Every few years, a story about military dolphins surfaces and briefly dominates the news cycle. In May 2026, it happened again. I’m going to tell you why.

In a recent press conference US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether Iran was planning to deploy “kamikaze dolphins” to attack American warships in the Strait of Hormuz. Hegseth responded: “I cannot confirm or deny whether we have kamikaze dolphins, but I can confirm they don’t.”

We can’t say for certain whether this question was planted, but the Pentagon has consistently restricted who can report and ask questions about their activities, and there is a very clear benefit to such a question. The question arrived at a moment where congressional scrutiny of the war is growing. A question about kamikaze dolphins is not just funny—it is useful. It consumes airtime, generates social media engagement, and ensures that the lead clip from that briefing is a quip rather than a question about civilian casualties or legal authorisation.

Is There Any Truth to the Claim?

The reason these stories are so effective is that they contain a kernel of documented truth. The US Navy has run a Marine Mammal Programme since the 1960s, using dolphins for mine detection and harbour protection. The Soviet Navy did the same, and when the USSR collapsed, Ukraine inherited the programme and then sold 27 animals to Iran in 2000, along with the programme’s chief trainer. Russia revived its own dolphin units after annexing Crimea in 2014. The infrastructure for military dolphins genuinely exists. That is what makes the “kamikaze” elaboration so potent, it combines absurd fiction onto a credible foundation.

Propaganda and Turning the News into Entertainment

The purpose of planting such a question is to shift the news environment into focusing on an entertaining and humorous topic. This is not the first time that the military use of dolphins have become the focus of a news cycle. The Russians have been accused of using dolphins to guard military convoys and North Korea might have a fleet of communist dolphins trained to spread communist ideology through marine warfare.

The role of this propaganda is twofold; firstly, It frames the adversary—whether that be Iran, Russia, or North Korea—as both cruel and technologically desperate, a country reduced to strapping bombs to animals because it lacks the precision technological weapons to compete.

Secondly, the propaganda hijacks the news cycle and the media end up reporting on this rather than on the actual events taking place. It fills the available attention space with something absurd enough to be funny, harmless enough to share, and memorable enough to crowd out harder questions about what is actually happening in the war.

Comedy to Distract and Entertain

What makes the current moment genuinely interesting is that Iran has apparently recognised this dynamic and decided to play along rather than fight it. As I have written about for The Conversation, Iran’s social media operation has become adept at using humour and memes to reach audiences who don’t follow conventional news. Both sides seem to have concluded that absurdity travels further than argument. The dolphin, improbably, has become a weapon in meme warfare.

The next time you hear a bizarre military story in your feed, it is worth pausing and thinking about the purpose it serves. The laughter it provokes may be the intended reaction.

The Church and Friary of St Francis, designed by Victorian architect Edward Welby Pugin and completed in 1872, closed its doors as a working church in 1989 and fell into years of neglect and vandalism. At its lowest point it appeared on the World Monuments Fund's Watch List of 100 Most Endangered Sites in the World - alongside Pompeii and the Taj Mahal and the building was purchased for just £1.

Following a £6.5 million restoration programme, Gorton Monastery reopened in 2007 and now operates as a vibrant events venue, community space and home to Manchester Camerata chamber orchestra.

In this video we sat down with Elaine Griffiths, CEO of the Monastery of St Francis and Gorton Trust - the driving forces behind the restoration - and Grahame Birtles, one of the monastery's tour guides, who brings the building's extraordinary history to life. Together they tell the full story of how a community refused to let one of Manchester's greatest buildings disappear.

This is one of Manchester's most remarkable stories of luck and coincidence, underpinned by hard work, commitment and dedication, in a way, embodying Manchester.

Our Other Reports:

No New Doctors? Resident Doctor Strike Explained

We spoke with resident doctors to see why they are continuing strike action after negotiations broke down with the government.

In a nutshell, the heart of the dispute is pay restoration - doctors argue their salaries have been eroded in real terms for over a decade, and that the government's proposed deal, which would spread increases over three years, fails to address that.

The BMA accused the government of moving the goalposts during negotiations, with a 3.5% pay offer coming in below the current rate of RPI inflation.

Jewish & Muslim Communities Come Together To Celebrate Passover

Jewish and muslim communities came together to celebrate passover at St. Peter's Square in Manchester.

Passover represents the Jewish story of freedom, marking the Exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Na'amod - a UK wide movement of British Jews - invited muslim communities in Manchester saying that passover should signify a freedom for all.

Katy, a spokesperson for Na'amod said that passover signifies a freedom for all and used the opportunity to call for a stop to the escalating state-backed settler violence in the West Bank alongside the end of the genocide in Gaza.

Na'amod is currently calling for MPs to uphold international law and call for an end to the ethnic cleansing and banning imports to the UK from illegal settlements.

In This Episode

We sit down with Zoe, a local climate activist who has been arrested multiple times for taking part in protests. We explore what first motivated her to become an activist, what keeps her going despite the personal risks, and how she is trying to raise attention to the climate crisis.

Zoe speaks about the philosophy behind her actions - from moral responsibility and urgency to the belief that ordinary people can challenge powerful institutions. She also reflects on the consequences of protest and the experience of arrest.

What Else Have We Been Doing?

Henry North

Since covering the Gorton & Denton by-election, we’ve continued to cover union events and industrial action across the city alongside spinning several plates journalism related and not.

We’ve covered what looks like a case of Union busting at the iconic Refuge bar in Manchester (more about this in the future), the Together Alliance march in London last Saturday and a strike over the last minute pull out of pay rise and back pay by NHS management. The behaviour is unprecedented and it’s hard to believe that the pay rise stopped was from Band 2 to Band 3 which is a difference of £2,204 from £25,272 to £27,476 for 11 employees.

Kevin Corran, the Unison representative at the picket line told us that managers had spent more on a review of the pay agreement than they would have spent on the agreement itself - a frustrating situation.

It’s a lot to keep up with and to get videos as we publish them, we’d appreciate it if you could subscribe to our YouTube channel and if you like a video… please give it a like. It helps push us in the algorithm and reach new audiences.

Adam’s also been busy speaking at conferences. A couple of weeks ago he was in Dublin where he won an award for the best overall paper and - at the time of writing - is in Oxford for another conference where he’s given a speech.

What’s Coming Up?

We’re going to need the help in the algorithm too because we recorded a podcast episode last week about the many problems of social media and how they can censor the news that we consume. Adam talks about how he’s been at the Sky Sports campus in Brentford with a team of academics collecting data on the harms of social media - it’s an interesting chat but unlikely to be amplified by the platforms we publish on.

This Easter weekend we’ll be publishing an feature on the 30th anniversary of the restoration project at the Manchester Monastery - dubbed Manchester’s Taj Mahal. It’s a great story, one of coincidence and luck but underpinned by hard work and dedication.

Excitingly we’ve also set up The Northern Rose shop. I’m currently in the process of putting it all together but soon you’ll be able to find bucket hats, beanies, hoodies and mugs on there.

Once again, thank you for your continued to support. As we close in on 500 subscribers on YouTube I’m very proud of the following we have achieved and the news we have provided.

The internet was supposed to be decentralised and put power back in the hands of the people. Two decades later, the power to control our public conversation is in the hands of private American corporations and volatile billionaires. Meta decides what you see when you log in each morning. X, under Elon Musk’s ketamine addled stewardship, has become a place where disinformation and misinformation travels faster than corrections and fact checking ever can. TikTok raises legitimate questions about data sovereignty and foreign influence. And yet, in the UK—a country with a globally recognisable and well trusted public broadcasting tradition, thriving digital sectors, and the belief (often not enforced) in accountable institutions—there is no serious stake in, or alternative to, the platforms where millions of us get our information and live a significant portion of their public and political lives.

That needs to change. And there is an organisation capable of this sitting in plain sight: the BBC.

YouTube short explainer - follow this link

The Private Sector Has Not Delivered Solutions

The stakes of this debate are not abstract. During recent years, disinformation campaigns around Brexit, Covid-19, and multiple general elections spread primarily through privately-owned social platforms with no meaningful accountability to British law, British users, or British democratic norms. Whenever the government presses these companies to act, it is threatened, lobbied, or obfuscated by billionaires and their minions. When Parliament summons their executives to give evidence, the sessions became theatrical and demonstrate just how little leverage the British state has over the infrastructure that dictates much of our public debate.

The 2023 Online Safety Act was an attempt to impose some legal duties on platforms. It was also an admission of defeat. Rather than building something better, the UK chose to trust that billionaires would act better. Do you feel people are safer on the internet now than they were in 2023? That is not a strategy. It is managed decline.

Meanwhile, our data—the raw material of targeted advertising, political profiling, and behavioural manipulation—gets extracted out of the country and enriches companies that don’t pay their taxes here, employ relatively few people here, and feel no obligation to serve the British public interest.

The Answer Is a UK Platform

What would a publicly owned, UK-based social media platform actually offer? Several things that current private platforms don’t:

1. Genuine accountability. A British platform would be subject to British law in a meaningful sense, not through the clumsy reach of regulators who can fine Meta an amount that equates to pocket change, but through direct institutional accountability to Parliament, Ofcom, and ultimately us, the public.

2. Data protection with teeth. UK user data would remain under British jurisdiction, subject to the protections of domestic law rather than trusting foreign companies will act in trustworthy ways. This matters not just for privacy but for national security.

3. Editorial standards without editorial control. One of the core dilemmas of social media governance is the tension between free expression and harm prevention. A public institution would not be censoring speech; it would be applying the same editorial and regulatory principles that supposedly govern British broadcasting. It wouldn’t be perfect, but at least we’d have the power to refine our own principles, and they’d be subject to challenge and appeal.

4. Investment in British digital infrastructure. A serious UK platform would require engineering talent, data centres, content moderation teams, and product development. Those are skilled jobs, based here, contributing to the economy.

Why the BBC Model Makes Sense

Let’s be clear, the BBC is an imperfect institution. Nobody would pretend otherwise. It has been criticised from left and right, accused of bias in every direction, and periodically dragged into political controversies that have damaged its reputation. But its underlying architecture as independent of both government and commercial pressure, funded by the public, accountable through a governance structure with genuine independence is one of Britain’s most distinctive and valuable contributions to democratic life. Versions of it have been adopted across the world precisely because it works.

A publicly owned social media platform need not be run by the BBC itself. There are good arguments for a separate institution with its own charter and governance. But the principles of the BBC model apply directly: public funding, independence from day-to-day ministerial control, a statutory obligation to serve the public interest, and an Ofcom-style regulator with real powers.

Additionally, the BBC has millions of terabytes of data that is ready to be incorporated into a platform like this. Not only would it provide a public square, but a place to advertise and publicise BBC content.

This would not be a platform that tells people what to think. It would be a platform designed around what people actually need: reliable information, genuine connection, a space where public debate can happen without being algorithmically manipulated toward outrage because outrage drives engagement and engagement drives advertising revenue.

That is the fundamental problem with commercial social media. Its business model is structurally hostile to a healthy public square. Platforms make money by keeping you scrolling, and the most reliable way to do that is to make you angry or anxious. This creates a terrible user experience, which has been described as “Enshittification”.

A publicly owned platform, freed from that incentive, could be designed around entirely different goals and actually providing an excellent user experience, rather than pure profit extraction. We have already discussed the benefits of public ownership on the Rose.

The Objections, and Why They Don’t Stack Up

What are the objections? Critics might raise three objections.

1. Cost? A serious public digital platform would cost money, perhaps a billion pounds over a decade to build and sustain at scale. That is real money. It is also less than the UK government has spent on a single failed IT project, and a fraction of what we collectively hand to American tech companies each year in advertising revenue and data.

2. Would anyone use it? This misunderstands how network effects work. The BBC already has tens of millions of daily users across its digital services. A platform built on that foundation, with iPlayer-quality design and a genuine commitment to user experience, would not be starting from scratch.

3. State control? The fear that a government-owned social media platform becomes a propaganda tool. This is the most serious objection and deserves a serious answer. The answer is: institutional design. The BBC’s independence from government is not perfect, but it does exist, and it was built through decades of deliberate constitutional choices. The same choices are available here. A platform controlled by ministers would be a disaster; a platform governed by an independent public body, with statutory protections for editorial independence, would be something entirely different.

A Question of Political Will

None of this is technically difficult. It is politically difficult. The tech giants lobby hard. The ideological right is instinctively hostile to public ownership. The ideological left is sometimes more interested in punishing existing platforms rather than building better alternatives. And the current government, like its predecessors, lacks the ambition for a project of this scale.

But the question will not go away. Every election cycle, every public health emergency, every geopolitical crisis makes the case more urgent. Britain has the institutions, the expertise, and the tradition to build a digital public square worthy of its people. What it has lacked, so far, is the nerve.

It is time to find some courage.

Last night I went to sleep thinking that Matthew Goodwin - of Reform - would be the new MP for Gorton & Denton and I was wrong.

I thought that the Greens would have their vote split by Labour. I thought the narrative of the boats and what is being so widely condemned as a reckless drug policy by the Greens would be too much. It wasn’t.

I woke up to a video of the Greens co-deputy leader Mothin Ali crowd surfing and the news the Greens had done it.

On the run up to the election, there had been several cases of alleged cheating. Reform - sending a letter from a local called Patricia Clegg calling for her neighbours to vote for Reform - when the letters had come from a distribution centre in the south.

Labour left it late, which probably signified the panic. Zack Polanski claimed that Labour invented a fake tactical voting expert company to tell people to vote for Labour to avoid Reform.

But perhaps the most insidious, disgusting, whatever word you want to use was that Labour hired a small van with LED screens to drive around the constituency saying the Greens want “our daughters used for legal prostitution”. Are we living in an episode of Black Mirror?

Honestly - this reflected my experience on the ground. When I wanted to speak to Reform’s representatives, door knockers, whoever, I was told that they don’t speak to independent journalists and my questions were propaganda, showing all the Trumpian qualities you’d expect from them. Are the concerns from women up and down the country saying that Goodwin’s proposed tax on women without children is misogynistic, not legitimate? Would a party with such clear ambitions for government not want to clear the air that potentially disabled women may not face an additional tax that no man would ever be subject to? No they didn’t and it was frustrating.

Labour were useless. All canvassers were placed under strict instructions not to speak to any media and when I spoke to their press coordinator, I was told they’d have people available for interview in an hour. An hour later, they didn’t pick up their phone. An hour after that I was told I’d be sent a schedule for me to interview someone - it never came. The party in power of this country were not showing any transparency.

And then there was Hannah Spencer and the Greens. I asked Hannah how she was feeling on the run up to the election. She said she was nervous, nervous because of how much at stake there was. In the end, there was no need to be nervous - the Greens won with 40.7% of the vote share. They won by having an enormous grassroots campaign, people travelling from all over the country to support something worth believing in. And because the Green canvassers believed it, the people of Gorton and Denton believed it. The positivity was contagious.

But as the saying goes, the hard work has only just begun. It’s time to show the people what belief in the Greens looks like.

Zack Polanski told us that it’s the lowering of bills. It’s about tangible policies, not just abstract concepts of hope. Bringing water companies back into public ownership, ending shareholder profits, universal free childcare (I think a leaf taken from Mamdani’s book, why not?) and no donations from multi-nationals.

If I’m going to draw a conclusion from this, I think it’s that The Greens did something radically different to Reform and Labour. They didn’t result to cloak and dagger electoral techniques, they actually presented a version of the future.

One of hope, not hate.

A poignant place to start is an image engrained in my memory of a father holding a crying son turning away from the Britain First march. I felt like crying too at the scenes that were unfolding. As the 300 or so self-described ‘patriots’ walked the streets of Manchester, police could only chase small pockets of violence that erupted as passersby let their thoughts be known. But at no point were the racist, emboldened thugs so clearly exposed when they turned left off Portland Street onto Sackville Street. The circus – exclusively of clowns – found the road busy with stationary cars and once they turned their attentions to Canal Street a group of Asian men got out a black Audi and started asking a police officer if they could move it. The police officer refused. He said he thought that they were going to attempt to run over the Britain First protesters. A ridiculous statement – of course – as anyone with a pair of eyes could see that the urgency to move was because the men’s car had been scratched, kicked in and the registration plate torn off.

Half an hour before, just down the road where Portland Street meet Princess Street, there more depressing scenes. I’d decided to join the Sackville Gardens counter-protest. We’d been asked to share details of the counter-protest by Salford Anti-fascists, whereas Stand Up to Racism had organised a more ‘family-friendly’ protest with dedicated speakers like Jeremy Corbyn and Green Party co-deputy leader Mothin Ali – who suffered racist abuse himself while walking to his car.

As my counter protest reached Portland Street, the march was halted by police. After about half an hour of waiting, there was talk of the police issuing a ‘containment order’ and inevitably it started to kick off. There was wrestling, batons being swung and a personal low for me to see – dogs introduced. Thankfully they stayed on their leads. There were reports of vicious police brutality, but from what I saw, I’ll say they were heavy-handed and cannot prove otherwise.

After the protest, I was looking at the Rochdale Canal over the road from the Palace theatre and the water levels there were surprisingly so low, you could see all the rubbish lying on the floor including hundreds of bottles, a traffic cone and a plastic chair. I found myself gazing at all the filth lying there listening to police sirens wailing in the background. A woman passing by said, “I can’t believe that’s like that, in the centre of Manchester”. Before I had chance to ask her what exactly she was referring to, she was gone.

As I walked around town I saw mothers taking their young daughters out for a day in Manchester, likely heading out to visit one of the many things to do in our brilliant city – but the look on children’s faces wasn’t one of joy, it was one fear and confusion as they witnessed a glimpse into a future where “society is violent and horrific place to live”, Paul Golding’s - the leader of Britain First - dream.

Solidarity?

Now the dust has settled, I’ve got a nag. Britain First sent out a national call for any idiot to come and join them, understanding that if they were able to outnumber and intimidate the people of Manchester it would be a serious statement to the country. From what I saw, counter-protesters did outnumber Britain First, but from the people I recognised and met, coupled with the videos I’ve seen, the counter-protesters were almost all from the North and it’s not sitting well with me.

I rarely talk about the North-South divide. It’s so well-established by so many different metrics that we are forced to accept it and push for change. But where I did not expect to see the divide manifest is when it comes to standing up to fascists. Perhaps I’m expecting too much, but when I look at social media and media in general, I didn’t see people from outside Manchester condemning Britain First.

Am I going crazy to expect that groups of thugs walking through the streets of one of the country’s major cities should be condemned by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet?

Maybe it’s because I’m looking now on Sunday and was so caught up in it all on Saturday, but I can’t see any Guardian coverage of the march – any chance of a denunciation of the people who went out onto our streets and frightened our children?

The BBC have reported that police are reviewing videos after altercations of between groups but no mention of the reasons behind it. Nothing to do with Britain First demanding the deportation of our loved ones while terrorising our streets? Perhaps that could be a reason why tempers are flaring?

But it feels like more than that. Forget the mainstream media, that’s why we’ve set up The Northern Rose. But what has let me down is the lack of in person support from the South. I’ll credit Jeremy Corbyn and The Green Party for sending Mothin Ali while they do their bit in Gorton & Denton, among others like Amnesty and The Canary, but where was everyone else? I see so much talk on social media about fighting fascists from London based profiles, but did I just miss all their virtual support? I didn’t see it physically.

Saturday was a real chance for people of the country to show just how outnumbered Britain First are but outside of Manchester, it feels like the whole thing was barely mentioned. There was support from other areas of the country – and north Wales - but not really from the South. And that would be ok, but being from Manchester whenever London calls, we are expected to answer. Bang the drum for an anti-austerity march in London, Manchester turns up.

There’s a ‘Together’ march planned in London for the 28^th March and people from Manchester are organising coaches. Happy to get up, spend the money and their weekends to show solidarity. Do Mancunians want to go to London for yet another rally? Probably not, but they will. The people here understand how important it is to show solidarity to those in need of it.

My question is, where was the show of solidarity from the South when we were looking the fascists in the eyes?

The UK has a serious housing crisis. Housing is growing increasingly unaffordable for many Brits. Despite numerous governments acknowledging the problem, all have failed to fix the issues.

Singapore offers a solution. Around 80% of Singapore’s population lives in publicly built housing, and most of those residents own their homes. This is the result of deliberate state intervention.

What Did Singapore Do?

Singapore gained self-government in the late 1950s, and housing conditions were awful. Much of the population lived in overcrowded slums or informal settlements. Fires, disease, and poor sanitation were common.

The government recognised that leaving housing to market forces would entrench inequality and social instability. Housing reform therefore became central to government strategy.

Singapore’s established the Housing and Development Board (HDB) in 1960. Unlike housing authorities in many other countries, the HDB were enabled to:

1. Build and maintained housing at massive scale.

2. Acquired land compulsorily at low cost.

3. Set prices and eligibility rules.

4. Coordinate housing with transport, schools, and jobs.

HDB housing was not only for the poorest but designed for the majority of the population, including middle-income households.

Singapore solved its housing shortage by building at scale and building fast. The state directly constructed hundreds of thousands of flats over several decades, ensuring supply consistently matched population growth.

Because the government controlled land and construction, it could prevent land speculation, keep prices stable, and avoid property bubbles that are common in private housing markets.

Housing supply was treated as infrastructure, similar to roads or utilities, rather than as a financial product.

The Result?

In Singapore, most public housing is owner-occupied, not rented. Residents buy long-term leases (typically 99 years) at subsidised prices. The result is high home ownership without reliance on risky private mortgages or speculative lending.

To ensure that housing does not become a speculative asset class—as it has done in the UK—the government maintains restrictions on who can buy public housing, minimum occupancy periods before resale, taxes on second properties and foreign ownership, and limits on how many properties an individual can own.

Housing is allowed to appreciate in value, but within tightly controlled bounds. The state intervenes whenever prices rise too quickly, prioritising social stability over investor returns.

Can The UK Copy Singapore?

Singapore’s success does not mean its model can be easily copied. For us to have any chance of achieving the change we need then we will require strong state capacity and political continuity. There will need to be public acceptance of extensive government intervention and the ownership of vast amounts of land by the state.

Housing policy plays an important role in social cohesion. Housing is a human right and shapes the social fabric of the nation. If we do not deal with the crisis then British society will continue to fracture. As housing becomes increasingly expensive and the wealthiest buy up more of the housing stock as speculative assets then public disaffection with politics will continue to grow.

We need a party that will deliver high quality, publicly built housing. With political will and energy, as well as public mass support, a British government could institute its own HDB to build the homes and regulate the market. Even fixing this one issue would make the government historically consequential.

Your vote is important, perhaps more now than ever before. If you want that vote to go to the right place, make sure to vote for the party that has a clear vision for the future of British housing.

We discuss the rapid rise of social media and digital platforms as primary news sources, the decline of editorial standards in legacy media, and how this has created fertile ground for misinformation and disinformation. Unlike traditional newspapers or broadcasters, algorithm-driven platforms personalise news feeds, removing the randomness that once exposed people to a wider range of views and stories.

The conversation explores how customised news shapes opinions, reinforces existing beliefs, and changes the way political and social issues are understood. We also ask what responsibility platforms, regulators, and journalists have in rebuilding trust and protecting the public interest in an age where algorithms increasingly act as editors.

This episode is essential listening for anyone interested in media literacy, journalism, democracy, and the future of news in the UK.

With a senile orange sex offender in the White House looking to start a war with the EU over Greenland, it is important that the UK and EU finally recognise the urgent need to move away from the US internet infrastructure and technology. UK and EU digital public infrastructure runs overwhelmingly on American technology. This dependency is not only an economic issue, where US companies collect rent from European consumers and capitalists just for existing on these platforms or services, it has become a democratic, legal, and geopolitical vulnerability.

Growing political tensions prove that the US must now be considered an unreliable ally. Trump has demonstrated that he will use whatever tools he has available to him to achieve his political agenda, and therefore, we must not rule out his willingness to use our infrastructure vulnerabilities and data against us. The UK government has signed numerous contracts with US technology company, Palantir, despite fears that it will give the US government power over our data. The Swiss are smart enough to recognise this and refused to sign contracts with Palantir for this very reason. We have placed ourselves in a precarious situation and the sooner we cancel these contracts the better.

US technology companies now threaten the political stability of our democracies, and our politicians are terrified at the consequences of regulating their enormous power. Powerful Hitler fan and child pornography distributor, Elon Musk, is seemingly able to endlessly interfere with our national political environment with absolute immunity. Even his refusal to prevent child pornography being distributed on his platform has only led to an Ofcom investigation, with there likely being no consequences owing to our government’s fear of retribution from the Trump administration.

Building a new, non-US technological infrastructure will not be cheap, but it is essential. Fair redistribution and introducing proper taxation on the wealthiest will bring in revenues that would enable us to build this infrastructure, create jobs, and upskill our workforce. UK and EU cities that have been left behind could be reinvigorated with investment to build the new technological infrastructure and companies we will need to be self-reliant from US technological hegemony. The profits generated from these companies will then be redistributed into local economies and not siphoned off to US billionaires who actively seek to destabilise democracies.

Greater Manchester could be a leading region in this regard with the building of Atom Valley and the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, the North of England could become a hub of innovation and creation in EU and UK technological independence. In a globalised economy, it is impossible to detach from the rest of the world, and it is not desirable to pursue insular politics, but we need to be more resilient and resistant to the unfortunate growth of authoritarianism. The EU is not perfect, but the more democracy there is, the more resilient we are to the fascism we are seeing in the US.

Before we get into it, it is worth saying that it’s being reported that Zahawi has defected to Reform because he was not offered a peerage (a lifetime honour granting access to the House of Lords) by the Conservatives. This is in keeping with Nadeem Dorries who also defected to Reform after being refused a peerage — showing the quality of the politicians within the Conservative Party and now Reform.

Back to the title question, Reform and Farage have built their brands on being anti-establishment and offering something politically fresh. So why do they keep on appointing former Tory ministers like Nadhim Zahawi to their ranks?

There is one obvious answer, that both Reform and Farage are not anti-establishment and the projection of that image is entirely inauthentic, but there is another reason for appointing so many Tories.

Farage and the Establishment

Farage went to Dulwich College, one of the most expensive independent schools in the country, where he repeatedly racially abused other students. After leaving school, Farage went to work as a commodities trader in the City of London. This is perhaps unsurprising considering his father Guy Justus Oscar Farage (surely a man of the people) was a stockbroker, suggesting a hint of nepotism.

Farage joined the Conservative Party in 1978 and only left in 1992 because of the Tories willingness to work with the European Union. However, Farage has continued to flirt with the Tories who are his establishment friends. Ultimately, it’s Farage’s love of the establishment and the fact he is friends with many Conservative Party insiders that explains his willingness to bring them on board. He doesn't care about the image it sends to the public, it is the fact that these are the people he likes to spend his time around, he wants to be respected by, and assert power over.

Reform’s embrace of Tories

Reform is now populated by former Tory councillors, MPs, advisers, and activists who have simply changed colours rather than politics. Reform is not about offering new politics, just rebranding the old, worn out establishment politics they are supposed to oppose.

The Conservative Party is in crisis. Years of austerity, corruption scandals, broken promises, and economic mismanagement have left it toxic. Kemi Badenoch is useless and unpopular. But, there are many powerful interests who want a party that stands for the exact things that the Tories have historically supported, just without the baggage. For ambitious politicians and right-wing donors, Reform offers continuity without accountability.

Reform allows ex-Tories to rebrand themselves as rebels and attempt to escape being linked to decades of failure. By ‘swapping’ sides they can sidestep their own role in enabling the national decline. In this sense, Reform is a lifeboat for a sinking political class.

This helps explain why Reform’s leadership, candidates, and councillors so often share the same ideological DNA as the Conservatives they denounce. The language may be angrier, the tone more populist, but the ideology is familiar: low taxes, hostility to regulation, scepticism of redistribution, and a deep reluctance to challenge entrenched wealth and power. That continuity is now visible in local government. They promise to reduce taxes and cut “inefficient” government, yet all councils controlled by Reform have raised taxes, despite their campaign pledges.

The irony is sharp. Reform campaigns nationally on anger at elites, at taxation, at a system “rigged against ordinary people.” Yet in power, the party has shown no appetite for structural reform. Instead, it has adopted the language of change while offering continuity.

Conclusion

Reform’s instinct is managed decline rather than challenge the causes. Just like the Tories. Reform’s transformation into a party of ex-Tories is not accidental but structural. It reflects the limits of right-wing populism in an era of deep wealth inequality and austerity. Without a credible economic alternative, anti-establishment politics quickly becomes establishment politics with a mask on.

For voters, the lesson is a familiar one. A change in party label often does not mean a change in politics. Reform may talk like a revolt against the system, but it’s the same people, the same decisions, and the same costs passed on to those least able to afford them.

The move may backfire, but only time will tell. In the meantime we all need to do our bit to make sure that this information is known. The current mainstream parties might seem disappointing, but Reform are not offering new ideas, and they are not the answer.

Some political encounters begin in briefing papers or council offices. Others begin on doorsteps, at allotments, or in draughty community halls. Over the years, I have met Kate Green - the most senior local politician responsible for policing oversight - in all of those places: campaigning on my doorstep, tasting questionable homemade wine at our local allotment and at a Labour branch meeting in Urmston where I spoke about the worsening mental health crisis in Manchester.

I begin here, because starting from a human place matters. When people are no longer seen as individuals but as a problem to be managed, something dangerous happens very quickly. That loss of humanity was starkly evident this week outside the 4C Community Centre in Ashton-under-Lyne.

After a long day supporting people in therapy in my NHS role, the last thing I wanted was a near 50-minute drive in freezing rain to stand in the cold waving a Unite flag. But conscience has a way of overriding comfort. We were there because of the dire situation in Gaza, the appalling treatment of the so-called Filton 24 - at least two of whom are Manchester residents - and the serious condition of peaceful protesters currently on hunger strike.

Two of those hunger strikers, Heba Muraisi and Kamran Ahmed are close to death. Please remember their names. There has been little visible compassion or engagement from the Labour government.

Around twenty of us gathered peacefully. Most were older, many in our late fifties. Two of us represented Unite branches. We waved Palestinian flags, spoke calmly, and posed no threat.

Inside the venue, Andy Burnham and Kate Green were present, alongside very senior Greater Manchester Police officers. One may have been the chief constable Sir Stephen Watson himself but couldn’t be sure through the freezing downpour. The room had a large glass frontage and they could see us clearly.

When I arrived, I greeted a couple of police officers and the atmosphere felt relaxed. Given our age, numbers, and demeanour, I expected the evening to pass quietly.

About five minutes after the speakers began, a senior officer visibly received instructions. What followed was sudden, aggressive, and frightening.

Some protesters may have been told to move, but these instructions were not communicated clearly or consistently to the group as a whole. There was no collective explanation, no warning and no attempt to ensure everyone understood what was being asked.

Instead, officers in riot-style gear rapidly formed a line and charged. They shouted obscenities, pushed people to the ground, and forced us onto a narrow path beside the busy Oldham Road. People tripped over those already fallen. Elderly protesters were shoved and knocked down.

This all happened at speed, with an aggression that felt not just excessive but performative. Some officers appeared to relish the shouting and physical dominance. All of this unfolded in full view of senior Manchester politicians and police leaders.

Terrified, I began filming on my phone, hoping that the presence of a camera might offer some protection.

After an elderly man was pushed to the ground, a young lad shouted to distract officers and stop people being trampled. An officer immediately screamed “get back”, grabbed the teenager in a headlock, and forced him to the ground by the neck using his body weight. Several officers then restrained and arrested him.

Watching a teenager pinned down like that was horrifying. Sadly, I felt a moment of relief when other officers arrived, because the officer who initiated the headlock was so visibly hostile that I feared what might happen if he remained alone with the young man. That same officer screamed that we were “fucking pricks” and pushed multiple people, including an older man with mobility difficulties, to the ground.

None of this was necessary. Had the police clearly and calmly communicated with the group, people would have complied immediately. We might have grumbled, yes, but there would have been no refusal and no risk of confrontation.

After we were forced onto the narrow path beside Oldham Road - a move that indicates no risk assessment was conducted by the police - officers again received instructions that we were “too noisy”. Whether those instructions came from inside the event, from senior officers, or from political figures present, I do not know and dread to think.

What I do know is that the response was again reckless.

Without warning, officers organised and charged to seize a speaker. Officers jumped from higher ground, over a wall, and directly into the middle of our small group next to the busy road. People were trampled. Elderly men and women were crushed. One elderly gentleman was punched in the face and later required an ambulance after suffering heart complications.

The police may claim these injuries were accidental. But when large officers leap into a dense group of older protesters, harm is entirely foreseeable. Again, all that was required was a simple request to turn off the speaker. We would have complied instantly.

Afterwards, I witnessed officers laughing and giggling in our direction. What was painfully clear is that they no longer saw the humans behind the flags and chants.

This incident cannot be seen in isolation. Over the past year, Unite members and allies across progressive movements in Greater Manchester have repeatedly witnessed peaceful protesters being kettled, tightly controlled, and treated with hostility, while right-wing agitators and self-described “citizen journalists” are allowed to roam freely, provoke abuse, and monetise harassment online.

As a union representative - and as someone with a close family member in the police - I have always resisted simplistic narratives about policing. I was uncomfortable hearing chants of “fascist police” at early protests I attended, believing officers to be fellow workers and potential allies in movements rooted in anti-racism and compassion. But experiences like this make that belief increasingly difficult to sustain.

Our Unite branch has now agreed to campaign for a review of how protests are policed in Greater Manchester. Kate Green holds responsibility for policing oversight, and she, Andy Burnham and senior police officers within Greater Manchester were present and witnessed what happened.

We are writing to Kate Green, Andy Burnham and Sir Stephen Watson to ask for an urgent and meaningful review of protest policing in Greater Manchester. We want this review to include engagement with unions, anti-racist groups, peace campaigners, environmental activists, and community organisations - and it must lead to positive change.

We want to live in a city where peaceful protest is actively protected. A city where families feel safe attending demonstrations, and where children can learn that standing up for justice does not mean risking injury at the hands of the state or those on the other side of the barrier.

If this incident should be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, then that should happen. But doing nothing is not an option.

Because when peaceful protesters are treated as enemies, and the aftermath of violence is met with laughter, something is going badly wrong. When the people supposed to protect us are the ones causing us harm, then we must ask how we’ve got to such a stage and who is responsible. If this is how protest is policed while senior politicians watch from behind glass, we should all be deeply concerned about what happens when they are not watching.

Greater Manchester Police were contacted for comment. At the time of publication, no response had been received.

More from The Northern Rose: 40 Days on Hunger Strike: Why Activists Are Protesting Outside a Labour MP’s Office

Drawing on findings from their study, the conversation explores how harassment, intimidation and violence shape women’s experiences of public space, exercise and safety.

We discuss what the data reveals about the scale and normalisation of abuse and why responsibility is so often placed on women to adapt their behaviour rather than on men to change. The episode also looks at the structural factors behind the problem and what meaningful change could look like.

The discussion closes with a reflection on why the researchers undertook this work in the first place, and how academia can be used not just to study injustice, but to challenge it.

This episode is essential listening for anyone interested in gender equality, public safety, women’s sport, and the role of research in driving social change.

Links mentioned in the podcast:
- The Abuse Of Women Runners: Perceptions, Fears and Experiences: https://www.n8prp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/315/2024/03/N8-Final-Report_Abuse-of-women-runners-project-final.pdf
- JogOn: https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/jogon
- VAWG (Violence Against Women & Girls) strategy to better protect children from misogyny and abuse: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vawg-strategy-to-better-protect-children-from-misogyny-and-abuse

Comments have been turned off by request, but if you would like to get in touch with us, please contact: thenorthernrosenews@gmail.com

For years, politicians have insisted that the NHS is “not being privatised.” What they rarely mention is that privatisation no longer arrives in the dramatic, Thatcher-era fashion most people imagine. It arrives slowly, quietly, bureaucratically - through procurement frameworks, funding “transformation plans,” and the gradual diversion of NHS budgets away from the public sector and into private or corporate hands. Mental health care has become the test case for this new model of privatisation by stealth.

Under what is now branded Community Transformation, local commissioners across England are being encouraged - and in reality pressured - to redirect between 25% and 50% of community mental health budgets into VCSEs (Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise organisations) and private companies. On the surface, this is framed as innovation: “community-led,” “holistic,” “place-based support.” But the deeper pattern is one of fragmentation, outsourcing and an ideological shift that positions NHS services as outdated and interchangeable, while private delivery partners are cast as modern, flexible, and essential.

What is happening in practice is very different from the rhetoric. Many of these organisations have little to no experience in delivering complex mental health interventions. They succeed in winning contracts not because they provide better care, but because they are better at navigating procurement processes designed with them in mind. Larger VCSEs (some with multimillion-pound turnovers) are now competing directly with the NHS for mental health contracts - and winning - often despite offering less expertise, less accountability, and in some cases virtually no measurable outcomes at all.

Meanwhile, the NHS services left behind are expected to pick up whatever is left: the high-risk, high-complexity, or resource-intensive care that no private or third-sector provider wants. The result is not a “community-led revolution,” but a quiet redirection of public money into profit-driven or corporate-style organisations at the exact moment NHS teams are being hollowed out.

A Rhetoric of “Transformation” Built on Workforce Collapse

The entire Community Transformation agenda depends on something commissioners rarely acknowledge publicly: the NHS no longer has enough staff to deliver its own services. Instead of addressing this workforce crisis - by improving pay, conditions, training pipelines or retention - policymakers have chosen a path of replacement. They describe this as “integrated care” or “multi-agency support,” but what it often means in practice is diluting clinical services with cheaper, less qualified roles.

“Living Well” teams are the clearest example. On paper, they sound innovative: multidisciplinary groups led by people with “lived experience,” community connectors and wellbeing coaches. In reality, they have been used in many areas as a way to mask the absence of clinicians. The message is simple: if you can’t staff NHS teams, redefine what a team is.

None of this is to dismiss the value of peer support or community workers - both have huge strengths when used correctly. But replacing qualified roles with unqualified ones is not integration; it is displacement. And it is a displacement driven not by evidence, but by political convenience.

The tragedy is that these changes are being introduced at the exact moment that serious mental illness is rising, acuity is worsening, and outcomes are deteriorating. Instead of investing in clinical capacity, the government and NHS England are restructuring services so that clinical capacity appears less necessary. The consequences, already visible, will take a generation to undo.

Manchester as a Case Study in Failure

Manchester provides a stark illustration of how these structural changes are playing out at ground level.

The £3 Million Employment Support Contract That Delivered Almost Nothing

One of the most infamous examples is a multimillion-pound employment support contract awarded to a private provider with minimal experience in serious mental illness. The contract - worth more than £3 million - was intended to support people into work through specialist coaching. In practice, the provider delivered next to nothing.

Frontline teams repeatedly expressed concerns: poor engagement, minimal client contact, weak understanding of mental health, poor outcomes. Despite this, the contract was extended. The logic seemed to be that failure was irrelevant because the success of the contract was never measured by clinical outcomes — only by adherence to the procurement process.

Meanwhile, NHS teams were forced to absorb the consequences: more crises, more relapses, more people deteriorating without the support they were promised.

The Disappearance of £1.03 Million from Early Intervention Services

The Early Intervention Service (EIS) - one of the most effective and evidence-based components of mental health care - has been left dangerously underfunded in Manchester. £1.03 million identified as necessary for the service simply never materialised.

Instead, EIS was told to “innovate,” “restructure,” and “work differently,” while thresholds were raised and caseloads increased. The result is predictable: rising untreated psychosis, longer Duration of Untreated Psychosis (DUP), and greater long-term disability - all while commissioners talk about “improving outcomes.”

Private Bed Providers: The Black Hole of Mental Health Spending

Few areas reveal the absurdity of privatisation more clearly than inpatient beds. Across the country, NHS mental health trusts are now spending hundreds of millions per year on private hospital beds — often poor-quality, far from patients’ homes, and in many cases linked to avoidable harm or neglect.

These beds cost significantly more than NHS equivalents. They continue to expand not because they provide good care, but because NHS bed numbers have been cut and no government has reversed the trend. When the NHS cannot accommodate people in crisis - which is increasingly common - the private sector steps in, charges inflated rates, and delivers poorer outcomes.

This is privatisation at its purest: public money flowing into private hands because public infrastructure has been allowed to collapse.

The Ideological Shift Behind the Procurement

The transformation agenda is not simply a managerial failure. It is an ideological project, based on the belief that the NHS is incapable of reforming itself and must therefore be reshaped through market dynamics and external competition.

The language is revealing:

· “Choice” instead of investment

· “Diversity of provision” instead of adequate staffing

· “Community partnerships” instead of properly funded NHS teams

The aim is to reduce the NHS to a coordinating body rather than a service provider. The long-term implication is a two-tier system where “light-touch,” low-quality provision becomes the norm for most people, while clinical expertise becomes a scarce and rationed resource.

Fragmentation as a Systemic Risk

Mental health care depends on continuity: long-term relationships, consistent professionals, unified records, clear clinical responsibility. Fragmentation undermines all of this. When responsibilities are split between multiple providers - each with their own contracts, payment mechanisms, and targets - patients fall through the gaps.

We see this already:

· people being bounced between teams

· unclear responsibility during crises

· delays caused by referral loops

· clinicians unable to communicate with outsourced services

· patients assessed repeatedly because information is not shared

This is not innovation. It is chaos disguised as modernity.

Privatisation Isn’t Coming. It’s Here.

The most dangerous misunderstanding about NHS privatisation is that it will be obvious. It won’t. It is already happening through the incremental redirection of budgets, the downgrading of roles, the outsourcing of core functions, and the erosion of NHS capacity. The public still sees the NHS brand and believes the service remains intact. But behind the logo, the structures have changed dramatically.

Mental health care is the front line of this shift. Because mental health was already underfunded, it became the easiest part of the system to restructure without resistance. But the consequences will not remain confined to mental health - they will spread into primary care, community services, and ultimately acute hospitals.

If we allow this direction of travel to continue, the NHS will remain free in name only. The care itself will be increasingly fragmented, increasingly privatised, and increasingly unaccountable.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is a lived reality for patients and staff today - and unless it is challenged, it will define the future of healthcare in England.

This Christmas, we sat down to ask a simple question: what would Manchester actually ask Andy Burnham for if he were Farther Christmas?

In this Christmas episode, we talk through a Manchester Christmas wish list - from fair, inflation-linked pay for transport workers, to better communication, visibility and accountability from the Mayor himself. With public services under pressure and trust in politics stretched thin, we reflect on what leadership should look like in 2025 and beyond.

This isn’t about party politics - it’s about the everyday realities facing people across Greater Manchester, and what could make a real difference to workers, commuters and communities.

Happy Christmas from all of us - and thanks to everyone who’s supported the channel this year across our social platforms.

In this report, we speak directly to doctors on the picket line about why striking has become a last resort. They explain how real-terms pay has fallen since 2008, why student debt and stalled career progression are driving doctors out of the system, and why full pay restoration could take more than a decade without urgent action.

Doctors also describe years of winter crises, corridor nursing, unsafe staffing levels and the frustration of seeing political leaders criticise strikes while failing to address the underlying workforce crisis.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called the strikes “dangerous and irresponsible,” while the BMA says it remains committed to patient safety and is calling for a long-term plan for pay and training places.

This video focuses on the voices often missing from the debate — frontline doctors explaining why, as one put it, “no one wants to be on strike”.

Filmed outside Manchester Royal Infirmary on the 18th December.

Today the World Inequality Report 2026 was published and, unsurprisingly, the report detailed the shockingly high levels of inequality across the world. Let’s discuss the key takeaways.

1. Wealth inequality is out of control

The wealthiest 0.001%, which consists of fewer than 60,000 multi-millionaires, possess more wealth than half of the global population combined, as the figure below shows.

The growth in wealth inequality is accelerating and will continue to accelerate if nothing is done.

Inequality is more prevalent in the global south, where populations often earn far less than counterparts in the global north.

An average person in North America & Oceania earns about thirteen times more than someone in Sub-Saharan Africa and three times more than the global average.

Yet, in most regions, the top 10% typically own more wealth than the bottom 50%, demonstrating that inequality is severe in most countries.

2. Women earn less

The report breaks down where the inequalities are most stark, and gender inequality is persistent. Women continue to earn less than men. Despite working more hours a week (including domestic work) women earn only 61% of men’s hourly income. Women work more to earn less.

This structural injustice affects half the global population and demonstrates the unfairness within global systems.

3. The wealthiest 1% contribute the most to carbon emissions

Unsurprisingly, the poorest in the world are not responsible for the majority of carbon emissions. The largest emitters are the wealthiest countries and the richest individuals within those countries.

The top 10% account for 77% of emissions. The wealthiest 1% alone account for 41% of private capital ownership emissions, almost double the amount of the entire bottom 90% combined.

The wealthiest countries emit the highest levels of pollutants, but will also have the most resources to adapt to the consequences of the climate disaster — which will further exacerbate inequality.

4. Global financial systems entrench inequality

People are right to rage against a global system that does generate inequality. Richer countries can borrow at cheaper rates because they are classed as “safe”, which enables them to lock in advantages over poorer countries.

Developing countries are driven to transfer resources outward, constrained in their ability to invest in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This dynamic not only entrenches global inequality but also increases inequality within nations, as fiscal space for inclusive development is eroded.

With developing countries unable to compete for limited resources, populations can become disaffected with politics which erodes trust and hope that democracies can deliver change.

5. Is there any answer?

The report suggests that public investment and redistribution are key policies that can reduce inequality:

One important avenue is through public investments in education and health. These are among the most powerful equalizers, yet access to these basic services remains uneven and stratified. Public investment in free, high-quality schools, universal healthcare, childcare, and nutrition programs can reduce early-life disparities and foster lifelong learning opportunities. By ensuring that talent and effort, rather than background, determine life chances, such investments build more inclusive and resilient societies.

Another path is through redistributive programs. Cash transfers, pensions, unemployment benefits, and targeted support for vulnerable households can directly shift resources from the top to the bottom of the distribution. Where well designed, such measures have narrowed income gaps, strengthened social cohesion, and provided buffers against shocks, especially in regions with weaker welfare states.

If we heed this advice, then the future is bright. We are the 99%, we can demand change, we have the power, we have the numbers. If wealth inequality divides, then wealth equality can unite us.

Conclusion

Wealth inequality is unsustainable and if we do not make a political decision to tackle it, our living conditions will continue to erode until collapse. We need to force our governments to take action in reversing this trend and rebuild our living conditions.

The report’s conclusion has an excellent summation of the stakes.

Inequality is a political choice. It is the result of our policies, institutions, and governance structures. The costs of escalating inequality are clear: widening divides, fragile democracies, and a climate crisis borne most heavily by those least responsible. But the possibilities of reform are equally clear. Where redistribution is strong, taxation is fair, and social investment is prioritized, inequality narrows.

The tools exist. The challenge is political will. The choices we make in the coming years will determine whether the global economy continues down a path of extreme concentration or moves toward shared prosperity.

It’s not just political will. It’s your will. Will you act, or will you not?

For decades, NHS mental health services have been quietly collapsing in plain sight. Those of us working in health care have watched successive governments - Labour and Conservative - avoid the investment needed to deliver even a minimal standard of care to people with severe and enduring mental health difficulties. Mental health, especially secondary mental health care, has always been politically convenient to ignore: the public rarely sees it, the patients rarely have a platform, and the consequences rarely make front-page news. The result is a system that has become - and there is no polite way to say this - appalling, unsafe, and - at times - abusive.

If that sounds harsh, the facts are harsher still. People with severe mental health difficulties die on average 15–20 years earlier than the general population. Recent analyses indicate around 120 preventable deaths every single day among those receiving or needing mental health care. These are not obscure statistical footnotes - they are the predictable outcome of a system that has been stripped of staff, resources, and political attention. And yet, despite the scale of the harm, our government shows no urgency in addressing any of it. Ministers speak of “security,” but ignore the thousands dying early on their watch.

To understand how we got here, we have to acknowledge what has actually happened over the last 15 years: a deliberate defunding of essential care, a political unwillingness to confront the workforce crisis, and a demoralisation of staff that has pushed services into permanent collapse.

Austerity and the Managed Decline of NHS Mental Health Care

Austerity did not just “reduce spending.” It forced mental health services into a mode of survival where everything became about rationing: rationing beds, rationing therapy and rationing staff time. In community teams, caseloads ballooned to levels that would be considered dangerous anywhere else. A generation of skilled clinicians burned out or left entirely. Newly qualified staff entered teams where morale had already collapsed.

The cuts were not accidental - they were presented as “efficiency,” “modernisation,” or “targeted reform.” But what they actually created was a system where deaths and crises became normalised. The assumptions that once guided mental health practice - that people deserved long-term support, therapeutic care, and stability - were replaced with a mindset that prioritised throughput over wellbeing, and bureaucratic targets over compassion.

By the mid-2010s, many NHS trusts were quietly being forced to choose which services to keep alive. Day units disappeared. Group therapies shut down. Specialist teams shrank or were absorbed into generic “catch-all” services that could not cope with the complexity they were expected to manage. This wasn’t just short-term damage - this was the dismantling of whole ecosystems of care that took decades to build.

Preventable Deaths Treated as Administrative Inconvenience

The scale of premature mortality among people with severe mental health difficulties should have caused a national reckoning. Instead, it was met with political silence and routine bureaucratic statements about “ongoing challenges.” Even when official reports listed thousands of preventable deaths a year, the response was muted. No emergency taskforce. No rapid investment. No recognition that losing 15-20 years of life expectancy on the basis of having a mental health condition is a national scandal.

What this silence reveals is deeply uncomfortable: the state has become used to these deaths. They no longer register as political failures. They are treated as unfortunate but inevitable - which they emphatically are not.

Demoralised Staff, Disabled Services

Inside the NHS, the demoralisation of staff has become a defining feature of the crisis. Clinicians are repeatedly placed in positions where they know the care they’re providing is inadequate, unsafe, or entirely absent. They are forced to discharge people too early, decline referrals that should be accepted, and accept caseloads that are impossible to manage.

It’s destroying the workforce. Newly qualified practitioners are burning out within their first years. Services are increasingly filled with vacancies and temporary staff, creating instability that patients can feel immediately.

But the response from government has been to deny the problem, downplay the shortages, and publish long-term plans with no workforce data attached. The absence of a national workforce assessment is not an oversight. It is a political decision - because acknowledging the true staffing crisis would force an admission of failure.

A Government Strategy of Delay and Deflection

Every government of the last 20 years has promised to “transform” mental health care. Every one of them has delivered glossy strategies, ambitious targets, and slogans about “parity of esteem.” And yet none have addressed the structural reality: without staff and sustained investment, mental health care cannot function.

Instead, the modern approach has become one of delay. Delay the workforce plan. Delay the investment. Delay the publication of safety reviews. Delay the reforms. Delay the national debate about why tens of thousands of people are dying early. Delay everything, because delay keeps the crisis out of political view.

This is not neglect - it is managed decline.

The Political and Moral Implications

The refusal to address the mental health crisis is not simply a policy failure; it is a moral one. A society that allows tens of thousands of preventable deaths each year is a society that has decided certain lives matter less than others. The people dying early are often already marginalised - economically insecure, socially isolated, struggling with long-term conditions. Their deaths rarely spark outrage and they should.

The crisis in NHS mental health services is not inevitable. It is the outcome of choices: choices to underfund care, to ignore staff, to tolerate high mortality, and to allow safety standards to slide. If we continue down this path, the next decade will see further collapse, deeper inequalities, and an entrenched system where only the most privileged can access timely, high-quality mental health support.

This series will continue to explore not just how we arrived at this crisis, but the political and ideological forces that have shaped it - and the human cost of a system that has been allowed to fail.

The establishment of Your Party arrived at a politically expedient moment. Labour are struggling to establish a clear vision for their politics and are sinking in the polls. The public are calling out for left-wing alternatives to address the grotesque level of wealth inequality. The Green Party have somewhat filled this gap (which we have covered extensively) and because of this are shooting up in the polls. However, as we found at Your Party conference, there are many working-class voters who are not convinced by The Greens and feel it is not a truly representative movement.

We spoke to Nathan, a primary school teacher from London. Nathan told us that his experience of the Green Party was that it was primarily White people and for this reason, he fairly felt it did not represent him. I believe this is where Your Party’s can fulfil a political gap.

This is not to say that the Greens are not representative because the leadership under Zack Polanski, Rachel Millward, and Mothin Ali is one of the most widely diverse political leadership teams we’ve ever seen — and they are working to increase the party’s representation. However, perceptions are not easily changed, and Your Party can benefit from this.

Your Party consists of a range of diverse MPs and members who clearly come from working-class backgrounds. This perception has been secured by the hostility directed towards MP Adnan Hussain who is a landlord — and eventually left Your Party because of the attacks and “persistent infighting” in the party. So, Your Party can win voters who may instinctively be suspicious of the Greens commitment to working-class issues, and want politicians they genuinely feel represent them.

Additionally, Your Party members voted for collectivised leadership and are building a party that is more interested in sharing power among members, rather than concentrating power in the hands of the leaders — which is a good idea based on the current leadership drama. There is a lot to like about a party that distributes power more equally among its base. However, we got the sense that there is not enough policy to differentiate Your Party from the Green Party, so what could they do to sharpen the distinction?

The Greens are winning the narrative on cost of living and have successfully captured those who want to see wealth inequality engaged with. So, my suggestion is that Your Party focus on representation and issues like Proportional Representation (PR). PR is popular among the public and the Greens also support this change — they just haven’t made it central to their current messaging. One strong central message can be incredibly effective, and I believe Your Party can garner support if they improved their comms game.

Ultimately, having more parties on the left is not a bad thing — as Shockat Adam told us in an interview at the conference — but if these parties do not differentiate themselves, then they may end up confusing voters.

Your Party share many of the Green’s values on redistribution, so they need to pursue other issues that are politically salient. Zarah Sultana has repeatedly attempted to stake out ground by arguing that both parties have different stances on NATO and the EU, but these issues are not popular among the public at the moment.

Your Party has potential, but potential alone won’t define its future. The party must sharpen its purpose and speak directly to the working-class voters who feel politically homeless. Representation, collectivised leadership, and a genuine commitment to shared power are not just branding points, they are the foundations of a movement that could resonate where others have struggled.

But clarity matters. Messaging matters. And distinctiveness matters most of all.

If Your Party leans into what makes it unique — its rootedness in working-class experience, its internal democracy, and its opportunity to make PR as a defining cause — then it can occupy space the Greens have not yet fully claimed. Not as a rival, but as another voice in a broader political ecosphere that is finally beginning to challenge inequality with imagination rather than exhaustion.

Whether Your Party becomes a meaningful force will depend on whether it chooses to be bold, coherent, and unmistakably itself. The appetite for change is already there. The question is who will earn the trust to deliver it.

The exchange was civil, but revealing. While we found areas of agreement on issues like the cost of living and the dangers of concentrating power, the discussion ultimately exposed how far-right rhetoric relies not on logic or evidence, but on racial hatred and fear of the “other.”

We break down the contradictions we heard, explain why these arguments fall apart under scrutiny, and reflect on what the experience says about the rise of extremist narratives in the UK. This episode isn’t about platforming hate — it’s about understanding how these ideas spread, how to challenge them, and why community solidarity and anti-racist organising matter now more than ever.

If you want insight into how the far-right frames its arguments, how to respond to them, and what we learned by engaging directly, this is the conversation worth hearing.

For the last 15 or so years, budgets haven’t been that memorable (except for Liz Truss’ 2022 ‘mini budget’). Since 2008, most budgets have focused on cutting public spending under a policy programme called austerity. But the Labour government’s budget being announced on the 26th of November is different. It arrives at a pivotal moment where the country stands at a crossroads.

Unsustainable inequality and collapsing public services have led to much of the public losing faith in politics and politicians, and this is understandable. Not only do people become disaffected and stop paying attention to politics, but it fuels hatred — we spoke to some far-right protestors at the weekend, and what was clear is that they had lost faith in politics to improve their lives, which was partly fuelling their rage around migration, even when they agreed that wealth inequality was a serious issue.

The 50 wealthiest families in the UK now own more than 50% of the population. If serious redistribution does not happen, then wealth inequality will continue to grow, the middle-class will continue to be squeezed, and any social mobility that remains will cease to exist.

Path A: More of the Same

If the government does not pursue policy levers that redistribute resources from the wealthiest back to the 99%, then those who have lost faith in politics will have their belief confirmed. With public trust in politicians already being at an all-time low, voters will either stop voting entirely, or turn to strongman alternatives who promise quick, easy fixes, whilst stabbing working people in the back.

History has taught us over and over again that this is the case, and if we do not act now, the descent towards a darker future is inevitable.

Path B: Real Change

If Labour actually tackle wealth inequality, an issue which is incredibly popular among the public, then they can change the narrative. If the public see politicians dealing with the issues they recognise to be the most important, then it could shift the tide of public trust. People want to have faith in politicians again, and that trust can be rebuilt by being brave and pursuing wealth taxation, which will not be a magic bullet to fix our economy — but it is the first step.

Trust is a virtuous circle. Trust makes people more engaged in politics, which means that they are less likely to turn to snake oil salesmen like Farage. Trust is key to stability, to good politics, and to social cohesion.

Cost of Living Crisis

Millions remain one bad month away from crisis. Energy bills, rent, mortgages, food prices — everything is up except wages which lag behind inflation. Child poverty continues to climb.

Changes to taxation, benefits, and cost-of-living support will directly shape whether millions sink or stay afloat. If the government increases the burden on the most vulnerable, then homeless will increase, poverty will skyrocket, and public health will deteriorate.

Is This a Turning Point?

Budgets often reflect the politics of the moment, but some define the future. This budget arrives at a moment when the country desperately needs direction, courage, and investment.

If the government gets this wrong, Britain could lock itself into a downward spiral where conditions for working people continue to deteriorate and trust evaporates for good.

If it gets it right, this could be the beginning of a recovery.

Either way, the stakes have never been so high.