India Gordon This year, the UK witnessed a level of national violence not seen since the 2011 riots. However, the violence this time seemed to have a clear ideological fuel: far right-wing populist sentiments driven by anti-immigrant and Islamaphobic rhetoric. These views, having been repeatedly reinforced by leading political figures, mainstream media, and social media platforms, have become deeply ingrained in British society. From this perspective, the riots serve as just one stark example of the concerning spread of extreme right-wing thinking. The urgent question then is, what can policymakers do to prevent future outbreaks of violence? The July 2024 Riots This past summer, following the tragic murder of three young girls during a ‘Taylor Swift’ themed dance class, the UK witnessed an arguably unprecedented level of violent protest in response.  Across cities like Liverpool, London, and Birmingham, organised demonstrations quickly devolved into civil violence with widespread looting and assaults against many immigrant-owned small businesses, hotels housing asylum seekers, and mosques. The National Police Chiefs’ Council reported that over 1200 people were arrested for their involvement in the unrest, including nearly 150 juveniles. While the need to condemn the unlawful killing of these young children was undoubtedly important, the ‘protests’ that followed quickly spiralled into senseless violence largely motivated by far-right ideology. Many protesters fixated on the ethnic background of the perpetrator, echoing an anti-immigrant narrative that overshadowed the murders. This came after some online circles misidentified the latter as a ‘Muslim refugee’ who had arrived in the UK by crossing the channel last year. Such violence sparked a national conversation about race and immigration in contemporary British society, with prominent figures, such as MP Nigel Farage and far-right activist Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley–Lennon), framing the Southport tragedy as a consequence of a national immigration ‘crisis’. Despite it later being revealed that the perpetrator of the attacks was a British-born citizen from Cardiff, the son of Rwandan first-generation immigrants, the rhetoric risked generalising and alienating all immigrants and their children as security risks, only fuelling further tension within communities. Furthermore, these riots were met with arguably an insufficient government response. The responses of key political figures seemed to only downplay the significance of the riots. Sir Keir Starmer, who had been elected as Prime Minister just a few weeks prior to the unrest, responded by calling the violence an act of ‘thuggery’. Such language was arguably dismissive,  treating the unrest as an isolated act committed by a minority of troubled individuals. However, such a view arguably fails to consider the bigger problem - that is, the 2024 riots are a symptom of long-standing anti-immigrant rhetoric, fueled by years of political and social turmoil. Recent years have seen increasing traction of far-right sentiments According to figures released by the Home Office, nearly 100,000 racially-motivated hate crimes have been seen in the past year, with a noticeable 25% increase in religious hate crimes compared to 2023. This troubling trend of incidents could be fundamentally explained by the increasing widespread dissemination of far-right ideology,  in no small part due to rhetoric peddled by leading political figures and media outlets. The Brexit campaign, spearheaded by then UKIP-leader Nigel Farage, built its platform off nationalist and anti-immigrant messaging. It primarily argued that contemporary immigration levels were unsustainable, redirecting blame for socio-economic disenfranchisement some citizens have encountered to immigrants. Mounting pressures facing the NHS, the lack of employment and access to adequate housing, and apparent increases in civil disobedience, have all been misattributed as products of immigration. This thinking evidently resonated with many voters. According to exit poll data conducted by Lord Ashcroft, over a third of ‘Leave’ voters cited concerns of immigration control as a primary motivation for their voting. Ultimately, however, it’s important to recognise that while socio-economic challenges may make some individuals susceptible to extremist rhetoric, this in no way excuses the violent actions, including those seen this past summer, that they choose to take. The increasing anti-immigrant sentiments perpetuated by influential figures and media outlets like the Daily Mail and Great British News (GBN) have only further stoked the fire of populist sentiment, producing a narrative that immigration poses an inherent threat to national security and heritage. For example, these outlets have repeatedly run misleading headlines concerning ‘nearly 4000 thousand’ foreign-born criminal individuals living in the UK, despite no sufficient evidence to back such claims. Meanwhile, Farage, a regular commentator for GBN, faced criticism for fuelling conspiracy theories after insinuating that authorities may have been withholding vital information regarding the identity and background, including the immigration status, of the Southport attacker. This pattern of misinformation and sweeping statements may only serve to enforce social divisions, fostering an ‘us vs. them’ mentality against immigrants and, in some cases, extending to those who don’t oppose immigration. Left unchecked, such divisive rhetoric has resulted in tragedy. For instance, the 2016 murder of Labour MP Jo Cox was committed by a far-right radical, who had come to disagree with Cox’s support for immigration during her advocating for the ‘Remain’ campaign. Online platforms have only amplified these extremists sentiments The dissemination of these anti-immigrant and far-right rhetorics have been facilitated by online spaces. The aforementioned misinformation regarding the Southport attacker’s identity originated online, quickly spreading and normalising racial prejudices. For instance, the Guardian reported that 38 charges had been filed following the riots regarding online hate speech, which included offensive language and the distribution of images ‘intending to stir up racial hatred’. This highlights the dangers posed by unregulated digital platforms in perpetuating extremist ideologies. Figures like Robinson have built significant online presences, and with a click of button have easily been able to rapidly mobilise mass support for their views. During the 2024 riots, Robinson took to X (formerly Twitter) to propagate strongly Islamophobic and xenophobic messaging. In fact, research from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate revealed that Robinson’s tweets had garnered more than 400 million views, demonstrating the sheer influence afforded by such platforms.  The buying of Twitter by Elon Musk has been linked to an increase in far right sentiment with Musk himself having used the site to voice his concerns regarding so-called ‘two tier’ policing in the UK - the notion that those of the right are treated more harshly than minority ethnic or left-leaning demonstrators. However, this could be considered hazardous misinformation since data published by the Home Office shows that black individuals are seven times more likely to be subjected to a ‘Stop and Search’, compared to their white counterparts. In fact, formal counterterrorism legislation has arguably failed to account for right-wing terrorism at all. This is because cornerstones of British counterterrorism legislation like the Prevent strategy, tend to overly focus on intervening in the early stages of Islamic extremism, leading to a disproportionate targeting of Muslim individuals. This neglect of recognition for other types of extremism can perhaps be explained by policymakers, like Starmer’s aforementioned ‘thuggery’ comments, inability to view far-right violence as a legitimate security threat.  Conclusion: Future Policy To combat the problem of increasing right-wing violence, policymakers should perhaps look to adopt more comprehensive legislation, particularly in digital regulation and social services. Holding Social Media Companies Accountable Although they are primarily private companies, these platforms arguably have a duty of care to prevent the dissemination of misinformation and harmful content, such as extremist views and hate speech. This can be achieved by implementing stronger regulatory standards. A few example practices may include stronger content moderation, more transparency regarding how algorithms prioritise user content, and more streamlined reporting methods for harmful content. Reforming Counterterrorism Legislation The limitations of UK’s counterterrorism legislation, particularly the Prevent strategy, should also be re-evaluated to account for the legitimate threat of far-right violence. This should primarily be done by recognising and reforming the current racial bias perpetuated by the strategy, as well as expanding its definition to include right-wing extremism.  Supporting Communities Any efforts to combat far-right violence would also benefit from more long-term considerations that aim to bridge the social tensions that arise from such divisive sentiments. It is imperative that policymakers tackle the root causes of extremism, such as underlying social inequalities and attitudes, especially when trying to reduce the appeal of far-right sentiments among young people. For example, communities may benefit from increasing funding for job training and education initiatives, especially in economically deprived areas. Additionally, mandatory critical media literacy lessons could help people to recognise misinformation and manipulated narratives, which would help to build individual accountability. Despite the chaos that unfolded this past summer, there remains hope for change. While many took to the streets to take part in the violent riots, thousands of others also turned out for counter-protests, denouncing the xenophobia and Islamophobia that had been incited and demonstrating a willingness to challenge the prejudices of extremist ideologies. By addressing the roots of right-wing extremism through policy reform, it’s more than possible for the UK to work toward a future that is safer for all. References Why are there riots in the UK? Arrests and charges related to violent disorder continue Only prosecute children over riots as last resort, says youth justice chair Southport attack misinformation fuels far-right discourse on social media   UK riots: Sir Keir Starmer makes 'guarantee' for 'thugs' and announces 'emergency security' for mosques Hate crime, England and Wales, year ending March 2024 How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why Why should we Vote Leave on 23 June? Are there 4,000 foreign murderers and rapists living freely in the UK? Jo Cox killed in 'brutal, cowardly' and politically motivated murder, trial hears Former counter-terror chief accuses Farage of inciting Southport violence Elon Musk calls PM ‘two-tier Keir’ over police response to UK riots Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network Musk's X helps Tommy Robinson rack up 434 million views during UK riots Stop and Search - By ethnicity   UK: Shawcross review of Prevent is 'deeply prejudiced and has no legitimacy'

Millie Gould It is no secret that Donald Trump has some controversial and downright conspiratorial views on climate change, with him even going as far as to call climate change “one of the greatest scams of all time” . Despite there being a consensus amongst 97% of climate scientists  that climate change is not only real but anthropogenically caused, Trump’s recent re-election for a second term signifies the return of climate denialism to the Oval Office.    As this article is published, the Climate Clock states that we have less than 4 years and 250 days to limit global warming to 1.5°C  and avoid irreversible damage to the planet we share. This means that these crucial years of climate action will be dominated by Trump’s anti-climate agenda, as he leads one of the most economically and politically powerful countries, and as a result the rest of the globe, sleepwalking further into the depths of climate crisis.  The discourse surrounding the recent US presidential election has been dominated by discussions regarding immigration policy and abortion bans, whilst environmental issues have been severely side-lined. Yet, if Trump’s environmental policy during his previous term in the White House is anything to go by, climate change should be front and centre as we enter the latter half of the ‘make-or-break’ decade  for our natural environment. Apart from his consistent anti-climate rhetoric, and vocal support for the fossil fuel industry, Trump was responsible for significant environmental policy rollback whilst in office between 2017 to 2021. More than 100 pieces of environmental regulations  and policies were rolled back, repealed or weakened under the previous Trump administration, leading to substantial legal challenges from environmental advocacy groups and organisations. Arguably the  most infamous of these changes, of course, was his withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement .  One of Joe Biden’s first acts as President in 2021 was to reinstate the US’s membership of the Paris Climate Accord , along with the revision and strengthening of the National Environmental Policy Act . This signified a decisively pro-environmental shift from the attitudes of the previous administration. Whilst the Biden administration was not without criticism, with the US remaining rated as Insufficient on the Climate Action Tracker , the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contributed to and enabled record-breaking growth in clean energy . However, it appears likely that much of this momentum and progress will be short-lived. The Trump administration has already pledged the rapid reversal of Biden’s key climate policies , as most of these were achieved through executive authority which can be rescinded. To make matters worse, president-elect Trump has previously claimed he has every intention to pull out of the Paris Agreement for a second time , despite the increasing occurrences of climate disasters around the globe intensifying the need for climate finance. Such an act would “ cripple” the agreement , according to the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, potentially also encouraging other countries to follow suit. Furthermore, such potential could discourage other wealthy countries from contributing to the global fund for climate aid during the COP29 negotiations currently occurring within Azerbaijan , despite a Biden Administration delegate being in attendance. Climate scientists  have argued that a second term of Trump in office will likely mean maintaining temperatures at less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels will be unachievable. It is not just scientists who are rallying together against Trump’s reckless approach to climate governance - even Darren Woods, the CEO of Exxon Mobil , the USA’s largest oil and gas company, has publicly urged Trump not to pull out of the Paris Agreement for a second time.  Despite widespread warnings, it is improbable that climate action will be championed substantially at all within the US federal government under Trump unless there is significant resistance from within his own party. This is due to the Republican Party having gained a ‘governing trifecta’ , in which the president's party also has control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such a situation sets a dismal tone for the latter half of this crucial decade. If the US does not lead by example, as the world’s most dominant economic power, it is unlikely that other countries will be willing to raise the stakes with their own ambitious climate action agendas.   That being said, all hope is not lost. Despite Trump having vowed to reverse much of the climate change policy implemented under the Biden administration, it is unlikely that this progress will be completely undermined. For example, the IRA has sent a clear signal to the market that further long-term decarbonisation efforts are to come as America continues to build a low-carbon economy. Similarly, subnational actions such as cities, states and businesses may be emboldened to take on leading roles in the fight against climate change, as they did under the first Trump administration through campaigns such as the America Is All In pledge . These initiatives have only become stronger since 2017 , demonstrating the powerful movement towards clean energy from bottom-up leadership organisations.  Thus, whilst the climate agenda may have to fight an uphill battle within the US under Trump’s second term, there is significant momentum and grass-roots public support indicating that clean energy will continue to grow rapidly. Sub-national organisations have a unique opportunity to demonstrate just how much support there is for the US to take the lead in climate action, even if the Trump administration is not on board.

Jakub Fegyveres The 29th iteration of the annual Conference of Parties (COP), is taking place over two weeks, beginning on the 11th of November in Baku, Azerbaijan. Tens of thousands of delegates, NGO representatives, and lobbyists will descend on the city for a fortnight, during which the existential issue of climate change tends to be most politically salient. Its pivotal role in negotiating the requisite worldwide response, coupled with a failure to arrive at sufficiently ambitious targets thus far, warrants fundamental questions regarding the conference’s efficacy.  Climate change is the largest continuous threat  humanity faces. Its size inherently necessitates wide-spread action, especially from nation states with the policymaking and legislative capabilities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promote sustainable industries. Serving as a regular formal   meeting of the signatories of the 1995 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , the COP brings together the framework’s 198 signatory Parties . It represents a global forum which allows for sufficiently impactful climate deals to be negotiated and signed. It is no surprise that COP’s importance has been reflected in the agreements that have been negotiated under its auspices thus far. For instance, COP3 saw the signing of the Kyoto Protocol , which sought to limit GHG emissions by 5% between 2008 and 2012, judged against 1990 levels. More recently, at COP21, the Paris Agreement  was signed, legally committing states to a goal of limiting global warming at 1.5°C, while seeing GHG emissions peak before 2025 and decline at least 43% by 2030. Significantly, a major (and unique) selling point of these deals is the universality with which they were adopted, as all official COP deals are agreed by consensus. The conferences also provide ample opportunity for side-deals to be made between a smaller number of parties, as COP28 demonstrated . This progress naturally contributes to media cycles, which can elicit the impression that climate change is being managed with relative success. As things stand, this is not the case. In its recent Emissions Gap Report , the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) found that, if we continue along our current trajectory, temperatures will rise by 3.1°C over the course of this century. The UNEP’s second prognosis is even more dire. They report that, even if all states were to meet their climate promises, presented to COP every five years in the form of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), global temperatures would still rise by a catastrophic 2.6°C. Similarly, the 2023 Global Stocktake, conducted by UN institutions to measure progress towards the Paris Agreement goals, starkly warned  that “much more is needed on all fronts.” It is obvious, therefore, that there has been a lack of successful implementation and sufficient ambition. As a major institution designed to promote ambition and facilitate widespread action, it is clear that COP has failed to produce sufficiently impactful policy agreements to rise to the challenge thus far. The sheer number of lobbyists that attend the conference, for whom it proves a major access point to policymakers, point to why this is the case. COP28 saw a record  2,456 lobbyists, but the phenomenon is hardly a new one. Since the COP9 in 2003, it is estimated  that a total of at least 6,581 lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry have been in attendance. Alarmingly, lobbyists are also routinely accredited  as members of national delegations, giving them even clearer means of influence over negotiations and, ultimately, policy. It is unsurprising, therefore, that 112 organisations have called on  the EU’s climate Commissioner to ban fossil fuel lobbyists from EU delegations, for instance. Relatedly, the hosting of the conference in petrostates such as the UAE (COP28) and Azerbaijan can serve to undermine COP’s legitimacy, as well as stunting its ambition. The ties of high-level personnel provided by these host countries also tend to raise eyebrows. The President of COP28, Sultan Al Jaber, was simultaneously CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, famously exploiting  the talks to further his business interests. This year’s President, Mukhtar Babayev, has also been described  as a “veteran” of the oil industry. These facts suggest unavoidable conflicts of interest on both the national and individual level, with ultimately damaging effects. Looking ahead, COP30 is set to take place in Brazil, another major oil exporter . The conference also has a diversity problem. During preparations for this year’s conference, this issue was brought centre-stage, as a result of Azerbaijan’s presentation of an all-male 28-member organising committee. Although this was quickly rectified , there are systemic inequities , leading to ongoing underrepresentation, that cannot be solved as quickly. While it is worth noting that these issues have been somewhat addressed  recently, much wider social change is necessary to make future COPs truly representative. On a more hopeful note, a new round of the important NDCs is due to be presented as soon as next year, in advance of COP30. These have the potential to chart a more ambitious and sustainable course. The UN also strengthened its rules  on COP lobbyists last year, requiring a more rigorous registration process, although their presence in national delegations still requires addressing. Lastly, and significantly, it seems like the need for more ambitious policies is being prioritised by this conference’s organisers. In fact, COP29’s President, Mukhtar Babayev, has outlined  his vision of the conference’s pillars to be “to enhance ambition and enable action.” It remains to be seen whether his words will be lived up to.  References United Nations, 10/09/2021, "United Nations Press Release,"   https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14445.doc.htm University of Cambridge, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, n.d., "Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership,"   https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/cop-climate-change-conference#:~ =The%20198%20Parties%20to%20the,Eastern%20Europe UNFCCC, 11/12/1997, "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,"   https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf UNFCCC, n.d., "The Paris Agreement,"   https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement Cipher, n.d., "Top Takeaways from Historic COP28 Deal on Fossil Fuels,"   https://www.ciphernews.com/articles/top-takeaways-from-historic-cop28-deal-on-fossil-fuels/ UNEP, 2024, "Emissions Gap Report 2024,"   https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024 London School of Economics, Grantham Research Institute, n.d., "What Is the Global Stocktake,"   https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-the-global-stocktake/ Amnesty International, 01/12/2023, "Global Record Number of Fossil Fuel Lobbyists at COP Undermines Critical Climate Talks,"   https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/global-record-number-of-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-at-cop-undermines-critical-climate-talks/ Corporate Europe Observatory, 11/11/2023, "Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Attend UN Climate Talks More Than 7,000 Times,"   https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-attend-un-climate-talks-more-7000-times Global Witness, 14/11/2023, "Over 100% More Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Last Year Flooding Crucial COP Climate Talks,"   https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/over-100-more-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-last-year-flooding-crucial-cop-climate-talks/ Transparency International, 13/11/2023, "112 Organisations Call on EU Climate Commissioner to Ban Fossil Fuel Lobbyists from EU Delegations at COP29,"   https://transparency.eu/112-organisations-call-on-eu-climate-commissioner-to-ban-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-from-eu-delegations-at-cop29/ Global Witness, 20/11/2023, "New Investigation Reveals How COP28 President Used Role to Pursue Oil and Gas Deals,"   https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/new-investigation-reveals-how-cop28-president-used-role-pursue-oil-and-gas-deals/ The Guardian, 05/01/2024, "COP29 Will Be Led by Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan Ecology Minister Who Is Oil Industry Veteran,"   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/05/cop29-will-be-led-by-mukhtar-babayev-azerbaijan-ecology-minister-who-is-oil-industry-veteran COP29, n.d., "Letter to Parties and Constituencies,"   https://cop29.az/en/media-hub/news/letter-to-parties-and-constituencies The Guardian, 15/06/2023, "Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Will Have to Identify Themselves When Registering for COP28,"   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/15/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-will-have-to-identify-themselves-when-registering-for-cop28 Future of Food, n.d., "Creating a More Equitable COP: The Barriers Facing Civil Society and Global South Presence,"   https://futureoffood.org/insights/creating-a-more-equitable-cop-the-barriers-facing-civil-society-and-global-south-presence/ Gowling WLG, 2024, "What Is COP29 Focused on and What Do Businesses Need to Know,"   https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2024/what-is-cop29-focused-on-and-what-do-businesses-need-to-know The Guardian, 19/01/2024, "Women COP29 Climate Summit Committee Backlash,"   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/19/women-cop29-climate-summit-committee-backlash International Energy Agency, n.d., "Brazil Oil Profile,"   https://www.iea.org/countries/brazil/oil

Lois Glover Historically, mental health has been a heavily stigmatised, taboo topic and in many ways remains that way. Whilst mental health has gained increasing political and public attention, many misconceptions continue to circulate. From minimising symptoms to ridiculing therapeutic practices, a harmful legacy of misinformation has been created. Political decisions often convey an undertone of neglect toward mental health issues, despite the serious consequences of this disregard. It is important to recognise the economic and societal reverberations that have occurred from this issue as well as establish a comprehensive plan to improve service access, crisis support and the overall mental health infrastructure. How might the government address health care inequalities, if budget constraints limit the ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services? The Harmful Repercussions of the Mental Health Crisis Mental health conditions vary widely in intensity, with some individuals experiencing mild symptoms while others face severe challenges. As with all health issues, unaddressed mental health conditions often worsen over time. This can be particularly concerning in cases involving severe disorders like schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder, where untreated symptoms can pose significant safety risks for both the individual and the community. In fact, a risk to oneself or others is a central factor in diagnosing these conditions. The recent tragic attack in Nottingham, where university students Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar lost their lives, highlights potential dangers of inadequate mental health support. Valdo Calocane, the assailant, had a documented history of mental health issues and hospitalizations, yet inconsistencies in his treatment may have contributed to the devastating outcome. More consistent and accessible treatment could prevent such tragedies, demonstrating the need for dedicated mental health resources to better support individuals and protect communities. Furthermore, in January 2023 the government conducted a review into patient safety within mental health inpatient units, following numerous reports of abuse and deaths. When people cannot access preventative care or early interventions, they may end up in crisis situations that result in other systems being negatively impacted. For instance, mental health-related crimes stretch limited resources within the emergency services and the criminal justice system.  The initial costs of expanding mental health services may seem high, but neglecting this investment leads to even greater long-term expenses. Preventative mental health services and early interventions are far less costly than treating acute cases in emergency settings. Bridging Gaps in Accessibility and Funding: Policies and Plans After the coronavirus pandemic, the government introduced the Mental Health Recovery Action Plan, a £500 million initiative to address the surge in mental health cases. This funding, along with additional one-off initiatives, intended to aid mental health recovery from the pandemic. The Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Nadine Dorries states that the funding will “enable us to bring forward our NHS Long Term Plan commitment”. However it is not clear whether the temporary nature of some of the initiatives will make a pivotal change. Although some funds are directed towards areas like learning disability services, there is a lack of emphasis on structural reforms, particularly regarding critical staff shortages and wait times, which hinder sustainable progress. Regions across the UK continue to face significant funding disparities in mental health services. For instance, the East of England struggles with delays within the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). But the limited resources in the North East results in obstacles for patients. While some areas struggle to meet demand due to staff shortages, others lack resources for specialised care. Although the government aims to expand CAMHS, targeting these disparities will require specialised support and regional tailoring of policies to ensure equitable access to mental health services.  While mental health has moved up on the policy agenda, actual implementation lags, with patients often waiting months for care. Many argue that mental health remains underfunded in comparison to other health areas. Opponents of increased funding point to overall NHS budget constraints, while advocates stress that untreated mental health issues lead to higher long-term costs and deteriorate public health. Suggestions to an Improved Direction The rise of mental health cases cannot be discussed, without addressing the demand for mental health professionals, a key factor in any effort to reform mental health infrastructures. Without enough qualified professionals, even substantial financial investment falls short. The most effective treatment for most conditions requires a team of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counsellors and more. Despite the implementation of collaborative care models, a greater push for cohesion is required. This would be beneficial to patients who are often left isolated or without support, during strenuous waiting times. This gap in care can pose risks for patients and their communities, highlighting an urgent need for fair and accessible support. It is also important to intervene in the early stages of a condition. Routine mental health screenings could be conducted to help detect issues at earlier stages. For instance, services within schools, workplaces and primary care settings. Additionally, current training programs for mental health professionals, should emphasise cultural competence to better serve diverse populations. Racial prejudice is not extinct. It is still prominent within the healthcare system and should be addressed accordingly across the NHS. Tailored training that fosters cultural sensitivity can better serve diverse populations, reflecting the inclusivity that is much needed. To tackle workforce shortages, creating clear, appealing career paths for mental health workers is essential. Introducing students to diverse roles- from healthcare assistants to support workers- could inspire more to join the field. Financial incentives like scholarships and loan forgiveness could further attract young professionals, helping build a stable workforce. For current staff, retention programs that address burnout would make a substantial difference, as high demand often leads to mental health specialists facing overwhelming workloads. The Future  In 2017, the government proposed reformations of the Mental Health Act 1983, to resolve inequalities. This legislation permits the detention of individuals in psychiatric facilities if they pose a risk to themselves or others. To modernise the act, new policies aim to limit the detention of individuals with autism and learning disabilities unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition, as well as reducing the disproportionate detention of ethnic minority communities. The reform also looks to provide better support for mental health within the criminal justice system. It is also important to prevent the use of police or prison cells for those experiencing mental health crises as this often leads to greater damages. The plan to create alternative care facilities ensures safer and more suitable environments for patients in crisis.​ Ultimately, giving patients greater autonomy and tackling systemic inequalities shows the government is taking a step in the right direction. In conclusion, improving mental health infrastructure in the UK requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both immediate and long-term needs. Comprehensive reform is essential to meet the rising demand, ensure equitable access, and support a robust workforce. This means investing in early intervention programmes, enhancing cultural competence, and providing clearer career pathways and support for mental health professionals. By balancing structural funding with targeted initiatives, the UK can build a more resilient and responsive mental health system, benefiting individuals and society as a whole. References: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mental-health-recovery-plan-backed-by-500-million https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-mental-health-support-for-people-in-crisis https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-care-for-mental-health-patients-under-major-reforms https://www.cps.gov.uk/east-midlands/news/man-sentenced-killing-three-people-and-attempted-murder-three-others-0 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7547/

Aditi Someshwar Heartbroken. It is the only way I can describe how I have felt since reading the results of the US election this past Tuesday. While I am neither American nor live on American soil, this outcome feels like the worst possible one for the world. With figures like Trump retaining power, I can imagine quite vividly in my nightmares how the rest of the world will follow. It is always scary to be faced with a future where hate takes the forefront.  Ideology aside, Trump’s clasp of the presidential seat will welcome economic policy such as tariffs  (60% on Chinese goods and as far as 1000% on Mexico) and tax cuts  for the uber wealthy. Along with social policy  such as increased policing, police immunity, mass deportation, defunding of the department of education , and controlling curriculum. Yet, his most alarming promises  involve decreasing women’s autonomy, pardoning January 6th rioters, bringing in the use of military force  against American citizens he claims are ‘radicals’, punishing political opponents, and maybe most dangerously attempting to pardon himself  of his convictions and legal cases. But even with all the policy damage he can do to the nation, nothing is a larger threat than the ideological shift in governance this new reign brings.      There are already countless scapegoats  being named to explain Harris’s defeat. Reason one, young voters didn’t vote the way we assumed. Reason two, third party voters derailed the objective. Reason three, Latino men didn’t vote in their own favour. These are just a few of the countless groups  of citizens being singled out for how they lost Harris the election. Another perspective of analysis has been to blame policy proposals  and how Harris simply hasn’t put up a strong enough fight to prove her worth for the nation. More common notions may be to blame ideology  and the incapability of the public to accept that a woman can be president. Regardless of the several approaches put forward in the last couple of days, they all seem to be centred around either Harris’s faults or on voter behaviour.  However, there is no reason to even consider these explanations. The most decisive fact of this election has simply been that people haven’t voted. In 2020  Biden received 81 million votes, while Trump received 74 million. This year  Harris accounted for a mere 68 million votes, and Trump 73 million. It isn’t that support for Trump has radically increased or driven a substantial set of voters to swing red. No, people simply don’t seem to have cared enough about the outcome of this election to make it to the polling booths. This election was predicted to register record turnout, where did those predictions fall flat?   At this stage, one can only speculate as all votes still haven’t been counted. Poor turnout may be because of the countless mishaps with receiving absentee ballots from exploding ballot boxes  to never receiving a ballot  in the first place. It may also be caused by the fact that in numerous states the election was called  while people were still in line to cast their votes causing them to leave before voting. The ongoing Palestinian genocide  was also a central issue which drove many to abstain from voting, with the pretense that any choice would be a terrible one to make in support of Gaza. Frankly, all of these explanations, while valid, would never be enough to explain how 14 million citizens decided in the span of 4 years that their vote didn’t matter.  I come to the discouraging conclusion that it seems even with key issues like women's autonomy, police brutality, and mass immigration on the ballot, the majority of Americans do not feel the need to vote because they simply do not believe this changing of guards affects them. This election was not lost with the people who voted, but with the people who didn’t. Even if these numbers are slowly updated over the following weeks as all votes are counted, an important question remains of how a national election can be called without waiting for all the votes to be counted.  A sentiment strongly supported across social media  is that people survived under Trump the first time around just fine, so they will continue to live peacefully now. This disconnect from policy only elucidates a worrying trend within the world’s political hegemony, ignorance is now fuelling democracies, which begs the burning question - Will American democracy be able to uphold itself? Truthfully, I find my thoughts around this election best echoed by Jamila Bradley . Many people seem to be labouring under the misconception that one has to be pro-community in order to benefit from this community. This is not true. You do not need to be pro-abortion to benefit from the access to abortions. You do not have to be pro-feminist to benefit from feminism.  When we bestow someone with the title of a good spouse, friend, or colleague we allow them to retain the benefits of that title even if they actively undermine the mutual investment in the well-being and care they must exercise to actually be worthy of said title. In no uncertain terms, the people who voted for Trump, and especially those who did not vote at all, are aware that community and social welfare benefits them. Still they chose in the most literal sense, something they think benefits them more. They assessed the plethora of options available to them and chose the one that they thought would be the best for themselves. This happened to be the same choice that is the worst for us - women and minorities. So, regardless of whether you're American or not, think about the relationships you build because it is deathly imperative where you place your trust, your love, your bodies, your marriages, and your children. For when decisive elections like these arise, how can you ever truly trust someone who perceives that what is most dangerous for you is what is best for them.  Today, as a global society, we have made it so easy for people to masquerade as good community members by picking up a title and doing the bare minimum. We offer the full benefits of community, and of care and belonging to people that will ultimately defer to their own wants and desires. People, when the time comes, will think nothing of throwing away your rights, your bodily autonomy, your health and safety, at the first glimpse of power that they can never even hold in their lifetimes. The truth is, nobody has won this election but Trump and his lackeys, no citizen will reap the benefits. Alas, I look to this election as a wake-up call for all of us to truly commit ourselves to building the future we wish to live within.  I’ll leave you with a quote from Harris’s concession speech , I think we must all carry with us. “ Don’t you ever listen when anyone tells you something is impossible because it has never been done before ... You have the capacity to do extraordinary good in the world. And so to everyone who is watching, do not despair. This is not a time to throw up our hands. This is a time to roll up our sleeves.”

Aryanee Nair Singapore – known for the best airport in the world and its relations to the film ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ by John M. Chu, adapted from the novel by Kevin Kwan. For those who are unfamiliar with the film, it is set in Singapore, revealing the opulent world of Singapore’s elite. The film explores themes of love, identity and the complexities of family ties against a backdrop of lavish lifestyles. Given its success, prestigious awards, and over $200 million in global earnings, how has Singapore benefited, particularly in its arts and culture sector? As a Singaporean myself, it fascinates me whenever the people around me associate Singapore with luxury lifestyles as this does not properly encapsulate what Singapore is. Nonetheless, it cannot go unnoticed, what an excellent marketing technique Singapore chose to pique the world’s interest in making Singapore their next holiday destination, but also, how this film has catapulted their reputation across the globe and box offices. I argue that this film beautifully captured the high points of Singapore and what it has to offer. Thereby, planting the seeds for Singapore to become Southeast Asia’s major culture hub.  What was Singapore’s role in the film?  Singapore Film Commission (SFC) provided ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ with a Production Assistance grant, which ‘supports up to 40% of qualifying costs, including manpower, equipment, and intellectual property’ so long as the film engages with Singapore talent. This policy is just one of the many possible grants given by the National Arts Council (NAC) in Singapore. For such a small country, having such grants makes them more attractive to film makers seeking monetary support whilst simultaneously benefiting Singapore’s reach internationally.  How has Singapore benefited?  Cultural visibility   Unbeknownst to many, Singapore is a multicultural society, boasting a vibrant demographic of Chinese, Indians, Malays and Eurasians, coexisting alongside a plethora of religions all in one small dot. The beauty of such a society allows for there to be multiple celebrations from all cultures and a diverse range of cuisines to feast on. Moreover, Singapore’s landscapes are popular tourist attractions, where traditional post-colonial infrastructure beautifully intersects with futuristic design.This lets tourists experience Singapore's history and witness its rapid industrialization and status as a major financial centre and trade hub firsthand.The film perfectly captures all the nuances of Singapore, portraying its unique character and charm. By doing so, Singapore’s cultural visibility gets enhanced and hence, I argue, is an excellent marketing strategy to invite the rest of the world to visit Singapore. Ultimately, changing Singapore’s representation from one that is trade-focused to one that is multi-faceted.  Tourism Boost  With Singapore’s visibility being broadcasted around the world, it is certain that there would be a spike in tourism. This greatly benefits Singapore’s economy and growth as a country. Kayak, a search engine and online travel agency, saw a 41 percent jump compared to the same time period as the previous year and a 15 percent increase in the week of the movie’s release in 2018. This demonstrates just how much of an impact the movie had on the surge of interest in Singapore. Noting that tourism contributes 4% to Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product, it is crucial to understand the depths of which the outcome of this film propelled Singapore’s economy to greater heights. This is evidenced in the data given by Statista stating that Singapore’s tourism revenue was at US$2790.53 million in 2018, as compared to US$2590.41 million in 2017. Moreover, the revenue of this market is projected to reach US$4177 million by the end of 2024 with an expected growth of 3.67% annually. The Singapore government has clearly planned out which sectors would generate the country the most revenue and hence strategically chose to invest their money here, within tourism. By doing so, they have killed two birds with one stone; benefitted a multitude of industries like food and beverage, hospitality, whilst increasing their visibility internationally.  What does the future look like?  Looking ahead, starting from 2025, Singapore will have a home-porting of Disney Cruise Line’s latest cruise ship, Disney Adventure. This is part of the Singaporean government’s 2024 budget stating a S$300 million injection into their Tourism Development Fund ‘as part of a plan to grow the local economy and reinforce its global business-hub status’. Moreover, since ‘Crazy Rich Asians’, Singapore has launched a S$10 million fund to attract international productions to work with local filmmakers to widen Singapore’s visibility even more. Lastly, Singapore is now set to focus on sustainable tourism as part of its Tourism Sustainability Programme. All these avenues will boost Singapore’s tourism and hence improve Singapore’s economy collectively. Singapore as a cultural epicentre in Southeast Asia   Although Singapore’s growth and development does not simply rest on the outcome of ‘Crazy Rich Asians’, it cannot go unacknowledged that the added visibility, boost in tourism, has truly increased and benefited Singapore as a whole. Personally, I suggest incorporating other means of strategic marketing policies, specifically, within the arts and culture sector to further enhance Singapore’s visibility and tourism. Such examples include pumping in more money for local artists – both in music and fine arts – as well as investing in local fashion brands like: Charles and Keith and Beyond The Vines, which have all already entered into the international market. Or, judging by how much attraction Asian food gets within the West, assess the possibilities of opening up chain stores of local food stores around the world. Being able to market a country in a way that is more subtle, seems to come across as more elegant and classy rather than aggressive and direct. This examination might help cater towards the generation of tomorrow and help secure Singapore’s position as the major cultural epicentre in Southeast Asia, not just as a major financial centre and trade hub.  Summary   The momentum generated by the film ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ continues to reverberate in discussions about Singapore. However, the intricacies of how the government strategically harnessed this opportunity to elevate Singapore into a major cultural epicentre in Southeast Asia remains largely unexplored. This cinematic phenomenon represents a marketing masterclass – an artful blend of storytelling and branding – yet there is considerable room for refinement. By further capitalising on this success, Singapore can enrich its arts and cultural sectors, creating a more vibrant tapestry that reflects the nation’s diverse heritage and dynamic creativity.  References  Hod, Itay. “'Crazy Rich Asians' Effect: Singapore Travel Searches Spike Since Movie Opened.” TheWrap , 30 August 2018, https://www.thewrap.com/crazy-rich-asians-prompts-triple-digit-spike-travel-searches-singapore/ .  Kotoky, Anurag. “Singapore Starts S$7.5 Million Fund to Woo Next Crazy Rich Asians.” Bloomberg UK , 5 April 2023, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-05/singapore-starts-7-5-million-fund-to-woo-next-crazy-rich-asians?embedded-checkout=true . National Arts Council Singapore. “Overview of the Production Grant - Singapore.” National Arts Council , 21 February 2024, https://www.nac.gov.sg/support/funding-and-schemes/production-grant/overview .   “Singapore hotels get 'Crazy Rich Asians' boost.” The Straits Times , 19 December 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/business/property/singapore-hotels-get-crazy-rich-asians-boost . “Singapore Tourism Statistics and Top Tourist Attractions.” Budget Direct Insurance , 27 March 2024, https://www.budgetdirect.com.sg/travel-insurance/research/singapore-tourism-statistics .  “Taylor Swift: Singapore prime minister defends deal to secure exclusive access to Eras tour.” The Guardian , 5 March 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/mar/05/taylor-swift-singapore-exclusive-southeast-asia-eras-tour-deal .. “Travel & Tourism - Singapore.” Statista , https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/travel-tourism/singapore .

Giovanna Zarrebini Since COVID struck in 2020, consumer expectations revolved around a two-hour delivery model. When the pandemic disrupted that model and Just-In-Time frameworks, consumers soon discovered the implications that the term ‘supply chain’ had when the delivery of household goods was delayed. New consumers and corporations are looking into technology to improve supply chain efficiency and alleviate potential bottlenecks in the system (Deloitte, 2023). Supply chains can be transformed through the application of blockchain technology because it allows for equal knowledge among players in the market, enhances trust in the system and more importantly makes the services to small scale operators, especially in developing countries. It is important to note that when supply chains are considered, vertical integration and information asymmetry exist making it easy for the dominant market players who can easily afford the costs of adherence to such systems, to take over and control how data is controlled. The technology of blockchain with its decentralised ledger, enables transactions to be validated, addressing these power imbalances within the supply chain through improvement in accountability, reduction in fraud and in essence, support the importance of sustainable practices.  This article assesses the prospects of blockchain as a means of equalising competition in global supply chains. It discusses the advantages of transparency with regards to the supply chain management, the extent to which blockchain technology will go in increasing visibility and decreasing differences amongst players, and the implications of those issues for the development of appropriate policies. Finally, it details policy recommendations on the adoption of equitable allocation of blockchain-based opportunities in supply chains. Introduction  Supply chains are increasingly global and complex, involving numerous stakeholders from suppliers and manufacturers to retailers and consumers. Traditionally, large companies have had the resources to manage and verify their supply chains effectively, while smaller businesses, especially those in developing regions, often lack access to such tools. This disparity results in a lack of transparency, inefficiency, and often, unfair competition in the market. Blockchain technology has the potential to address these issues by providing a decentralised, tamper-proof ledger that enables all participants to access and verify information equitably. As noted by Tapscott and Tapscott (2016), blockchain enables a new kind of economic interaction by offering transparency and accountability that is inherently democratic. When applied to supply chains, it can create a system where each stakeholder, regardless of size or location, has equal access to trustworthy information. Role of Blockchain Technology in Supply Chain Transparency The ability of the blockchain technology to achieve decentralisation makes it suitable for product tracking in a supply chain system. From a survey conducted with 100+ industry leaders by the World Economic Forum (2024), 86% believe that blockchain offers a competitive advantage to the supply chain. Every transaction is entered in real-time, forming a ledger that can be accessed by the parties involved whenever they wish, which is permanent. This degree of transparency is especially useful in industries such as farming and housing textiles, where the need to source raw materials ethically and sustainably remains a concern among consumers (Kamath, 2018; Adams, H.S., 2024) ). To illustrate, small-scale farmers may apply this technology to record their farming practices as well as the quality of their products which will earn them better prices and access to wider markets (Kshetri, 2018). Blockchain seeks to solve information asymmetry which is prevalent in global supply chains in which multinationals often favour a large share of the information making it difficult for smaller suppliers. Blockchain allows sufficient data access to the small producers and helps them to achieve such international requirements, even those about protecting the environment and respect to labour, thus enhancing healthy competition (Dobrovnik et al., 2018). Counterfeit products exist in the supply chain and pose potential threats to buyers as well as honest suppliers, and this is one of the issues harming global supply chains. Using blockchain technology helps to eliminate this issue by offering a safe process of verifying the source and authenticity of products. For example, manufacturers of high-end products and drugs, among others, are adopting blockchain systems in order to safeguard the image of their products and curtail the level of unfair competition due to the existence of fakes. Furthermore, the technology is useful in promoting compliance. In the case of the textile industry, for instance, this technology can be used to trace the labour as well as the raw material used in production enabling the ‘good’ suppliers to compete with competitors who may not be ‘good’ (Saberi et al., 2019). Case Studies  Taking an example of the agricultural sector, it is common for smallholder farmers in developing nations to struggle to reach out to global markets because they cannot be seen or held accountable. With the help of blockchain, farmers can give proof about the quality and source of their produce, opening avenues for better markets. For instance, through the use of the Food Trust blockchain launched by IBM, small farmers have been able to farm gaze and track their products from farm to fork increasing trust and income levels (IBM 2020). In the pharmaceutical sector, the existence of fake drugs presents challenges within the healthcare system and especially within the pharmaceutical industry. It poses a serious threat to health and causes heavy economic losses. The use of blockchain-based systems, which are capable of confirming each stage of the supply chain from manufacturing to distribution, can help maintain the quality of the pharmaceutical supply logistics. An interesting case is that of the MediLedger Project in relation to blockchain technology where the use of drugs suffering from counterfeiting is prevented, therefore, making it fair for all the manufacturers in the industry (Mackey et al., 2019). The U.S. Drug Supply Chain Security Act of 2013 requires pharmaceutical companies to identify and trace prescription drugs to protect consumers from counterfeit, stolen, or harmful products. Driven by that mandate, companies are now collaborating with supply chain partners to use blockchain for this purpose (Guar, V. , & Gaia, A, 2022).  Policy Recommendations  Several policy recommendations are imperative in order for blockchain technology to be used as an equaliser in the global supply chains. The transition to blockchain for everyone will require the intervention of governments and policymakers to set up enabling conditions. Firstly, global standards and regulations will ensure interoperability across systems and allow for a unified global approach to streamlining data collection, verification and compliance for smooth adoption of blockchains (Casino et al, 2019). These standards could involve technical specifications, security protocols and data formats, facilitating seamless data exchange across international borders. This is critical for companies who are willing to expand to multiple regions across the globe and those who are offices internationally. International bodies like the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) along with national governments should work towards this goal together.  Secondly, poorer regions are characterised by limited internet access and resources (Choksy, 2024). Blockchain technology requires a robust digital infrastructure, including reliable internet access, and compatible software systems. Thereby, in impoverished and rural areas, especially in developing countries, this creates a barrier to blockchain adoption since infrastructure is limited. It is crucial to design policies to account for these barriers. Investment is crucial and goes beyond physical infrastructure such as training problems to tackle the complexities of this technology.    Thirdly, whilst blockchain technology may promote transparency, it raises privacy concerns since information on transactions and product journeys are visible to all those involved in the blockchain network. In order to protect sensitive data, policymakers should provide clear data privacy guidelines. This should allow for a balance between transparency and privacy to ensure that sensitive data is encrypted or anonymised.   Finally, policies should also be based on encouraging blockchain use for sustainability tracking. Governments could offer financial or regulatory incentives for those who use the technology to verify sustainable and ethical practices. The incentives involve tax credits, grants or a certification scheme. This would allow for a quicker integration of blockchain for  companies who are willing to align with their ESG goals. Thereby, policymakers can help ensure that blockchain technology supports sustainable business models.  References  Abeyratne, S. A., & Monfared, R. P. (2016). Blockchain Ready Manufacturing Supply Chain Using Distributed Ledger. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 5(9), pp. 1-10. Guar, V. , & Gaia, A. (2022)  Harvard Business Review.  Casino, F., Dasaklis, T. K., & Patsakis, C. (2019). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification, and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36, pp. 55-81. Choksy, U. (2024). How blockchain technology could help to prevent child labour in global supply chains.  Deloitte. (2023). Using blockchain to drive supply chain transparency. Use cases and future outlook on blockchain in supply chain management Dobrovnik, M., Herold, D. M., Fürst, E., & Kummer, S. (2018). Blockchain for and in Logistics: What to Adopt and Where to Start. Logistics, 2(3), pp. 1-14.  Hughes, A., Park, A., Kietzmann, J., & Archer-Brown, C. (2019). Beyond Bitcoin: What blockchain and distributed ledger technologies mean for firms. Business Horizons, 62(3), pp. 273-281. IBM. (2020). IBM Food Trust: How it works. Kamath, R. (2018). Food Traceability on Blockchain: Walmart’s Pork and Mango Pilots with IBM. The Journal of the British Blockchain Association , 1(1), pp. 1-12.  Kshetri, N. (2018). Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. International Journal of Information Management , 39, pp. 80-89 Mackey, T. K., Kuo, T. T., Gummadi, B., Clauson, K. A., Church, G., Grishin, D., & Liang, B. A. (2019). “Fit-for-purpose?”–Challenges and opportunities for applications of blockchain technology in the future of healthcare. BMC Medicine, 17, p. 68 Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., & Shen, L. (2019). Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 57(7), pp. 2117-2135. Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World . New York: Penguin. World Economic Forum. 2024. The State of Blockchain Transformation in Supply Chain.  Adams, H.S. (2024) Blockchain: The Secret Sauce for a Secure Food Supply Chain.

India Southcott In today’s education system, digital tools have moved from supplementary resources to essential elements for educational engagement. Yet, as education becomes increasingly digitised, the disparity in access to technology reveals deeper inequalities, particularly for students from low-income families. While some students benefit from seamless access to digital devices and broadband, others are left behind, unable to participate fully in online learning environments and digital resources. This divide was made especially clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, which pushed many schools toward remote learning but left under-resourced students and schools struggling to keep up. How can we address these digital inequities to create a fairer, more inclusive educational system and embrace the opportunity technology brings for equality, and what policies might bridge this gap?  In today’s education system, digital tools are no longer supplementary resources—they are fundamental in students' ability to fully engage with educational materials and experiences. As technology becomes so embedded in learning, the inherent inequalities of digital access, particularly for students from lower-income families, are exacerbated. Digital inequality refers to unequal access to digital tools and internet services, as family income often determines the availability of these resources. If students have limited access to broadband and digital devices, for example, they are unable to engage with many required learning resources. This therefore serves not only to reinforce existing inequalities - but also widen them, with students unable to access digital resources falling behind.  The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the extent of digital inequality in education. The in many cases, total and unexpected, shift to online learning created issues in accessibility and educational outcomes for all students. For students without internet access at home, this was especially challenging. Under normal circumstances, many relied on school facilities and libraries for internet access. The combination of this inaccessibility with increased necessity of digital equipment was particularly damaging to educational outcomes. Meeting these demands was also difficult for institutions with less resources, with many prioritising immediate needs, such as ensuring food security for students, over technology upgrades. As a result, students were left without the necessary resources to participate in remote learning effectively. Current Policy Landscape The UK has several policies aimed at reducing educational disparities, yet their impact remains limited. The Pupil Premium, while providing vital funding for disadvantaged students, often falls short in bridging the attainment gap, as its effectiveness varies based on how schools allocate funds. Similarly, the National Tutoring Programme was launched to support learning recovery post-pandemic, but its limited scale and temporary nature meant it could not fully address extensive learning losses.  Although the government distributed digital devices to underserved students during fully remote education, this initiative lacked the sustainability needed to provide long-term digital equity, aside from this there are limited national and standardised efforts at curbing technological disadvantages - whilst there are examples of success within smaller areas, local governments and even individual schools, these must be attempted on a larger scale. Efforts under the "Levelling Up" agenda attempted to combat regional inequalities, yet these programmes often rely on limited funding and inconsistent implementation, especially through changes in government. Meanwhile, while policies for students with special educational needs and disabilities offer structured support, many argue that resource constraints and administrative challenges have left SEND students underserved. Ultimately, while these policies represent important steps, a more comprehensive, sustained approach is needed to achieve equitable progress. A New Approach It is important to ensure that the emphasis of strategy and policy in combating this is on improving accessibility and expanding access rather than halting digitisation. Whilst acknowledging disparities in achievement and access to it, scapegoating edtech is reductive and runs the risk of losing the opportunity to expand access to technology which will be essential in levelling the playing field. Addressing digital inequalities falls under the difficult task of addressing overall inequalities in education, between students and institutions. When focusing on digital access and skills - it is possible that specific intervention could help to start creating a more equitable educational experience. In fact, this new educational landscape offers the opportunity to invest in levelling the playing field more ambitious than ever attempted before. Technology should be embraced as a potential mechanism for aiding students otherwise marginalised by the existing education system.   Policies should focus on comprehensively expanding funding, especially for schools with severely limited resources, but more specific policies in utilising technology could include: Closing the Hardware Gap  This could be achieved through launching a comprehensive programme to ensure that all students have access to the necessary digital devices, such as laptops and tablets, to facilitate their learning. This should include not only the provision of equipment but also maintenance and technical support. This did exist during the pandemic, and is therefore possible on an expansive scale, the impacts of the move to online learning have not been lost with the move back into in-person teaching, and so the access to equipment should not be lost. Addressing the hardware gap is the most basic and essential initial step.  Expanding Broadband Access Whilst initiatives exist in smaller-cases to ensure students have access to wifi at school and in community environments - this requires much more effort for students than being able to easily complete work at home, and this inconvenience may be a barrier to their participation. An initiative to ensure all students have access to high-speed internet, particularly in underserved and rural areas, is ambitious but would be instrumental in ensuring accessibility. This could involve partnerships with companies to offer subsidised internet plans for families.  Awareness Programmes  This could develop and fund ongoing professional development programmes for educators that focus on effectively integrating technology into the day-to-day classroom experience. These training programmes should cover best practices for using digital tools, fostering student engagement in virtual environments, and adapting teaching methods to meet differing needs. By equipping teachers with the skills to leverage technology effectively, technology can serve as an asset rather than a barrier. Enhancing Digital Skills Development  Integrating digital skills programmes into the curriculum can ensure that digital skills are not assumed, giving students who have not previously had access to certain technologies the chance to learn. This would focus on essential competencies such as online research, digital communication, and the responsible use of technology. By closing these gaps, policymakers can create a more level playing field, allowing all students—regardless of background or income—to engage fully in their education and thrive in an increasingly digital world. Viewing technology as a tool for expanding opportunity, rather than perpetuating division, is essential to building a fairer and more inclusive educational system. References: https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/digital-divide-in-education/ https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/digital-divide-in-education.html https://ctu.ieee.org/consequences-of-the-digital-divide-in-education/ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-strategy/2-digital-skills-and-inclusion-giving-everyone-access-to-the-digital-skills-they-need https://post.parliament.uk/covid-19-and-the-digital-divide/ https://www.benton.org/headlines/unesco-dependence-tech-caused-%E2%80%98staggering%E2%80%99-education-inequality

Will Allen The Conservative party, the UK's, and arguably the worlds, most storied political party is drawing its protected leadership contest to a close later today. For the first time in nearly two decades, the party is selecting someone to become Leader of the Opposition, rather than Prime Minister. This job is arguably one of the toughest in UK politics, if not the toughest - where there are no right answers or easy decisions. So will the party understand the gravity of its choice? The Conservative Party has long been called the natural party of government. Not only is the party supposedly primed for government, it is an election wining machine, unlike any other. The party is undoubtedly the most successful political party still in existence today. Yet, the most recent general election saw the party do something it hadn’t done for over a decade: lose . At the election on the 4th July, the party was cast out into the wilderness of opposition for the first time in 14 years, reduced to just over 100 MPs. Now, in this lonely wilderness, it has some hard truths to face up to.   Opposition is a harsh place for any party, Labour came to understand this acutely, losing and losing, and then losing again. It is a place where parties can spend hours, days, months even, talking about an issue for no one to listen to them. As a party in opposition, people will rarely have time for you, its often like talking to a wall. To be taken seriously in the wilderness of opposition, parties need to be led back into power by serious leaders who can navigate the incredibly narrow tightrope parties must walk.   This feat, to return to power, requires a seriousness and deftness few political leaders possess today. It is a seriousness today’s Conservative party does not grasp, a look to the slate of leadership candidates it put up recently makes this abundantly clear. They talked about being less weird… while being weird. They talked endlessly of renewal before the next election; about shouting louder about leaving the ECHR; about cutting regulations that protect and enhance peoples work lives . These are not serious conversations, and the party is deluding itself that they are. It has failed to grasp that it lost on every front, while it remains steadfastly convinced shouting a bit louder about immigration, or the economy, will fix things by the next election.   Unlike before there is no quick get out of jail card, the party has squandered its once indisputable strengths. When it was in office, time and time again, the party failed to be a party of serious government. It elevated unserious leader after unserious leader. Leaders who chose referendums to end internal party divisions ( only to make them worse ). Leaders who couldn’t control their party when the country needed that stability the most. Leaders who told people to follow the rules while they habitually broke them . Leaders who were so inept they gambled away economic stability, and left office after only 49 days . Now the party has elevated someone cut from exactly the same cloth, who served under and enabled the party’s former leaders. In the wilderness of opposition, the party, and its new leader, is going to face the reality that after 14 years in government there is almost nothing to sell the party’s return to power on . To talk of the party’s experience in government is to talk about failure. The party can no longer talk of economic stability and stewardship without invoking Liz Truss and the damage she inflicted. Her unseriousness for governing has untethered the party from the position of strength it once held. Any talk of immigration is met with the failed delivery of gimmicks that were never meant to work. Whatever trade deals were struck weren’t worth the paper they were written on .   Yet, there is a more foundational problem for the Conservative party. After 14 long, tired, years in government, the cardinal sin it will be remembered for was breaking things the British public love, the NHS, local communities, high streets, and far greater projects like the justice system and even the shared unity of the union. After a decade of austerity and tumultuous leadership, the fabric of Britain is broken itself. What’s more, these institutions that voters take so much pride in were broken not just on its watch, but at the hands of the Conservative party.   If you are the victim of a crime, you won’t get justice (or likely even report the crime) because the Conservative party broke the justice system . If you need NHS care, you will have to get in the queue of over 6 million people waiting for NHS treatment. If you are a first-time house buyer, too bad, the Conservatives didn’t build nearly enough houses . These are unforgivable acts of an unserious political project, that was for too long too concerned with maintaining power. These are fundamental issues the party must atone for, which it must apologise to voters for, and which can’t be made good by shouting a bit louder about 20mph traffic zones and who gets to use what public bathroom.   Worse still, the new Conservative leader appears unready to face up to these facts. The party detached itself from the electorate long before the last election, and only appears to be wandering further away from it. Party conference seems to have instilled a belief in the party that all it needs is a new leader and it will to storm to power, that a triumphant return to power is assured – it is not. The dangerous pound-shop populism the party courts won’t make it any more appealing in opposition than it did in government. The party also appears, strangely, to be convinced Labour won’t grow into government. Labour now shackled to the weight and responsibility of governing, at a time where there are no easy decisions, appears at this moment inept. Entangled in a mess of its own making with gifts, and unable to say anything until the budget, it has struggled to set the narrative. This rough start appears to have given many Conservatives a false sense of security, believing that Labour can never grow into its newfound power. When, not if, Labour learns to wield the power of government properly, the Conservative party, indulging the right and enthralled to cheap gimmicks, will face a challenge it cannot meet. This latest iteration of deeply unserious leadership proves the Conservative party has much to learn about its many mistakes, and what awaits it out in the wilderness of opposition. The party remains unwilling to begin atoning for 14 years of damage it inflicted on Britain. Reduced to 121 MPs, and the loneliness of opposition, the party is more insignificant than ever – no longer the natural party of government. It has no plan but to shout louder into a corner about things it thinks are important , but this time with a new leader. While its unseriousness was just about tolerated in power, the party will find there is no room for it in opposition.

Read the full editorial here .

Aditi Someshwar Many governments across the globe have been fighting a longstanding ‘war’ against foreign involvement in their public affairs, particularly through social media platforms. Agreeing upon whether platforms infringe national laws and cause real harm is moving to the forefront of political debate and agenda, possibly most clearly evidenced by the US calling upon TikTok to testify in front of Congress in early 2023. Yet, with a rise of hearings, trials, and general mistrust for the conduct of the platforms, proving propaganda and misinformation can be a challenge, even more so in courts.  The Many Implications of Foreign-Owned Social Media Companies Operating social media platforms in third-party countries brings forth significant ramifications, especially in states without proper digital policy. Firstly, regardless of whether firms can be held accountable, social media plays a pivotal role in the spread of propaganda, misinformation, and extremist views. We saw this in the case of Brazil, where social media, particularly WhatsApp and X (formerly known as Twitter), is used as a mode of political mobilisation. During the 2018 elections and the Bolsonaro reign that followed, X was alight with far-right propaganda and hoaxes to boost support for the former Brazilian president. This came to light with the attack on Brazil’s Congress in January 2023, an attack coordinated solely through social media with coded messages, tactical and strategic advice, as well as monetary promises.  Social media giants are also seen to take advantage of the political status of nations to gain profit. This is observed through the countless election hacks and data breaches across the world, the most famous being the harvesting and use of personal data by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Whether the data was used to influence the US election outcomes (2016) or the Brexit referendum is still unknown for sure, but access to qualitatively rich data such as psychological profiles of users is immensely profitable. Such data can be used to cater ads and preferences in a manner that takes advantage of users, selling them ideas and products with a significant financial gain to social media giants.  Both these threats are also closely connected with a firm’s, and moreover, a nation’s, ability to exercise and leverage soft power; access to third-party data is a powerful tool in leveraging influence both monetarily and psychologically. Moreover, the nature of these platforms allowing for political mobilisation further pushes soft power influences from an ideological or abstract realm into reality with physical violence and real-world consequences governed outside the arena of digital policy.  Potential Policy Solutions  As a result of the aforementioned threats, nations have been becoming increasingly vigilant in policing social media platforms originating and owned by foreign nations for mistreating local laws. The main ways in which these misdemeanours have been countered up until now include absolute bans, monetary fines, and the editing or creating of digital policy to amend the terms and conditions with which the platforms can be utilised.  The use of the absolute ban has been used in short-term intervals in Brazil for various social media companies while they are given the chance to amend their user and platform policies. Examples being X most recently and Telegram back in 2023. However, the use of long-term permanent bans has also been noted. At the cusp of war with China in mid-2020, India banned TikTok and has yet to lift said ban. The belief is that the site propagates violence and is too instrumental of a security breach for India to entertain when in such close proximity with a volatile rival such as China. The loss of TikTok has not decreased social media use across India, nor has it particularly upset the public, hence, the ban can be labelled successful in some regard. Yet, the soft power pull China has within India by controlling other key tech companies remains.  Monetary fines are also becoming increasingly popular. Just over a month ago, Brazil sanctioned a 5 million reais ($920,000) fine on X. This followed X’s attempt to sidestep the temporary ban placed while they were asked to comply with national regulations. This immediate regulatory consequence to disobedience is an effective way for nations to force companies into playing by the rules of the game even when they believe they can bypass them. Brazil also brought into place fines for citizens who attempted to use the platform through services like virtual private networks (VPNs), which added to the pressure on X to comply. Ultimately, X has agreed to pay the fines and change on-site conditions in order to lift the ban, which indicates some effectiveness. Still, it is unknown whether such tactics will work to deter future non-compliance.  Nevertheless, the most forward-thinking approach is to create digital policy that is robust and comprehensive in an age and time where technology knows no bounds. There are few examples of effective digital policy globally as it is still a developing arena. Further, digital policy can toe the line of censorship, which is both looked down upon and perhaps unachievable in most democratic countries today. When seeing how the risk of political threat can be mitigated from social media, the only current example to turn to is the Digital Services Act, which has been enacted in the EU. The Act provides extensive policy to combat misinformation and restrict data usage across all marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel/ accommodation platforms. It looks into protecting citizens by regulating law for providers and businesses across the region to ensure democratic control and mitigate systemic risks. While this may seem holistic, given its new status, whether such policy holds the test of time is yet to be seen.  What Now?  While it is tricky to understand how to govern the digital space given its volatility, abstraction, and propensity to change, it falls upon governments to protect and enrich the lives of their citizens, and suspicion against foreign entities is a legitimate concern towards state sovereignty. Perhaps the best solution is an absolute ban. However, given the globalised state of economics and politics today, it is unlikely such bans can be put in place effectively by most nations. The only real solution is to create digital policies regarding cybersecurity that are harsh, but flexible and offer severe consequences in court to curtail the power of social media giants. Governments across the world face a tough challenge in making these decisions, yet the urgency for a solution only grows.  References  Chappell, B., Bond, S., & Olmos, S. (2023, January 10). The attack on Brazil’s Congress was stoked by social media - and by trump allies . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147881560/the-attack-on-brazils-congress-was-stoked-by-social-media-and-by-trump-allies Da Silva, J. (2024, September 3). Brazil X ban: Top Court Judges uphold block of Musk’s platform . BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkmpe53l6jo Derico, B., & Wells, I. (2024, October 8). Brazil lifts ban on Elon Musk’s X after it pays $5M fine . BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y06vzk3yjo Háberová, B. (2019, March 27). Social Media as New Source of Soft Power . Institute of International Relations Prague - Expertise to impact. https://www.iir.cz/en/social-media-as-new-source-of-soft-power Jamali, L., & Derico, B. (2024, September 19). Brazil X: Court Fines Musk website for site’s brief return . BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4dn4z02emo Kleinman, Z. (2018, March 21). Cambridge Analytica: The story so far . BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465968 Madhok, D. (2024, March 15). Analysis: What happened when the world’s most populous nation turned off TikTok | CNN business . CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/14/tech/india-us-tiktok-ban-analysis-intl-hnk/index.html Satariano, A. (2022, April 22). E.U. takes aim at social media’s harms with Landmark New Law . The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/technology/european-union-social-media-law.html Thorbecke, C. (2023, March 23). Tiktok CEO in the hot seat: 5 takeaways from his first appearance before Congress | CNN business . CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/23/tech/tiktok-ceo-hearing/index.html Zhang, L. (2011). Soft Power, country image, and media-policy interrelations in international politics. News Media and EU-China Relations , 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230118638_2

Abhay Venkitaraman Illustration by Will Allen The UK’s Value Added Tax (VAT), a tax on household consumption, spares many goods and services from the ‘standard’ 20% tax rate. Some, like food and children’s clothing, are subjected to reduced rates of VAT – whilst others, like education, are exempted from VAT altogether. This bleeds the government of £100bn every single year, burdens businesses with extra administration and compliance costs, and results in unfair tax treatment of goods and services. Is this arrangement justifiable, and how ought we to reform VAT to make it fit for purpose? After 14 years of Conservative misrule, the degeneration of the public realm is clear for all to see. Prisons are full, waiting lists are through the roof, thousands of youth centres  and libraries  have closed, and the retrenchment of our welfare state has immiserated the most vulnerable. Something must give – and the British government will have to ramp up spending to relieve the multiplicity of funding pressures it currently faces. This begs the obvious question: how are we going to pay for it? One area the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, could start with is the UK’s Value Added Tax (VAT) regime. In particular, she should reduce the number of goods which are either exempted from or subjected to reduced rates of VAT. Not only could this raise tens of billions of Pounds worth of revenue, but it could also significantly reduce the administration and compliance costs businesses face and create a more equitable tax system. How VAT works VAT is a tax levied on the sales of goods and services sold in the UK, with the bulk being subject to a 20% standard rate. Every single participant in a product’s supply chain – whether it be suppliers, retailers, or consumers – pays VAT on the ‘value added’ (hence the name) at each stage of the production process. However, firms are reimbursed entirely for the VAT they pay on their inputs. This means the tax is only really paid by consumers, with firms being shielded from any monetary burden. However, there are many exceptions to these rules. Many goods and services in the UK are subjected to a ‘reduced rate’ of VAT – meaning a rate of VAT lower than 20% -- sometimes even 0% (what is called ‘zero-rating’) -- is levied on them. This  applies to most food and children’s clothing, alongside home energy, residential property, and other products. However, firms selling these can still be reimbursed for the VAT they pay on their inputs. Others , like education and training, are ‘exempted’ from VAT. This means consumers pay no VAT on these goods and services, but also that firms cannot claw back any of the VAT they pay on inputs used to produce them. How the UK’s VAT regime differs from other countries Whilst every country that has a VAT either exempts or subjects some goods to reduced rates, the UK is unique  in terms of how many of these it provides. A relatively accurate measurement for this is the VAT revenue ratio (VRR). This measures the total amount of VAT revenue a government collects as a share of the revenue it would raise if it subjected all household consumption to VAT, with 1 being the highest possible number. In 2022, the UK’s VRR was 0.44  – significantly lower than the OECD average of 0.56. These exemptions and reduced rates bleed the government dry. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated  they collectively cost the Exchequer £100 billion annually. For reference, were the government to raise that much additional revenue, it would be more than enough  to allow all government departments’ day-to-day budgets to rise in line with GDP – the beginning of an end to austerity. VAT reduced rates and exemptions create a host of deleterious effects VAT exemptions and reduced rates also impose immense amounts of complexity on firms. Businesses  must spend ample amounts of time and effort determining whether their goods and services are zero-rated or VAT-exempt. This burden is amplified by the fact that extensive, costly court cases are often fought over how their goods and services should be classified for tax purposes. A classic example of this occurred in 1991, when McVitie’s and the UK government fought a court case  over the all-important question: should Jaffa Cakes be classified as cakes or chocolate biscuits? This had huge implications for McVitie’s – due to the design of the UK’s VAT system, cakes are zero-rated, but you must pay 20% VAT on chocolate biscuits, and it is alleged that as a result, the court ruling that Jaffa Cakes are chocolate biscuits could have cost the company £3 million. Following a lengthy legal battle where McVitie’s literally baked a giant Jaffa Cake to substantiate their case, the VAT tribunal ultimately ruled in their favour. Moreover, VAT exemptions on goods and services – like education and training – result in firms having to pay the tax on inputs used to produce them. Importantly, because only certain products receive exemptions (whilst others don’t), this means the VAT regime ‘distorts’ businesses’ production choices , meaning it incentivises them to decide what to produce on tax rather than economic grounds. They are effectively discouraged from producing VAT-exempt goods and services even if those goods create more value for the firm and consumers. This results in a more inefficient distribution of resources and lower social welfare. Some argue for reduced rates on distributional grounds. Levying VAT on essentials like food and children’s clothing would be regressive, they say, since low-income households spend a higher share of their income on these goods. This, in their view, justifies zero-rating them – as is currently the case in the UK. This is widely off the mark. For one, wealthy households consume more of these essentials than poor ones in absolute terms . This means that in absolute terms, they benefit more from 0% VAT on food and children’s clothing than poorer ones do. It would be more distributionally progressive to subject these goods to 20% VAT, and to spend the resulting revenue on welfare programmes that benefit the poor. More broadly, what matters is not how distributionally progressive VAT is, but rather the progressivity of the overall tax system. Any regressivity stemming from VAT can be counterbalanced by other ‘progressive’ taxes – such as Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax. Others hold the view that ‘meritorious’ goods and services , like books and cultural events, should be subjected to a reduced rate of VAT. This , it is argued, enables higher consumption of these, which is seen as benefiting society. Policymakers seem to be convinced by this logic in the UK, with both print books and e-books being zero-rated on this basis. However, the subjectivity inherent to defining what a ‘meritorious’ good is means that this inevitably results in inequitable treatment of goods and services. For example, print newspapers are zero-rated, but digital newspapers  are subject to 20% VAT. Is there any reasonable justification for this differentiation in tax treatment? Colouring books are another case study: they’re zero-rated, but only if they’re for children – colouring books  deemed “suitable for adults” are subjected to 20% VAT. This inequity extends to a wide range of other goods, leading to all manner of absurdities. A gingerbread man with chocolate eyes is zero-rated, but you have to pay 20% VAT if it has chocolate trousers . Strawberry milkshakes  are zero-rated, but you have to pay 20% VAT on chocolate milkshakes. And the list goes on and on. More broadly, reduced rates may not even result in lower prices for consumers. A report by the think tank Tax Policy Associates found the reduction of VAT on period products from 5% to 0%, the so-called ‘tampon tax abolition’, did not result in lower prices for consumers, with essentially  all the windfall being pocketed by retailers. The think tank found the zero-rating of eBooks  in 2020 created similar outcomes. Policy Recommendations Whilst the number of VAT exemptions and reduced rates should be significantly more limited than at present, there are some cases where they may be justified. There is a case for exempting financial services and public services from VAT – as these generally don’t offer services at a price and are therefore hard to value for tax purposes. Furthermore, there may be an efficiency case  for reducing VAT on goods and services whose consumption heavily influences work incentives, as this might lead to higher levels of labour supply, and therefore economic growth. Many also highlight the potential benefits  of exempting small businesses from VAT – given the disproportionate compliance and administrative costs they would face relative to their profits if they were subjected to the tax, although exempting them from VAT runs the risk of discouraging firms from expanding . And exports  should also be VAT-exempt to prevent double taxation. Overall, though, it must be emphasised that the share of goods and services subject to VAT exemptions and reduced rates in the UK is vastly excessive. The present regime deprives the government of desperately necessary tax revenue, imposes vast administrative and compliance costs on firms, and fosters horrific amounts of inequity. One can only hope that in the run up to this month’s Budget, Rachel Reeves makes the right choice: reforming VAT as one step of many to deliver the change our economic landscape desperately needs.