The great pop song Zombie by the Irish group The Cranberries called out the justifications for political violence on both sides of the border. The powerful lyrics highlighted the mentality of people that had their thinking locked into a historic grievance – the 1916 uprising – as zombies.

One hundred years later I feel that most Brexit political discussions are similarly locked in time – the 2016 referendum. As the Americans say, each side is ‘re-litigating’ such things as whether the call for a second referendum was tactically wrong, or whether Prime Minister Cameron could have fought the general election differently.

We too often get our Brexit arguments out of the cupboard and give them a gentle clean and polish before putting them back in exactly the same place.

Let’s try to see if we can find even the beginnings of a new arrangement …

Firstly, we should remember it was a referendum – “every vote counts”. Unlike most elections, there were no safe constituencies, no vote could be taken for granted. There are many good reasons why referendums are bad for politics, not least because of popularism, but it would be foolish to deny its attraction in some quarters, and its promise of agency. Take back control.

Secondly, we can consider that if people are feeling neglected, unheard and angry, then sometimes they will throw a massive strop, politically speaking. The famous reply from an ordinary woman on a street in Newcastle being interviewed by a London-elite journalist: ‘yes Brexit will hurt GDP, but it is your GDP’. In doing this analysis we must be careful not to be dismissive nor disrespectful.

At this point we get nearer the nub of the question – if Brexit was a lightning conductor for a bigger economic storm about deindustrialisation, unemployment, globalisation and immigration, what can a government do against such economic forces, if anything?

The current economic turmoil in the USA following the tariffs debacle is similarly a symptom of a government trying to resist these global forces in order to protect post-industrial communities in decline.

Post-Brexit the Tories called these areas left behind, needing levelling up, which as a programme didn’t deliver on its promise. The Labour party suggests ‘growth’ but currently its infrastructure plans seem to favour the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle which doesn’t bode well.

On common ground, most parties have picked up on ideas about ‘place making’ to help with programmes such as improving ‘the high street’ in towns where so many shops stand empty. But without the funds needed to make a noticeable difference.

The pessimistic answer to Brexit is that governments of all stripes can do precious little to slow or reverse the decline of many communities other than offer vague words and one-way tickets to London.

A better answer, I’d suggest, is to get deep into the weeds of sustainable communities as a area of expertise. This neglected body of knowledge, from Jane Jacobs onwards, has learnt from the mistakes of professional dogmas such as planning, architecture, and economics. In my view we also need to be humble about the times when ‘community development’ dogmas have also let our work down.

Finally here, if ‘growth’ is to be the answer for the time being, then it is essential work to do all we can to reduce and prevent the extractive nature of capital from communities. There is also an extractive nature of labour, namely where people get a good job then quickly move out to the leafy suburbs taking their salary with them.

This needs to go beyond shallow statements on ‘local multipliers’ which literally don’t add up when you put all the sector reports on the same table. Local ownership might be a more fruitful method.

To elevate the Manchester 2035 strategy in line with the city’s ambition to be a pan-organisation leader in the circular economy, the University of Manchester can draw on its city’s pioneering heritage of cultural innovation and urban sustainability while shaping a forward-looking, globally influential model.

1. Cultivating a Pan-Organisation Ecosystem

Manchester’s future as a global circular economy leader will require seamless collaboration between universities, local government, business, civil society, and cultural institutions. The University of Manchester can act as a convenor and integrator—bringing together data, research, innovation, and community perspectives to foster systems thinking. Inspired by initiatives such as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s Green City Region programme, the University can help co-ordinate circular solutions in energy, mobility, waste, construction, and digital infrastructure. This pan-organisational approach would reflect the city’s industrial and cooperative legacy—where change was built collaboratively.

2. Positioning Culture at the Heart of Circular Practice

Manchester’s cultural institutions have already been central to sustainability efforts—MAST (Manchester Arts Sustainability Team), for example, has demonstrated how collective carbon reduction efforts can emerge from the arts sector. The University can amplify this cultural leadership by embedding creative thinking into circular economy education and practice, producing graduates and research that reimagine reuse, design for disassembly, and foster circularity in unexpected sectors—from fashion to festivals, from architecture to AI.

3. Embedding Circular Principles into Campus and Curriculum

The University itself can be a living lab of the circular economy by embracing circular procurement, zero-waste strategies, and sustainable construction in all new developments by 2035. Alongside this, it should embed circular economy education across faculties, not just in science and engineering, but in business, law, social sciences, and the arts. This mirrors Manchester’s own hybrid identity—where industry met philosophy, and social justice walked hand-in-hand with invention.

4. Honouring the City’s Legacy of Regenerative Urbanism

The transformation of Hulme, Ancoats, and Castlefield show how Manchester has historically led in regenerative and community-focused urban redevelopment. These projects weren’t just about physical space—they were about democratic design, social cohesion, and sustainable living. The Manchester 2035 vision can learn from these by pushing for urban campuses that operate on circular principles: decentralised energy, closed-loop water systems, community repair spaces, vertical farms, and social hubs. This is urbanism that regenerates, not just sustains.

5. Leveraging Data and Science for Global Impact

The University’s expertise in advanced materials, biotechnology, AI, and environmental science gives it the tools to not only model circular systems, but to pilot them in real-world settings across Greater Manchester. From smart waste logistics to circular manufacturing, it can lead in creating scalable, evidence-based interventions. Furthermore, the university’s global reach provides the opportunity to influence urban sustainability policy and practice well beyond the UK.

6. Leading on Justice-Centred Circularity

Circularity must also be socially just. Manchester’s past includes not just invention, but movements for workers’ rights, suffrage, and social equity. The university must ensure its circular economy initiatives uplift marginalised communities, create green jobs, and ensure the transition is fair and inclusive. This reflects both Manchester’s values and the global imperative to unite ecological and social sustainability.

Conclusion

By drawing from its city’s deep well of cultural innovation, community action, and industrial ingenuity, the University of Manchester can position Manchester 2035 as the beating heart of a pan-organisational movement—making the city a global model for the circular economy. Not just a smart city, but a wise one: regenerating rather than consuming, and leading the world by example.

I think there might be political merit in using the phrase social care activist.

It isn’t intended to replace other descriptions such as ally or campaigner.

But I think it is a clear phrase for getting through to Health and Social Care officials and politicians the realities of social care campaigns such as for independent living.

I wonder if such policy people believe that health care is obviously political but social care is just a question of finding enough money.

There is a phrase, ‘What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger’. But the reality is more like, ‘What doesn’t kill me I will need to forget.’

Consider the early 1900s and the Spanish Flu pandemic. It killed more people than World War One, yet that war gave us a new forms of evocative poetry, films, books and songs, while that pandemic was ignored in popular culture. Analysis of novels from that time show people did not want to buy a pandemic story.

Similarly consider in the 1800s and Paris. Around 1870 the city is besieged in war by Russian forces and thousands die. Two years later is the Uprising with the Communards and another 10,000 people die. Yet what do people do with all this? In 1874 the Impressionist painters create a new movement of loved pictures of sunny fields of flowers, of small boats bobbing in a calm harbour on a sea of light, of young people in bars and on picnics.

So it is now in the 2020s with the latest pandemic.

Never mind that the British authorities handled it the worst of all the developed nations, that children and young people still bear the scars, that people of colour died in overwhelming numbers, that inequality and poverty decided much of who would die.

Instead we have a post-pandemic backlash against young people (snowflakes), against talking about race and inequality (DEI), and against public health (vax). The new conversations on over-diagnosis and young people’s mental health have to be seen in this context.

Yes, the one-size-fits-all response of medicalising the rising number people with distress and difference would be better dealt with by a range of social and community responses (eg open dialogue), but that isn’t the motivation for the backlash.

And now we have politicians making deep cuts to the benefits payments for disabled people which are designed to fall hardest on people with mental health conditions.

We must not forget where these rising numbers came from, and who was responsible.

The cop-out answer is, ‘Yes there is, but we mostly don’t know yet what it will be.’ So this post is more about the qualities of books and articles that others are writing, but with a political spin.

For me, and many others, AI will change society as profoundly as did the steam engine and the electricity grid. This anticipation has led to boosterism and to a bandwagon of snake oil applications. A few of the more thoughtful commentators are reminding us of the old adage, ‘when the gold rush starts, sell shovels.’

Currently I am ploughing through a number of the better AI textbooks. And there is are many books out there which are, in my view, no more than paperback versions of clickbait. AI and Home Decorating – I’ve just made that up, but you get the idea. Currently I trawl the bookshops near to universities in London, where some have created new shelved sections for AI books, most of which can be readily skipped over.

AI books are also out of date before they are printed, but that said, for me the best in class at the moment is ‘Mastering AI’ by Jeremy Khan (2024), written by a tech journalist who knows (a) tech and (b) how to write about tech for the politically smart generalist.

Because my bachelors degree was in Computation I’m also reading a translation of a German textbook, which is good, but not for a general audience.

I would suggest that, if you want to follow AI developments you need to read political economists as well – the dark doings of tech bros in Silicon Valley and Seattle will shape it as much as the raw science will.

I also humbly suggest that people with a humanities background are at a disadvantage currently in terms of AI. My masters degree was in the humanities, so I hope this is taken in the spirit it was intended. I can imagine some universities where the humanities profs are glaring out of their windows at the sciences block, and committees are busy fixing last year’s problem.

I guess a wider issue is, how best can analogue staff teach a born-digital generation. For example, the Elicit website uses AI to help postgraduate researchers do what I would still call a literature review, and to share their latest papers with other researchers. And embedded AI will probably reach a point soon when it is no longer worth commenting on. For example, we don’t say that cars or washing machines or hair dryers have embedded electricity.

On the social and environmental impacts of AI companies – such as demand for power and cooling, trawling of intellectual property without permission, job displacements – I think most people argue backwards from whether they like (or worship) tech or not.

The pro side are saying, everything will be fixed and these are just teething problems.

The anti side are saying, it will add to inequality and exclusion, another aspect of creative work in society being enclosed and strip mined for profit by the tech bros. For example, you can imagine that somewhere in a garage in Hollywood is a geek or two working on an app that turns a 200-word prompt into 90 minutes of film, ready for viewing.

Jeremy Khan covers these pro and anti points in detail and without boosterism, in my view. His conclusion, which I paraphrase here, is that the future path of AI will continue to throw up some surprises, but how we deal with all this is a political choice where governments around the world are struggling to regulate tech companies, and tech companies are always trying to ‘innovate’ to evade laws and taxes written for an earlier age.

You might call it unregulated capitalism.

The political aftershocks of Trump 2.0 are still in force, and any consensus will have to wait until the acrimony and blame has receded. My sense is that in the USA it will cause an entire generation of politicians to be retired from the stage. And they probably won’t leave holding hands. Expect books.

But I think the shock requires more than a change of personnel or even a generational clear out.

What Trump 2.0 has shown us, along with Project 2025 etc, is that the extreme right has been playing a very long game, from packing the US Supreme Court to the Tea Party insurrections within the Republican Party. In hindsight they were doing what the European New Left in the 1960s called, The Long March Through the Institutions, taking a leaf out of the writings of Gramsci and Italian Marxism.

But sixty years later, left wing politics seems to have retreated from an analysis of how to best win, keep and use institutional power. Instead it feels at times that the Left is most comfortable within the personal space of identity – as if the personal is political has become, only the personal is political. In this narrative we just become consumers of the services of the state where we have rights to be enjoyed, but we forget we could also gain power to change them. At worst, our politics can become one of personalities and identities above policies.

Not to be too gloomy, there needs to be some hope for a better world. But perhaps for the Left we need to find a way to synthesise the newer thinking around identity with the older thinking about the state and institutional power.

Currently any political discussions in the UK on the power of the state are focused on terms such as productivity, efficiency and even league tables. Perhaps the main lesson from Trump 2.0 is that we need more impactful plans that begin to use institutional power for income and wealth fairness, for ending destitution, and for sustainable living. A long march, comrades.

After the previous government scrapped plans for the HS2 railway to go north of Birmingham, the current government has recently announced that it will look at new plans to reinstate a Manchester-Birmingham leg which would cost less, plans which the transport secretary Louise Haigh MP called “perfectly viable”. (Financial Times, 9 Nov). A decision is said to be due in Spring 2025.

The moniker HS3 is already earmarked for the transpennine Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull upgrade, much overdue, so perhaps the Manchester-Birmingham leg will be known as HS4.

Twelve years ago I published a pro bono business plan to show how a Manchester-Paris train service could be achieved using existing rail systems and trains in use. I still believe this is possible, and with some careful planning the proposed HS4 Manchester-Birmingham leg can play its part.

The key issue remains the three different signalling systems, which are:

• HS1 – this uses the French TVM-430 system (in cab).
• HS2 – this will use the European Train Control System (ETCS) at Level 2 (in cab).
  • HS3 and HS4 – these will need to be ETCS for ease of through services.
• Conventional Rail – this uses trackside visual signalling (outside cab).

As well as the signalling system for HS4, the other significant design choices are maximum running speed, and whether to rely on tilting trains or not. Once these design choices are known, the trains can be ordered or modified.

I would add a further consideration, that the trains should be built to be compatible with Channel Tunnel safety rules, especially if these align with UK safety rules for high-speed tunnels.

A good decision has been announced in the recent Budget to extend HS2 by tunnels in north London from Old Oak Common to terminate at Euston, but the connection to HS1 at St Pancras still means using local conventional rail near to the two stations, probably the busy North London Line (aka London Overground).

Whether there is enough political capital available for the tunnels to run on to St Pancras is for another day, but it would open the UK outside of London to international rail services in a more sensible way. The design at St Pancras should be for through platforms to run on to HS1 and to the Channel Tunnel, not terminus platforms.

In railways it seems the political maxim remains true, we eventually do the right thing, after exhausting all other options. (Abba Eban, 1967, but often mis-attributed to Churchill)

What might be the implications for the UK of the second Trump presidency?

Many government departments and thinktanks will be drinking the strong coffee this morning as they ponder the implications.

For what it is worth, probably:

1 – more refugees from Eastern Europe, starting with Ukraine

2 – more rightwing regimes being elected in EU countries in the coming years

3 – trade with China becoming more volatile

4 – world powers realigned around (a) authoritarian, (b) western liberal, (c) what used to be called the non-aligned South

5 – soft power overseas becoming more important.

On the first point, most refugees are working age people, some with children, both much needed in the ageing UK, so the priority task will be to manage community cohesion and integration, possibly with a focus on language skills and training.

On points 2, 4 and 5 we might begin to see the political, economic and cultural advantages of a more internationalist agenda.

Fingers crossed.

In Germany there is a TV news service which presents every news report in plain language, aiming to make current events accessible to those with limited German proficiency.

News programmes covers major global and German news topics, such as politics, conflicts, natural disasters, and notable events. Each news item is presented in clear, straightforward language and often with videos.

The Tagesschau in Einfacher Sprache uses straightforward language, short sentences, and their journalists avoid complex words or foreign terms to improve accessibility.

The simplified approach is designed to support the approximately 17 million people in Germany who struggle with traditional news formats. By doing so, Tagesschau aims to deliver the same critical news to all audiences, helping those with language difficulties, new German speakers, and others requiring simpler language to stay informed about current events.

Strictly speaking, this format differs from Leichte Sprache, which follows strict rules for even simpler content designed for learning disabled people.

For more details, visit Tagesschau in Einfacher Sprache.