Also named as a Fellow is Professor Toni Haastrup, a leading expert in feminist international studies. Her work has explored contemporary Africa-EU relations, feminist foreign policy and the Women, Peace and Security agenda. With over 80 published works, her work seeks to bridge theory and practice, which has led to collaborations with UN agencies and EU institutions. Passionate about inclusion in the sector, Toni is currently chair of the . Her contribution to feminist knowledge in Europe was recognised with an Emma Goldman Award in 2022. She is also a mid-career fellow of the Independent Social ����Ӱ�� Foundation.

“I am deeply honoured to be recognised by the Academy of Social Sciences,” Toni said. “This recognition further validates the importance of feminist perspectives within the humanities and social sciences, at a time we are increasingly seeing a backlash within and outside the academy. Yet, this work is essential to addressing some of the most pressing challenges of our time, and I am grateful to the colleagues and collaborators who have supported my work over the years.”

Our final new Fellow is Professor Sophie Woodward, a distinguished sociologist who carries out research into material culture, consumption and everyday life. Sophie is the author of several books including Why Women Wear What They Wear (2007), Blue Jeans: The Art of the Ordinary (2012), Birth and Death: experience, ethics and politics (2020) and Material Methods: ����Ӱ��ing and Thinking with Things (2019) who co-directs the , as well as serving as Vice-Director of the National Centre for ����Ӱ�� Methods (NCRM). She is also one of the founding editors of the new Journal of Creative ����Ӱ�� methods. 

“I am delighted to be made a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences - it is wonderful to receive recognition like this,” said Sophie. “I look forward to working with other fellows at a time when the world needs social science methods, perspectives and critiques more than ever. I look forward to continuing to develop critical engagements with methods and the data they can generate and my research into everyday lives.”

“I’m delighted to welcome these outstanding social scientists to the Academy’s Fellowship, whose research and practice are helping to develop solutions to pressing societal issues,” said Will Hutton, President of the Academy. “We look forward to working with them to further promote the vital role the social sciences play in all areas of our lives.”

Opening remarks were delivered by Professor Duncan Ivison, President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester, who spoke about the devolution model in Manchester and how the city is reimagining the architecture of the British state.

The discussion between the Mayor and Mark Morrin from thinktank ResPublica, which launched the pivotal report Devo Max – Devo Manc in 2014 and organised the event with the University’s Policy@Manchester team, explored the origins of the role of Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Mr Burnham outlined the initial blueprint for the position and how the role has evolved since he took office. He highlighted how homelessness was one of his priority issues from the outset, and how dealing with these forefront problems paved the way to looking at bigger picture, longer-term issues in the region.

He compared the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) to a unified government department and criticised the siloed nature of certain national government institutions. He credited the powerful ‘place first’ nature of Manchester’s political structure and the abundance of community-led initiatives in the region like Live Well, which focuses on health and wellbeing.

During the discussion, Mr Burnham outlined his bold ambitions for skills development in Greater Manchester and highlighted a wider need to link local labour markets to schools. He also discussed his ultimate aim for an employer-driven, all-age, integrated technical education system and his personal pursuit of a Greater Manchester Baccalaureate qualification.

During the conversation, Mr Burnham noted the contribution universities make to Greater Manchester and how The University of Manchester’s research helps to influence strategies and policies that make a real difference in people’s lives.

He also cited the wave of innovation the University has catalysed through initiatives like Unit M, which aims to connect the innovation ecosystem in Manchester and the wider region to accelerate inclusive growth. He also mentioned the University of Manchester’s partnership with the University of Cambridge, and how Manchester can catalyse economic growth through research and innovation.

Professor Duncan Ivison, President and Vice-Chancellor at The University of Manchester said: “It was a pleasure to welcome Mayor Andy Burnham for this timely conversation on the future of devolution in Greater Manchester.

“Andy’s vision for the region is inspiring and highlights continuing opportunities to work together - whether that’s equipping our future workforce with essential skills, or driving inclusive growth through initiatives like Unit M. As we continue developing the University's 2035 strategy, these discussions remind us of the power of collaboration and the positive impact we can make together for our communities.”

Mr Burnham noted how the education system underserves people who choose not to go to university. He appealed to all local businesses and institutions in the region to prepare 45-day work placements for young people, citing how 50% of young people given these placements go on to work for the employer.

Reflecting on the event, Mr Burnham said: “It has been a rollercoaster for Greater Manchester over the last 10 years in a really positive way. I believe the changes we will see over the next decade will be even more dramatic than the last, and the architecture of the British state will seismically change too. We are looking back at a decade of above-average growth, and across the city we have worked collaboratively to get to the great place we are now.

“Universities have been some of our most instrumental partners over the years, helping us to build an intellectual case for our strategy. I look forward to our continued work with The University of Manchester as we look to upskill and develop our talent across the city-region.”

Mark Morrin, Head of ����Ӱ�� at ResPublica said: “Greater Manchester has been at the vanguard of place-based devolution since securing its first breakthrough deal over 10 years ago. Progress has been incremental and there is still some way to go before the depth of powers outlined in our Devo Max – Devo Manc report are realised; not least fiscal devolution. But the devolution revolution is clearly under way and mayoral authorities are set to be the strategic place makers and power brokers of the future.”

“Ukrainians will not react well to attempts to undermine their views and preferences and will rally behind their leaders," Olga added. "Opposition forces will also find a way to come together and show unity - everyone in Ukraine understands what is as stake - it is an existential matter. Ukrainians have been fighting to protect their independence for years, and they will not give up now.”

“By inventing low approval ratings, Trump is preparing the ground for a call for quick elections in Ukraine - in line with Putin‘s references to Zelensky as an illegitimate president and negotiation partner,” said Gwendolyn Sasse. “Our findings show that for Ukrainians, holding elections now is not a preferred priority.”

“When the war ends, we can expect normal political competition to reemerge if Ukraine remains free,” added Henry Hale. “But with the Russian threat still looming large, Ukrainians continue to rally strongly around their leader.”

As Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression and misinformation campaigns, the researchers say these must be called out and rejected. Their findings demonstrate that Ukraine still stands with Zelensky, and they say that efforts to delegitimise him only serve the interests of Vladimir Putin.

The 2024 general election was the first in the UK’s history to be run under a system of voter ID. When heading to the polling station, people could only vote if they proved their identity first. This was the result of a law brought in in 2023 and that had already applied to local elections in England that year.

Using data from the , we tracked people eligible to vote between 2023 and 2024 and that 5% of people eligible to vote – nearly 2 million people – didn’t own any recognised voter identification. This lack of ID was concentrated among poorer and less educated voters.

Of course, lacking photographic ID is not necessarily a permanent state. Some people will have been in the process of renewing passports and driving licences during this period. All of these people would also have been eligible for a voter authority certificate, a form of identification brought in with the new law – although we found take up of these was low.

We found that around 0.5% of all voters reported being turned away at polling stations as a result of lacking ID in the local elections of 2023. We also found that four times as many people (around 2%) reported not voting because they knew they didn’t have the right ID.

The equivalent figures were slightly lower at the general election of 2024, but a meaningful contingent still did not participate. Around 1.3% of electors – or over half a million people – were turned away or didn’t show up at all because of voter identification requirements.

While administrative records can provide accurate numbers about how many people were turned away at the polling station, they tell us little about people who were discouraged from even trying to vote because they didn’t have the right ID. So it is clear from our analysis that the impact of voter ID on turnout is likely larger than previous estimates based on polling station returns.

Who benefits?

We also found that the Conservatives were more likely to benefit from the voter ID law than other parties.

This is not surprising when we consider demographic factors. , Conservative voters are more likely to own ID, because they are more likely to be older and more affluent. Despite changes in social patterns of party support since the 2016 Brexit referendum, this pattern still holds true.

The types of identification which are allowed under the new law – and especially the decision to allow older people but not younger people to use travel passes – exacerbates these differences.

Who didn’t have ID? 

The chart above shows the percentage lacking photo ID by general election vote intention, as measured in May 2023 (lighter bars) and May 2024 (shaded bars), shortly before the general election was called.

In 2024, only 2.4% of Conservative supporters were likely to not have photo ID, while 3.8% of Labour supporters and 4.1% of Reform supporters were lacking.

One notable difference is an increase in Liberal Democrats and non-voters with no photo identification in 2024, although this is almost entirely due to a change in the number of people supporting the Liberal Democrats or deciding not to vote rather than changes in people’s actual ownership of ID.

Liberal Democrat voters had the lowest proportion of supporters without voter ID in 2023 (1.3%), but in 2024, the Liberal Democrat rate exceeded that of the Conservatives (2.9%).

There are still opportunities to posed by voter ID. Ahead of the next election the new government should extend the forms of identification allowed (especially for those younger than state pension age).

Improving public awareness around the law and the availability of voter authority certificates is another important step. There are also suggestions that a system of who don’t have voter ID would be an option.

In an electorate of 49 million, if almost two million aren’t able to vote because they don’t have the right ID, there is a problem. Those interested in building trust in our democracy should consider not only minimising electoral fraud but reducing this number by as much as possible.

, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in Politics, and , Professor of Social and Political Science, and Principal Investigator of the British Election ����Ӱ��,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

“Our findings may also reflect Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent public efforts to woo and flatter Trump as he takes the helm of Ukraine’s most powerful ally,” added Henry Hale of George Washington University. 

Donald Trump has sparked controversy in the West with statements suggesting the US might scale back military support for Ukraine and focus on negotiating a peace deal, even if this compromises Ukraine’s territorial integrity. These remarks have raised alarms in Kyiv and among NATO allies, as they potentially undermine Ukraine’s ability to resist Russian aggression.

The study reveals that territorial integrity remains a non-negotiable priority for Ukrainians, with 57% agreeing that “any peace agreement that does not restore the full territorial integrity of Ukraine is doomed to failure.” Despite Trump’s claims of being a skilled negotiator, scepticism persists about whether his administration could achieve a deal acceptable to Ukraine and its Western allies.

The research underscores the delicate balance required to maintain Western unity in supporting Ukraine. As NATO and the EU closely monitor Trump’s rhetoric, Ukraine remains steadfast in its demand for a peace deal that ensures sovereignty and territorial integrity.

“The Ukrainian public’s cautious optimism reflects a mix of hope and pragmatism,” Professor Onuch added. “As Trump and his new administration navigate these complex dynamics, the stakes for Ukraine and the West couldn’t be higher.”

In the immediate aftermath of the tragic deaths of three young girls in Southport, far-right, anti-immigration riots and protests erupted, fuelled by the spread of misinformation and expressions of toxic masculinity.

Hosted by Professor Duncan Ivison, President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester, panellists included Rob Ford, Professor of Political Science, Hilary Pilkington, Professor of Sociology, Peter Knight, Professor of American Studies, David Gadd, Professor of Criminology, Bridget Byrne, Professor in Sociology, and Afzal Khan, Member of Parliament for Manchester Rusholme.

Attended by civic leaders, policymakers and politicians, the panel discussion covered a broad range of issues related to the civil unrest, including the role social media played in the rapid spread of misinformation and to what extent this acted as a catalyst for rioting across England and Northern Ireland.

While the UK is often cited as a nation that embraces multiculturalism, the hostility many face due to Islamophobia and its prevalence in the UK was raised. It was also discussed how anti-immigration sentiment is likely to become more prevalent in public discourse if far-right rhetoric among political groups, and traditional and social media, continues to rise.

On the topic of the motivations of the people who engaged with the riots, class struggles, toxic masculinities and family problems were remarked upon as potential contributors. The wider UK context, including the stripping back of public services and community centres in recent years, was also acknowledged.

As for the aftermath of the unrest, statistics from public polling were also shared. According to YouGov, 85% of the public were opposed to the summer riots, and 82% said they were unjustified.

In discussion on how to take learnings forward, a breadth of potential solutions were discussed from tackling social inequalities as part of wider strategies on cohesion, delving into the state of community services, and investing in social relationships. A need for social media platforms to adhere to their crisis protocols was also identified and, for the traditional media, a need for sensitive issues to be taken more seriously to prevent misinformation and for politicians to be held to account more effectively.

Members of the audience were invited to discuss what role institutions such as universities, schools, local politicians and policymakers, religious organisations and community groups should play in promoting societal cohesion.

Professor Duncan Ivison, President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester said: “The riots that occurred this summer were shocking and frightening for many in our communities, and I am determined that The University of Manchester works collaboratively with our community partners to continue the constructive dialogue about the issues we identified at the workshop and identify actions we can implement together.

“Universities have an important role in bringing people together from wide sections of society and it was heartening to see a diverse group of civic leaders at the event, all with a positive attitude for long term change.”

Ultimately, it is hoped the event served as a springboard for further discussion and meaningful action that tackles the causes of civil unrest, helping to prevent these events from occurring in the future.

Top image from left to right: David Gadd, Hilary Pilkington, Rob Ford, Peter Knight, Bridget Byrne, Afzal Khan and Duncan Ivison

Chancellor Rachel Reeves presented in 14 years by promising to put an .

British governments typically see budgets as an opportunity to present policies providing short-term gain in terms of public popularity, even if they do little to improve Britain’s long-term economic prospects. Over the past ten years, governments have adopted and then abandoned , and .

The last Conservative government’s budget contained a range of tax cuts, most notably a 2p cut on National Insurance. Little consideration was given to the medium-term . Labour inherited a funding squeeze, alongside the need to balance the books over a five-year period based on the previous .

This kind of short-termism is a within British economic policymaking. A winner-takes-all, majoritarian electoral system encourages governments to over a longer-term economic strategy.

Here’s how Reeves is taking a different approach in her first budget.

1. Long-term strategy

Reeves has underscored Labour’s commitment to long-termism through various institutional reforms. The government had already announced the creation of to drive a new industrial strategy. This will now be accompanied by a new to provide private investment into infrastructure.

The launch of the will scrutinise spending decisions. And the Office for Budget Responsibility’s role in of capital investments, government policies and departmental spending will be enhanced.

2. Investing for growth

Alongside a few surprises such as an uplift to the minimum wage, increased tax on private jets and the continued freeze on fuel duty, the main theme of the budget was investment-led growth for the long-term.

To that end, Reeves has around debt to enable more headroom for investment. She also raised national insurance contributions for employers to fund this investment wave.

These measures will be used to plough such as engineering, biotechnology and medical science. The chancellor committed £1 billion into the aerospace industry, £2 billion into electric vehicle development, and £500 million into life sciences. In total, the public investment will amount to .

3. Infrastructure projects

Reeves also committed to funding a number of high-profile . On transport, the TransPennine Route upgrade, East West Rail, and HS2’s link into central London were all green lit. She also to build 1.5 million new homes in five years. Additionally, £20.4 billion in R&D funding was also protected in the budget.

4. Regional growth

The budget highlighted the importance of , reflecting Labour’s emphasis on continued devolution . Reeves has committed to providing an extra £6.6 billion to the devolved nations through the .

She also revealed that the would receive integrated financial settlements from 2026-27. These moves indicate some ambition and long-term vision around empowering devolved governments to drive regional economic growth.

5. Public services

Another long-term focus of the government has been “fixing the foundations” of Britain’s . Reeves linked low levels of investment to . As such, she committed to significant spending on education and health, alongside £1.3 billion to address the crisis of .

These measures signpost a renewed interest in an to address Britain’s economic weaknesses and drive growth. Both require a focus on the medium and long-term.

Remaining challenges

Collectively, these measure suggest some long-term thinking by Labour, but do they go far enough and will they stick?

Delivering on a long-term industrial strategy requires greater , especially between the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade. But other departments too, will be key to driving long-term growth and must be brought on board with Labour’s approach .

And while the integrated financial settlements will empower the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, the approach stops short of fully downloading financial independence to the regions. A focus on selective regions also only adds to in the powers regions have. A systematically thought-out approach that covers the whole UK would go further, but remains remote.

Finally, while the government has spent big on education and health, real departmental funding is only set to . Pre-budget, about the effect tight funding settlements might have for non-protected departments, especially when these cuts come to bite .

The spectre this raises for Labour is that a short-term squeeze on day-to-day departmental spending risks undermining the work it has done to secure long-term investment for growth.

, ����Ӱ�� Associate; , Professor of Government Practice; , Professor of Public Policy

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license - read the

It’s not controversial to say that contemporary affluent societies do a rather poor job of taking the interests of younger generations into account. This is not only because children can’t vote and the elderly tend to numbers. It’s also because many societies have ageing populations, making them demographically stacked against the youngest.

In Italy, for example, . While the numbers aren’t quite that high in the UK, the phenomenon is still – with pensioners .

The neglect of children and young people in UK politics is evident. . and understaffed, and young people are saddled with high university fees. They also face a difficult and cannot look forward to a decent, safe pension. It’s also much harder for them to , compared with previous generations.

And that’s all without even considering issues related to the climate crisis or how dramatically shrank children’s lives and social circles. What is clear is that children are directly affected by political decisions and policies. But they don’t have a say in elections.

In some places, the voting age for some elections has already been lowered to 16. ����Ӱ�� shows that young people are more likely to if they start at 16. Labour now proposes this for .

Many want the voting age to be lowered further, or . But any age higher than 0 leaves millions of child citizens without representation of their interests. That problem can be solved by giving children proxy votes from birth, to be cast by their primary carers. We can combine this with any voting age we deem right.

Proxy voting is when a person delegates their voting rights to another person to vote on their behalf. It is . It could work roughly in the same way with children and their parents or caregivers. Instead of delegation, we would use our registers of who is a child’s primary carer, authorising parents or legal guardians to vote on their behalf, if they are not yet old enough to vote themselves.

Giving children’s interests a voice

The idea of proxy voting for children has been and discussed by politicians for decades, but hasn’t been tried yet.

For some, the idea may be concerning, with fears that primary carers will use the votes in their own interests rather than the children’s. Of course their interests are not exactly identical. But they largely overlap on the policies that matter most – from high quality childcare and schooling to generally improving the life prospects for the young.

For example, if prospects are bad, the young remain economically .

And even if a few carers use proxy votes badly, this is still better than not having children’s interests represented at all. Furthermore, we could restrict the number of possible extra votes per primary carer, so that people with more children did not have more votes.

Perhaps some would still feel that carers getting to exercise more votes somehow shows that society values families more than the childless. But this is a misunderstanding of proxy voting. It is needed simply to give children’s interests appropriate weight in our politics, given our demographics.

According to philosophers, there are two main reasons for giving people . The first is simply that the vote is a mark of respect for people as free and equal moral agents capable of forming and expressing their own and the common good of their society.

The second relates to the good consequences of voting: giving people the vote avoids many and raises the chances that nobody’s important interests will be overlooked.

Having proxy voting in place would likely make it easier to teach children about politics more effectively from an earlier age, and help them to become active citizens. But the main argument for it is simply that it gives weight to their interests in the electoral process. With millions more potential votes to be gained, we can expect that political parties would compete for these votes by committing to policies that are fairer towards the young.

When faced with the disproportionate political influence of the elderly, some philosophers have toyed with the idea of at least (as the Romans ). But many people think this would be a terrible idea: it would be a form of exclusion from politics. Adding proxy votes for children does not exclude anybody.

In lieu of a proxy voting system, if you’re a parent, this election is a good opportunity to start about the democratic process, the issues you are concerned about and why you vote. You may even want to take them to the ballot box with you. that talking to young people about politics can help them trust in their own ability to effect change.

, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

With polls predicting huge losses for the Conservatives and huge gains for Labour, the election campaign so far has focused on the battle between the two biggest parties in Westminster. But the parliamentary dynamics are exceptionally fluid this year. Here’s a summary of where every party in Westminster currently stands – and where they are hoping to be after July 4.

Conservatives: 346 seats and everything to lose

Sunak’s Conservatives held 346 seats when he called the election. They started with 365 after the 2019 election but have lost since then. Several other former Conservative MPs have defected to other parties and others have been suspended.

A hefty chunk of the party’s current MPs , leaving newly selected candidates to fight what is likely to be an incredibly difficult campaign for the party.

The Conservatives are almost guaranteed to be sitting on the opposition benches in the next parliament, with one recent poll suggesting they could fall to just 66 seats – their . This could put them in dangerous territory. It would be a humiliation for Sunak if the party performed so poorly that it fell into third place behind the Liberal Democrats.

Against this backdrop, winning 150 seats or more would be a pretty decent showing.

Labour: 205 seats and hoping for 400

The Labour Party won in the 2019 general election under its former leader Jeremy Corbyn. This has increased slightly since then, through a combination of defecting Conservative MPs and byelections. Labour with 205 seats.

The party’s in Blackpool last month, where Chris Webb won 58% of the vote, was the sixth time Labour won a byelection with a swing of more than 20% since 2019. This bodes well for election day, where Starmer will be keen to try to win a comfortable majority and, if recent polling is correct, in the House of Commons.

Scottish National Party: 43 MPs and worried

The SNP have had some spectacular performances in recent general elections, bringing 56 MPs to the House of Commons in 2015, 35 in 2017 and 48 in 2019. But the party has struggled somewhat in the current parliament. It has lost three MPs to defections and the suspensions of Patrick Grady following sexual assault allegations and Margaret Ferrier for COVID rule-breaking shattered the SNP’s previously clean image in Westminster.

The SNP therefore heads into this election with 43 MPs. The party is battling two fronts, with the Alba party threatening to split the nationalist vote and Labour looking to win as many of Scotland’s 57 seats as possible.

Labour won Ferrier’s old seat in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West byelection with a and polling suggests they will from the SNP on July 4.

Liberal Democrats: 15 seats and wanting third place

The Liberal Democrats won 11 seats in the 2019 general election and this has since risen to 15 through four successful byelections. The party performed very strongly in recent local elections, gaining more councillors than Sunak’s Conservatives. Party Leader Ed Davey had a lot of fun over the first week of the campaign and won the party a lot of in the process.

Seats like , where the Liberal Democrats lost out to the Conservatives by just a few hundred votes in 2019, will surely turn yellow. With the SNP predicted to lose many of its Scottish seats, the Lib Dems will be hoping that they can reclaim their position as the official third party at Westminster.

Democratic Unionist Party: seven seats and struggling after scandal

The DUP won eight seats in 2019 but technically lost one when Jeffrey Donaldson resigned . His seat in Lagan Valley has not yet been filled and will be hotly contested, particularly as Donaldson himself is not standing. DUP leader Gavin Robinson will have a tough battle in East Belfast against Alliance party leader Naomi Long.

Sinn Féin: standing aside in key seats

Sinn Féin won seven seats in 2019. However, in line with its abstentionist policy, the party’s elected representatives never took their seats in the House of Commons. The party has already confirmed that it in four of Northern Ireland’s 18 constituencies and will encourage its supporters to vote against Sunak’s Conservatives in those seats. This should work in the Alliance Party’s favour. One of Sinn Féin’s existing MPs – Michelle Gildernew – will also not be standing.

Plaid Cymru: hoping for gains on a new electoral map

Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru won four seats in 2019. They fell to just three MPs in 2020 when Jonathan Edwards . Edwards, who has sat as an independent MP for most of the last parliament, has stood down, as has Hywel Williams, a hard working Plaid MP who has been in the Commons for over 20 years.

Plaid will be hoping to retain Williams’ Arfon seat, alongside those of the party’s Westminster leader Liz Saville-Roberts and Ben Lake, both of whom won with comfortable majorities in 2019 with Conservative candidates in second place.

Boundary changes mean that most constituencies in Wales have changed, but the party will be hoping to win back Edwards’s seat in the new Caerfyrddin constituency and perhaps to add Ynys Môn, held by Conservative MP Virginia Crosbie in 2019 with a relatively slender majority of just under 2000.

Alba: fighting its first election

Former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond’s pro-independence Alba party only formed in 2021, so this is its first ever general election campaign. It did however have two MPs in the last parliament, thanks to defections.

The addition of Alba to Scottish ballot papers threatens to split the nationalist vote and will make the election even more challenging for the SNP.

Social Democratic and Labour Party: aiming to hold two seats

Northern Ireland’s SDLP returned two MPs in 2019 and will hope to retain them. The party has been inconsistent in recent elections, and even lost all its seats in 2017.

The nature of Northern Irish politics and electoral pacts between unionist and nationalist parties makes it difficult to predict what will happen here. The SDLP has, however, committed itself to fielding candidates in . Its leader Colum Eastwood won his Foyle seat at the last election, as did .

Alliance: hoping to take a key DUP seat

The centrist Alliance party, also specific to Northern Ireland, has never had more than one MP in the House of Commons. The party’s deputy leader Stephen Farry won the North Down seat for the party in 2019, though the DUP came a close second. Party leader Naomi Long will be trying to unseat the DUP Leader Gavin Robinson for the third time, having lost by 1,819 votes in 2019. She previously held the seat between 2010 and 2015.

The party has had growing success in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where it became the third largest party in 2022. Translating this into more Westminster seats will be tricky, but returning two MPs would be a good result.

Greens: targeting Bristol and Brighton

The Green Party’s one and only MP, Caroline Lucas, from parliament last year. She was the party’s first ever elected MP, holding her Brighton Pavilion constituency since 2010. The Greens are desperately hoping that former party co-leader Siân Berry can hold Lucas’s old seat.

The Greens are also eying up Bristol Central, where the party’s current co-leader Carla Denyer is standing against Labour’s sitting MP Thangam Debbonaire in what could be a real neck-and-neck fight. The party is already the largest party on Bristol Council. On a national level, it will be hoping to perform even better than the 2019 election, when it received a pretty respectable 860,000 votes. With last month, the Green party could hit 1 million votes this time.

Reform UK: causing trouble for the Tories

Reform UK had one sitting MP in the last Parliament, following from the Conservatives. Defections like this are how most small or new parties end up with House of Commons seats. Anderson won his seat with a 5,000 majority in 2019 and has a high profile thanks to his regular controversial contributions. But retaining his seat under a new party label will be very tricky.

Reform UK is fielding candidates across England, Scotland and Wales. It could take a substantial number of votes from the Conservatives, but the electoral system will probably mean that these votes are not concentrated enough to win more than the odd seat.

Workers Party of Great Britain: taking aim at Labour

This relatively new political party held just one seat in the last parliament, thanks to George Galloway’s Rochdale byelection success in February. Galloway will campaign to hold this seat and the party is hoping to woo Labour voters with its claims that Starmer is from Sunak. With a of candidates for such a new party, it could prove something of an annoyance.

, Senior Lecturer in Politics,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Almost immediately after being appointed as foreign secretary, David Cameron’s ties with China generated difficult headlines for Rishi Sunak’s government. Cameron’s warmth towards China during his own time as prime minister prompted Luke de Pulford, the director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, to argue that Sunak had scored an own goal in appointing him.

Cameron’s time in office has been described as a “golden era” for UK-China relations. But now, in a very different political climate, de Pulford has accused the new foreign secretary of “”. Catherine West, Labour’s shadow minister for Asia and the Pacific, has also said Cameron has questions to answer over what role he has played since leaving office in a Chinese .

Cameron’s position on China during his tenure as prime minister evolved from ambivalence to active embrace. Looking back, 2015-16 in particular was an active period in UK-China relations. A state visit by President Xi Jinping in 2015 not only provided Cameron with a chance to take him to his but gave a clear signal of just how valued China was as a partner for the UK.

The implications of this for the UK now, in an era of considerably cooled relations, will be complex for the government and others to navigate. As foreign secretary, Cameron is in a position of considerable formal power when it comes to foreign policy, yet his party takes a very different view on China than it did during his time in office.

Sunak has leant into that position, for example, by removing China’s role in the , which is to be constructed in Suffolk.

The ups and downs of UK-China relations

When the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came to power in 2010, its opening offer on foreign policy, the , and , did not spend all that much time dwelling on China. The policies merely noted China’s continuing economic rise and argued that the UK should engage with it to resolve common problems.

China was bundled into a broad, rather vague category of “rising powers” that the UK would aim to engage with more closely. It was important, but not so important as to warrant its own category.

This “bundling in” may also go some way to explain the first seminal moment of Cameron’s relationship with China – in London.

By hosting the Tibetan leader, Cameron triggered great upset in Beijing, which placed relations with the UK in a “deep freeze” for nearly 18 months. Cameron would ultimately relent, shifting his position on Tibet to more closely align with Beijing’s. He publicly rejected the idea of Tibetan independence and .

Warming up

By November 2013, relations between China and the UK had opened up again and a rapid convergence between the two countries was in evidence. This peaked in the autumn of 2015 when Xi made his state visit to the UK.

At a , Cameron declared that China and the UK shared strong economic, diplomatic, and “people-to-people” links. He advocated for deeper cooperation on areas such as health, climate change and extremism and opened formal ties with China on infrastructure spending. He declared that the UK and China “share an interest in a stable and ordered rule” in international affairs.

Within a month, the Cameron government had published an , which was much more expansive than the 2010 document had been on UK-China relations. It declared that it was the government’s “ambition for the UK to be China’s leading partner in the West”.

This would be achieved through a close economic relationship in particular, but also deeper diplomatic and security ties between the two countries.

Cooling down

Ultimately, this developing relationship would be derailed by the EU referendum of June 2016, and Cameron’s exit from office. Subsequent governments led by Theresa May and Boris Johnson were focused on handling Brexit, but were also seemingly more sceptical of relations with China than Cameron had been.

Several issues, including the question of democracy in Hong Kong, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and Chinese espionage activity in the UK, have caused Conservative MPs to increasingly embrace a hawkish perspective on China. While Liz Truss was more clearly China-sceptic than Sunak, none of the prime ministers who have followed Cameron in office have been close to his level of dovishness on the topic.

The risks to the UK government, then, are twofold. Cameron’s ties with China have the potential to aggravate tensions with backbench MPs who are already restive. His party is currently divided over any number of other issues and primed to fall out over any number of others. The possibility of a dispute over the new foreign secretary’s position on China adding further inflaming tensions in the Conservative party are high.

Meanwhile, a noticeable gap in intentions between senior members of the government risks sending confusing signals to China. This is a problem for slower burning issues such as the being incurred by countries that have accepted Chinese investment via the belt and road initiative.

Cameron’s own advocacy for projects in countries like Sri Lanka, now dealing with the legacy of the initiative, may muddle messages. There is also the possibility of confusing messaging if a major crisis erupts – over the upcoming Taiwanese election, for example.

Beijing may now expect a softer approach where none is on offer. Cameron may appear to signal a less assertive response to a crisis where it was not intended. Miscalculation is always a risk in international crises and if Beijing perceives its western backers as internally divided, it may seek to capitalise for its own geopolitical gain.

Together, then, the legacy of Cameron’s relationship with China in office poses significant risks for both the Conservative Party, and for UK-China relations. Navigating these risks will be a challenge for all concerned.

For his part, greater clarity from Cameron on what he thinks UK-China relations should look like may provide some breathing space – but that may also simply serve to highlight these divisions. Ultimately, it will be up to Cameron’s current boss, Rishi Sunak, to try and resolve these tensions – ideally, before a major crisis breaks.

, Lecturer in British Politics and Public Policy,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Mr Yushchenko added: “We enjoyed our tour of John Rylands Library, which is stunningly beautiful and holds so many unique treasures. Oh, and as an avid beekeeper, I was thrilled to see that the symbol of your wonderful and historic city of Manchester is the brilliant and hard-working bee!” 

“It was a great honour for The University of Manchester to host President Yushchenko and the First Lady for the lecture and visit,” said Professor Fiona Devine, Vice-President and Dean of Humanities, who was the senior host for the visit. “The Manchester region has strong links with Ukraine, and the University is also home to a growing number of Ukrainian students who were delighted to be able to meet President Yushchenko personally. The University looks forward to continuing its support for our students.”

"Our hosting the President and First Lady Yushchenko was an opportunity to not only showcase the University, but also to discuss possible future cooperation between our staff and students and those at leading universities in Ukraine," said The University of Manchester’s Professor of Comparative and Ukrainian Politics Olga Onuch. "The president stressed his thanks for the support people in the UK - and Manchester specifically - have given to Ukraine and the ordinary Ukrainians who had to temporarily flee their homes.

"Our Politics students reported later in class that they were inspired by the President’s words, and they were hugely thankful to have had the unique opportunity to personally meet a world leader that lead a people’s revolution. This is exactly what we should be doing as a global University - inspiring the leaders of tomorrow by building bridges and partnerships with the leaders of today."

What’s changed since 1997?

The mid-1990s saw a wave of protests . Immediately before the 1997 election, they produced their iconic figure, , who stayed for a week in an underground tunnel to prevent diggers from accessing the construction site.

In the lead-up to 2023, there has similarly been a lot of direct action by protesters against cars. The first Extinction Rebellion protest entailed . and have blocked motorways.

Then, as now, a Conservative government lurching from crisis to crisis has sought popular issues to revive its fortunes. In 1997, the Tories were embroiled in a series of corruption scandals and nurturing an internal war over the EU. The parallels with their situation today require no explanation.

But there are important differences. It’s striking how little reinforcement of the “voters as car drivers” rhetoric there has been since 1997. Both parties have introduced and promoted steadily more ambitious action on climate change, in ways that have had knock-on effects for explicitly pro-car strategies.

Successive governments (both Labour and Conservative) have introduced:

• , then emissions, charging, first in London, then in
• in most towns and cities
• changes to that favour pedestrians and cyclists
• regenerated in some cities
• , now the object of much opposition, including from Sunak.

Because of these changes, Sunak’s championing of motorists today works differently to the Mondeo man appeal in 1997. Then, both major parties agreed on the social and economic value of the car and sought to sideline and undermine the road protest campaigns. Both shored up this pro-car ideology and competed over who could best serve it.

Two pro-car parties

In practice, there remains little difference between the two parties on the question of cars. Both assume that society will continue to be dominated by cars, but both have introduced enough (modest) policies to limit car use and promote alternatives. To actively promote cars now requires a clearer affirmation and creates the possibility of using it as a wedge issue to attack the opposition with.

These attempts are largely ridiculous. Labour is more or less still as pro-car as the Tories (hence the absurdity of trying to claim Labour is on the side of ), and partly because many of the initiatives now being attacked by Sunak were themselves developed and promoted by the Conservatives, most notably the ultra low emissions zone, which was .

Sunak’s pro-car rhetoric is explicitly nostalgic. To reclaim the Conservatives as the party of motorists, Sunak must return to Margaret Thatcher and sit in her Rover, recalling a golden age that must be restored.

This rhetoric also borrows from populists undermining climate policy more generally, because the political logic of promoting cars is now one of backlash which claims “the people” have lost out from the various anti-car initiatives of both parties. Sunak takes his cues from the Net Zero Scrutiny Group and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Fuel, coalitions of MPs that climate action in UK politics.

If the Conservatives continue with this line of attack against Labour through to the next election, that poll will be about the future of Britain’s climate strategy. After all, more ambitious climate action demands .

It is not clear if Sunak’s pro-car nostalgia will work. But whether or not it does will reveal a lot about the necessary conditions for attaining more aggressive climate action, which will inevitably involve changes in how people live their lives – from the transport they use and how often, as well as in many other areas.

, Professor of International Politics,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

“The appointment of the first Professor of Comparative and Ukrainian Politics is long overdue in the English speaking world and is a major milestone, not only for the Ukrainian community in the UK but also globally,” said Anna Dezyk MBE, Deputy Chair of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (AUGB). “Professor Onuch's enthusiasm and extensive expertise in this area provides a fantastic platform for the study of Ukrainian Politics to finally move out of the shadows and take its rightful place in academia.”

“The University of Manchester’s creation of this post could not have come at a more relevant time, and the appointment of Professor Olga Onuch could not be more appropriate and richly deserved,” said Leigh Gibson OBE, Ukraine Director for the British Council. “We look forward to continuing our collaboration with Olga and her department to understand more about the role young people have played in the development of Ukraine as a democratic nation, and the critical contribution they will make to recovery and rebuilding in the future.”

"It has never been more important for Ukraine to be genuinely understood and appreciated internationally," said Volodymyr Sheiko, Director General of the Ukrainian Institute. "Much of the knowledge about Ukraine, its history, politics, and culture emerges from leading academic institutions to inform public policies, curricula, and public opinion. Academic excellence makes our societies better informed and more resilient. The appointment of Olga Onuch as the first Professor of Ukrainian Politics in the English-speaking world is a crucial milestone to achieve this. I am confident that Olga’s profound experience and expertise will set a high standard for others to follow.”