, speed and accountability.

Rather than eliminating trust, PoA reorganises it. Although blockchain is often associated with anonymous cryptocurrency activity, its record-keeping structure makes transactions highly traceable and easier to audit over time.

For banks, companies and governments testing blockchain systems, this approach is often more practical than fully open blockchain networks that anyone can join. Brazil has used a government blockchain based on proof of authority, and the United Arab Emirates has promoted blockchain use across its public services and for some government transactions.

What is emerging is not the end of trust but its reconfiguration. Blockchain began as an attempt to bypass traditional institutions. Its evolution points to something more nuanced: a future where trust is reconfigured with the involvement of banks, payment providers, technology firms, energy companies and governments.

These organisations are not removing trust from the system – they are reshaping how it is created, verified and maintained.

Viraj Nair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Four months have passed since US forces captured Venezuela’s sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, and ousted him from power. Maduro’s vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, quickly moved into the top job and has, under US tutelage, begun a process of reversing her country’s experiment with socialism.

Venezuela’s pivot towards socialism began under the leadership of Hugo Chávez. After entering office in 1999, he initiated a programme of sweeping nationalisations, state-led oil wealth redistribution and increased social spending. Chávez called this process the Bolivarian revolution.

Maduro replaced Chávez as president after his death in 2013. And from there, his administration oversaw one of the most severe economic declines in modern history while simultaneously dismantling democratic checks and balances.

Ideological revision is a perilous moment for revolutionary regimes. Major policy pivots require cautious steering and, without credible and calibrated leadership, they risk overwhelming insular, authoritarian states.

The Soviet Union is perhaps the most illustrative example of this. It collapsed in 1991 under the weight of popular economic grievances mobilised under newfound freedoms of speech and assembly.

Keen to avoid a similar fate, the Chinese Communist party studied the Soviet Union’s downfall over the next decade. It concluded that the Soviet miscalculation was simultaneous economic and political opening, and has thus limited regime liberalisation to the economy.

In Venezuela, Rodríguez appears to be following China’s approach. She has maintained tight control of political conditions inside the country, while prioritising economic liberalisation.

Under the acknowledged guidance of US officials, Rodríguez has unravelled some elements of Maduro’s regime. Thirteen of 32 ministerial positions have been reshuffled in an administration that has long been dominated by military figures and interests.

However, a number of the key power brokers from the Venezuelan armed forces who maintained the Maduro regime remain in government. This includes the interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, and Vladimir Padrino López, who was dismissed from his role as defence minister in March and appointed as agriculture minister instead.

These people have moved into line behind Rodríguez. Successive US presidents have issued sanctions, bounties and arrest warrants against them, as they have against Rodríguez. Hers have now been rescinded, and other prominent Maduro loyalists will be hoping their compliance brings them the same.

The entire machinery of state and government remains in the hands of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). This includes the national assembly, supreme court, national electoral administration, police and military. PSUV governors are in place in 23 of the country’s 24 states.

And despite demands from Venezuelan opposition figures for presidential elections, the Trump administration and Rodríguez have thus far avoided committing to a vote. Progress on granting amnesty to Maduro-era political prisoners has also slowed.

While more than 2,200 people were released from prison or had other legal restrictions withdrawn after the passing of an amnesty law in February, the release of political prisoners has reduced to a trickle. Over 400 of these people remain incarcerated, and the amnesty law has been quietly parked for revision.

Economic liberalisation

On the economic front, Rodríguez has implemented reforms at a greater pace. New laws and regulations reversing Chávez’s nationalisation drive are reopening key sectors of the economy to private investment. This includes hydrocarbons and mining.

A recently unveiled Commission for the Evaluation of Public Assets will audit state ownership in other economic areas such as agriculture, manufacturing and infrastructure. A fire sale to the private sector is expected.

The discipline and political dominance of the PSUV machine have been put to good use here, waving through favourable terms and other confidence-building measures for investors. These include providing legal guarantees in what has long been a notoriously unpredictable economic environment, as well as access to international arbitration. Whether these measures encourage investment will become clear in the months ahead.

Rodríguez has also steered Venezuela back into the International Monetary Fund (IMF), ending a suspension that began in 2019 when the organisation ceased recognising Maduro’s government. Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF’s managing director, reports having “productive” conversations with Rodríguez.

The US president, Donald Trump, has praised Rodríguez for doing a “great job”. He has said she is working well with US representatives. But there are many disruptive challenges on the horizon for Rodríguez. In the short-term, there is a very real risk of protests. Venezuela remains in a political limbo with hopes of justice and democracy currently frustrated.

The absence of demonstrations to date owes much to a lack of leadership on the ground. This is likely to change when opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who the Maduro government barred from competing in the July 2024 presidential election, returns to the country. Machado has said she expects to be back in Venezuela before the end of 2026.

Many had expected Machado to be delivered into the vacated presidency after Maduro’s capture. But Trump declined to support her as the country’s next leader. Even after she gave Trump her Nobel Peace Prize medal in January – and despite her strong friendship with US secretary of state, Marco Rubio – Machado remains on the periphery of US decision making.

On a recent tour of Europe, avowed neoliberal Machado did not voice support for the economic changes Rodríguez has introduced. She has instead emphasised the necessity for political reform in Venezuela, while also demanding accountability and justice for the corruption and abuses of previous governments.

Another, more long-term problem relates to the type of political economy that is emerging in Venezuela. The economic changes are designed to spur investor interest in extracting the country’s hydrocarbon and mineral resources.

This will merely reestablish Venezuela’s historical dependence on commodity exploitation. Such dependence has been a fundamental factor in Venezuela’s instability since the 1970s and is something the Bolivarian revolution pledged to end.

Julia Buxton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.