Many issues arose from the speeches made at the recent Conservative Party conference.
Questionable plans to make studying Maths and English mandatory until 18, disregard for
the climate crisis, use of blatantly transphobic language, the description of immigrants as a
‘hurricane’, and of Winston Churchill (who despite his great speeches was famously racist,
even for the standards of the 1930s, and a poor military strategist) as this country’s greatest
ever leader were all areas of concern.
However, one issue that I have not seen much written about is this government’s attitude
towards the criminal justice system. In his speech, Rishi Sunak said that his conservative
government would introduce mandatory full life sentences for those who have committed
‘heinous’ crimes (sexually sadistic murders and premeditated murders of children). I don’t
disagree that child murderers should be locked up for life, but mandatory sentencing is a
clumsy policy which necessarily cannot take account of the circumstances of a particular
case and a particular offender. Of course some murderers should be locked up for life, but
to say that all perpetrators of heinous crimes should be given mandatory full life sentences
before the evidence has been examined is poor policy. It also misses half of the point in
prisons which is rehabilitation. Prisons are not there to just throw away the worst of our
society and leave them to rot indefinitely: they also there to reform, so they can emerge as
better people.
This harshening of prison sentences for murderers accompanies stricter laws for protestors,
with Rishi Sunak clamping down particularly on ‘Just Stop Oil’ protestors. At a time when UK
prisons are at crisis point, should the government be focussing on sending more people to
prison and locking those people up for longer? Should they be introducing mandatory life
sentences for whole categories of crimes which will inevitably lead to large number of
prisoners serving life sentences? Should they be increasing sentences for individuals taking
direct action to campaign for more radical action to address an issue of global concern? I’m
sure I would be furious if my morning commute was delayed by some people crawling in
front of my car, but is it really a good use of this country’s increasingly limited prison space
to lock these people up for multiple years?
In their most recent reports, HMP Bristol and Leeds reported bad overcrowding with two
prisoners often sharing cells designed for one person. They also reported high levels of
violence, prisoners spending up to 22 hours per day locked in their cells, and a lack of any
sort of meaningful activity or education. This is not just the case for Bristol and Leeds, and it
only takes a quick read of some reports of UK prisons by the Chief Inspector of Prisons to
know that it is a national crisis. Overcrowding is such a problem that portaloo-style cell
blocks have had to have been built in some institutions, and some estimates predict that in
three years, without significant reform, this country will run out of space to house inmates.
‘Life means life’ misses half of the point in the prison system. Prisons are there to keep
criminals away from society, but they are also there to reform and rehabilitate those who go
in. Increasing sentences without funding this country’s understaffed, overcrowded, poorly
facilitated criminal justice system will lead to nothing but reoffence and unchanged crime
rates.

To say that British society is built on tradition is a gross understatement. We are positively obsessed with it. I find it all sickening at the best of times: heaven forfend we close a street outside a school to stop children being run over, but did someone say Royal Wedding? Well then, get those cones out and the emergency chairs, we’re having a street party, like in the good old days! Some traditions can be quite fun, though: cheese rolling, welly throwing and bog snorkelling spring to mind.

But amongst all the fetishisation of aristocracy and the slightly silly village fete activities there is one incredibly important pillar of community and society that has traversed thousands of years. The Pub. A place for communities to come together, for a hearty meal, a good dance and for world-changing ideas to be dreamt up at the table and (probably) swiftly forgotten by the next morning. Headlines have come and gone proclaiming the latest existential threat to this bastion of civilisation: the drink drive limit, off licences, letting children in, the indoor smoking ban, Tim Martin, lockdowns aplenty and despite some of these threats being more credible than others, it has tragically been reported that around two pubs are closing their doors every day. However, there is a plague threatening the very fabric of what pubs we still have left…
For the greater good of society we took a break from pints, pies and pickled eggs and pretty much
everything else during the pandemic and we learnt to keep our distance from one another, queuing a few
paces apart and often in long snaking lines around supermarkets and such, and this was indeed necessary in the pub at one point, but it must stop now. Bars are long (or wide, depending on your perspective) and normally staffed by a handful of people who have the freedom to roam from point to point (or pint to pint, if you will) to reach the taps, bottles and glasses they need. What on God’s green Earth, then, possesses people to stand in a single file queue? Bar etiquette is an art form in itself, get your elbows out, get in, eye contact with the bartender, give a nod or a knowing smile, not too enthusiastic though, maybe a little laugh and joke with your fellow thirsty revellers to show how casual and fun you are (even though really they’re your sworn enemy, all that stands between you and your pint and pork scratchings): it is all a crucial part of the pub experience, and we all have a duty not to let it die, keep the good tradition alive.

For heaven’s sake, please, stop queuing.

The idea is simple: 15 minute cities are meant to be community-led cities that aim to have all human essentials within a 15-minute walk or cycle from any part of a city. This would include education, shopping, healthcare and any other activities one needs in daily life. The goal is to get people out of their cars and into their communities while trying to implement walking as the most used mode of transportation.

The idea took off in light of the Covid-19 pandemic when lockdowns showed us what an inconvenience commuting is and how precious time outside is. The concept is being implemented now in places like Paris, Melbourne and cities in South Korea.

MP Nick Fletcher of the Conservative party has called them an “international socialist concept,” in an effort to put down the initiative that is rising in popularity within the Labour Party. The conspiracy theories put forward include the idea that governments want to control our every move, capture us in our neighborhoods and never let us leave these 15 minute communities. To say that this is a ridiculous idea is an understatement. The idea of a walkable city can have so many positive effects including better health, quicker access to essentials (medicine, a bar of chocolate at 10pm after you’ve had a long day). 

One only has to take a look at some North European cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen to understand how moving away from cars is not only good for the environment, but also for mental health. Let’s take The Netherlands for example: a country whose economy took off so much that between the end of the second world war and 1972, the average income of a Dutch household increased by more than 200%. This led to people purchasing more cars and cities struggling to keep up. As Amsterdam wasn’t a city built for cars, they looked towards the US to improve their roads. As the city was struggling to adapt to the increase in people using cars, road accidents soared and people started protesting. Slowly, people started giving up their cars and demanding bike lanes. For the past 50 years, Amsterdam has been focusing on the people living there instead of the cars. Nowadays there are so many bike paths in the city that most places are more easily accessible by bike instead of driving.

Funnily enough, it seems that people from Amsterdam are also some of the happiest drivers. According to a study from 2016 by Waze, the Netherlands is the best country to drive in. Some of the categories for rankings included traffic and road safety and the Netherlands did incredibly well in all of them. This shows that providing people with bike paths and other modes of transportation doesn’t automatically mean cars are extinct. Given the choice, I think most people would choose simplicity.

The problem in the UK is that there are not enough bike paths in big cities. Only the bravest of people take their lives in their own hands and dare bike through London. Throughout the UK, there have been traffic restriction trials in order to test out the idea of traffic free areas in cities. This led to a lot of pushback in Oxford, where, according to the BBC, councilors started receiving death threats because people had a “genuine fear that they might be locked in their own homes.” Fear not, no one has been imprisoned in their house in Oxford, residents were just worried that their lives might have to change. Lives will indeed have to change, but probably only for the better. If restrictions start being implemented, that will increase demand for different modes of transportation and therefore easier access to places. Once our needs change, our cities will have to adapt.

To wrap it up, 15-minute cities are revolutionizing urban living, bringing everyday necessities closer to home. Despite political pushback and wild conspiracy theories, remember that in Amsterdam, they’ve got more bicycles than there are tulips in spring! So, as these cities gain ground, let’s pedal our way toward a healthier, more accessible future.

It’s safe to say that the 2023 Conservative Party conference has certainly been eventful. Among many developments, perhaps the most striking was Rishi Sunak’s remarks weighing in on the trans rights debate which has increasingly dominated political discussion. In the most unequivocal disavowal of LGBT rights of a Conservative Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher, Sunak asserted it is “common sense” that a “man is a man and a woman is a woman”, and that Britons are being “bullied” into believing that “people can be any sex they want to be”. Clearly, the conference has marked a significant shift to the social right for the party— a development watched with trepidation by Conservatives who belong to the LGBT+ community, who have found themselves with a choice between party loyalty and commitment to their identity.

It should of course be mentioned that many LGBT+ individuals, both within the party and outside, have gladly accepted this policy, throwing support towards organisations such as the LGB Alliance, which deliberately excludes the trans community in its advocacy. Conversely however, many LGBT+ Conservatives object to the change in rhetoric, and are facing significant self-reflection. Among them is openly gay Tory member Andrew Boff, who was escorted out of the conference by security guards during Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s speech for heckling, in a calm tone of voice: “There’s no such thing as gender ideology”. Later on X, he commented that he believed the Home Secretary’s comments were “bullying trans people and the LGBT community”. Boff won support from other queer Tories, including openly gay Conservative MP Elliot Colburn, who urged the Prime Minister to stop “demonising” trans people if they hoped to win the forthcoming general election. He also asserted that the average voter is more concerned about affording heating their home during a cost of living crisis, rather than whether trans children should be able to play sports.

Evidently, the conference heralds a tricky future within the party for many LGBT+ Conservatives. On one hand, it’s difficult to sympathise with those who have chosen to align themselves with a party that has not always been entirely sensitive to LGBT+ rights— indeed, it is not a choice to be born gay, but joining the Conservative Party very much is one. Undoubtedly, many LGBT+ Conservatives have opted for political ambition and the pursuit of influence, which is more accessible to them in the Tory Party than in any other more gay-friendly parties— Labour, for instance, haven’t won an election in 18 years.

However, this dichotomy of being queer in a largely unsupportive political organisation has been easier to ignore in the past than in the current ‘gender-critical’ political climate. Indeed, one can argue the Party has always been somewhat liberal on social issues. In August of this year, the LGBT+ Conservatives Group hosted a drinks reception celebrating ten years since Prime Minister David Cameron’s Tory government legalised same-sex marriage— a reminder of the party’s more tolerant past.

But the problem for this minority seems increasingly worrisome, as many queer conservatives find themselves ostracised by other members of the LGBT+ community. For instance, during the conference, a group of LGBT+ Conservatives were thrown out of The New Union bar in Manchester’s Canal Street gay village— a potential wake-up call that their conflict of interest is becoming increasingly untenable. Similarly, when the official LGBT+ Conservatives X account tweeted a photo of drag queen Kate Butch comparing their appearance to Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, they replied calling the group “ladder-pulling, community-disgracing bunch of ghouls”. 

Therefore, figures like Boff and Colburn find themselves stuck in a party veering further to the right, and meeting the demands of a progressively antagonistic public discourse led by ‘gender-critical’ figures such as Laurence Fox and JK Rowling. Polls show that the Conservatives will likely be trounced in the next general election, which could be perceived as a repudiation of the Party’s adoption of gender ideology. However, it is difficult to predict how much further the rhetoric from Conservative politicians will go, which begs the question for this afflicted minority— when’s the right time to get off?