Leader of Leeds City Council on support for nightclubs, austerity and the future of the city

With the second-largest population of any council in the country and a net revenue exceeding £600 million, James Lewis is one of the most important politicians that you might not have heard about.

In many ways, Leeds is a city on the up. It has the most diverse economy in the country, with the largest legal and financial centre in England outside of London. 

It’s the third largest manufacturing centre, and its thriving arts and culture scene and booming university sector have driven growth and brought hope to a city which was hit hard by the industrial decline of the late twentieth century.

It has the highest-paying jobs in the UK outside of London, with an average salary of £37,800 which beats out competition from Manchester, Cambridge and Bristol. 

Leeds Bradford Airport is the country’s fastest growing regional airport and over the next decade, the economy in the city region is forecast to grow by 21%.

But fundamental issues – a poor transport network, housing shortages and high rates of deprivation in the city centre – hold the city back. 

And like many other councils across the country, Leeds has faced budget pressures in recent years amid a perfect storm of inflation, spiralling social care costs and reduced funding from Westminster.

Earlier this week, councillors met to approve the budget for the next financial year with £65 million of reductions needed in council spending to balance the books.

To meet that shortfall, council tax is rising by 4.98% and savings will be made with cuts to services, job losses and building closures. Car parking charges will also be introduced at parks across the city.

I met James a few days after the budget had been approved at Nexus, an almost cathedral-like structure that houses a research and innovation hub at the University of Leeds, a gleaming example of what the city gets right.

A member of the Labour Party, James was first elected in 2003 to represent the south-east Leeds ward Barwick and Kippax before later becoming the councillor for Kippax and Methley. He was made the Deputy Leader of Leeds City Council just under a decade ago and in 2021 was elevated to the top job.

Photograph: Abdullah Ali/Unsplash

He lays the blame on the financial difficulties faced by his and other councils up and down the country squarely on “14 years of austerity” by Conservative government in Westminster. During this time, he says £2.7 billion of funding has been diverted away from the council.

“That means that we’re stretching the council tax further and further to cover the costs of services that used to be met by large government grants.” 

“We’re also facing huge pressures from inflation and the cost of living. The council has got a gas and electricity bill like everyone else and we’ve also got huge pressures in terms of the number of people needing social care, which is one of the council’s biggest areas of spending.”

He stresses that Leeds, unlike other local authorities, has managed to balance the budget and is not at an immediate risk of bankruptcy. The situation, however, remains serious and a nearly 5% rise in council tax will be a tough pill to swallow during a cost of living crisis.

He is hopeful that if Labour wins the next general election funding for local government will be “more sustainable and fairer” for the city.

“Rishi Sunak, when he was running to be the leader of the Conservatives, told the Tunbridge Wells Conservative Association that he wanted to take money out of Labour areas and put it in places like that.

“That’s not where we need to be in a city like Leeds where we’ve got increasing levels of poverty and a need for social care.”

There is no doubt that we need better transport in Leeds. We’re the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system

After a bid to become the European capital of culture was dashed after Brexit, Leeds decided to press ahead and host its own year-long event in 2023. 

The event, which was supported with significant investment from the council, was labelled a “damp squid” by Councillor Allan Lamb, the leader of the Conservative group in the council.

During a debate on the budget this week, he said the council executive “has taken no responsibility for the decisions they have made.”

“They haven’t owned up to the fact the £10 million they spent on a city of culture last year that no one knew was happening could have been spent on vital services that people depend on.”

James argues that the event, despite having only a third of the average spend of an official capital of culture event, lifted the profile of Leeds and brought joy to the city.

He insists its legacy will continue, most clearly in Hibiscus Rising, the exotic flower sculpture which was designed by the artist Yinka Shonibare and was unveiled on the south bank of Leeds city centre in one of the final acts of Leeds 2023.

In an otherwise downbeat budget, the proverbial rabbit was pulled from the hat with a surprise announcement that Leeds residents would no longer have to make the walk of shame to a bottle bank in order to recycle their glass. 

Instead, from this summer, it will now be possible to recycle glass from the kerbside with estimates suggesting that 10,000 tonnes of waste will be saved from landfill.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in Leeds City Council welcomed the move but criticised the “dithering”.

“After years of reflecting our budget amendments […] Labour are finally accepting its a good idea. Think how much additional glass could have been recycled in the years they’ve dithered.”

James says the council has prioritised free garden waste collection over kerbside glass recycling but is “pleased that we’re getting to the point where people will be able to put bottles and jars in the green bin.”

Photograph: Hamza Inayat/Unsplash

Last month, the nightclub operator Rekom UK announced that Pryzm, the largest nightclub in Leeds, would permanently shut along with several other venues across the country.

Its boss Peter Marks said the closures were caused by increased operating costs and reduced revenue as students cut back on going out as the cost of living crisis squeezes their budgets.

There are other challenges facing the industry too. Young people are drinking less and looser licensing laws mean nightclubs are competing with pubs and bars which close later than ever before.

We’re also looking about how we can be more positive and do more positive things for Leeds

The sector supports thousands of jobs and is undoubtedly a reason why so many talented students and young professionals want to live in the city.

The loss of Przym was a particularly big moment but it was just the latest in a string of closures.

James says the council was supporting the late night economy by approving more outdoor seating licences (which were first introduced out of necessity during lockdown), working with the police and the community to improve safety at night and helping to organise big public events.

“We put the Rainbow Bridge over Lower Briggate a few years ago to really support the LGBT+ venues. Leeds has the largest free Pride event in the country […] we have Light Night and other events around the year like the Christmas market, which was a huge success for increasing the number of people coming into the city centre.”

On safety, he’s working with the Mayor of West Yorkshire Tracy Brabin and her Deputy Alison Lowe OBE on their agenda to reduce violence against women and girls.

Brabin funded research which last month found that inadequate access routes, poorly lit areas and male-dominated public spaces made most women and girls feel vulnerable in parks.

“It’s something that we take really seriously around getting more police on the street.”

“It is also something that we want to do more on. We look at new programmes and initiatives when they come along.”

It is this cooperation between leaders – “Team Leeds” as he describes it – that James points to when asked what Leeds gets right.

“We work as a council with other public sector organisations, the police, the health service, the voluntary sector, businesses and try and come together and tackle the big issues we face in the city.

“We’re also looking about how we can be more positive and do more positive things for Leeds.

“I think there are areas we can do better. There is no doubt that we need better transport in Leeds. We’re the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system. We need to look at addressing that we need better train and bus services and that’s something hopefully in the years ahead, working with Tracy Brabin, we can bring about in Leeds.”

Leeds student letting agents rebranding to ‘run away from bad reviews’

Student letting agencies are rebranding and changing company names to make it more difficult to find reviews from previous tenants, according to some students.

While the practice is not illegal, it has been suggested agents use this method to intentionally escape negative reputations and reviews. 

Letting agency Let It Bee (managed by RNL) located on Headingley Lane, has recently received a wealth of one-star Google reviews suggesting they are agency Red Door Lets under a new name.

One review details: “Let It Bee is just a recently rebranded Red Door Lets, probably because RDL has a horrible reputation among its former tenants”, another stating: ‘they switched name to escape their toxic PR. No evidence that the business practices have changed as yet’. 

Red Door Lets (managed by RNL) performed poorly on the service Rateyourlandlord.com, with a rating of 2.4/5 and was named ‘Worst Letting Agent of the Year’ in 2021 by union ACORN Leeds.

Let It Bee’s website states ‘We are a brand new letting agency but our team has over 25 years of experience renting properties to Leeds students and professionals’.

However, Let it Bee operates from the address previously used by Red Door Lets, with many of the same staff, making it difficult to escape the conclusion they are the same company.

One student who recently signed for a house with Let it Bee, for a tenancy beginning July 2024: ‘I would never have signed with them if I’d known who they really were’. 

The Gryphon could not find Let it Bee as a registered company on the government directory. We contacted Let it Bee for comment but they replied saying they do not assist on “university projects”.

Issues around reputation also appear for the sister company of Red Door Lets, RNL property management.

Director of RNL, Rodric Aitkens, was previously the subject of media scrutiny in 2007 after being taken to court by hundreds of Leeds students and forced to return thousands of pounds in unpaid deposits under the company name Leeds Student Homes. Following these events Leeds Student Home quickly became YourStudentHome.com, showing the historic use of the practice. 

Yet, the practice is not specific to Red Door Lets. In 2020 Lets Leeds rebranded to HOP (House of Property) and more recently Hancock and Bentley to Cobourg Living, among many others.

Some are more transparent about the change, as the government page for Cobourg Living states the name change in 2023. 

Matthew Boulton, director of Get My Deposit Back, offers free advice to student tenants for issues with tenancies and unfair deposit deductions.

He encourages students to use a range of channels to locate feedback and experiences of previous tenants such as Unipol’s Rate Your Landlord and Marks Out of Tenancy, checking letting agent redress schemes, searching the name of the agency owner and using Facebook groups such as Leeds Student Group.

However, signing with a seemingly reputable and fair letting agency does not always eliminate the risk of issues arising.

Most importantly, Matthew emphasises students should ‘know their rights’ to counteract the ‘power imbalance’ in the relationship between students and letting agents and landlords: ‘If every student went into the rental market knowing their rights, it would make a huge difference’.

He also encourages students to take as many pictures as possible at the beginning and end of their tenancy and reach out for help early if issues arise.

In one case, Get My Deposit Back were able to help a 7-bed student house in Leeds get their total £2,000 deposit back after an agent tried to withhold the deposit, despite the house being in a ‘horrendous state’ when they moved in. By rejecting the deductions and being ready to escalate the issue to the deposit protection scheme the tenants were able to receive their entire deposit back.

Unipol told The Gryphon that they would recommend searching by house using the Rate Your Landlord service, which then would allow students to access reviews of a specific house regardless of the landlord or agency.

For advice and information about renting and renters rights, both Unipol and Get My Deposit Back can provide support.

The Tyranny of Trump: Should he be allowed to run in 2024?

Whilst United States politics may seem extremely distant from the University of Leeds, Trump’s term in office shows that this is a global issue. Currently, the US court of appeals for DC is arguing that the second impeachment of Trump is sufficient evidence for him to be disallowed from re-running for president this year. According to Time Magazine, in order to protect the separation of powers, the courts and legislature must be able to check (and restrict where necessary) who is allowed to come into power. From an American history perspective, this protects against an overly powerful executive, against which the constitution itself was written under post-British-colonial control.

Whilst the separation of powers is clearly vital to the preservation of democracy, if previous presidents get banned from incumbency, this could cause huge problems for future executives. The backlash from Trump supporters, as summarised by a spokesman for his campaign, comes from the fact that “if immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party,” meaning presidents would be unable to act how they see fit throughout their time in office (according to BBC news). 

Before Trump failed to be re-elected in 2020, his term in office was fuelled by controversial actions that increased polarisation amongst American citizens. Whilst the presidency as a whole seemed extremely chaotic due to constant claims of sexual assault and racist bigotry, his second impeachment trial stands out as the most obvious cause for banning him from running again. This impeachment falls on the basis that he incited violence in the capitol leading to the deadly January 6th insurrection, according to the New York Times. With unpublished tweets supposedly reading “March to the Capitol after. Stop the steal!” (Time magazine), Trump hoped to overturn the recent election results which he claimed were rigged. During the impeachment, according to an ABC News poll, 56% of voters agreed that he should be convicted and barred from office, resulting in a huge drop in support for the current candidate.

It is without a doubt that Trump should be held accountable for his incitement of violence towards the end of his presidency, followed by his failure to wilfully step down as president, therefore suggesting he cannot receive presidential immunity post-term. However, if Congress were to rule in favour of preventing him from running again, this would take the power away from the public to successfully elect a president. 

With less than a quarter of the British public supporting Trump in any way, according to Politico.eu stats, it is clear why there is a huge backing for disallowing his re-election. However, the importance of this debate goes far beyond Trump alone. The threat Congress would put on democracy by ruling a popular (if not preferred) candidate unable to run for election, is bigger than any hatred for Trump and even goes beyond only affecting the United States. If he were to be voted in through the longstanding electoral system of the US, then surely it is the will of the people? If this is the case, then it is also important to consider the complexity and inaccessibility of the US voting system. In particular, whilst the British seem to hold a particular distaste for Trump, we must also recognise that the US election system is arguably far more complex than the UK alternative, and is not always considered fair and equal. For example, the ability for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the overall election proves that it is not as simple as meets the eye, according to AP News. Therefore, if Trump is allowed to run again and manages to be voted in, it is crucial this is done through a trusted voting system. 

Leading on from this, his attempt to overturn Biden’s electoral win was based on the fact that the election had been rigged due to sudden changes in state votes and additions of postal votes in favour of Biden (USA Today). This resulted in vast speculation on how fair the voting system was and led to increased mistrust in elections. Whilst this would surely be deemed irrelevant by Trump himself once he was in office, if he were to be elected via the very system that he claimed was rigged, his appointment in itself should be deemed flawed. This would act as self-sabotage for Trump, and therefore he should arguably be given the chance to be proven wrong. On the other hand, if the system is a fraud as he claims, this would suggest that his election could also be rigged in order to put him in office. 

Therefore, if Trump is to be given the opportunity to be re-elected to preserve the rights of public election, one would hope that this is done through a fair and trusted voting system in order to protect multi-national democratic principles. Can this be said for the United States electoral system?

Tucker Carlson’s Interview with Putin: A Quest for Ratings or Journalistic Duty?

On 8 February, Tucker Carlson, an American journalist, published on his platform the first interview with a Western journalist that Vladimir Putin has agreed to since the start of the war in Ukraine. In a clip added as an introduction to the interview he claims that Putin “seemed sincere” and in a video posted on the platform X he says he decided to interview the president because “We’re in journalism. Our duty is to inform people.” Many are wondering now whether that aim was achieved, or whether Vladimir Putin used the American platform to spread his propaganda.

Tucker Carlson is an American journalist and conservative political commentator, known for hosting a talk show on the conservative channel Fox News. His strong pro-Trump views, conspiracy theories and racist and sexist remarks have gained him popularity amongst far-right conspiracy theorists. He has built an independent platform, Tucker Carlson Network, after his show was terminated by Fox News in 2023.

The interview started with Putin giving a ‘short’ 30 minute history lesson justifying his invasion of Ukraine by recalling events as far back as 862. As an article by Adam Gabbatt in the Guardian says, “It was not the veil-lifting insight into the region that Carlson had promised.” In short, he believes that Ukraine should be part of Russia by claiming that the creation of the USSR was the point of the establishment of Ukraine. When Carlson asks him why he hadn’t invaded earlier, he claims it was because of the expansion of NATO and Zelensky’s supposed Nazi ties. Putin also claimed that the war could have ended months prior with a deal, had Boris Johnson not intervened. This comes minutes after he claimed that Zelensky has had a sworn deal not to negotiate with Russia. This is one of the many spinned truths Putin presented; Ukraine has signed a deal not to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, not with Russia, according to Zelensky’s website. Clearly, Putin believes he is the whole of Russia and won’t let anyone believe otherwise.

Tucker Carlson has claimed that he was the first journalist to bother to interview the Russian president. The truth is that many networks have tried to get interviews, but were rejected by the Kremlin for various reasons. Tucker Carlson proved himself to be the perfect choice through a combination of conservative views, lack of viewership after being let go by Fox News and the fact that “he has a position that differs from the rest [of Western media],” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Many have criticised Carlson for his clear lack of knowledge of Russian history and his gullibility. It’s clear that Carlson’s motives were purely self-centered – he needed the audience and Putin needed the platform. No legitimate reporters were allowed to interview him for fear they might actually question his propaganda.

Many journalists have been accused of being biased when reporting on wars. Famously, Christiane Amanpour was accused of favouring Bosnian Muslims during the Bosnian War when she interviewed Ratko Mladic, a Serb general who has since been convicted of genocide. An article from The Spectator talks about William Randolph Hearst’s interview with Hitler in the 1930s. Hearst has since been rightfully criticised for admiring the Nazis, however no one at the time would have criticised his journalistic integrity because of his choice to interview Hitler. As the article says, “Unlike Hearst, Carlson does not think that his job is to talk to world leaders away from the cameras in order to decide what’s best for democracy.”

Among the things not covered by Carlson is the treatment of journalists and critics of the regime in Russia. One of Putin’s biggest critics, Alexei Navalny, who claims he was poisoned by the Kremlin in 2021, was imprisoned in the same year for charges widely considered to be politically motivated. He died in prison under questionable circumstances on February 16th, a week after Putin’s interview. The interview glosses over the harsh realities faced by journalists in Russia. According to Reporters Without Borders, Russia ranks low on the World Press Freedom Index, reflecting the dangers and restrictions journalists face in the country. This avoidance is particularly glaring, given the context of at least 1,000 independent Russian journalists having fled the country by February 2023 as Russia tightened its control on independent wartime reporting​, according to The Moscow Times.

Talking on propaganda specifically, Putin says “In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiaries of the biggest European media are American financial institutions.” While it is true that most of the US’s media is owned by billionaires with their own financial motivations, two of the three main television channels in Russia are majority-owned by the state. The BBC showed the stark difference between Western reporting and Russian news by analysing news coverage on 1  March 2022:  “As BBC World TV opened its bulletin with reports of a Russian attack on a TV tower in the capital Kyiv, Russian TV was announcing that Ukraine was responsible for strikes on its own cities.” Not only is Russia a world leader in propaganda, Putin is constantly trying to accuse other countries of using the same tactics he does.

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin was a glaring attempt at gaining personal growth rather than a journalistic attempt at confronting some of Putin’s narratives. As many point out, fair reporting from both sides of a conflict is the duty of journalism, but how can one provide fair reporting on someone who has imprisoned, poisoned and killed his opposition? If Putin doesn’t allow his country’s journalists their opinions, why does the West have to allow him to speak his mind?

‘I feel unsafe at a place that’s supposed to feel like home’: action urged on Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian hate on campus

As the impact of the Israel and Gaza crisis continues to reverberate among communities on campus, Muslim students worry that concerns about Islamophobia and their safety are being overlooked. 

A student who attended a pro-Palestine protest at the University of Leeds has spoken to The Gryphon about a physical altercation which left them feeling unsafe.

“We were handing out flyers at the most recent protest and a man who was part of a big group of Zionists took a flyer, ripped it up, blew his nose with it and threw it on the floor.

“For the whole protest, this group was throwing our placards into the bushes, chanting over our speakers, and damaging the resources we spent so much time and effort making.” 

When asked if they had reported the issue, the student told The Gryphon they hadn’t done so because of a delay in resolving a previous complaint. 

“I’ve been dealing with one complaint I told the University about in October and it’s still not resolved. I don’t want to be in this long process again and deal with being ignored when I’m reaching out for help.”

Protests have intensified on campus following the return of Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch who had taken leave from his role as a chaplain last November to serve in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).  

Whilst the University maintains that he is not an employee and his views do not represent the institution, his return has left many Muslim and pro-Palestine students incredulous and angry at the University, with some calling for his removal.

Another student said they were shocked at the news, saying, “I was shocked, firstly, when I heard the news that the Jewish chaplain had gone to serve in the IDF. I was even further shocked when he was allowed to return to campus.” 

The student further elaborated on their concerns, adding, “The fact that he’s come back from serving an army which is being investigated by the ICJ for genocide, the fact that he’s been caught on video justifying the Israeli campaign that’s leading to the unnecessary and cruel deaths of so many Palestinians, and the fact that no one at this University seems willing to acknowledge either of these things, all three make me feel increasingly uncomfortable and unsafe, at a university where I’m supposed to feel like home.”

After recent incidents, Jewish students have seen a concerning increase in antisemitism on campus. Police are investigating at least two separate incidents after the vandalism of the Jewish Society building and threats which were made against Jewish students on their way to prayer.

In response, the University of Leeds has strongly condemned antisemitic remarks and acts, affirming its dedication to eradicating intolerance and discrimination on campus. 

However, in an email sent to its members last week, the Leeds branch of the University College Union (UCU) said that it was concerned the University statements neglected to address Islamophobia in addition to antisemitism. 

In a message sent to students after the UCU email, the University said: “We must stress that harassment and abuse of any kind – including antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racism – will not be tolerated on our campus or on social media.”

Following the attacks against Jewish students, the University said that police would be increasing patrols of the area.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the University of Leeds said: “The University has detailed measures in place to safeguard our students and continues to adapt and increase our support for them. Our campus Security team and West Yorkshire Police are increasing visible foot and vehicle patrols of the area, as we continue to strengthen our partnership with the Community Security Trust (CST), as well as West Yorkshire Police, to ensure our community feels safe.”

Aisha Walker, the President of the Leeds UCU branch, said the union was concerned that this could make other minority communities feel less comfortable.

“Police presence on campus causes people from minoritised communities to feel unsafe and we are asking what steps are being taken to ensure that there is no targeting of minoritised groups.”

It appears that the chaplain’s departure is unlikely. However, this decision has not quieted concerns, with protests looking set to continue. 

Jewish students ‘abused and threatened’ on the way to prayer on campus

An investigation has been launched after two Jewish students were verbally abused and threatened on campus.

West Yorkshire Police said officers were called to the University of Leeds at 11.30 GMT on Saturday after a van driver allegedly threatened the students.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the University of Leeds said: “We are deeply shocked at reports that a van driver abused and threatened two of our Jewish students. The University is providing welfare support to the students concerned and will assist West Yorkshire Police in their investigation of this hate crime.

“The University has detailed measures in place to safeguard our students and continues to adapt and increase our support for them. Our campus Security team and West Yorkshire Police are increasing visible foot and vehicle patrols of the area, as we continue to strengthen our partnership with the Community Security Trust (CST), as well as West Yorkshire Police, to ensure our community feels safe.”

In response to the incident, the University sent an email to students warning that there would be zero tolerance for abuse or harassment.

“We must stress that harassment and abuse of any kind – including antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism – will not be tolerated on our campus or on social media.”

It comes after a Jewish Society building on campus was vandalised last Friday with “Free Palestine” graffiti. The investigation into that incident remains ongoing.

In the wake of the Israel-Gaza war, incidents of antisemitic hate crimes have significantly increased in West Yorkshire according to figures obtained by BBC News.

Jewish students have told The Gryphon that the recent attacks have left them afraid on campus. One student, who asked to remain anonymous, said:

“I feel really unsafe on campus. I just want to stay in my room.”

West Yorkshire Police Neighbourhood Policing Inspector Richard Armstead said: “This kind of hate will not be tolerated and I would like to reassure the local community that we take reports of this nature seriously.

“Enquiries are being carried out to identify the person or persons responsible.”