Titled Labour’s Wobbling Jenga Tower: The 2024 general election two years on, the event brought together academics, students, and members of the public to explore how electoral strategy, political fragmentation and voter behaviour are reshaping the UK’s political system.  

Opened by the Vice President and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Professor Fiona Devine CBE, the lecture formed part of the Faculty’s ongoing commitment to engaging wider audiences in understanding political and social change. Fiona highlighted in her opening remarks that research on democracy, elections and political behaviour “sits at the heart of what the Faculty does, helping to provide rigorous, independent insight into voter behaviour, political identities and electoral volatility.”  

Understanding a landmark election 

Drawing on the research undertaken by Professor Ford and his co-authors, Rob outlined how Labour’s 2024 victory combined a substantial parliamentary majority with relatively modest popular support, underpinned by what he described as an “electoral Jenga” strategy targeting key marginal constituencies while weakening traditional strongholds.  

This approach delivered electoral success but as explored during the lecture, has left the party exposed to political volatility in the years since.  

Fragmentation and volatility in modern politics 

In a live interview recorded with Jack Dulhanty from The Manchester Mill, Professor Ford explained how British politics is undergoing a deeper structural transformation. 

“The dominant theme of our politics, I think today is that you can’ get back to the box of two-party politics,” he said, noting that voters are now increasingly drawn to a wider range of political parties.  

He added that this fragmentation reflects broader shifts in voter identities and expectations: “Voters have a bigger diversity of preferences, and they’re not willing to accept half measures in a big tent two party system. They want the full fat measures” 

The discussion highlighted how emerging parties such as Reform UK and the Greens are reshaping electoral competition, challenging traditional assumptions about how votes are won and held.  

A fragile governing position 

While the 2024 election delivered a decisive parliamentary outcome, Professor Ford emphasised that the foundations of that victory may be less secure than the headline result suggests. 

Reflecting on Labour’s time in office, he pointed to the consequences of early strategic decisions and messaging: “That first year was absolutely critical and the disaffection that set in really follows on from that.”  

He also highlighted the risks of attempting to balance competing electoral coalitions, warning that efforts to appeal to diverse voter groups may ultimately prove unsustainable: “Their efforts to try and bridge a divide could end up being their undoing.”  

Bringing research into public conversation 

The event concluded with a Q&A session, giving attendees the opportunity to engage directly with the research and its implications for the future of British politics. 

A continuous focus on UK politics at the University of Manchester with the British Election Studies. 

The British Election Studies, which is currently based at The University of Manchester, are public opinion surveys done after every general election, were also started by David Butler and began in 1964 (with some earlier waves traced back to 1959 is run by Professor Ed Fieldhouse and colleagues from Manchester, Nuffield College, University of Oxford and Royal Holloway, University of London.  

A podcast recording of the interview is available via Acast - https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/the-manchester-weekly-from-the-mill or wherever you get your podcasts from. 

Buy the book here 

Learn more about our research here  

Professor Haastrup said: “I am pleased to see the Committee acknowledge both the importance of the Women, Peace and Security agenda and the urgent need to strengthen its implementation. Our research at Manchester shows that while the UK has made strong rhetorical commitments, meaningful progress requires sustained resources, genuine cross government ownership, and a more inclusive understanding of whose security counts."

The report makes recommendations based on written evidence submitted by Dr Laura McLeod, Senior Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Manchester, and Dr Georgina Holmes (Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Studies at the Open University). They provided expert evidence drawing attention to the need for more robust monitoring and evaluation of the UK’s WPS implementation. 

Dr Jamie J Hagen, Lecturer in International Politics, University of Manchester, also provided expert written evidence, drawing attention to gaps in cross-government implementation and the need for the WPS agenda to better protect LGBTQ rights.

Many of the recommendations made by the Committee, including the call to review and strengthen the UK’s National Action Plan on WPS, reflect arguments advanced by the Manchester academics who collectively offer breadth and depth of expertise on the WPS agenda. In addition to Haastrup, McLeod and Hagen, the WPS-focused research is  delivered by Dr Hannah Wright, Lecturer in Global Politics, and several PhD students. 

The publication comes amid ongoing cuts to the Overseas Development Assistance budget. The Manchester team has warned that diminishing resources may further undermine the UK’s ability to lead on gender equality, conflict prevention, and inclusive peacebuilding. 

You can read the full report and evidence submissions on the Committee website. 

References: 

1. Peace under pressure: Protecting Women, Peace and Security report 

2. Written evidence from Dr Georgia Holmes (Open University) and Dr Laura McLeod (The University of Manchester): https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/144749/pdf/ 

3. Written evidence from Professor Toni Haastrup (The University of Manchester: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/141926/pdf/ 

4. Oral evidence from Professor Toni Haastrup at the International Development Committee, House of Commons, Tuesday 18 November 2025: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16735/pdf/ 

5. Written evidence from Dr Jamie J Hagen (The University of Manchester): https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/141927/html/  

In light of the awful brutality by the Iranian government against the uprising in late December 2025, the case for humanitarian intervention in Iran is not obviously implausible. The Iranian writer, Hamidreza Zarifinia, argued in early January 2026 that “intervention is not only permissible, but is regarded as a moral duty” and “can be considered entirely legitimate and humanitarian”. In similar vein, writing shortly before the strikes, the Volt party in Europe argued that the Iranians “deserve” intervention “in the face of a mounting number of civilian deaths and unlawful executions”, although cautioned about a US-led military intervention without the authorisation of the Security Council and in contravention of the requirements of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.

In this respect, there are echoes of the justifications presented in the buildup to the 2003 War in Iraq, where those supporting the action highlighted the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime to help defend the war. Like the 2003 War in Iraq, moreover, the intervention in Iran is illegal. It is also not the last resort, given that diplomacy was starting to work in exerting pressure on the Iranian regime, and it lacks legitimate authority, without any attempt to seek the approval of the United Nations Security Council.[2] Indeed, like Iraq, the intervention in Iran fails to meet all the traditional criteria of Just War Theory. But I want to argue that the action in Iran is even worse, having even weaker grounds to be deemed humanitarian than the War in Iraq.

1. Humanitarian Regime Change?

The United States and Israel’s actions suggest that they desire regime change in Iran. Regime change generally has a bad rap. Yet it would be an error to claim, as some did in response to the intervention in Libya and the debate around the War in Iraq, that regime change can never be humanitarian.[3] The removal of a repressive regime can potentially be humanitarian – and a legitimate goal of humanitarian intervention, to the extent that it facilitates the end of a humanitarian crisis (which is rare). But for regime change to be humanitarian, it needs to be likely that the regime will be replaced by something better – by a stable liberal democracy, for instance.

Yet, in the case of Iran, it seems that, even if there were successful regime change, it is questionable that any alternative regime would be much better. The Shah’s son has been mooted as a potential successor, but it is unclear that he would have sufficient support within Iran. It’s also dubious that there is a clear path to regime change. The Ayatollah was not the regime; the removal of the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps will be extremely difficult, with most commentators suggesting it would require boots on the ground or a major internal uprising. As Max Boot argues, “[t]here are good reasons why previous presidents were reluctant to become embroiled in a War in Iraq. Trump has ignored all the caveats”.

2. Motives and Intentions

Moreover, the motives of Trump and Netanyahu for undertaking the action seem to be far from humanitarian, with some suggesting that their motives are to help them with their upcoming elections, and, in the case of Trump, to help to provide a distraction to relieve some of the pressure about his ties to Epstein. Likewise, the motives for George W. Bush’s actions in the War in Iraq were widely suggested to ultimately be about securing oil, as well as to fulfil the legacy of his father, who had failed to remove Saddam Hussein 12 years previously.

But the motives of those undertaking intervention don’t determine whether it’s a humanitarian intervention. Motives are far too difficult to determine reliably, given the difficulty of knowing another’s mindset. This is why criminal law rarely relies on motives for assessing the violations of the law; it uses them only to determine sentencing, and even then only when they are apparent. Instead, we look to intentions to help define actions – to the purposes of actions rather than underlying reasons.

How does one determine an intervener’s intentions? There are three potential indicators. On all three indicators, the action against Iran scores very poorly – and even worse than Iraq.

a. General rhetoric

The first is to examine the general rhetoric of the actors and the role that humanitarian justifications are playing. In the case of the intervention in Iran, the rhetoric is generally inconsistent. At best, humanitarian claims are largely an afterthought. With Iraq, there was a clear plan for the combat phase to achieve the stated objectives – the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime. (As is well known, there was no plausible post-war plan, leading to carnage). With Iran, there is not even a clear plan for achieving the objective of regime change, given that bombing alone seems unlikely to lead to this. So, even if the stated goal of regime change were potentially humanitarian, there is no clear plan for this.

b. Actions

The second indicator is to examine the ongoing or likely actions. Are they indicative of a humanitarian response, such as by attempting to minimise civilian casualties? Here it seems extremely unlikely. Already there are reports that an elementary school has been hit, killing 165 people, most of them girls aged between 7 and 12. There are also reports of double tap strikes (a strike followed by another one once aid workers arrive) and attacks on civilian infrastructure. An intervener with a humanitarian intention would surely take much more care.

It was warned prior to the intervention that there would be major humanitarian blowbacks with action, with warnings that the Strait of Hormuz could be shut, leading to a potential food crisis as the region lacks sufficient fertiliser, as well as harm to the global economy – which typically greatly affects the most vulnerable, who bear much of the costs. It was also expected that Iran would strike civilian targets and those of allies of the United States and Israel. Although Iran is clearly responsible for such harm, and is itself fighting a hugely unjust war of self-defence, its intervening agency does not completely abrogate the responsibility of Israel and the United States, given that the harm was foreseeable, and agents are still responsible for mediated harms.[4] My point, then, is that the likely disproportionality of the action – the likely severe humanitarian effects – demonstrates a lack of humanitarian intention.

c. Past behaviour

The third test is previous behaviour. Has the agent undertaken humanitarian action previously that suggests that this is a pattern of behaviour? It might be thought that only legitimate states can undertake humanitarian intervention. But the history of humanitarian intervention has been littered with cases of seemingly illegitimate states – of states that are far from being liberal democracies – intervening for humanitarian purposes in other states, such as Tanzania’s intervention in Uganda in 1979 and the Nigerian-led interventions in Sierra Leone and Liberia in the early 1990s.

What matters for this assessment is not the intervener’s treatment of its own population, but its record of external behaviour. The human rights violations and growing authoritarianism of the Trump and Netanyahu regimes internally don’t discount the possibility that their states could in principle undertake humanitarian intervention. But their external behaviour – their recent foreign policy – clearly suggests that this is highly unlikely. There’s no need to belabour the point that this indicator is clearly not met, given the Israeli abuses in Lebanon and beyond, and ongoing US support for human rights abuses in the West Bank, as well as the destruction of the humanitarian aid regime by the Trump administration.

3. Justification versus Classification

Some might hold that whether the action in Iran is a humanitarian intervention is beside the point. Indeed, it’s important to separate the classification of an action from its justification. There have been humanitarian interventions that were unjustified; some claim that was true of the 2011 intervention in Libya. There are also some nonhumanitarian interventions that have been justified, such as those that aim to ensure self or other-defence against serious external aggression. Yet it’s quite clear that the intervention in Iran is hugely morally problematic, even if it were somehow deemed still ‘humanitarian’. Indeed, it seems even worse than the War in Iraq in another way.

The War in Iraq demonstrated deep hubris and led to hundreds of thousands dying, as well as wider regional instability. The intervention in Iran threatens this – indeed, this seems a likely outcome at the time of writing. And, like the War in Iraq, the intervention causes huge damage to the laws and norms governing the resort to force. But, in Iraq, there was at least a commitment to attempt to stay and sort out the mess, even if this did lead to a hugely problematic post-war occupation. Colin Powell famously invoked the Pottery Barn Rule – ‘you break it, you own it’. For all its problems, the Pottery Barn Rule at least demonstrates a sense of duty to redress wrongs and to attempt to ensure beneficial consequences over the long term. With the intervention in Iran, by contrast, there seems to be the opposite to the Pottery Barn Rule – break it and run.[5] There is no commitment to the population, to fulfil the remedial duties to fix the likely major mess.

We can see then not only is the war in Iran far from being humanitarian intervention and a just war, it’s even worse than the 2003 War in Iraq, the quintessential unjust war of the past three decades.

James Pattison is Professor of Politics at the University of Manchester and an expert on ethical issues in global peace and security. He is the author of several books on war, intervention, and global justice, including Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (OUP, 2010) and The Alternatives to War: From Sanctions to Nonviolence (OUP, 2018).

Notes:

[1] Trump claimed that “[f]inally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand…when we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.” Various Republican figures have come out strongly in support of the action and some have invoked humanitarian justifications. For instance, Don Bacon states that “[a]fter the regime just murdered approximately 50,000 Iranians, it is time to help the Iranian people get rid of the Ayatollah once and for all”.

[2] The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has described the US-Israeli strikes as squandering the opportunity for diplomacy.

[3] Marc Wellar hints at this view on Iran.

[4] The mainstream view on intervening agency is that responsibility for harm is only somewhat diminished and agents are still responsible for bringing about reasonably foreseeable harms.

[5] Trump’s move away from the Pottery Barn rule is celebrated by one commentator.

Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed on The Public Ethics Blog are solely those of the post author(s) and not The Stockholm Centre for the Ethics of War and Peace, Stockholm University, the Wallenberg Foundation, or the staff of those organisations.

This blog post was originally shared to The Public Ethics Blog and has been shared with permission. You can access the original blog here: The Ethics of Intervention in Iran.

Rebecca Willis, Professor of Energy and Climate Governance

Rebecca brings to the Politics Department a wealth of expertise as a thought leader in climate and energy policy. Her role models inter-disciplinarity, being a joint appointment between the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Science and Engineering.  Rebecca’s research is at the cutting edge of citizen engagement and climate policy. She leads the Climate Citizens research group and is a co-investigator in major initiatives, including the Energy Demand Research Centre, and the JUST centre, as well as PACT (Production and Consumption Transformations) which provides decision support to government departments.  We are also pleased to welcome Rebecca’s team of researchers who will be joining her here at the University.

Dr Jake Ainscough, Lecturer in Environmental Politics

Joining us as a Lecturer, Jake is an interdisciplinary environmental social scientist with a background in environmental governance and ecological economics. His research interests align closely with the Department’s strengths in environmental politics, and cover citizen attitudes, values, and preferences in the context of environmental decision making and the intersection of democratic innovation, democratic theory, and the political economy of climate change. 

The arrival of Rebecca, Jake, and the research team marks a further expansion of the Department’s expertise in environmental politics. Their presence will strengthen our interdisciplinary links across the University and enhance our reputation as a hub for influential environmental politics research.

Founded in 2021, Konger FC is a football team made up of Hong Kongers who have relocated to Manchester, many on British National (Overseas) passports. Their move was prompted by increasing restrictions on activism and cultural expression in Hong Kong. Now, through football, they’re finding new ways to connect, integrate, and express themselves.

The club is at the heart of a new research project which received Community Partnership funding from the School of Social Sciences, led by University of Manchester academics, David Stroup from the Politics department and Jolynna Sinanan from Social Anthropology. The project, which includes short films and a multimedia website documents the 2024/25 season of Konger FC and lays the foundation for a full documentary film.

But this is more than just a sports story.  The researchers have embedded themselves in the club’s activities - attending matches, training sessions, and interviewing players, sponsors, and fans. Their goal is to amplify the voices of Hong Kongers in Manchester, showcasing how they preserve their culture, build community networks, and contribute to civic life.

The project also taps into resources at the University of Manchester’s Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology, offering the Konger FC community tools and expertise to share their story with wider audiences.

Through everyday activities like football, the Hong Kong diaspora in Manchester is practising a quiet form of activism - championing democratic values and human rights while resisting the pressures of political repression back home.  The upcoming documentary and website aim to shine a light on their journey, highlighting both the challenges and triumphs of starting anew in Britain.

Konger FC is proving that football can be more than a game—it can be a lifeline, a platform, and a powerful way to say, “We’re still here.”

The event featured inspiring speakers from the United Nations, Amnesty International, the FCDO, Chatham House, Global Weekly, EY, and the Department for Education. Most of these speakers are proud Manchester alumni, a testament to the quality of education they received here, which helped them thrive in competitive international roles.

This initiative reflects the University’s commitment to having a global impact as part of its 2035 strategy. Dr Jasmin Ramovic, organiser of the event, said:

Given the overwhelming response, the Politics Department will be making this an annual event and looks forward to expanding it even further in the future.

The event aimed to identify strategies to strengthen and expand international coalitions to preserve the rights of women and further progress gender equality.

Whilst in Paris, Toni was also invited, by the International Peace Institute, to contribute to a side-event focusing on localisation in FFP contexts.

Toni’s expertise on FFP includes recent publications (Cambridge University Press and Bristol University Press). This work is also being developed as an online archive FFP, in a collaboration with academics at the Universities of Birmingham and Bath as an essential research and policy tool, which will be the first of its kind.

Her talk highlighted the urgent need to protect hard-won rights, confront structural violence, and reimagine peacebuilding through a feminist lens. Rees’s reflections were rooted in decades of frontline advocacy, legal reform, and international diplomacy, “We insert ourselves into what we see and learn from existing structures. Male and female binary. History matters, but it’s biased; it’s mainly not women’s views. It’s not that women were written out of history but it’s that women were never written in.” 

The lecture examined the pushback against gender and its negative impact on accessing justice, understanding conflict, and addressing its consequences. Rees argued that binary approaches, especially regarding gender, hinder the structural changes needed to end exclusion, inequality, and violence. 

The lecture explored what interdisciplinary research is required to shift from a Hobbesian dystopia characterised by perpetual competitiveness and individualism, and to rebuild or establish a shared human connection. 

The event marked forty years since former Psychology lecturer John Churcher formally launched the lecture series. Inspired by staff protests against nuclear weapons at Greenham Common, the series was founded to create space for public dialogue on peace and the future. 

Dr Jasmin Ramovic, Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies and organiser of this year’s lecture, said:

The lecture was followed by a Q&A and networking reception, bringing together students, researchers, activists, and members of the public. 

The International Peace Lecture is hosted annually by the Department of Politics in the School of Social Sciences. It remains a vital space for critical reflection, civic engagement, and global dialogue. 

• Find out more about the lecture series here 

Read the full paper or access the PDF summary report.

The authors use the UK asylum system as a case study to show how institutional stress can affect memory. They argue that the system itself—through long waiting times, hostile environments, and public protests—can cause or worsen trauma, which in turn affects how people recall and communicate their experiences.

The report recommends reforms to reduce stress and improve fairness, including better living conditions, trauma-informed interview practices, and training for officials to understand how trauma affects memory. The authors stress that these changes are essential to ensure that people seeking asylum are treated with dignity and that their rights are respected.

The EDI Officer plays a vital role in leading BISA’s strategy to ensure that the association reflects and supports diversity in all its forms: demographic, intellectual, pedagogical, methodological and institutional. The role also involves embedding inclusive practices across BISA’s policies, processes, governing arrangements and activities. 

In response to the appointment, Jamie shared:

This appointment reflects Dr Hagen’s ongoing commitment to advancing inclusive values within the wider academic community.

“Mike” as he was called by his colleagues was known not for flamboyance or self-promotion, but for the quiet rigour of his thought and the moral seriousness with which he approached ideas.

He was a scholar made in the tradition of Spitzweg’s painting The Bookworm - perched among volumes, absorbed in thought, quietly devoted to truth. At the University of Manchester, he taught political theory with clarity and conviction, shaping minds without fanfare.

Evans’ landmark book, Karl Marx, was published by Allen & Unwin in 1975 and later reissued by Routledge remains a model of scholarly constraint and insight. In just over 200 pages, he achieved what many longer volumes failed to do: he offered a lucid, historically grounded account of Marx’s political thought that was both accessible and analytically rigorous. Drawing from primary sources — including the Grundrisse, The Civil War in France, and newly uncovered documents from the Communist League - Evans traced the evolution of Marx’s ideas with care and restraint. He did not seek to canonize Marx, nor to dismantle him. He sought to understand him.

The book was praised for its balance and depth. A 1976 review in The Historical Journal described it as “a very valuable addition” to political theory, noting Evans’s ability to recover Marx’s own understanding of his work without imposing a rigid ideological frame. Evans portrayed Marx as a thinker shaped by contradiction - committed to justice, wary of abstraction, and deeply attuned to the complexities of class and history.

Like Spitzweg’s solitary figure, Evans lived by the belief that ideas matter - not for fashion but in this context for the search for social justice. In an age of noise, his work endures with quiet authority, testimony to the longevity of serious scholarship.

Evans contributed regularly to the Manchester Papers in Politics, including studies on Marx’s early journalism and doctoral thesis. These shorter monographs reflected the same scholarly virtues: clarity, restraint, and a refusal to oversimplify.

His monograph on Marx’s Doctoral Thesis explored the young philosopher’s engagement with classical and post-Hegelian thought, while Marx and the Rheinische Zeitung examined Marx’s journalism and advocacy for press freedom. These works are characterized by a sharp commitment to context and a refusal to simplify.

To his students and colleagues, he was known for his quiet rigor and principled teaching. As a teacher, Evans was exacting but fair. He encouraged students to read deeply, argue honestly, and ground their insights in evidence. He believed that political theory was not a utopian practice but a necessity to make social progress - a way of making sense of power, freedom, and the obligations we owe one another as human beings.

His lectures were unadorned, except for the provision of outstanding handouts, his standards exacting. He did not chase trends. He did not tolerate free riders. But those who studied under him remember the depth of his knowledge and the quiet encouragement he gave to those willing to do the work.

Michael Evans sought truth at a time when political theory is too often reduced to performance. His contribution lives on in the clarity of his historical analysis, the seriousness of the questions he grappled with, and the quiet impact he had on political thought. His work continues to be cited and studied by those seeking to understand Marxism with nuance and historical integrity. His legacy reminds us that scholarship, at its best, is an act of intellectual rigour and moral clarity.

Selected publications

• Evans, M. (1975). Karl Marx. London: Allen & Unwin. Reissued by Routledge, 2010.
• Evans, M. (1995). Marx and the Rheinische Zeitung. Manchester Papers in Politics, 5/95. Manchester: University of Manchester.
• Evans, M. (1995). Marx’s Doctoral Thesis. Manchester Papers in Politics. Manchester: University of Manchester."

The title recognises Roan’s extensive contribution to criminal justice through his multiple roles in the Innocence Project, Bar Society and International Wrongful Convictions Task Force. 

Claire McGourlay, Professor of Legal Education who nominated Roan for the award, said: 

Roan’s commitment to supporting victims of miscarriage through the Innocence Project earned him and his team the Manchester Law Society’s Pro Bono Award. As the project’s student manager, he mentors students on handling cases and ensures the public knows of the project’s impact and work. 

Roan also leads on helping students pursue careers as barristers in his role as the Bar Society’s Treasurer. Through his membership in the International Wrongful Convictions Task Force, he works with students, lawyers and academics to develop the international law on wrongful conviction rights.

Niamh Cashell, a PhD student, has also been recognised as the Faculty’s Postgraduate Research Student of the Year. 

Niamh has made significant contributions to academic leadership, public engagement, and responsible innovation. As Secretary of the Political Studies Association’s Early Career Network, she provided strategic leadership and administrative coordination, organising a virtual conference with over 70 early career researchers and co-leading an in-person Early Career Day at the PSA Annual Conference in 2024. 

Niamh's commitment to research impact extended beyond academia, completing an ESRC-funded internship with the BBC’s Responsible Innovation Centre, where she produced a report on AI-generated images in UK political contexts.   

Rachel Gibson, Professor of Political Science and Niamh’s PhD supervisor said: 

She has also won the Manchester Doctoral College Excellence Award for Research Impact.  

Derry Duffy and a co-founder, Herbie Warner (a Theoretical Physics graduate) created ‘Cause’, the first online giving platform built specifically for small charities, making it easier for them to connect with donors, raise funds, and grow. Cause removes the barriers that small charities face when fundraising such as high advertising costs, low visibility and lack of digital expertise. Through the ‘app’, donors and charities can easily connect, either organically through data driven recommendations or through affordable, accessible and targeted marketing. Allowing small charities to have maximum impact is central to the mission of the ‘app’ so there are no platform fees or fees on donations for donors or small charities.

In Derry’s summer after his first year at university, he became aware of how the coming Cost of Living Crisis was likely to affect people, especially those who were already facing fuel and food insecurity. In response he thought it would be a good idea to set up a charity to support people in Manchester through the Winter. However, the issue he couldn’t find an answer to was how to connect with local donors. He assumed a platform where small charities and local donors could connect would exist but it didn’t. Derry and co-founder Herbie decided to create that platform, an ‘app’ that allows donors to find small charities that are doing work close to their hearts.

Derry reflects on receiving the award:

The award was presented during the BISA 2025 annual conference, held in Belfast, and celebrates initiatives that have made a tangible impact on fostering inclusive academic environments. The University of Manchester team who received the EDI prize consisted of Andreja Zevnik, Toni Haastrup (both from the Politics department) and Meghan Tinsley (Sociology department).

The Decolonial Praxis project, that the awardees co-lead, challenges colonial legacies in Higher Education, while ensuring a more ethical and social justice-oriented approach to international partnerships. It is a transformative initiative that embodies the principles of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). Its working method is to evolve the approach in collaboration with colleagues from other universities (so far that includes universities of Ghana, Nairobi and Pretoria).

The initiative has sought to rethink modes of decolonising by including a wider range of participant: students, staff including academics and research support staff, and artivists. It convened at the universities but also in local communities and art-spaces giving importance to locally produced knowledge and knowledge-practice. 

Over the last two years, activities have included mapping courses and degree programmes to highlight the ways in which structural inequalities persist as an evidence base to drive change within our School. Moreover, by engaging with colleagues from other universities and across disciplinary boundaries (in Nairobi the Faculty of Education; in Ghana the Interdisciplinary Institute for African Studies and in Pretoria the Department of Politics), the initiative has facilitated peer learning with implications for critical pedagogy, research and research support.

This initiative enhances diversity by amplifying marginalised voices and perspectives, through collaborative workshops and knowledge exchange. Through this initiative the project created an important space for critical dialogue and co-production of tools that advance decolonial praxis. This approach not only validates Indigenous knowledge but also ensures its relevance to socio-economic and cultural contexts, promoting sustainable development. The project’s long-term impact is secured through the ongoing development of a decolonial archive, and a number of publications.

This recognition underscores The University of Manchester’s leadership in social responsibility and its commitment to inclusive excellence in higher education. The project has been funded by the International Science Partnerships scheme and the Faculty of Humanities at Manchester.

The award-winning series follows the pair as they retrace the steps of the Grand Tour across Europe, exploring art, culture, and identity with warmth and wit. The programme has been praised for its engaging storytelling and emotional depth, earning widespread acclaim and now, one of television’s highest honours.

Rob Rinder studied at the University of Manchester, graduating with a double first in Politics and Modern History, a joint honours degree spanning both the School of Social Sciences and the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures. His academic achievements laid the foundation for a distinguished career in law, broadcasting, and public engagement.

The success of Rob and Rylan’s Grand Tour has seen it renewed for a second series, where the duo will travel to India and retrace the steps of Rob’s favourite author E.M. Forster.

We are proud to celebrate this achievement and to count Rob among our inspiring alumni.

Since 2017, Chileans living abroad have had the right to vote in presidential elections and national referendums. However, until 2022, the only UK polling station was in London. This posed significant challenges for Chileans based in the North and Scotland, who faced long, costly journeys to exercise their democratic rights. 

In response, the Chilean Society at  The University of Manchester launched a campaign in 2022 to establish a polling station in the North of England. With strong support from Chilean residents in the region, the Society made a formal case to the Chilean Electoral Service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their advocacy paid off in 2023: Chilean citizens voted in the referendum for the first time, using the Students’ Union building (Manchester) as a polling station. 

This grassroots initiative was recognised with the 2024 Volunteers of the Year Award by The University of Manchester Students’ Union. The award was presented by Professor Nalin Thakkar, Vice-President for Social Responsibility, in recognition of the Society’s contribution to civic engagement and democratic participation. 

During 2025, Chileans abroad will vote in three rounds: the primary election in June, the first round in November, and a potential runoff in December. The University of Manchester will again serve as a polling station for the North of England. This is a result of the consistent collaboration between Francisco Espinoza (lecturer in Politics and former Chair of the Chilean Society) and the Chilean General Consulate to the UK. 

This year’s voting process will be supported by the University’s Social Responsibility and Civic Engagement team, reinforcing the institution’s commitment to inclusive political participation and global citizenship. 

On Tuesday, 25 February, students and academics gathered at The University of Manchester to hear first-hand accounts of resilience and democratic resistance from Ukrainian leaders. The event, Democratic Resilience After De-Occupation: Local Communities’ Response to Russia’s War Against Ukraine, provided an eye-opening insight into life under occupation and the efforts to rebuild in the face of destruction.

First-Hand Accounts of Survival and Resistance

The panel featured key figures such as Larysa Bilozir, Member of Parliament and Chair of the Committee on State Building, Local Governance, Regional, and Urban Development. She spoke passionately about the significance of international audiences engaging with Ukrainian voices, expressing gratitude for those who attended to listen and learn.

Tatiana Sviridenko, Head of the Ivankiv community in the Kyiv region, shared harrowing details of the war’s impact on local communities, particularly the elderly. “Many of those who lost their homes were pensioners,” she said, highlighting the devastating personal toll. One story that resonated deeply was the destruction of the Ivankiv Historical and Local History Museum, which housed 25 paintings by renowned artist Maria Prymachenko. In an extraordinary act of bravery, three residents ran into the burning building to save the artwork. 

Joining the discussion were several other Ukrainian leaders dedicated to the country’s reconstruction and democratic resilience. 

Mykola Stefanishyn, Deputy Minister for Communities, Territories and Infrastructure Development of Ukraine, highlighted the strategic efforts being made to rebuild war-torn regions, while Natalia Pipa, Member of Parliament and Secretary of the Committee on Education, Science, and Innovation, spoke about the impact of war on Ukraine’s education system and the steps being taken to ensure learning continues despite the hardships.

Preserving Identity and History

Vitaliy Beloborov, Deputy Head of the Kherson City Military Administration, discussed Russia’s attempts to erase Ukrainian identity and culture. During its eight-month occupation, Russian forces sought to eliminate historical records and symbols of resistance. In response, Kherson has established a Museum of Resistance to preserve everyday items that became symbols of survival. 

He also warned about the dangers of Russian disinformation campaigns, emphasizing that “professional methods are used to distort the truth.” His call to action was clear: by listening, sharing stories, and raising awareness, the international community can play a vital role in countering propaganda.

The discussion also featured Anatoliy Fedoruk, the Mayor of Bucha, a city that has become a powerful symbol of Ukrainian resilience following the atrocities committed during Russia’s occupation. He shared his city’s painful experiences and the efforts being made to restore normalcy and honour the memories of those lost.

A Call for Global Solidarity

Oksana Prodan, Advisor to the Head of the Association of Ukrainian Cities, reinforced the importance of international support. 

The panellists stressed that conversations like these help amplify Ukraine’s struggle and ensure that the world remains engaged.

The gratitude expressed by the speakers highlighted how vital external support is, not only in terms of material aid but also in keeping Ukraine’s story in the global spotlight. The simple act of listening, asking questions, and seeking to understand was acknowledged as a form of solidarity that strengthens Ukraine’s resistance.

A key theme that ran throughout the discussion was an unshakable pride in being Ukrainian. “We will win this war,” one speaker declared with conviction. Their words reflected not just hope, but an unwavering belief in the resilience of their people and their commitment to democracy.

Lessons for the Future

The event concluded with a powerful takeaway: listening is an act of resistance. By hearing and understanding Ukraine’s fight for survival, attendees became part of a broader effort to uphold truth and justice. In a world where disinformation and apathy threaten to silence critical voices, events like these remind us of the importance of engagement and advocacy.

The Ukrainian leaders left the audience with a simple but profound message: solidarity matters, and the world must continue to stand with Ukraine.

Educational Initiatives Supporting Democratic Resilience

As part of broader efforts to educate and engage students in contemporary political challenges, the event was organized under the Ukraine Rises course, sponsored by the Petro Jacyk Foundation. This is the first contemporary politics course in the United Kingdom based in a social science department.

Olga Onuch, Professor of Comparative and Ukrainian Politics, emphasized how the course complements the themes of resilience and civic responsibility discussed throughout the event: 

The list features leaders who are finding solutions to some of the world’s biggest problems. Professor Richardson focuses on creating more democratic and participatory ways of doing politics by working with academics, practitioners, and citizens. She is also interested in new research methods that involve people in the research process.

The LGIU has released its first-ever list of 25 top thinkers after launching the Future Local Lab, a programme designed to help local governments tackle global challenges and make the most of new technologies, including addressing climate change.

Liz reflects on this recognition: 

David Stroup is a Senior Lecturer of Chinese Politics at The University of Manchester. 

In his article, he examines the discourse around Wuhan’s Party Secertary Ma Guoqiang, an ethnic Hui Muslim. 

Using discourse analysis of posts regarding Ma from January and February 2020, the paper examines how online discussion of Ma exemplifies Islamophobic attitudes of netizens, and illuminates the exclusory ethnic politics that unfold in the process of national boundary setting in China. 

These findings also illuminate how Muslims become scapegoats for crisis in non-Muslim countries, particularly those under authoritarian governance.

Stroup’s article contributed to the INTERSECT Project, a collaborative study of the global flows of Islamophobia led by Iselin Frydenlund and Torkel Brekke at the Center for Research on Extremism (C-REX), University of Oslo.

Launching in February 2025, the JUST Centre will work closely with communities in five regions of the North of England (West Yorkshire, West Cumbria, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Tyneside) while also generating comparative research in other regions of the UK. 

It will collaborate with partners across local, regional, and national government, business, and civil society to co-produce joined-up solutions to meet climate goals while improving citizens’ quality of life.

Commenting on the announcement, JUST Centre Director and Principal Investigator, Professor Sherilyn MacGregor said: 

Visit the JUST Centre page for further information.

Our Heads of Department for Sociology and Politics have both welcomed the results as a reflection of the hard work of their academics and researchers. 

Overall, the University has been placed among the top 25 worldwide in seven subject areas, and has two other subjects ranked in the top 50 globally. We are now ranked in 46 of the 55 subject areas covered by the ARWU, an impressive achievement. 

These exceptional results demonstrate our commitment to research excellence and global impact across a diverse range of disciplines. 

The Caucus, which serves as the primary association for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people and allies within the APSA, is an important arena for the presentation of research on sexual and gender diversity studies in political science and related disciplines. 

The Awards are presented to individuals who have demonstrated exemplary service to the Caucus, the field of political science, or the broader LGBTQ community. 

A founding member of the Sexuality & Politics division of APSA, Professor Wilson's work on the Christian/Religious Right has significantly contributed to understanding of how these movements have weaponised LGBTQ+ rights and liberties to expand and consolidate their memberships. She has been actively involved with the APSA LGBTQ Caucus, Status, and Sexuality & Politics for nearly three decades. 

She also serves as Associate Editor at Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) where she continues to engage with scholarly developments, contribute her insights and foster academic community. 

In its statement, the awarding committee praised Professor Wilson's invaluable academic contribution: 

On receiving the award, Professor Wilson said:

James Pattison, Professor of Politics, co-authors Prioritizing Global Responsibilities with Luke Glanville, Professor at the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University. 

The book considers that ‘states face multiple ongoing and emerging challenges, from climate change to global disease, mass atrocities to forced displacement, humanitarian crises to entrenched global poverty, and are constrained by material and political limits to the amount of resources that they can devote to these issues.’ It seeks to answer how, given these constraints, states should prioritise their global responsibilities. 

It does so ‘by proposing a two-level account of just prioritization that aims to be both philosophically sound and practically relevant. The authors assess several potential prioritization principles, including diversification, culpability, urgency, disadvantage, and national interest, and argue that states should prioritize issues where they can assist most effectively and where they can help those who are most underprivileged.’ 

The book considers a number of urgent issues, such as global poverty, climate change and global health.

Nick Turnbull is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and the project is a collaboration between Politics and Criminology. 

It aims to contribute to policy theory by discovering how policy workers make interpretations, manage relationships and practice discretion in the course of governing the trafficking problem.

There is currently a lack of primary research and cross-national comparisons about anti-trafficking collaborative governance. There is also a lack of research on non-sexual exploitative labour. 

The project will contribute to knowledge by discovering how policy workers' discretion impacts upon the prosecution, protection and prevention of trafficking. Moreover, the project includes people with lived experience of trafficking as co-producers. 

The project will assess similarities and differences between policy practices across three countries: United Kingdom, Belgium and Romania. It focuses primarily on policy workers, their organisations, and inter-relations. 

It examines how they make discretionary choices in policy implementation, including narratives they use in interpreting the policy problem and negotiating network relationships. These are set in the context of formal governance structures and the political narratives at work within them. 

The overall research question for the project is: How is the human trafficking problem governed by interpretive policy workers making discretionary choices in the context of specific policy regimes? 

Clara is a Lecturer in Political Theory and the British Academy/Leverhulme project will support her research on how different forms of cross-border and domestic solidarity can be harmonised. 

The research questions the assumption that solidarity with refugees contradicts or erodes solidarity within the welfare state. Instead, the project explores how political solidarity with refugees can be community-building and support wider social justice goals.

The grant will support a workshop on refugees’ political engagement and solidarity with a number of stakeholders in Sweden, a country where the presumed conflict of solidarity has been particularly stark. Sandelind will also interview migrant activists and NGOs, focusing on how their work can and does contribute to building wider solidarity that may also support the welfare state. 

Since 2014, this community hub has also served as the setting for a fruitful collaboration between the University of Manchester and local refugees and asylum seekers, fostering both language skills and community building.

The initiative, spearheaded by the politics department at the University, began as an English language conversation project. Every week, students would meet with refugees and asylum seekers at the Chrysalis Centre, offering them a chance to practice English and engage with the broader community. 

This effort was originally conceived by two Manchester students studying Politics and International Relations, John Beswick and Chen Liu, who recognized the isolation and language barriers faced by many refugees during a visit to the centre.

The project has evolved since its inception, expanding in 2022 to include students from universities across Manchester. This expansion was coordinated by Senior Lecturer Aoileann Ní Mhurchú from The University of Manchester and Lecturer Dr. Josephine Biglin from the University of Salford.

The students contribute more than just language skills; they forge meaningful connections with the attendees, contributing to a sense of community and mutual support.

Reflecting on her experience, Ila Lessof, a University of Manchester student who participated in the 2022/23 project, described it as transformative: "The community and friendships created were invaluable... the chance to learn from and support each other brought so much joy and purpose." 

Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, the project has persevered, adapting and growing in response to the needs of the community. The University’s commitment to this initiative underscores the critical role that higher education institutions can play in supporting refugees within local communities.

As the Chrysalis Family Centre continues to thrive, the collaboration between Manchester students and local refugees remains a powerful testament to the positive impact of community engagement.

The report sets out strategies for navigating the UK’s political context on climate change, which were developed during a workshop at Manchester with academics, practitioners from various political parties, as well as NGOs and social movements.

In a recent blog post, Matthew Paterson and Paul Tobin argue on the basis of the report that there has been a breakdown of the ‘climate change consensus’ and a backlash against net zero. To overcome these issues, they strategies they suggest are:

1. Mitigate the dilemmas that political parties face when navigating this new political context.

They suggest that parties may do so, for example, by ‘Designing policies that create irreversible effects, such as zero-carbon infrastructure investments in electricity, housing, or transport that would be too costly to dismantle.’

      2. Attack the backlash directly

This option entails promoting ‘net zero strategies that explicitly address social justice and inequality. Examples include policies that benefit low-income households, such as investment in public transport, and using the language of ‘energy security’ when promoting renewable energy.

The following report and blog post are available to read below:

• Navigating the Backlash report
• Blog post

After the election, Louise Thompson wrote a piece for The Conversation, focusing on the ‘fragmentation of the British parliament and the rise of smaller parties at the expense of the Conservatives’.

Robert Ford wrote for the Observer, analysing the results of all major parties and discussing the weakness of Labour’s base.

During election night, Robert Ford and Marta Miorio were at the BBC as part of their exit poll and analysis team. Rachel Gibson was at the BBC World Service Business Report election coverage.

Prior to the election, Christian Schemmel argued in The Conversation that children should have a say in elections.

Louise Thompson wrote a number of pieces for The Conversation and LSE British Politics and Policy blog, including a post focusing on the funding implications of Reform’s election success.

Maria Sobolewska wrote a piece for the BBC, highlighting the key role played by renters in the election.

The outgoing Head of Department of Politics, Yoram Gorlizki, has been awarded a British Academy Senior Research Fellowship to complete a long-standing book project on A Soviet Rule of Law: Justice and the Constitution in Soviet Russia.

Gorlizki is one of 11 2023/24 awardees of the Fellowship. His project will provide the first in-depth analysis of a major Soviet policy to ask whether it might be possible to have a particular form of the rule of law in an authoritarian state. 

In doing so it builds on and extends a growing body of work on the “authoritarian rule of law” and poses questions—such as “How does a rule of law emerge?” and “What is the role of constitutions in dictatorship?”—which can shed new light on how authoritarian regimes function.