Read more on post.

In a speech at the UN headquarters in New York, where world leaders are currently gathered for the organisation’s 80th anniversary, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky warned: “We are now living through the most destructive arms race in human history.”

The proliferation of drone technology combined with the rapid development of AI, Zelensky remarked, could create “dead zones” in the near future. He defined these as areas “stretching for dozens of kilometres where nothing moves, no vehicles, no life. People used to imagine that [scenario] only after a nuclear strike – now it’s [a] drone reality.”

AI could soon enable “swarms” of drones that operate autonomously together in a coordinated manner. So far this has only been seen in sci-fi movies but we are now starting to see the beginnings of this technology in real life, including from the Ukrainian military.

For security scholars such as Audrey Kurth Cronin of Carnegie Mellon University in the US, we are now in a time of “open tech innovation”. This is a period where people – whether terrorists or criminal groups – do not need the expertise and resources of a state to be able to orchestrate nefarious acts of disruption and destruction.

Zelensky and Kurth Cronin believe this new age of military technology requires new rules and enhanced global collaboration if the worst-case scenarios are to be avoided. “We need to restore international cooperation – real, working cooperation – for peace and for security,” said Zelensky in his UN speech. “A few years from now might already be too late.”

Days before these remarks, drone activity caused multiple airports in Denmark to close. The country’s defence minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, told a news conference that the “attack” was part of a “systematic operation”. Some reports have suggested that Russia may have been behind these acts.

One of the major concerns among security experts worldwide in recent years has been on acts of sabotage that play out below the threshold that can lead to open war. In what is known as “hybrid warfare”, states and criminal groups can orchestrate a variety of tactics to generate fear and cause disruption.

These acts may be intended for political ends – for instance, by creating discontent with political leaders. They may also be intended to test the systems of security that are important for defending against military action. The incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace in early September, for example, generated serious debate about how Nato should respond.

These recent events may signal that the world is now in a new age of military-technological insecurity that, as Zelensky warned the UN, is only going to get worse in the years ahead.

Read more:
Russian drones over Poland is a serious escalation – here’s why the west’s response won’t worry Putin

Deterring futuristic war

Central to defence policy and strategic thinking is deterrence. Our world is built on strategies that are intended to deter countries or regimes from pursuing certain courses of action. The possession of nuclear weapons, for example, has prevented war between the world’s leading powers for decades.

Deterrence will continue to inform decisions and strategy, even as global events become increasingly chaotic. So much of the debate around what Nato countries should do about the war in Ukraine, for instance, has been informed by questions of deterrence and escalation. Ultimately, direct Nato action has been restricted by the fear that nuclear weapons could be used in a moment of strategic chaos.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has, in a similar way, been careful not to push above the threshold with actions that might lead to a direct confrontation with Nato. Acts that are hard to attribute – such as drone use over airports or cyber-espionage – are ideal for a regime that wants to create disruption but doesn’t want to escalate.

There are three elements that can be developed to prevent escalation and war. The first is deterrence by punishment. This is where an action will result in a response that will mean the risk outweighs the cost.

The second is deterrence by denial, when you make an action too difficult to orchestrate successfully and effectively. And third is deterrence by entanglement. This is when the interconnected nature of society means that an action may be counterproductive or even self-destructive.

All of these elements of deterrence will probably come into play in this new age of drones and AI. There might be technical solutions that limit the extent to which AI-enabled drone swarms become a decisive weapon in future wars. For example, a group of drones was successfully knocked out by a new radio wave weapon in an April 2025 trial by the British Army.

There may also be limits on the exploration of the destructive possibilities of drone swarms due to the concern with keeping events below the threshold that would lead to war between global powers. While Putin may authorise the use of drones in Ukraine, he may be deterred from risking the use of swarms across London. This is due to the possibility of escalation and perhaps even the threat to Russian-owned property and citizens there.

So, as terrifying as the new age of drone swarms and AI may be, there are good reasons for thinking the dystopian possibilities of future war will be controlled and contained. We should probably expect that the world will be characterised by more frequent disruptive events in the years ahead. Yet, hopefully the disruption will be limited to the nuisance caused by delayed flights.

What is more concerning is the possibility of an accident occurring that tips disruption over the threshold into an open war. The history of war and international politics is rife with accidents and miscalculations. The question now is what accidents will be generated in this new age of AI and drone swarms.

Read more on post.

Politics today is about winning the fight for both authenticity and attention. Let’s be honest: as Labour in government, we’ve sometimes struggled with both. We’ve found it hard to tell the real story about what is wrong with Britain and how we are going to fix it. For too long we’ve allowed Nigel Farage to set the terms of the debate, and far too often our responses have seemed tactical, not principled. By tacking one way and then the other, we have failed to provide a clear sense of whose side we are on and why.

As a result, we risk losing support by taking progressive voters for granted while failing to articulate a clear and compelling argument to those flirting with Farage that sets out why they would be wrong to put their faith in him.

Taking on Reform UK is the battle of our political age, but we shouldn’t end up arguing on their terms, using their language. We need to wrest back control of the political megaphone that Farage brandishes and use it to amplify a Labour message based on the values we cherish – and that the British people share. As Labour’s deputy leader I would take the fight to Farage in a way that would energise our movement and expose the mendacity his populist rhetoric disguises.

This week, the Reform leader announced he would deport millions of people who live here legally, rounding up law-abiding residents with settled status who work hard, pay their taxes and help make our country great. It was the most outrageous political announcement of my lifetime, raising the prospect of US-style immigration raids on homes and workplaces. The parents we meet outside the school gates, the neighbours we chat to on the street and the colleagues we share a drink with after work could be tracked down, arrested and disappeared. It is a disgraceful scheme cooked up by a man who is the love child of Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell. No amount of posing with pint in hand and fag in mouth can mask the malice, division and hatred that drives it.

We need to call out Farage for what he is, strongly and unashamedly. When the US president lies about about London wanting to “go to sharia law” under mayor Sadiq Khan, we have to call it out. When billionaires like Elon Musk encourage violence in our communities, we have to face up and fight. There can be no triangulation in the face of the hard right.

We need to rediscover the intellectual self-confidence to take the fight to Farage and set out the solutions the country needs to tackle the deep-seated problems holding Britain back.

Like all populists, Farage advocates simple solutions to complex problems. He tells voters that immigration is the root cause of deep societal challenges, including underfunded public services and stagnating living standards. The truth is they are caused by deep inequalities that lie at the heart of our economic system that have been exacerbated by 14 years of chaotic Conservative rule.

From Thatcherism to Cameron-era austerity, the Covid pandemic and the energy crisis, the majority of people in this country feel the economy has been run for the benefit of someone else rather than them. The wealthiest are cushioned from economic turmoil by asset inflation, while the less fortunate battle job insecurity, falling pay, rising rent, and soaring food and energy bills. Inequality between classes, communities and regions has worsened over the last few decades.

This is as true for the young person living in a city paying an extortionate rent as it is for the older couple living near a run-down town centre, the shopkeeper in suburbia struggling to make ends meet or the undervalued care worker who has to take the bus to work in the early hours of the morning.

We need to be far clearer that we are on their side as a government whose only objective is to serve ordinary, hardworking people of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Labour has already achieved a huge amount. We are introducing new workplace rights, have raised the minimum wage, brought railways back into public ownership, and created thousands of new GP and hospital appointments. But these policies need to be set out as part of a Labour narrative that explains how we are rewiring the country so it works for everyone.

That doesn’t mean we can avoid tough decisions. We know there is an urgent need to control our borders, and we recognise that the way asylum seekers are housed can cause tensions in local communities. Labour can’t respond to difficult conversations by trying to change the subject. But nor can we allow Reform to set the terms of the debate.

In Farage’s Britain, owning a home would remain out of reach for too many. Millions would be priced out of decent healthcare or run the risk of being fired without due process. Wages would continue to stagnate for all but the richest.

As a full-time, campaigning deputy leader, I would help build the infrastructure this government needs to win the war for attention. I would take the fight to Reform by focusing on who they really are and what they believe.

Farage has been allowed to hog the political microphone all summer. We need to grab it back and start shouting about the Labour principles that drive us. They are values the whole county shares.

• Lucy Powell is a Labour MP and former leader of the House of Commons who is running for deputy leadership of the Labour party

Read more on post.

Currently on show at the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, Linder’s retrospective Danger Came Smiling showcases half a century of trailblazing art. The exhibition delves into her fascination with plants, inviting the viewer to see beyond traditional notions of gender and sexuality.

For the Liverpool-born artist, there is enchantment in creating imaginary worlds, generating new meanings and inviting others in. Turning toward botanical themes marks a compelling evolution in Linder’s art practice. This new twist fuses a more glamorous side of her punk-feminist roots with symbolic power of the natural world.

Her fascination with plants isn’t just visual, it’s conceptual. In Danger Came Smiling she uses botanical imagery to examine how nature has historically been feminised, controlled and aestheticised, as she explores plant reproduction, horticultural histories and the cultural symbolism associated with flowers.

The Goddess Who Lives in the Mind (2020) features a gigantic lily with stamens protruding from a glamorous woman’s body, while Double Cross Hybrid (2013) reveals an enormous rose blooming out of a woman’s stomach – a monstrous “other” taken away from the domestic space, dressed in botanical themes.

A living critique of gendered power structures – the way access to power, privilege and resources is disproportionately dominated by men – the exhibition is rooted in the organic and the ephemeral, with echoes of her earlier subversive photomontages.

Linder is best known for this disruptive technique – cutting and pasting images from disparate sources to create new, often shocking visual narratives. Her work embodies the radical spirit of early 20th-century European Dada and Surrealists such as Hannah Höch, George Grosz and Dora Maar who pioneered the method, amalgamating images from popular media, magazines and photography into political and satirical statements.

Her critique of the commodification of the female body also draws inspiration from feminist artists such as Hannah Wilke, Carolee Schneemann and Martha Rosler. Here, her photomontages are like jigsaw configurations that blur the boundaries between art, ecology and mythology.

Linder’s outdoor performance A Kind of Glamour About Me was staged to great effect this summer at the opening night of the Edinburgh Art Festival. A dazzling, genre-defying spectacle, it fused Holly Blakey’s visceral choreography, Maxwell Sterling’s haunting soundscapes and Ashish Gupta’s flamboyant fashion. Showcasing an eerie synthesis of body and nature, it turned the Royal Botanic Garden into a site of transformation and storytelling. Here visitors can enjoy it as a video installation.

An improvised take on the myth of Myrrha – the Greek mythological figure who was turned into a myrrh tree after having sex with her father – three dancers in exquisite costumes appear as shifting identities, with one eventually merging into a tree for protection.

Linder draws inspiration from the mythical symbolism of plants. The word glamour in her work comes from the Scots word glamer, which means a magic spell – witches in 16th-century Scotland were hanged for casting “glamer”. Traces of Linder’s photomontage style spill over into the verdant green of the gardens – gigantic lips appear out of nowhere, like a haunting Cheshire cat’s smile.

Linder reclaims women in history and mythology as forbears and heroines. Just like her photomontages, whether in live performance or in video, they are made of parts and fragments that come together in ethereal improvisations.

Her eerie video work Bower of Bliss (2018) is inspired by the detention of Mary Queen of Scots at Chatsworth House in the late 16th century (Linder was in residence there in 2017). In the video, Mary and her custodian Bess of Hardwick are dressed in lavish, colourful costumes designed by Louise Gray. They move to a Maxwell Sterling composition that signals the pleasures and boredom of confinement through clinging, holding and posing. Here we see fabrication mixed with history, witch with knight, warden with prisoner.

Featuring themes of female empowerment and enchantment with nature, Linder’s signature tableaux vivants (living pictures), reveal performers’ dramatically made-up eyes and lips covered with herbs and flowers from the kitchen garden.

Bower of Bliss refers to an enchanted garden from Edmund Spence’s poem The Faerie Queene. The work was originally recreated for Art on the Underground as a billboard at Southwark station in 2018, featuring women who worked on London Underground and performed in the dance work created from it.

Linder’s newer digital works appear to depart from the DIY-rebellion aesthetic of the radical punk era of the 1970s and early 1980s (such as her iconic Buzzcocks’ Orgasm Addict album cover). Cut-and-paste aggression, visual noise, and an anti-polish vibe were reactions to her life story at the time, when she was fighting the feminist cause.

Newer works acknowledge the limitations of punk’s visual language and Linder’s desire to move beyond shock value toward more ritualistic, poetic and nature-infused forms of resistance. She invites us to see plants not as decorative or scientific specimens, but as symbols of survival, sensuality and subversion. These works recycle her artistic technique of combining imagery from domestic or fashion magazines with pornography and other archival material featuring petals, plants or marine life.

Her botanical turn is both a continuation of her feminist sensibility and a new way of engaging with the world, through the slow, radical language of nature. Cleansing the wounds of women represented in her works as well as her own, it leans into the language of plants as a profoundly healing experience.

It is a joy to watch this groundbreaking icon evolve her practice, transformed from an angry young rebel to an accomplished multimedia artist. At the age of 71, Linder continues to challenge societal norms while embracing the beauty and complexity of identity, cementing her legacy as a trailblazer in contemporary art.

Danger Came Smiling is on at Inverleigh House, the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, until October 19, and then transfers to the Glynn Vivian Art Gallery, Swansea, in November 2025.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.