Featured Post from Aston University

Batley and Spen: what bitter UK by-election won by sister of murdered MP tells us about state of British politics

Jul 2, 2021

4 min

Victory for Kim Leadbeater, relief for Keir Starmer. Peter Byrne/PA Images/Alamy Stock Photo


Parveen Akhtar, Lecturer in Political Science, Aston Centre for Europe at Aston University, dissects the close vote.


The Batley and Spen by-election was a close contest that went right down to the wire with few commentators risking calling the result before it was announced. At 5:25am it was declared. Kim Leadbeater was the new Labour MP for Batley and Spen, beating her nearest rival, the Conservative candidate Ryan Stephenson, by 323 votes. It was close but a clear victory for Labour.


Leadbeater’s acceptance speech was always going to be poignant. This was the seat held by her older sister, Jo Cox, at the time of her murder in 2016. Cox, who won the seat for Labour in 2015, was killed by a terrorist who held extreme right-wing views and targeted Cox because of her work with refugees.


But what was striking – if also sobering and shocking in equal measure given the context – was that Leadbeater also had recourse to thank West Yorkshire police for their protection of her during the campaign. “Sadly”, she said, “I have needed them more than ever.”


In fact, even before her victory had been declared, she released a statement pointing to the “intimidation and violence of those who had convened in the constituency with the sole aim of sowing division”.


Discord, division and dirty tricks


A total of 16 candidates put their hats in the ring for the race in Batley and Spen – a number of whom represented far-right political parties. But it was the presence of George Galloway standing as an independent for the Workers Party which seriously threatened to undermine Labour’s chances of retaining the seat it had held since 1997.


Galloway was determined to woo traditional Labour supporters, including the significant Muslim constituent in Batley and Spen. Capitalising on escalating tensions in the Middle East, Galloway sought to paint the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer as anti-Muslim. His intention was to set up the vote as a referendum on Starmer’s leadership, to split the Labour vote and ultimately force Starmer out of office.


Read more: Batley and Spen: two problems Labour needs to overcome to win this crucial by-election


To this end, he also attempted to attract white working-class voters by building a narrative of the Labour leader as “woke” rather than for the working class.


In the run-up to July 1 there were deeply disturbing reports coming out of Batley and Spen detailing the intimidation and abuse of candidates. There were accusations of dog-whistle racism and homophobia, fake leaflets and foul play. The campaign descended into one of the most bitter and divisive by-elections of recent years.


Tracy Brabin, who had won the seat after the murder of Cox and whose win in the West Yorkshire mayoral election triggered the by-election, described witnessing her group of canvassers “being egged, pushed and forced to the ground and kicked in the head”.


It was by no means the only time such disturbing strategies have been exploited. In fact, similar divisions were present in the 2015 general election in Bradford West, an election in which Galloway was again present, this time fighting to retain his seat. At a hustings at the university, the then conservative candidate, George Grant, captured the “wild west” nature of the campaign by likening it to a 19th-century rotten borough rather than a 21st-century parliamentary democracy.


That election too descended into discrediting individuals and delving into their private lives rather than concentrating on the issues faced by people on the ground.


Changing nature of campaigns


Electioneering is by its very nature divisive, effectively asking the electorate to vote for party or candidate A and not party or candidate B. But dirty tricks or underhand tactics used to discredit opponents are by no means inevitable. And yet, while the notion of a sense of fair play and decency may be engraved in the nation’s idea of itself, the 2019 general election demonstrated how easy it is to resort to electioneering in bad faith in the age of social media.


From faking fact checks to manipulating videos, the 2019 election threw up a whole catalogue of ways in which to unduly undermine political opponents. Indeed, divisive and personal campaigns may become more prevalent in an era of online campaigning. Something not unique to the UK, of course. The 2020 US presidential election was also divisive in nature as were the state elections in India’s West Bengal earlier this year.


In Batley and Spen, in the end, as the Leadbeater pointed out in her speech, the people voted for hope not hate. Yet the constituency is deeply divided and will take much work to bring together. Leadbeater was the only major candidate on the ballot box who was local to the area. While the others leave, she remains, in her words, “the best person” to get on with the job of reconciliation.

Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

The world is burning useful waste, and cleaner alternatives are needed featured image

4 min

The world is burning useful waste, and cleaner alternatives are needed

When we talk about clean air, the conversation usually turns to traffic: exhaust fumes, congestion, school runs and the air people breathe on busy streets. That focus is understandable because road transport remains one of the most visible sources of poor air quality in everyday life. But Clean Air Day should also draw attention to a less visible question: why are useful materials still being burned as waste? Clean air is about more than traffic Around the world, huge quantities of leftover straw are still treated as waste to be cleared quickly, with rice straw one of the clearest examples. More than 700 million tonnes of rice straw are produced globally every year, and around 80% is burned. That contributes directly to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while also destroying material that could have value. At Aston University’s Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute, researchers are exploring alternatives to open burning of crop residues, including whether materials often treated as waste could instead become useful sources of energy, fuels or bioproducts. This matters because the clean air debate needs to look beyond transport. How we manage waste, land and energy also plays a part, and agricultural residues should not automatically be seen as rubbish to be burned. In many cases, they could be resources with real value. Why burning crop waste matters The World Health Organization describes air pollution as one of the greatest environmental risks to health, estimating that ambient outdoor air pollution caused 4.2 million premature deaths globally in 2019. Much of that risk comes from exposure to fine particulate matter, which is linked to cardiovascular and respiratory disease and cancers. That is particularly relevant when residues are burned in the open, as smoke and fine particles can travel beyond the field where burning takes place, affecting nearby communities and wider air quality. There is a practical issue as well as an environmental one. If burning is the fastest and cheapest way to clear land, it can easily become the default, which is why any cleaner alternative has to work for farmers and communities in practice. It is not enough to tell people to stop burning; they need practical alternatives that make sense economically and locally. Turning waste into cleaner alternatives Biochar and bioenergy are two examples of how waste crop material can be treated differently. Instead of being burned in the open, residues can be converted into useful products or sources of renewable energy. Biochar can also offer practical benefits for farmers when it is produced and applied appropriately. Studies have shown that addition of biochar to the soil can improve its structure, help retain nutrients and, in some cases, reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers, which will lower associated emissions and economic demands. The water-holding capacity of biochar can also support crops during dry periods, potentially reducing irrigation demand in drought-prone seasons. Work connected to rice straw has shown that cleaner alternatives to burning can produce measurable environmental benefits while supporting local economies. Community-scale rice straw bioenergy systems, for example, can avoid 2.7–3.5 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emissions per hectare each year, while creating fuel savings and reducing post-harvest losses for rice farming communities. Research and interviews have shown that farmers and local stakeholders are willing to participate in these transitions when alternatives are designed around their needs and priorities. During community engagement activities, participants consistently highlighted cleaner air as an important benefit, not only for environmental reasons but also because of concerns about the health impacts of smoke and the financial burden of illness. For many households, avoiding respiratory problems and expensive hospital bills was seen as just as important as generating additional income from agricultural residues. That matters because cleaner air is linked to more than one policy area. Transport is important, but so are farming, energy and waste. Research can help identify what works, where the trade-offs are, and how promising ideas can move beyond the lab. It can also support industry, policymakers and local partners to develop alternatives that are practical rather than theoretical. For policymakers, the lesson is that air quality cannot be improved by focusing only on the most visible sources of pollution. Transport matters, but so do homes, industry, farming, waste and energy systems. There is no single answer. Agricultural residues vary, local conditions vary, and technologies need to be assessed carefully, but cleaner air will require better options than burning. Clean Air Day should prompt us to ask why useful materials are still being burned in the first place. If we want cleaner air, we need to reduce what we burn and get smarter about what we waste. This article was written by Dr Samuel Sogbesan and Thea Mae Baltazar from Aston University’s Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute. (Photo by Sandie Peters on Unsplash)

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

View all posts
Powered by