Joe Biden’s climate agenda will be put to the test as a critical UN climate change conference draws near. The US is lagging behind in its responsibility to show it is serious about enacting climate legislation and integrating clean energy investment into the financial system, finally beginning the green overhaul. Over four years of US absence from global climate negotiations regarding the reduction of emissions have left a large void in the international community's initiative and credibility. The eventual direction that Biden’s ambitious climate promises will take is tied in a large reform bill stalled in Congress; trapped as Democratic moderates and progressives brawl over the best course of action. These disagreements come at a pivotal time in the climate emergency. This reform bill could be Biden’s last hope of achieving meaningful climate action as both the crisis and his position in congress worsen. The world is closely watching the United States on whether it will deliver on its promise of slashing emissions in half by 2030 as John Kerry prepares to meet global leaders at COP26 in November. If the US is to re-orientate their energy policy towards renewables and lead the world into the green era, they must be seen as actionable and worthy of regaining their credibility Dubbed “The Build Back Better Bill '' as the main thrust of a major expansion to public spending, the section on climate reform seeks to energise the transition from fossil fuels and slowing rates of global warming. The bill includes measures to incentivise use of electric cars, financial penalties for companies for not increasing renewable energy supplies and funding for forest management and wildfire protection. The political turmoil surrounding climate reform begs the question of where the US public stands. Even prior to recent destructive weather patterns, Americans have long insisted that the federal government hasn’t done enough, with polls implying public opinion has shifted in a progressive direction. On the whole, a majority of Americans are calling for green action. Monmouth University’s recent survey stated that 60 percent of adults saw climate change as a “very” or “extremely” important matter for the federal government to deal with. In addition, a study from the Pew Research Center concluded that 60 percent of American adults were concerned about the personal consequences of climate change. Biden has boldly promised that the US would reduce its carbon emissions to half of their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. However, little action has been taken to delay the disaster from worsening. If the United States wants to actively provide global leadership, the time is now to set new economic and environmental precedents, using its soft power to lead the international community onwards . The United States is currently the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and has been the main actor at global climate discussions. Additionally, its relationship with China, the largest country by emissions, means the responsibility to play a decisive role in setting the international response falls squarely on the US’s shoulders. As heated disagreements drag on in Congress, Gina McCarthy, a government climate adviser, is insistent that the Biden administration can meet decarbonisation targets even if Congress fails to legislate along their recommended lines. While Americans want the government to make a stand against climate change, a Congressional gridlock is, for now, stalling any progress. President Biden’s Democrats, who continue to work on passing an omnibus budget in Congress, are crucially at odds with each other over spending limits. Estimates from politicians have put the final figure in the range of $1.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion. Biden, meanwhile, has stated the expenditure is likely to be at approximately $2 trillion. Such a claim is disappointing for progressives, as their proposals will inevitably be watered down in the process. Having to compromise threatens not only the USA's chances of halting climate change, but makes them look weak and faulting among their international peers, severely diminishing their credibility as climate leader. Climate change has failed to garner a level of consensus that binds together progressives and centrists in the Democratic party. The progressives see the reconciliation bill to be the federal government’s only hope at confronting the swiftly deteriorating climate crisis. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez articulated that climate emergency provisions aren’t a thing that Congress can simply “kick down the line”. Alternatively, Joe Manchin, a centrist US Senator of West Virginia, has obstructed a part of the new bill and has expressed his opposition towards the switch to clean energy. Since the bill already faces staunch opposition from Republicans, Democrats are pushing to legislate through a budgetary procedure known as reconciliation, using exclusively Democratic support. However, this crucially means that support is necessary from every Democratic senator. As it stands, Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have refused to back it without major reductions to the bill’s budget. The longer this bill is held back, the more likely it is to be stripped down, or worse, collapse. As the world faces an increased irregularity in its weather patterns, the risk to economy, development and human life is growing sharply. The US has had its share of such extreme weather, and between wildfires, blizzards and heatwaves has begun to warm to the notion that climate change will have major impacts at home. The relevant question remains, however, will the US translate this new understanding into international action. The implications of US absenteeism from an international climate response would be immense. The unique role that the US plays in the international system is one of implicit both de-facto leadership, its influence in international organisations and through its trade and economic policy give it opportunities to enforce climate reform internationally in a way no other actor could. Leadership in climate reform also requires the resources to work with the most and least developed nations, and expertise to address the challenges that both types of economies present. In order for America to display global leadership, however, they must finalise their green response. It also must pursue its green foreign policy through harnessing the power of the IMF, World Bank and other multilateral institutions through propelling green private investment and when offering structural adjustment packages. The US can, and must, take on the responsibility to lead swift and radical changes that are not only reliable, but structured around long term reform. As it stands, US domestic politics is sabotaging reform policy at a national and international level. The US has contributed greatly to emissions and environmental degradation, and unless it acts responsible to slow these effects, it will discover the economic disaster climate change promises.

The UK has contributed to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis: the Yemen conflict. Persistent bombing has destroyed the lives of millions. The UK government’s most recent decision regarding Yemen is a drastic cutting of aid to the region. This has prompted huge outcry, but is sadly one of many immoral choices made by the Government in this conflict. Yemen has been in a state of war for seven years. In 2014, Houthi (Shiite Muslim) rebels with links to Iran rose up against the Sunni government. They seized the capital, Sana’a, protesting against fuel prices and demanded a new government. The following year, an Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched an operation to restore the fallen government. Conflict has ensued since, supported by American intelligence and weapons. The Arab-US side has been fiercely criticised for their relentless bombing campaign, which has destroyed civilian life. The UK has firmly contributed to this conflict right from the start. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK sold over £6.5 billion worth of arms to the Saudi coalition. It continues to do so. In fact, the true figure of arms sales will be much higher, with many arms being sold in secret. It was no surprise that the Court of Appeal ruled that the arms sales were unlawful under humanitarian law in 2019. And in its characteristically careless style, the UK government breached this court order three times by continuing to sell arms. And as if that wasn’t enough, the Government then declared in 2020 that their arms exports didn’t pose a threat to humanitarian law, and resumed arms exports to the Saudi coalition. The bombing campaign, facilitated by British weapons, has left two-thirds of the Yemeni population in need of aid, with 2 million children malnourished. Apart from its arms exports, the UK government is linked to Yemen in another way: aid. Aid has been a vital lifeline to millions of civilians suffering from the persistent bombing. The UK has been one of the highest aid donors to Yemen since the conflict. It’s important to note that aid has in no way made up for the arms sales; the value of UK arms sales to the Saudi side is at least 6.5 times its aid contributions. However, aid has undoubtedly helped, given high levels of malnourishment and homelessness. Last year, the government pledged £164m in aid to Yemen. But earlier this month it almost halved this figure to £87m, citing the impact of the pandemic on the economy. By cutting aid and continuing arms exports, the Government has shown that it’s willing to put profit over lives in a war. It’s clear that this decision will be ruinous for Yemen, but it’s no longer surprising from a government that has shown complete disregard for the Yemeni people. When compared to the USA, the UK government’s behaviour looks even worse. President Biden recently ended all support to the Saudi offensive, including arms sales, in a major policy shift. Biden also announced a further £137m (approximately) in aid to Yemen. The UK, meanwhile, has consistently cut aid to Yemen year-on-year since 2017. While Biden promises moral leadership, the UK government continues its immoral stance. The UK’s aid cuts to Yemen are part of broader cuts to multiple war-torn countries. Aid to Syria could fall by 67%; to Somalia by 60%, and to Nigeria by 58%. Each of these cuts will be removing a lifeline to millions of innocent civilians suffering from conflict, while the UK prioritises cutting its budget deficit. At a time when COVID-19 continues to ravage third-world countries, this ruthless ‘me-first’ attitude causes even more misery. Indeed, while the UK has ordered over 400 million vaccine doses for a population of 66 million, Yemen’s healthcare system has collapsed, with no hope of coping with the coronavirus pandemic. The government has unapologetically hoarded vaccine stocks, at the expense of poor and war-torn countries. Even though the UK government has promised to donate most of its excess vaccine stocks to poorer countries, it would only do this once its entire population has been vaccinated. Some 130 countries haven’t vaccinated a single person. Vaccines must be donated immediately; frontline workers in these countries are risking their lives during COVID-19, while this Government puts its own citizens first. Yemen will be one of the countries to suffer from the UK government’s monopolistic decisions during this pandemic, but one among many. Since the start of the Yemen conflict, the UK government has been a silent perpetrator of violence and destruction in the region. Over the past few years, Brexit and the coronavirus response have dominated news headlines and revealed this Government’s incompetence. But the Government’s treatment of Yemen goes under the radar, despite a multitude of mistakes and humanitarian violations. Yemen has been the UK’s worst foreign policy disaster in years. Even now, British planes, flown by British-trained pilots, drop British bombs over Yemen. As long as this conflict rages on, Britain can no longer call itself a force for good in the world.

paper tiger diplomacy: a person or thing that appears threatening but is ineffectual. ~ Definition from Oxford Languages Alexi Navalny, a name only heard as a pretext to bad news. In late August 2020, news broke that Russia’s fiercest anti-corruption activist and politician had been evacuated to Germany for treatment following a suspected poisoning. Weeks later, scientists in Sweden, France and Germany all confirmed the poison to be Novichok, a nerve agent developed in secret by the USSR. As many will remember, the same poison was used against Sergei Skripal, a Russian double agent, in Salisbury in 2018. How did the Kremlin respond to allegations that they, the only owners of Novichok, were to blame for the assassination attempts against the governments most prominent critic? Blatant denial. Did they seek to substantiate or pretend this denial was plausible? No, because they have nothing to fear from the West, where strongly worded statements are the extent of an EU scolding. The mantle of resisting Russian corruption has been left to the EU as the US is left reeling after four years of Trumpism. Navalny’s poisoning is the newest epicentre of the ongoing EU-Russia tension, and if the EU picks up the gauntlet it could spell success for Navalny’s war against corruption and firm up Russia’s ailing democracy. Following the activist’s miraculous recovery, he wasted no time returning to Russia to continue the fight. Though the Kremlin sought to silence their harshest critic, the poisoning has instead made him a martyr. Political repression is high in Russia, and Navalny has already suffered dearly for his opposition to Putin’s regime. In 2013, his brother was imprisoned under fabricated charges of embezzlement; he too was charged but received a postponed sentence. After touching down in Russia, Navalny was arrested on the same embezzlement charges, but not before uploading a video exposing the billion-dollar mansion on the Black Seacoast given to President Putin by Russian oligarchs. The public response was immense, if the arrest of Navalny wasn’t enough the video of Putin’s new mansion galvanised those already angry at corruption and failing bureaucracy. The first day of protests in late January saw thousands - 40,000 in Moscow alone - in 110 cities, braving temperatures as low as -50°c to voice their anger. Russia is at a demographic tipping point, in which younger generations plugged into Navalny’s social media campaign outnumber those who grew up in the Soviet Union and watch the state-owned TV news. The number of citizens willing to accept authoritarian corruption and a usurpation of democratic values is dwindling, and the Kremlin is feeling the heat. Navalny’s return to Russia was an extremely bold play, it keeps him in the spotlight and allows his message to spread. If he’s imprisoned or assassinated the Russian people are at least watching, anymore foul play from Putin will therefore be agonisingly public and lead to greater dissent and rioting. If change is to take place, then international actors must get behind Navalny or risk the strongest attempt at democratic reforms from failing. Similar riots in 2011 were met with token investments from the government in Moscow and St Petersburg to quiet the middle classes, this cannot be allowed to happen again. While the EU is always first to write letters of condemnation, without a hard-line response Navalny’s campaign remains naked among the wolves. A genuine protective cloak, through targeted pressure, will massively support the Russian people and pave the way to fixing Russia’s widespread corruption. The most critical response for the EU is to cancel Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany. The EU is, however, a house divided on its policy towards Russia, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline offers little commercial value and is in fact a pet project of Putin’s, ceded to him by Angela Merkle who wishes to foster a working relationship with Russia. On the other hand, France, supported by the ex-eastern bloc nations, has called for a harder line when considering Russia’s corruption and blatant rejection of democratic processes. Worse still, the pipeline creates a relationship of energy reliance for Germany and following the agreement to buy the Sputnik V vaccine, further reduces the capacity for criticism by the EU on Russian despotism. This January EU officer Borrell was sent to discuss vaccines and Navalny with the Kremlin and, to no one’s surprise, he could not free Navalny. The time for sending ministers armed with nothing but international condemnation has come to an end. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline represents the only major chip the EU has, if Europe walked away it would not only embarrass the Kremlin but show them the grave seriousness of their actions, and that the EU will not tolerate them. With this, threats of economic sanctions would carry far more weight and cull the pattern of poisonings and the corruption of democracy. Alexi Navalny, a name that one day could be the pretext to good news. But this will not happen alone. With the USA wallowing in its own internal democratic issues, Russia has abandoned any efforts to appear democratic as the Kremlin perceives no international repercussions. Unless action is taken by the EU to show this isn’t the case Navalny may not be the last to be poisoned with Novichok. Following years of declining living standards, political repression and the recent mansion exposé the Russian public has grown wearisome. Navalny’s newfound pre-eminence in the eyes of the people could, with hard-line pressure from the EU, lead to enough momentum to cause real political change. Image credit: Evgeny Feldman / Novaya Gazeta under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

On the 20th October 2020, Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch announced that the UK Government stood uniquely against the teaching of ‘Critical Race Theory’ in British Schools, marking the first instance of this marginal intellectual current being mentioned in parliament. She went on to warn against teachers promoting ‘partisan political views’, such as the existence of white privilege. Whilst the denouncement of Critical Race Theory – a movement which considers structural racial inequalities, was new in parliament, the British government has an exhaustive history of politicising academic debate and censoring the school curriculum. Where considerable attention has been paid to academic censorship in Britain’s universities, lesser consideration has been given to government meddling in the state school curriculum. As can be seen with the rise of increasingly ‘authoritarian’ education policies, Johnson’s government appears to be taking considerable care to rid schools of stances that are uncomplimentary to their governing ideology. Such was evident in the Government’s recent categorisation of anti-capitalism as an ‘extremist political stance’. In a set of guidance for schools published in September 2020, the Department for Education advised against the use of materials produced by groups that ‘publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy’ or ‘capitalism’. This move was widely critiqued by left-wing voices, with many arguing that without access to materials produced by anti-capitalist groups and more specifically anti-racist groups, students would not be exposed to conflicting points of view. Moreover, following the most recent Black Lives Matter protests, when a petition was launched to add diversity and racism to all school curriculums, the government declined to do so, insisting that the current curriculum was flexible enough to allow for teachers to ‘choose topics which highlight diversity’. Yet again, the government appeared entirely indifferent to promoting anti-racism, whilst forcing those schools who did want to teach such content to teach a watered-down version of the reality of racism in the United Kingdom. Whilst certainly more subtle in their intent, such policy interventions are hauntingly reminiscent of education under Thatcher. From the 1980’s onwards, the Conservative government worked to systematically restructure progressive education, deliberately restricting educational opportunities for the working classes. In particular, Thatcher’s policies directly targeted the working classes and were heavily influenced by Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton, who asserted that the working classes should not be educated in sociology or philosophy, given that it was their place to find work in manual employment. Whilst the policies at play here do diverge significantly, both eras of Conservatism are united by a common thread; the desire to purge the masses of the critical thinking skills that would allow them to perceive the unjustness of their situation. Just as Thatcher’s government feared a class-consciously, politically educated electorate, Johnson’s government now advocates against teaching children the reality of racism and structural inequalities in the United Kingdom. This argument is further substantiated by Gavin Williamson’s announcement in January 2021 that funding for university courses in ‘Strategic courses such as engineering and medicine’ would be increased’, whilst funding for courses such as media studies would be slashed. As I see it, the intent is highly ideological. Once again, a vast number of educational pathways are being closed off for the majority of students, with true educational choice only being available to the wealthy minority. Moreover, it is apolitical STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects, which are being promoted by the government. Humanities subjects, meanwhile, which teach students to critically engage with the social, economic and political world around them, are likely to find their funding increasingly tightened. For those engaged with scholarship of the role of the state, such moves should not come as a surprise. The education system plays an incredibly powerful role in dispersing the hegemonic values of the state, as can be witnessed across countless governments in countless nations. However, as the Conservative government continues to meddle in the school curriculum, they appear to miss a vital insight. Students do not become anti-capitalist or radically anti-racist from their teachers or school resources. Rather, students become ‘radicalised’ through experience. They become anti-capitalist, through experiencing multiple recessions, enduring years of austerity and witnessing the wealth gap between rich and poor widen at an exponential rate. Students become anti-racist, through the direct experience of racism and watching racial injustice infold before them. What exactly can be done about the creeping authoritarianism in the United Kingdom is a difficult question. The politicisation of anti-racism and the demonisation of anti-capitalism and Critical Race Theory has purposely transformed such ideological approaches into folk devils of thought. Hence, it is imperative that debate on social and political issues be actively encouraged in British schools. The importance of a politically educated electorate, who are able to hold the government to account is essential for the health of free and fair democracy. What is certain, however, is that these trends are incredibly worrying for the future of British education and far greater attention must be paid to the encroaching wave of censorship. Cover Image was from Mutant669 under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

In an effort to reduce the transmission of Covid-19, governments around the world have ordered their schools to close. These closures mean that approximately 90% of all students are out of school and amongst them, more than 800 million girls. A large proportion of this number is made up of girls who live in developing countries, and who already face barriers in accessing primary and secondary school education. School closures do little to reduce this recurrent problem, and actually have the potential to exacerbate the gender inequalities which are entrenched in many societies. Whilst there will be girls who continue with their education once schools reopen, there are many who will not. The Malala Fund has estimated that 20 million girls in developing countries will never enter a classroom again. Two points need to be recognised. First, that girls are a particularly vulnerable, but overlooked group in the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, unless measures are taken by governments to understand the gender dimensions of school closures, the gender disparity will widen and have a significant impact on girls’ life chances. Sexual and Reproductive Barriers to Education Re-Entry Alongside school closures, governments across the world have also ordered their sexual and reproductive clinics to close, on the grounds that these services do not meet the “essential” criteria. The disruption to what is an essential service has meant that it is more difficult for girls to return to the classroom. Due to increased risks of neonatal and maternal mortality and morbidity; increased rates of adolescent and unwanted pregnancy; HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, girls might drop out of school. Past humanitarian crises such as the Ebola Crisis, have shown school closures led to rises in teenage pregnancy and that once schools reopened, girls were banned from attending due to community stigma. It is likely that in the period after Covid lockdowns, there will be similar increases in drop-out rates as girls of schooling age are forced to get married at an early age. In many developing countries, Covid-19 has worsened the problem of period poverty, which has a direct impact on girls’ attendance rates at school. In Malawi, one of the world’s most poorest countries, only 24% of schools are able to offer adequate sanitary facilities. A single sanitation product in the country is equivalent to a working day’s wage. For many young girls, they will consider themselves lucky if they are able to find spare pieces of cloth or clean paper to resemble a pad or a tampon. Stigmas surrounding menstruation mean that girls are forced to miss out on school. UNICEF has made the grave prediction that 1 in 10 African girls of schooling age do not attend school during menstruation. These drop-out rates are linked to girls and women finding it difficult to concentrate in school due to the burden that comes with not having hygienic sanitary protection and having to constantly wash and reuse unsafe products. Governments should recognise that forced closures of sexual and reproductive health care services can be detrimental to women and girls’ lives in a number of ways. Not only does this have a direct impact on their health, it also means they are likely to obtain a lower level of education. These services should be reclassified as ‘essential’. This new classification would prioritise these services, enable girls to use the services that they need, remove stigma and ensure that girls would be able to safely re-attend schools, without the burden of health problems. Developed countries should give a greater amount of aid to developing countries and enable them to secure access to safe period products. Domestic Pressures To Drop-Out Alongside sexual and reproductive healthcare needs which make it difficult for women and girls to attend school, the domestic pressures placed upon them should also be recognised. as families consider the costs of their daughters’ education. Covid-19 has exacerbated the extreme poverty, economic vulnerability and crisis in places where gender disparities in education are already at its highest. As a result, more families are now forced to make trade-off decisions as to whether their daughter should attend school or work for pay. Forced school closures means that many families can use this situation to encourage their daughters to work and provide for the family. This decision can lead to girls becoming the primary caregiver or earner for their families. Policy-makers and governments must recognise that a gendered perspective should inform a large part of their school reopening plans and try to find ways for girls to continue learning. Concluding Thoughts It is shocking how quickly terms like “childhood as motherhood”, “child marriage”, “child as breadwinner and caregiver” have become normalised in parts of the world and raises three questions. First, how did the economic situation ever come to be so dire in these countries and what can be done to improve this, so millions of girls do not suffer the same fate each year? Secondly, how could decades of progress made by bodies like the UN Girls’ Initiative and UN Women in educating girls be lost so rapidly? Thirdly, shouldn’t policymakers recognise that in developing countries where there are already large gender inequalities in education, Covid-19 will only widen the gap? Policymakers must also recognise that gender disparities in education are a real problem and attention needs to be given to those girls in developing countries who will suffer the most. It is essential that a gendered perspective is taken to tackle both, the sexual and reproductive healthcare needs and the domestic pressures placed upon girls, in order to enable them to return safely to school. Ultimately, policymakers and governments must recognise that the economic impacts of Covid-19 are not experienced uniformly and develop their policy responses in such a way that takes account of the unique experiences of gender and poverty.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on the world; there is no human being who has not been affected. Though the priority of most governments across the world has been to reduce the transmission of the virus and search for an effective vaccine, there are also important side-effects of Covid lockdowns which should not be forgotten. One of these side-effects is the devastating impact which Covid-19 has had on the provision and delivery of medical treatment for heart and cancer patients. A group of patients who have consistently been referred to as an “overlooked” sector of the population during this pandemic. The Disruption of Covid-19 on the Provision and Supply of Heart and Cancer Care A considerable body of research has shown that the priority of National Health Service (NHS) resources to deal with the increase in infected patients has meant the healthcare system has been restructured. This restructuring has included minimising patient contact with healthcare professionals; the rescheduling and postponing of routine hospital visits and healthcare checks; the postponement of non-essential procedures, and an increase in telephone and video assisted consultations and check-ups. Heart Patients The official governmental advice of “Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives” has also increased fears of contracting the virus, which has meant that heart and cancer patients are avoiding hospitals, or attending screenings too late to benefit from life-saving treatment. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC), conducted a survey with 3,101 healthcare professionals in 141 countries, including the UK in Mid-April 2020 and found some deeply alarming results. The number of heart attack patients seeking hospital care “dropped by more than 50% during the Covid-19 outbreak”. Most respondents have said that out of the patients who did attend hospital, 48% arrived later than usual for effective treatment. ESC President, Professor Barbara Casadei has stressed it is the fears of catching the coronavirus which has meant people who are even in the middle of suffering a heart attack are now too afraid to attend hospital for treatment. The real fears and anxieties of heart patients need to be recognised to a stronger degree by governments and healthcare practices. As these fears affect whether or not heart patients seek treatment and in turn, affect their health status, local GP surgeries and hospitals should provide more public reassurance to patients about what Covid-secure measures there are in place. In addition, the government should dedicate more time in Covid briefings, to reassure non-Covid patients that they still remain a priority of this newly restructured healthcare system. The Forgotten “C”? In October 2020, Macmillan Cancer Support Charity have estimated that across the UK, there are approximately 50,000 “missing diagnoses”. This means that for a similar time frame in 2019, there are 50,000 fewer people who have been diagnosed with cancer. Kimberly Eccles, a 23 year-old woman has learnt that she has a 1% chance of survival, after missing three crucial appointments at the beginning of the first lockdown; many other patients will sadly face the same fate. The situation cannot carry on as it is. In addition, Macmillan has found that more than 22% of people living with cancer in the UK, have experienced disruptions to their cancer treatment and care because of Covid. For approximately 150,000 patients, this disruption took many forms including postponements in follow-up care following earlier cancer diagnoses and delayed, rescheduled or cancelled treatments. Rosie Loftus, Chief Medical Officer of Macmillan has rightfully pointed out that in navigating all the chaos of the pandemic, there is one issue which remains clear: cancer patients’ needs do not stop during the pandemic. There needs to be greater transparency provided to patients by healthcare practitioners and governments about what changes they can expect to their cancer treatment plans, what changes these might involve and a full commitment to rescheduling any postponed appointments or consultations as soon as possible. The effects of the pandemic on mental health have been well-documented. The government should recognise these adverse mental health effects, and invest more funding plan into mental health and pastoral support schemes. These schemes could include counselling and support groups, which could help people who have been diagnosed with cancer to feel more connected during this isolating period of lockdown. Virtual Clinic Models and the Redefining of “Essential” Healthcare There has been an increase in the use of virtual clinical models and redefinitions of “non-essential” procedures. Research has found that the deviation from face-to-face to online consultations can have emotional and psychological implications for patients. The barriers created via a screen can lead patients to feel more distanced from the process, may undermine rapport building between them and their doctor and hinder confidentiality. The government should recognise that though more convenient during lockdowns, online consultations will not work effectively for everyone. There should be an increase in in-person consultations, with greater acknowledgement by practitioners and governments that the transition from face-to-face appointments to the virtual realm is not an easy one, with many complications involved. Conclusion It is very concerning that a large sector of the non-COVID patient population are suffering as a result of the restructuring of the healthcare system. It must be recognised that heart and cancer patients’ needs do not disappear during the pandemic, but are likely to worsen. The political will to reassure non-COVID patients is questionable, given that the majority of efforts are directed towards reducing the transmission of COVID and ensuring an effective vaccine roll-out. However, closer partnerships can be exercised between the NHS and the Government to provide greater public reassurance and secure more funding into more mental well-being and pastoral services for patients during this overwhelming time. Rohini Anand is a recent MSc graduate in International Social and Public Policy from the London School of Economics. The featured image (top) is by Francisco Àvia Hospital Clinic on Flickr

Last month, Amazon announced a new venture, Amazon Pharmacy into the US healthcare market, sending the stocks of leading competitors down massively. The introduction of Amazon Pharmacy has been largely expected over the past few years (given Amazon’s acquisition of the medication delivery company PillPack in 2018) but this news still sent shockwaves in the sector. The stock price of competitor GoodRx, for example, fell by nearly 19% following Amazon’s announcement. So will Amazon Pharmacy revolutionise healthcare in the US? Amazon Pharmacy allows consumers to order generic and prescription drugs online, with Amazon Prime members getting free, unlimited delivery within 2 days. This level of convenience and speed is unrivalled in the healthcare market. The only other mainstream mail-order medication company in the US is GoodRx; they have 5 million members, whereas Amazon Prime has 126 million members. This marketing reach, combined with its superior logistical power, will allow it to rise to the forefront of the sector. But the biggest impact of Amazon Pharmacy could be on price. Unlike the UK, where drug prices are regulated, the drug makers are the ones to set prices in the US. Since the early 2000s, prescription drug spending in the US has risen faster than many other western countries. Now, per capita spending in the US is more than double the UK’s and nearly triple that of Sweden’s. Healthcare can often be households’ biggest cost in the US. Shocking stories of people rationing their medication (and dying because of it) due to sky-high prices often hit the news. Amazon Pharmacy’s statement has said that its service can allow consumers to save up to 80% on generic medication. How does it do this? Amazon’s system allows users to compare the cost of drugs covered by their healthcare insurance, as well as the price of paying out of your own pocket (which can sometimes be cheaper, especially with discounts offered by drug manufacturers). Amazon also has the capacity to break some monopolies in the sector. Giant companies, such as CVS and Walmart, use their market power when negotiating drug prices to create monopolies on some drugs. This means consumers are forced to buy from them, and at exorbitant prices. Amazon’s sheer size will allow it to break these monopolies, as it has huge purchasing power. It’s clear that Amazon’s entry into the market spells good news for consumers; prices will indeed fall somewhat. But the cause behind the absurdly high drug costs in the US isn’t being tackled by Amazon at the moment. Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) have led to the high costs of drugs. PBMs are middlemen between pharmacies and drug manufacturers. In theory, PBMs are meant to reduce how much pharmacies spend on drugs. However, PBMs aren’t transparent in the real costs of drugs. They’re responsible for negotiating rebates for drugs, and they often take a large cut from these rebates. These rebates are meant to reduce pharmacies’ drug spend, but it doesn’t work out like that in practice. As rebates are based on the price of the drug, PBMs favour more expensive drugs in order to gain larger rebates. These rebates aren’t disclosed. There was hope that Amazon’s entry into the market would lead to a move away from the inefficiency of PBMs, but Amazon is currently using the PBM model. This means that Amazon is still employing the middlemen to negotiate drug prices from manufacturers, which incurs higher costs. In fact, Amazon is only partnering with one PBM at the moment, Express Scripts, whereas competitors like GoodRx are partnered with multiple (making GoodRx more likely to find cheaper products). Amazon’s solution to this competitive disadvantage would be to partner with more PBMs (that wouldn’t be a problem, considering Amazon’s buying power), but that would only serve to entrench this inefficiency in the system. Adhering to the PBM model means that the underlying reason behind the high costs isn’t tackled. Yes, consumers may receive some lower prices due to increased competition and more cost comparison, but the issue of pharmacies’ and manufacturers’ costs of using these middlemen isn’t addressed. Until this issue is solved, consumers won’t get significant price reductions going forward. But if anyone is going to break away from the PBM model and usher in real change, it’ll be Amazon. Its huge distributive, marketing and purchasing power makes it the prime candidate to do so. Bezos’ famous phrase “your margin is my opportunity” was all about removing inefficiencies in the supply chain, like middlemen. That would logically point towards a move away from PBMs, but unfortunately the signs aren’t there just yet. Amazon’s foray into the healthcare market offers hope to the millions of Americans suffering from the extortionate prices of medication. Over the course of its history, Amazon has entered markets and dramatically lowered prices in aggressive style. Undoubtedly, Amazon’s entry makes medication more convenient and somewhat cheaper. But if it wants to create meaningful, long-term change, it must turn towards addressing costs in the sector. The healthcare supply chain is hugely inefficient in the US, and Amazon has the power to change that. The removal of PBMs would go a long way towards reforming American healthcare. But at least for now, the US moves one step closer to a fairer system for its people. Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Right now, 250 million farmers are striking against the Indian government. In September 2020, the incumbent Modi administration introduced several bills to completely reform the agricultural sector. These bills will have such enormous consequences because around half of India’s 1.4billion people work in agriculture. The reforms will supposedly liberalise the industry, but many in India believe these revolutionary changes as potentially devastating to the socio-economic system. The current agricultural system relies on two main principles, firstly, many small and undeveloped farmers and, secondly, the major governmental regulation. Indian farmers lack modern agricultural technology, and the majority of farmers own very small plots of land. Combined with a poor rural credit system, many farmers are at the mercy of the market and hold little power in terms of price negotiation. The harshness of the conditions is evidenced in the high-and-rising suicide rate among farmers. The other side of the coin is the socialist-era agricultural policy that stipulates farmers must sell their produce to licensed middlemen in chartered government yards. Such a system does lead to exploitation of farmers but, for the most part, they are guaranteed a minimum price. The Modi administration’s new reforms are seeking to liberalise this system by cutting out the middlemen and allowing farmers to sell the product themselves. Such policy gives farmers price negotiation power by giving them access to many more buyers. While this isn’t a false take, it’s very misleading. In reality, if these policies are enacted without an adequate support system, a huge portion of the 700million farmers will be exploited as they come into negotiations with major agribusinesses. In Europe, the agricultural sector is held up by a complex web of EU laws, quotas, cooperatives and unions and even with this it is still a volatile industry and many farmers still struggle under ever falling food prices. As millions of smaller farmers go bust, mass migration to the urban centres and raging unemployment are all on the table. To avoid a host of social and economic ills Modi must step back from rapid change and start listening to the farmers. This brings us to the next level of Indian politics we must unpack. The Modi administration finds its typical support base from the urban centres and not the farmers. The relationship between the farmers and Modi have been strained in recent years as the government sought to quell food price inflation in the city at the expense of the farmers. Onion exports were recently banned to ensure domestic supply was sent to the cities and food prices could be stabilised. While Modi’s base was won over, the policy led to a crash in the price of onions and devastated Indian onion farmers. As well as the urban population, the Modi administration has also been accused of working to satisfy major US agribusiness’ that have lobbied hard for this liberalisation in order to gain more control of agricultural production. By forcing even lower prices for the farmer’s crops, corporate lobbyists profit enormously while staying on side with the Modi administration for keeping food prices low. As the government continues to alienate the rural farmers by appeasing the urban population the political divide will only grow between the two spheres of Indian society. The current clash has emerged in the midst of the pandemic in which Modi’s administration has looked to force through major new legislation through parliament, which was closed in March and only opened for 18 days in September, or by way of executive orders. The administration has acted with haste and force, using the 18-day window to bring through the agricultural policy bill without allowing for scrutiny or meaningful debate. The key grain-producing regions of Punjab and Haryana are home to the most organised farmers in India and have so far been the major sources of dissent. Throughout November, farmers from these regions have parked tractors along roads and railways to plug up New Delhi’s arteries of transport. This major sit-in, performed by thousands of farmers, has been met with overwhelming support from the general public. Across the nation reports of over 250 million workers striking in solidarity with the farmers have emerged, with some extending to hunger strikes. The outpouring of social solidarity bodes badly for a chance of resolution. The Modi administration stands firmly in its policy choice and has little political motive to back down as this won’t necessarily hurt their voter base. The economic crisis will therefore be the rock on which one camp will crumble. Either the farmers will be forced into submission as they lose months of work, or the government will have to consider the impact on food prices if farmers refuse to work. But who is to blame? Since the pandemic, Modi has come under increasing fire for diluting India’s democracy. Their electoral success, however, places the Modi administration in an intensely powerful position with which they have the means to enact major socio-economic reforms. Many in India believe the government is sliding towards more authoritarian tendencies, notably in parliament's closure throughout the pandemic. Keeping this in mind, it is the Modi administration which is seen as the biggest aggressor in the current economic breakdown. One MP, Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut, recently vocalised how Modi’s authoritarianism and obstinacy are the main obstacles to meaningful negotiation. Many therefore see the actions of the farmers as completely rational, with their entire livelihood facing an existential threat. A simple negotiation process, as many MPs and union leaders have called for, may not be enough, however. Since 2014 PM Modi has gained a reputation for being an Iron leader, wishing to be seen as impervious to the chaos around him and convicted to governing strongly. His reputation is therefore on the line which complicates any chance for resolution. India’s socio-economic revolution is on the brink of coming into reality, but its inception must first wrestle with the complexities of democracy, or the lack of.

In 1962, China and India went to war over a territorial dispute along the border of India’s north-west region of Ladakh and China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. Following a Chinese victory, what’s now known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was enacted as a loose indicator to separate Indian and Chinese controlled territory. Despite being a flashpoint for the two nations, several bilateral agreements in the early 90s spelled potential for peaceful coexistence. Since May 2020 we have seen this progress completely reversed, as the border saw the first shots fired in over a decade; the worst brawl in over 40 years. Since these summertime sparks, both India and China have continued to militarise and build in the disputed zone. Chinese foreign policy and growing Indian nationalism are clashing along the LAC. While many people may see this as just another border conflict, I would implore them to look deeper into the context of the LAC crisis. Since the 60s the tension surrounding the LAC has generally waned, helped by agreements in the 90s that banned weapons, and attempted to formalise a border. However, it is entirely unsurprising that tensions are now rising. With the world tied down by coronavirus, there is much less focus from developed countries on what seems to be just another border clash between developing nations. This view could not be further from the truth. With the pandemic acting as a smokescreen, calculated foreign policy moves from China have gone relatively unnoticed. Over the last decade, Chinese expansionism can be noticed all over Asia. Most obvious is the building of artificial islands in the South China Sea to further their claim to the entirety of this major economic zone. Their actions have even extended to the use of military vessels to bully merchant, fishing, and even foreign naval ships out of international waters. Coupled with last year’s renewed pressure on Taiwan and Hong Kong, it is hard to consider China in any other light but the aggressor. The case to blame China is also, more importantly, based on the events of the summer along the LAC. On June 16th the largest brawl in decades broke out and left 20 Indians and an unnamed number of Chinese soldiers dead. Indian defence analyst, Ajai Shukla, places the battle1.5km into Indian territory, asserting that Chinese border forces were to blame. What’s more, Shukla also stated that satellite imagery shows Chinese structures on the sight of the brawl. This tactic of edging is very common among all the cases of Chinese expansionism in Asia. By building bridges, roads, and structures deeper and deeper into the disputed zone it allows them to push Indian forces back, leading to a de facto increase in Chinese territory. Whilst India has built in the LAC zone, it hasn’t been to edge forward; it has been to solidify their pre-agreed territory. What must be understood about the LAC is that one side is actively pursuing expansionist policies, most of which have been deemed illegal by the international community (or in the case of South China Sea by the Hague courts). During the summer, India banned 118 Chinese apps in retaliation to the June 16th brawl, something that many Indians took further by organising major boycotts of Chinese goods. The LAC border crisis has been stoked by the Modi administration and is now becoming a nationalist issue that the population deeply supports. Though Indian aggression is not to blame, there is a possibility that future conflict could be fuelled by growing Indian nationalism. This response from India arguably is much more worrying than if it was more docile, as has been the case in the South China Sea. A defensive Indian government along with the backing of its people could take this from a being a border dispute to a possible powder-keg between two nuclear-armed nations. Though war between major powers is very unlikely in the post-world-war period, we must hope this isn’t an Asian Cold War’s version of the Cuban missile crisis. Focusing on more recent events, the first shots in decades were fired on September 15th. Although the US election and Brexit are extremely important this fact should have punctured deeper into our media that it did. This is a massive escalation towards genuine conflict and war. It is unknown who fired the first shot, yet both nations reached out to begin bilateral talks within a week. On the surface, this is a positive development and makes the summer brawls seem unimportant. Unfortunately, the bilateral talks are just another ploy to make sure foreign nations don’t get too involved. Several Indian officers told the press that, as talks began on September 22nd, India began moving troops into the LAC region – in response to a large mobilisation of Chinese soldiers, vehicles, and heavy equipment. Though militarised borders, patrol brawls, and artillery firing are not a new occurrence (the Korean DMZ and the Armenian-Azerbaijani border are currently very similar) the context and policy choices of these Asian nuclear giants is a uniquely worryingly prospect on the post-corona horizon. The cover image was originally posted to Flickr by narendramodiofficial

In late August, Britain was rocked by the most sensational education scandal in recent memory, with the A-Level and GCSE exam results crisis exposing rife class-based educational inequalities. As the uproar slowly begins to dissipate, we must now turn our attention towards the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the lockdown generation. More specifically, one must consider how interventions can be made to prevent the under attainment of British pupils most at risk. I will be examining the circumstances faced by underprivileged Black-Caribbean pupils in Britain and identify the policy interventions required to prevent further entrenchment of educational inequalities. Even prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, the attainment gaps at key performance indicators between Black-Caribbean pupils and their peers warrant nothing less than outrage. In 2019, the average Black-Caribbean student scored 31% less of a grade than the national average. However, challenges faced by young Black people in education are far beyond poor attainment. In 2019, over 25% of all Black-Caribbean students in state-funded secondary schools were eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) - a conventional indicator of disadvantage. For Black-Caribbean students receiving FSM this rose to 54% of a grade, meaning these pupils were achieving over half a grade less. Also, their education is unevenly characterised by high levels of expulsion. Black students are disproportionately exiled from mainstream education, through exclusions and being sent to Pupil Referral units/Alternate Provision. The IRR have raised concerns over this ‘criminalisation’ of Black working-class pupils as part of a ‘two tier system’ that threatens to ‘remove a section of the urban multiracial working class which poses a threat to incoming gentrifying students’. Hence, not only are Black-Carribbean students more likely to be achieving less than their white counterparts, but their odds of attaining well are slashed by their race and socio-economic status. These students are now facing the additional and potentially devastating impact of lockdown. According to the Sutton Trust, during lockdown, middle class pupils (30%) were almost twice as likely as working class pupils (16%) to be attending online classes everyday. We can assume therefore, that Black-Caribbean students were likely to have unfairly burdened by class-based barriers to accessing online education. With Black-Caribbean students disproportionately falling within these underprivileged categories, urgent intervention from the Department for Education is needed. Whilst a £350 million National Tutoring Programme has been introduced, research for the Sutton Trust suggests that the programme - aimed to account for the lost teaching time for the most disadvantaged pupils - will not be sufficient in helping those worse affected by school closures. Moreover, even if the Tutoring Programme were able to make up for schooling missed during lockdown, such a programme does not provide the targeted intervention required to resolve years of entrenched racial attainment gaps. It is of utmost importance that both long-term and short-term policies are introduced, directly aimed at pupils who are predicted to have the worst educational odds. The Government should commit to providing additional Pupil Premiums that are strategically allocated in to a fund for improving the position of Black-Caribbean students. To put it frankly, funding for Black-Caribbean students must not just be available in the short term, as a band-aid for the impact of lockdown. Rather, it should be a springboard to provide the right conditions for disadvantaged youth to prosper. Such a fund could cover the costs of extra small group tuition, to allow students to catch up on lost teaching and help to level the playing-field with their non-Black-Carribbean counterparts in the long term. Moreover, funding for laptops to facilitate working from home could be allocated, to prevent the impact of further lockdown and restrictions, whilst allowing poor Black-Carribbean to reap the same benefits of online learning resources, as their middle-class peers. This funding should be distributed at a local level, under the guidance of Black-Caribbean community members. For obvious reasons, the ability of government officials in Whitehall and beyond to adequately conceive the specific challenges and barriers faced by Black youth is minimal, hence, it is important that this funding is placed in the hands of those with lived experience. The intervention(s) must also be supplemented by an inquiry into the underachievement and criminalisation of Black youth in the education system, as a means of understanding the driving factors. In today's neoliberal climate however, will such policy interventions be introduced? Most likely not. Consecutive governments under Blair, Cameron and Johnson have placed outright emphasis on disciplining disruptive pupils, with the expansion of alternative education provisions for excluded pupils being prioritised over understanding why Black-Caribbean students are more likely to underachieve. In the cases of the black and white working classes, cultures are routinely pathologized, with attitudes and behaviours being the main focus of analysis. In Black-Caribbean students, their ‘troubled’ families and anti-social behaviour are often blamed for poor attainment, rather than the structural inequalities that produce their disadvantage. If we are to begin to resolve this crisis, we must not fall foul to the individualistic notion that struggling pupils are to blame for the hardships they face. Instead, we must hold the institutions and structures to account that allow race and class differences to manifest into inequalities and threaten the livelihoods of promising and equally deserving young people. cover image credits: ©Kyle VanEtten - No Shortcuts Photography

In the dying days of the USSR, two breakaway nations of the caucuses, Armenia and Azerbaijan, went to war for two years over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The enclave’s majority population is ethnic Armenians and with the wars ceasefire in 1994 the province became a de-facto part of Armenia. The region has never been exactly stable; what has now erupted is an iteration of the same conflict that claimed 30,000 people in the 90s. Shelling has ensued from both sides and although both nations deny involvement, thousands of people have died through direct and indirect fighting in the last month. Both nations have restricted journalistic access and so the majority of reporting has been based on information churned out by the Azeri and Armenian defence departments. A key point of interest has been the plethora of rumours that have contributed to a constant war of narratives. It must also be noted that Turkey has entered the fray, backing Azerbaijan’s claims and dubbing them as their ‘Turkish Brothers’. This was a polarising move from Erdogan’s administration, shaking the status quo that saw Russia as the traditional regional arbiter. A visceral social media war of information has accompanied the intense shell fire, triggering intrigue as to what the motives and intentions of the Azeri are. Navigating through truth and rumour is difficult in the modern world, and this case is no different. Armenia’s president has also been extremely vocal, providing a weighty narrative to an already complex conflict, especially regarding Turkey. During the first weeks of October there emerged extensive rumours about Turkish-backed extremist fighters from Syria starting to arrive in Azerbaijan. Turkey has not yet openly backed the Azeri militarily, yet many are taking Ankara’s ‘full’ backing of Azerbaijan's cause as confirmation of their covert involvement. With Turkey (at least diplomatically) involved it has triggered a new narrative, one centred around the 20th century Armenian genocide, an event that killed 1.5 million ethnic Armenian’s. Turkey still denies that such an event occurred, which only deepens the chasm between the two nations. The Armenian president has used social media to develop the genocide into a current phenomenon. A piece of music written by a genocide era composer was used to back up a propaganda video of a bombed-out village, during which one interview saw a woman quote her fear of Azeri led ethnic cleansing if they won. The fears and tensions around the issue of ethnic cleansing flared when a video of 2 Armenian POWs being shot dead emerged. The provenance of the video is disputed but several human rights watch dogs confirmed its reliability. The political climate is such that the videos genuineness unfortunately no longer matters, tensions are fuelled regardless. The act of Azeri, and most likely Turkish, forces fighting to re-claim the N-K enclave is therefore seen by Armenians as an attempt to carve out, reclaim and ethnically cleanse the area. This rhetoric is the reason that peace will be so hard fought. Indeed, since the fighting began there has been three ceasefires on the 12th, 18th and 26th of October, all of which collapsed inside 24 hours. This is hardly surprising when the political climate in Armenia has been stoked by panicked reports of war crimes, invasion, Turkish reinforcements and ethnic cleansing on the horizon. The efforts of Russia, France and the USA to broker peace has understandably been fruitless in the face of the frenzied information wars. While Azeri designs, with Turkish backing, has reinvigorated efforts to take back the N-K enclave from Armenian control it is Armenia who is increasing the chance of an all-out war. The frantic torrent of reporting that has come out of Armenia’s government has created a dangerously extorted view of the conflict. Without discrediting the fears of the Armenian’s, which are based on historical events, the wall of propaganda and fear-mongering is making the chance of peace seemingly impossible. The escalation is also in part attributable to Turkey’s distortion of the balance of power that has existed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia, since the 90s, has been the regional mediator of this conflict, and typically supported Armenian claims. As Turkey has now backed the Azeri government’s claim the chances of conflict has risen exponentially. With the support of a major regional power they now have the confidence to reassert their claim. This has been drawn upon by the Armenian president who argued Turkey was trying to ‘create a Syria in the Caucuses’. Behind this accusation the link to Syria is a painful reminder of how the conflict is only speeding up, growing and diversifying. Russia and Turkey now stand on opposite sides of an armed conflict for the third time in a decade. Armenia and Azerbaijan currently stand mired in stalemate. With many images, videos and reports already having been disproved (one actually being video game footage) it bodes badly for the ever-growing narratives of distrust and war crimes. The N-K enclave is worryingly on track to become more and more entrenched in a warring mentality, lost in aggravating asymmetric information.

With the return of university students to campuses across the country, the topic of students’ mental health has once again made headline news. Whilst the pandemic has undoubtedly put a considerable strain on our mental health, with anecdotal accounts suggesting loneliness and anxiety is skyrocketing, the crisis predates the Covid-19 era by years. So, we must ask, when will the calls of students for improved mental health provisions be answered? And what form should policy interventions in mental health funding and training take? Whilst Government voices have been keen to push that the British public ‘are all in this together’, with the intent of rousing self discipline and morale, the assertion that we have all been equally affected by this epidemic is frankly bogus. One study of over 17,000 UK adults found that young people’s mental health had declined the worst of all groups as a result of the pandemic. Whilst lockdown and social distancing measures have been harmful for all ages and occupations, young people remain the group who are most dependent on their associations and relationships outside of the household, leading to a sharp rise in reported mental health problems. The likelihood that an individual will develop mental health problems is dependent on a whole range of social, environmental and biological factors, however, it is certain that the extremities of stress and loneliness that students have faced have contributed to their wellbeing. So, we must ask to what extent are universities responsible for the mental health of their students, particularly when said universities are at least partially responsible for the circumstances that students now find themselves in? Under the neo-liberalisation of education, the student is transformed into the customer, taking out a loan to purchase a university degree. But what exactly does this exchange cover? With universities increasingly treated by the state as businesses, they are left alone to configure their own mental health policies and approaches. Thus, this model depends upon universities being trustworthy enough to act in the interests of their students, by contributing the necessary funds to ensure the wellbeing of every student. But with universities failing to provide budgets that would allow every student to access mental health provisions in favour of profit, we must ask should universities merely have the responsibility to provide teaching and education resources? Or should they be forced by the government to extend their services beyond pedagogy, to student welfare and health? The short answer: absolutely. Government intervention in university mental health policy is essential to protect the welfare of students from being exploited by their institutions. For economic reasons alone, the funds poured into university campuses through tuition fees, accommodation fees and local businesses by university students absolutely warrant sufficient welfare provision in return. In terms of services provided by higher-education institutions, the introduction of mandatory mental-health spending quotas would go a long way to ensure that students do not have to sacrifice their right to access mental-health provisions for course or university preferences. For example, a FOI request by The Tab in 2016 found that whilst universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and Exeter, spent £48.25, £40.48 and £38.62, per student per year on counselling services, the University of Central Lancaster spent only £4.64 per student, with the University of Warwick spending as little as £11.92. This is not to suggest that throwing money at mental health services is the cure-all for mental health crises. It is imperative that funding is spent in the right ways. Whilst mental health awareness campaigns are essential to educating those of the prevalence of the issue, funding must be made available for those students facing immediate mental health crisis. There is no one-size-fits-all counselling method that can improve the outcomes of students; mental health issues are diverse and immensely complex, necessitating a range of considered interventions and referrals. Hence, institutions must have the capacities to deal and deal well with such complex circumstances, with assessments and services being provided by highly trained and specialised individuals. Equally, all members of staff should be adequately trained on mental health policy and awareness, to allow for as many early interventions as possible. And even more importantly, universities must provide funding towards research, so that the counselling programmes and interventions that work best for students can be identified, to improve the likelihood of successful treatment. One essential recommendation to the government is that students are allowed to register with GP practices at both their home and university addresses. This way, students don’t find themselves severed from mental health services once the University term is over. Perhaps most imperative is the role of universities in mental health journeys, should not merely be to get students off their books; counselling should lay for foundations for long term mental wellbeing. Universities should be and could be spaces in which teenagers are nurtured into healthy, happy and well-adjusted adults. Success cannot crudely be determined by graduate employment statistics; if universities cannot provide an environment from which mental wellbeing can be improved and maintained, they are failing institutions. Further, one must consider if the student experience scores according to which universities are ranked reflect the mental health services they provide or if they choose to omit it. If the former were to be true, it wouldn’t be irrational to speculate that some ‘prestigious’ UK institutions may fare far worse in university league tables.