Over the last fourteen years, the UK has undeniably been devastated by fourteen years of successive
Tory prime ministers. The country is now in crisis with crumbling public services, our welfare state
having been dismantled and with people all across the country facing an unprecedented squeeze in
living standards, all while the UK has become the most unequal country in Europe. The sad reality is
that while the Tories have overseen an unprecedented rise in child poverty and an explosion in food
bank use, the superrich in this country have never had it better. The wealth of billionaires in this
country has increased by £438 Billion over the last decade while ordinary people have never had it
so bad as real wages remain below the level they were at the time of the 2008 Financial Crisis in real
terms. The people of Britain are calling out for a transformative government that will deliver real
change and deal with the unprecedented economic, social and of course environmental crisis that
the country faces today, sadly the current Labour leadership offers the country nothing but
continued Tory decline.

To understand the extent to which our country has fallen apart over the last fourteen years, you
have to look no further than the study from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
which found that in the eight years prior to the coronavirus pandemic there were 330,000 excess
deaths as a result of Tory Governments . Now in the face of this devastation you would expect the
Labour Party to be opposing the current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s plans for a second-round pf
devastating cuts but Labour has made it clear that it will not deliver the investment that our public
services need. Of course Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves will use the excuses about
‘tough choices’, claiming that they can’t afford the change the country needs but is this really true?
The University of Greenwich found that a 1% wealth tax on the richest 1% would raise between
£70bn and £130bn per year, money which could go towards our NHS, our schools and towards
ambitious policies like abolishing tuition fees, free school meals and radical anti-poverty measures to
deal with the frankly appalling levels of destitution that we shamefully face as the sixth richest
country on Earth. A wealth tax would only be the tip of the ice berg when it comes to money that
can be raised for cost of living support and our public services, similarly raising capital gains in line
with income tax rates would raise £15 billion per year and this is before we come to the money that
could be raised from increasing income tax for the top 5% of earners or raising taxes on big business.
Yet Labour refuses to back policies like free school meals and refuses to reverse the shameful two
child cap on benefits implemented by the Tories, the two policies combined would cost £3bn a year,
a fraction of the sums that could be raised from a rebalancing of our tax system to deal with the
country’s inequality crisis. It’s clear that the tinkering around the edges of a broken system as Labour
currently proposes to do will not help alleviate the £500bn of lost spending as a result of Tory and
Lib Dem austerity.

It is important that we also deal with Labour’s recent abandonment of its £28 billion per year climate
investment pledge, cutting its policy to an abysmal extra £4.7 billion a year above Tory plans. In
abandoning what had been the party’s flagship policy, Labour couldn’t have given a clearer
statement that it does not care about our future. Environmental scientists have been clear how
difficult it will be to meet the UK’s climate commitments without a major increase in investment.
Even with the £28 billion that had previously been pledged, the UK’s investment spending would

remain well below that of comparable countries and the National Infrastructure Commission has
stated that Britain’s infrastructure spending needs to rise by at least £30 billion per year. Not only is
scrapping a commitment to a green industrial strategy environmentally destructive but both
economically and socially too. The scrapping of the policy will leave Britain behind both the US and
the EU in the race for green technology, sending hundreds of thousands of good quality
manufacturing jobs overseas that could have gone to areas devastated by the deindustrialisation of
Thatcher. It further leaves Labour without a plan for about reducing sky high energy bills, dealing
with the UK’s flatlined economy that has now entered a recession and of course leaves Labour
without a plan to end the longest squeeze on wages since the Napoleonic Wars.

Labour will almost certainly form the next government but from Labour’s sacking of shadow
ministers who voted for a ceasefire in Gaza, to Keir Starmer’s backing of transphobic policies from
the Tory government, Labour is clearly failing to offer a hopeful vision for the future. Young people
who are disillusioned by a Labour Party of middle managers offering nothing but Tory policies
shouldn’t have to accept that nothing will ever change and that things will continue getting worse. If
young people want to vote for a party that supports green investment in our economy, taxing the
rich to fund our public services, bringing energy, water and mail into public ownership, scrapping
tuition fees, bringing in rent controls and reversing Tory welfare policies then they can use the
elections coming up this year to vote Green. In the local elections in May, the Green Party is
currently second in Headingley and Hyde Park – within touching distance of adding to the green
councillors already on Leeda City Council. The greens are further second overall in three of the four
wards that will make up the new Leeds Central and Headingley parliamentary constituency for the
next general election likely to be held later this year. It’s clear that if you want real change and a
country that works for the many not the few Labour won’t deliver what’s needed.

It cannot be understated that the murder of George Floyd in 2020 started a worldwide
conversation about systemic racism and police brutality, which continues to this day. In the
aftermath of this tragic event, lots of protests took place on a global scale, where many
asked for one thing: change.
Part of the discussion about racism has been heavily concerned with historical landmarks
such as statues and various buildings bearing the name, or the likeness of a figure deemed
too racist to be put on display. The most recent example concerns the University of Bristol,
that refused to rename buildings such as the Wills Memorial Building, named after a family
with ties to the transatlantic slave trade. On the other hand, the university did decide to
amend its logo, part of which was associated with Edward Colston, a known slave trader,
whose statue was dragged into Bristol Harbour during protests, a few months after Floyd’s
tragic passing. This begs a few questions. Why change a logo associated with a problematic
figure but not the names of buildings? Why not change both or none at all? Part of the
reason might be that, according to university officials, the Wills family for instance did not
directly participate in the trafficking of slaves – although they absolutely profited from their
labour through their dealings in sugar and tobacco – while Colston did when he was working
with the Royal African Company. Another component might be the cost of renaming but then
again, for a university that asks for 9,250 GBP in annual tuition, cost can hardly be an issue.
This is all part of a much bigger question. Indeed, should we rename buildings at all? What
are the consequences of such a decision? Do we not run the risk of forgetting history and
repeating the past? But then again, has knowing history ever stopped us from repeating our
mistakes? And can these problematic representations teach us something or are they
instead glorifying a dark moment in our past? In my opinion, people’s feelings regarding
these buildings should absolutely be heard, considered, and if possible and reasonable, be
put into action. But as an avid 1984 reader, I also worry about erasing our history, forgetting
our mistakes, and making it easier to repeat them in the future. However, keeping these
names and these statues, which are painful reminders of a time where inequality went
completely unchecked does not sit well with me either. I suppose what I’m saying is: this is a
complex issue.
In the recent past, different approaches have been taken worldwide regarding these
problematic buildings, in an attempt to satisfy all sides of the argument. Problematic statues
and landmarks all over the United Kingdom – and in other parts of the world – gained
explanatory plaques which contextualised the problematic person’s history. Statues were
removed from public spaces and put into museums. But some feel this isn’t enough and the
problematic figure it’s associated with and all that they represent will still be glorified in some
way. Other institutions all over the world have taken a more final approach, like in
Switzerland, a country that has continually tried to distance itself from claims that it
participated in the slave trade.
In Geneva for instance, students have held many protests condemning the university
building, statue, and street named after the German-Swiss scientist Carl Vogt. Most of the
criticism stemmed from Vogt’s belief in polygenism, a theory arguing that all human races do
not share the same origin. This has often been used to assert white supremacist ideas due to
its positioning of white people as superior to any other races. Due to renovations, the statue
has been temporarily – for now – put away, while university officials come to a decision
concerning its display. However, unlike Bristol, the institution has taken the decision to
rename the Carl Vogt university building, after lengthy discussions.

While it seems that no decision will ever satisfy all sides of the argument, one thing is clear: if
any action is to be taken, it should not be so without a fair discussion with the concerned
communities and an examining of the reasons for the removals of these names and
monuments. History has not always – and some might say has never – been glorious, and
many events do not deserve to be celebrated and put on display. However, we should still
think at length about what erasing them completely might accomplish. It is important to move
on and look to the future without forgetting our past, or we might run the risk of repeating our
mistakes.

It is difficult to keep track of the numerous political controversies currently occurring in British politics. Recent controversies include the scrapping of the Northern leg of HS2, the Prime Minister’s watering down of net-zero commitments, and the Rwanda plan, amongst others.

These issues have dominated media headlines in recent weeks and months. However, the passing of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Conciliation) Act in September received minimal attention from the British media. Yet, this new law is perhaps one of the most contentious pieces of legislation to be passed in recent years.

The Act’s stated purpose is “to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles”. During the period, Northern Ireland experienced a violent sectarian conflict. This involved conflict between republicans who aimed to unite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, and unionists who preferred Northern Ireland to remain part of the U.K. The British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary were also involved in the conflict against the republicans. The conflict ended in 1998 with the passing of the Good Friday Agreement.

The conflict took the lives of over 3,000 people, with over 1,000 of these deaths remaining unsolved today. Consequently, many people have never faced justice for crimes they committed, and families and friends of victims continue to suffer.

The key part of the new law states that no new criminal investigations into crimes committed as part of the conflict can occur, and all current investigations must end. A new commission will be created to make future judgments. 

Cases can be opened by the new commission to investigate some crimes. However, the new commission will not conduct criminal investigations, rather it will seek information about particular cases. Moreover, the commission can grant immunity from prosecution to individuals who come forward and admit to their actions. This means that if an individual admits to killing somebody during this period, and if they fully cooperate with the commission’s investigation, they will never be prosecuted for their crimes in a criminal court.

This law applies to all those involved in the conflict, including IRA members and British Army soldiers. The British government claims this legislation is necessary to “close the book” on the conflict and consolidate peace. However, a more adequate explanation is likely that many Conservative MPs are uncomfortable with British soldiers potentially being prosecuted, such as those who participated in the Bloody Sunday killings of unarmed Catholic civilians.

The Act has faced widespread opposition. It is quite challenging to unite all the Northern Irish communities. However, opposition has occurred from across the political spectrum, including from the nationalist Sinn Fein and the unionist DUP, alongside all other Stormont parties. Moreover, most Westminster parties oppose the law. Victims groups and human rights charities (such as Amnesty International) have also criticised the Act.

It is right for these groups to oppose the new legislation since the law has several fundamental problems.

As many charities and Troubles victims groups have noted, many people will never receive justice for the murder of people they knew. Of course, most victims’ families and friends will want unsolved cases to be solved so that they can have some closure. However, by awarding murderers immunity from prosecution, rather than administering punishment, their suffering will not be alleviated. Rather, many are likely to suffer more by knowing that those who took the lives of their loved ones can live their lives without punishment.

On a different point, the Act also creates a two-tier justice system in which crimes during the Troubles are not treated to similar crimes outside of this period. This makes the law incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on several different accounts, including a violation of Article 6 which states that citizens have a right to a fair trial. This will lead to future legal challenges in the courts. This may also explain why the Conservative government is seeking to withdraw from the ECHR.

On a final point, the Act could set a dangerous global precedent. If the British government can pass a law that makes British soldiers immune from future prosecutions, other states may choose to pass similar laws to protect their soldiers. This could encourage state-sanctioned war crimes and provide sanctuary from prosecution to criminals who committed the most serious crimes.

The Troubles Legacy Act is one of the most controversial laws the British government has passed in recent years. Media coverage of the law remains sparse, but it is essential that the British public are made aware of it and its consequences. The Act must be repealed, and new alternative ways to achieve justice for the victims of the Troubles must be sought.

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?