The global media landscape of late has undoubtedly been preoccupied with two clear focal
points; Russia’s ‘special operation’ in Ukraine and Israel’s asymmetric campaign in Gaza.
Ukraine’s media attention and overall significance hinges on the fact that it is a large-scale
conventional war being conducted on the peripheries of Europe. The brutality of the IDF’s
operations against a largely civilian population in Gaza combines with broader regional
implications and international outrage to simultaneously occupy large swathes of global
media output. 

A cursory glance at mainstream news might suggest that Gaza and Ukraine are the only
places in the world that are in the midst of a protracted, brutal conflict. However, deeper
inspection of the shadowy corners of the internet and a selection of news outlets will reveal
that the world is riddled with conflicts of a comparable nature and level of violence. Whilst it
would be wrong to claim that these events are not being reported on, it is clear that these
issues occupy a lower portion of the mainstream news agenda and consequently, the global
policy agenda.

Myanmar 2021-present

In Myanmar, the fallout of military coup in 2021 has led to growth of a protracted civil war
that has been marked by mass killings, arbitrary arrests, torture, sexual violence, and other
abuses that ‘amount to crimes againsts humanity’, say the human rights watch. The military
junta has engaged in ethnic cleansing of local minorities and has been found to employ
‘scorched earth tactics’ which involves the burning of villages in the Magway and Sagaing
regions. an estimated 50,000 people have died since 2021, including 8,000 civilians,
numbers comparable to the death toll in Ukraine. 

Sudan 2023-present

A ferocious civil war is underway in the north-east African country of Sudan, where
government forces are clashing with an independent military body, ‘the Rapid Support
Forces’ (RSF) following the buildup of tensions within the military. The use of high-explosive
weapons in populated areas has left the country facing a shortage of critical infrastructure,
and the death of civilians. 5.4 million people have been forcibly displaced and almost 10-
15,000 people have been killed. 

Yemen 2022-present

Saudi and the UAE’s joint military coalition has been conducting military operations against
Houthi rebels that has further exacerbated an already dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen. The
coalition has been accused of indiscriminately killing Yemeni civilians in their attempts to
destroy Houthi targets, destroying health care facilities, schools and bridges in the process.
More than 4 million people have been internally displaced due to food insecurity and over
233,000 people have died according to the UN. 

These examples represent just some of the on-going conflicts that have resulted in large-
scale civilian death tolls. However, this list is not exhaustive, there are conflicts raging in
Ethiopia, the Congo and Syria and there is the potential for a globally devastating conflict in
Taiwan. The Global peace index reports that ‘the average level of global peacefulness
deteriorated for the ninth consecutive year’ in 2023 illustrating a downward trend towards an
increasingly violent and unstable world. Whilst the devastation in Ukraine and Gaza should
not be understated, mainstream media must play their part in informing, communicating and
educating global audiences of the true scale of global conflict.

Infighting in the Labour Party and a divided left has handed successive election victories to the Tories for generations. For as long as I have been politically sentient, I have strongly believed that perfection should not be the enemy of good – getting the Tories out should always be the number one priority. In that regard, the polls are looking great: Labour is expected to absolutely clean up at the next election and with a bit of luck, Sunak will keep digging the Tories further into a hole and they won’t even be the official opposition. 

However, I am finding it hard to get excited about a Labour victory, if I’m honest. What is there to get excited about when their only commitment is to yet more neoliberal populism?

I have been to an event where the Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves was speaking. After about ten minutes, I deduced that she was economically clueless, transphobic and unwilling to face basic questioning from what was a fairly tame crowd. I’m not a fan. Still, not wanting to let perfection be the enemy of good, as before, I have carried on supporting the Labour Party and fighting against the “oh politicians, they’re all the same” argument. 

My patience is wearing a bit thin now, though. Reeves has now started comparing herself to Thatcher. To be fair there are some immediate similarities: populist, champions of a flawed ideology, anti LGBTQIA+, anti-trade union… the list goes on. 

Let’s be clear – Thatcher’s flawed efforts to reduce inflation and ideologically motivated attacks on trade unions absolutely destroyed British industry. Mines, shipyards, factories – gone. Her policies took the jobs and purpose away from entire communities almost overnight. Communities that were then forced to take government handouts to be able to survive and demonised for doing so. She asset-stripped the country. By 1979, the population of Britain collectively owned two-thirds of housing and all of the energy sector, the railways, ferries, national airlines, the telecoms network, the postal service; the factories that produced trains, cars, trucks, buses, defence aircraft; the plants that made steel; the coal, oil and gas under the ground, and so much more. Her policies have directly led to the current cost-of-living crisis, housing crisis, collapse in bus services, sky-high rail fares – as all of these have happened thanks to the prioritisation of private profit rather than quality public service.

These public assets were not a divine gift, they were all nationalised after the war by a Labour government that inherited an economic situation far worse than the one that Starmer and Reeves will. They made the ideological choice to stop prioritising private profit. 

Reeves might fancy herself as the next Thatcher, but there is one key difference between 2024 and 1979: Thatcher had assets to sell to fund her ideology. She could generate quick cash injections to cover up the fact that we could no longer produce our way out of recession, but what has Reeves got left to sell off? The only thing left that the population collectively owns (most) of is the NHS…

The part of Thatcher’s legacy that I find particularly terrifying is just how widespread the lie that Government finances must be run like that of a household has become. She portrayed herself as “the thrifty housewife” that was running Britain on a shoestring to get national debt down. This idea was further weaponised by the Cameron-Osborne government, who used austerity to slash public spending and pour public money into the hands of the private sector, in the name of debt reduction. Labour look set to continue peddling this lie. Keynesian economics tells us that governments can only spend their way out of recession: borrow and invest when times are bad and earn it back when times are good.

It’s 2022, I’m 20 and on top of the world earning £12 per hour at an esteemed private
members club in London. In my casual, Summer role, I’ve never felt more free. I fill my
lunch plate with the usual selection of pastas, varying greens, and head to my favourite table
to tuck in. As my knees bend into my seat, my head glances up to the just-big-enough TV
screen and my legs buckle straight. Only five minutes ago I was confiding in a colleague
about the scare I‘d thought to be having. She was an American citizen, on a student visa and
working every one of the twenty hours she was allowed to work per week. Eyes wide and a
mouth agape, I look around the room at the women I work with. We span over half a century
in age and experience, and we do the work our mothers, grandmothers, ancestors weren’t
allowed to do.

It’s 2022 and Roe vs. Wade didn’t quite make that half century mark. How is it that
the news from halfway around the world induces a loss of appetite on my one
twenty-minute lunch break? I think of my American friend. I think of my mother and
grandmother. I think of the friend I met at the station after she called me in tears, having no
idea I might cry like that just half a year on.

It’s 2024, I‘m turning 22 and finding my voice. I’m in Leeds and finally gaining
confidence looking through a lens I’d bought as a child. On the Leeds-Liverpool canal walk,
that same friend from the station and I plan out our lives, discuss hopes, and talk of exes we
wished we’d never met. I pick my phone out of my pocket to pencil in our summer plans as a
BBC alert startles us both to stillness. France becomes the first country to enshrine the right
to abortion into their constitution. I think of my girlfriends, my mother and grandmother,
and myself just one gestational period ago. One shared sigh and we pick up our steps again.
Anything can happen.

This year marks 40 years since the beginning of the 1984/85 miner’s strike. It was one of Britain’s longest-running industrial disputes, as working-class mining communities defended their livelihoods against a Thatcher-led government that was intent on destroying them. Unfortunately, the strike was not successful, and in its aftermath the trade union movement was weakened, and neoliberal policies became the status quo. This had catastrophic consequences for working-class communities across the country and its effects continue to be felt today. 

The Conservative government of the time did all it possibly could to prevent the National Union of Miners’s winning the dispute, since a victory for the NUM would have symbolised a wider victory for the working-class and organised labour. The Conservative Party’s handling of the strike reveals its focus on preventing the collective organisation of labour. 

This determination to break the strike, and the injustice faced by so many miners, is perhaps most evident from a confrontation that took place on the 18th of June 1984, which came to be known as the “Battle of Orgreave”. On this day, 5000 striking miners gathered at Orgreave to picket and were confronted by 6000 members of the South Yorkshire Police. 

As the miners attempted to picket, police officers began a series of charges, including on horseback, towards the picketers which forced many of them backwards. During the charges miners were struck with truncheons and beaten, many of them brutally. Especially during the third charge, random miners (who were unarmed) were grabbed by officers and beaten. Footage from the day shows miners with bloodied faces and torn clothes being dragged away by police officers. 

Media reports of the time, and the Conservative Party narrative, portrayed the miners as an aggressive group that sought violence. This claim is inaccurate and seeks to discredit the picketers by painting them as trouble-causers, while the police are presented as keepers of the peace. Consider this: why did the police force arrive in riot gear, carry shields and truncheons, and bring police dogs, while also being reinforced by police on horseback? 

Despite many miners being seriously injured, not a single police faced consequences for their violent conduct. However, nearly 100 miners were arrested, including Arthur Scargill, the president of the NUM. 71 miners were charged with riot, which at the time could have resulted in a life sentence in prison. Prime Minister Thatcher personally pushed for them to be charged with rioting, despite publicly claiming that she was not involved in the strike. The charges were later dropped after the police’s evidence was rejected in court. Some miners received compensation in the early 1990s, but the fight for justice continues. 

In 2015 a report by the Independent Police Complaint Commission stated that there was “excessive violence by police officers, a false narrative from police exaggerating violence by miners” alongside perjury and cover-ups. Following this, there were further calls for an official inquiry. Predictably, in 2016 the Conservative government refused such requests. The party’s position has not changed. Justice for working class communities will never be achieved under a Tory government.  

However, there remains hope that an inquiry could come soon. The deputy leader of the Labour Party, Angela Rayner, told the Trades Union Congress in 2023 that Labour is committed to launching an official inquiry. If Labour is elected in this year’s election, all those who want justice for the Orgreave miners must place pressure on the party to ensure that it follows through on its promise. 

The Orgreave miners deserve to have their names vindicated, and there must be an official government apology alongside a recognition of the government’s role on the day. An official inquiry would also ensure accountability and would recognise that there had been a miscarriage of justice and improper policing. This would not solve the physical and psychological trauma that the miners and their families have endured for 40 years, but it would be a step in the right direction. 

If the Orgeave miners can receive justice, then justice would be delivered for the whole of the working class, who are consistently degraded, demeaned, and portrayed negatively in public life. A national campaign focused on Orgreave could also open a wider national discussion about the mistreatment of miners throughout the year-long strike. After 40 years it’s time that these issues are properly addressed. 

For those who want to know more about the Battle of Orgreave, the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign website provides plenty of resources, and also allows people to get involved in campaigning for an official inquiry. Also, the second episode of the Channel 4 documentary, Miner’s Strike 1984: The Battle for Britain, provides footage from the day and includes the testimonies of many miners. The episode is an accurate portrayal of the day, and it is worth watching. 

Imagine a society in which children are going to bed hungry, in which an increasing number of children are facing mental health challenges, and in which millions of children are unable to achieve their full potential. This is the lived reality for millions of children across the UK. 

In 2023, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) estimated that 4.2 million children were living in poverty in the UK. This is an 800,000 increase since the Conservatives took power in 2010. CPAG research has shown that childhood poverty often acts as a barrier to academic success, reduces future job opportunities, and damages physical and mental well-being, 

At some point this year the public will take to the polls. The Conservatives will likely do all they can to distract people from their abysmal record. However, voters must not forget the reality of the last 14 years. In particular, people must not forget about rising levels of child poverty.

Child poverty is a multi-faceted issue, and there is no single solution to it. However, specific policy measures can tackle the issue. All it takes is the political will to adopt bold policies. Although the last Labour governments had flaws, one of the most successful parts of its platform was its focus on tackling child poverty. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, between 1997 and 2010, child poverty reduced significantly. This is in stark contrast to 14 years of Conservative government.

In 2010 Gordon Brown’s government introduced the Child Poverty Act which aimed to eradicate child poverty by 2020. However, this act was ditched by the Conservative government in 2016. From 2010 onwards, with the help of Liberal Democrats for five years, the Conservatives introduced stringent public sector cuts and welfare reforms. Together, this has deepened child poverty.

Labour has the potential to win this year’s election. If the party wants to reverse 14 years of failed policies and lift children out of poverty it must choose to be bold. 

Labour has wrongly reversed its decision to end the two-child welfare cap. It is estimated that 1 in 4 children in the poorest constituencies of England and Wales are in families that have lost over £3,000 a year from the policy, which has led to criticisms from organisations such as the TUC and CPAG. Lifting the cap would cost around £1 billion a year and according to research by CPAG, it would lift an estimated 250,000 children out of poverty, and a further 850,000 out of deep poverty.

For context, the Conservatives have already spent nearly £300 million on the immoral Rwanda scheme, and during the pandemic spent £630 million on fraudulent PPE contracts. This shows that the issue is not whether there is money available to tackle child poverty – it is whether or not our political leaders have the courage to reform the economic system to benefit the vast majority of the public.

Another way to tackle child poverty is to extend free school meals to all children. This is already in place Wales and London (under Labour leadership), and is in place in a more limited form in Scotland (under SNP leadership). The national Labour Party is committed to free breakfasts for all schoolchildren. This is commendable, and will certainly tackle poverty by reducing pressure on household budgets while promoting the mental and physical well-being of schoolchildren. However, the party must go further and push for universal free school meals.

An estimated 900,000 children living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals.

Implementing universal free school meals would cost between £1.8 to £2.5 billion a year. Although this may seem like a significant price tag, the Impact on Urban Health Group estimates that the policy could generate up to £25.2 billion in benefits in the long term (such as by increasing school savings, family savings, and NHS savings).

Those who disagree with assisting those in poverty often argue that it is not economically feasible to do so. However, as demonstrated above, although initial costs may be high for specific policies, there are significant economic benefits that will result from these policies. Therefore, it is not only morally right to help those in need, but in the long term, it is also economically sensible.

As we head into the next election we should remember those 4.2 million children living in poverty. They are not merely a statistic. Every one of them is a child who deserves to grow up in a country that believes in their future. These are children that have been failed for the past 14 years. A change of government is certainly necessary, but we must also continue to place pressure on the next government so that tackling child poverty remains high on the political agenda.

A wave of debate and speculation has dominated our newsfeeds following a recent
statement made by General Sanders, a top British army chief, regarding the need to place
the United Kingdom on a “war footing” in the context of mounting tensions with Russia over
the conflict in Ukraine.

Despite government officials reassuring the British public that this is not a precursor to the
implementation of conscription law, the speculation surrounding the statement has revealed
an interesting insight into the attitudes of British citizens to the idea of state-mandated
enlistment in the event of war. Conscription, despite appearing to some as a relic of our
parents and grandparents war-time generations, still exists in many countries around the
world where the threat of invasion or large-scale conflict remains an omnipresent reality of
life. Conscription in the UK was abolished in 1963 and since, the United Kingdom has relied
on a well-trained, volunteer army. As we move from a period of relative global stability to one
of relative turbulence, commentators, politicians and military leaders have begun to pose the
question: “are we ready for what is to come?” Whilst conscription may or may not be the
answer to this, it is something that is beginning to re-enter public discourse.

A survey carried out to reveal the attitudes, both of British citizens and Leeds students,
towards the possibility of conscription revealed a clear objection to the idea, even in the case
of war with Russia, with just 24.3% of respondents claiming that they would be inclined to
fight for the United Kingdom. That figure was even lower amongst Leeds University students
at just 21.1% overall. 

When confronted with the hypothetical scenario of an imminent invasion of the British Isles
by a foreign military force, British citizens, it seems, would feel slightly more inclined to take
up arms, with 32.4% of respondents answering “yes”. The prospect of invasion seemed to
leave the rugged students of Leeds slightly more unphased with just 21.1% of respondents
saying they would volunteer to join the armed forces. Indeed, with Hyde Park as our refuge
and our fortress, it may well be business as usual for us in Leeds in any case. 

In the event of article 5 of NATO’s collective defence treaty being triggered (I.e. an eastern
European country is invaded by Russia) and the constituent states of NATO are required to
act in defence of the country being attacked, it appears there would be even less enthusiasm
to volunteer from students and the wider population alike. Just 10% of respondents across
both demographics answered yes to this question. Undoubtedly, it remains to be seen
whether conscription would be enacted in this event but with the British regular army’s total
troop numbers dwindling at around 75,000 men, an expeditionary force sent to eastern
Europe may struggle, critics have argued, to achieve its operational requirements,
particularly over an extended conflict. 

Respondents were then faced with a difficult final question. The survey asked; ‘if a law was
passed requiring all military aged citizens to be conscripted to the military or face criminal
conviction, what would you do?’ The prospect of facing your own country’s judiciary or facing
an enemy’s weaponry appears to leave British people slightly more divided, with 42.9%
agreeing to conscription and 57.1% agreeing to face criminal conviction. The UK
government may need to address Britain’s, already overpopulated, prison system before
enacting any conscription law, it appears. 

The survey’s results reveal two things about Leeds students and the wider British population;
the first is that conscription, if enforced, will be met with widespread rejection and protest by
the British public, particularly by the younger generation, and the second is that in the event of article 5 being triggered, General Sanders would have to rely on what he’s got to achieve
his military objectives.

It’s that time of the year again. The Oscars is approaching – the prestigious awards ceremony where
the film industry celebrate their finest work of the past year. And so, as usual, the nominations for
each category have now been released to the public so we can all formulate our opinions. While
plenty of actors, actresses, directors, and films have been recognised for their outstanding
achievements, there has been plenty of unrest surrounding the “Barbie snub.”
Barbie was definitely a highlight for the film industry in 2023 – releasing on the same day as
Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer as the phenomenon “Barbenheimer”, Barbie generated $1.4
billion at the worldwide box office and received critical acclaim, with a current 88% on Rotten
Tomatoes. The acting, directing, and overall message of problems within our society were all crafted
beautifully by director Greta Gerwig. Despite this, while the film was nominated for eight categories,
Barbie did not receive any nominations for Best Actress and Best Director, causing a controversy that
has caught many an eye.
It’s not only the fact that Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, who played the titular Barbie, did not get
ample recognition from the Academy. In Barbie itself, Gerwig shows us the flaws of society (with a
hot-pink coat of paint), helping audiences realise that the villain of the film wasn’t Will Ferrell’s CEO
of Mattel, or Ryan Gosling’s emotionally conflicted Ken, but the inequity of genders in society itself.
Unfortunately, it seems that the Academy has proved Gerwig’s message right. Gosling, who played
Ken, was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and yet, in his own words, “There’s no Ken without
Barbie, and there is no Barbie without Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie.” Robbie also came out to
say that “I think Greta should be nominated as a director because what she did is a once-in-a-career,
once-in-a-lifetime thing.” The fact of the matter is that Gerwig and Robbie, the driving forces behind
the true meaning and success of the blockbuster, are being hugely underappreciated with not being
recognised for their deserved categories.
It isn’t all black clouds and sad faces for Barbie fans, however. America Ferrera, who played Gloria, a
Mattel employee who helps Barbie in the real world, was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.
Billie Eilish and her brother Finneas were nominated for Best Original Song for “What Was I Made
For?” And of course, Barbie has been nominated for the top award of Best Picture, being a huge
contender for taking the main prize.
But how does a film get nominated for Best Picture but not have its director and leading actress
recognised? Only if we look into the problems of our society and the industry, just as Barbie tells us
to do, will we begin to figure this out. Until then, we all know in our hearts that even if they weren’t
nominated for their respective categories, Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig will always be ‘Kenough’
for us.

Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer last week announced a significant U-turn to Labour’s environmental policy, cutting planned investments in green industry from £28 billion a year to just £4.7 billion, should the party win the next general election. It is just one of many recent policy reversals from Starmer in recent months, who is widely seen as moving Labour closer to the political centre, in a very obvious departure from his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, it’s even a departure from the earlier rhetoric of Starmer himself. In his leadership campaign in 2020, he ran on a largely idealistic platform, self-describing himself as a socialist and pledging to nationalise key industries like energy and mail.

Since then, policies under the Starmer Labour Party have changed drastically. In July 2022, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the party had scrapped the nationalisation of any public services. During the public sector strikes last summer, Starmer instructed his shadow cabinet not to protest on picket lines, and even sacked leftist MP Sam Tarry for disobeying this order. Perhaps most depressingly, Starmer even dropped his pledge to abolish tuition fees last May, framing the damage the ruling Conservatives have done to the economy as a scapegoat.

Clearly, as Starmer flirts with the prospect of power, he is simultaneously cosying himself up to the corporate class. Once the party of the working class, most Labour policies in 2024 are largely interchangeable with those from the Conservatives.

From the perspective of a student, the selection of insipid policies offered by Starmer inspires little confidence. Throughout my time at university, I always justified the expense of ludicrous tuition fees with the comfortingly naive thought that someday in the future, the Tories will be voted out of Downing Street, and a progressive and innovative government would sweep to power and cancel student loan payments to everyone’s relief. But as I enter further into my 20s, the idealism of youth is gradually swallowed by the disquieting realism of adult life. It is increasingly apparent that there is no prospect of a white knight to make living any easier, and the government that replaces our current one will be fundamentally similar and corporate in most tangible respects. And so will the next one after that, ad infinitum.

Somewhat wistfully, the optimistic campaigns of both Corbyn and Bernie Sanders in the U.S. are being left further and further behind, associated in my mind with the idyllic and carefree days of pre-drinks in student halls or my sixth-form holiday. Fast forward a few years, I am now facing the end of my university career in an economic climate which has rendered my humanities degree comically unemployable. And so grows the nascent dread— very soon, I am leaving the comforting security of student life and entering into an increasingly bleak job market, with the certainty of being burdened with an onslaught of bills for decades with which previous generations have not been encumbered.

From an older viewpoint, my dread probably reads as entitled whinging. There is nothing more unbearably student than denouncing ‘the illusion of choice under capitalism’. Moreover, to those with established careers and settled lives in their 30s and 40s, the concept of post-graduate anxiety is not a new one— in a way it’s comforting to know that my current apprehensions are universal and transient. But this does not make our qualms any less valid, particularly as the realisation sets in that under the inspiring Starmer, things are unlikely to change any time soon.

Given the abysmal current polling of the Conservatives, compounded with two heavy by-election defeats this month, Labour’s victory in the next election is all but assured. Starmer has effectively been handed a blank cheque to govern with whichever exciting and outlandish ideas one could conceive of. As the state of the country deteriorates, is it too much to ask for something a little different?