Edward Davies is Research Director at the Centre for Social Justice.

Motherhood was much in the news this week.

It kicked off with a flurry of last-minute chocolate and daffodil purchasing by the nation’s offspring on Sunday morning. And hot on the heels of Mothering Sunday came Jessie’s Buckley’s Oscar acceptance speech in which she dedicated the honour “to the beautiful chaos of a mother’s heart”.

We at the CSJ also launched a report that found that 600,000 women would miss out on their ambitions of motherhood due to the falling birthrate and that three million women aged 16 to 45 today are projected not to have children if current trends persist.

But for all undoubted importance of motherhood and the human pathos of these three events, the last in particular signals something far greater and more concerning.

The UK’s fertility decline is often framed as a motherhood issue largely because that is how it is measured – births per woman. But it is far from that alone.

The ripples of our declining birthrate travel far and wide. It’s felt by fathers too of course – it takes two to tango after all. And it’s felt by siblings, uncles, and aunts. It impacts grandparents and communities too as the population gets older and older.

They are a few years further down this road than us in Japan but during the first half of 2024, 40,000 people died alone in their home. Of that number, nearly 4,000 people were discovered more than a month after they died, and 130 bodies went unmissed for a year before they were found.

We all depend on the relationships in our lives, right up to, and even beyond our deaths.

This has huge societal effects too, not least on public services. As Japan has discovered, it is not cheap or easy for the state to reproduce what families have traditionally done for millennia. Our social care sector is already groaning under the weight.

But a medic colleague working on doctors’ contracts used to joke to me that the most sensitive nerve in the body is the wallet nerve and it is maybe our economy where we will feel the pinch hardest.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that, on current trends, UK public debt could rise to around 270 per cent of GDP by the early 2070s as ageing pushes up spending on pensions, health and social care.

To maintain our current economy and standard of living with a declining population would require unprecedented and improbable productivity increases. When they fail to materialise, we will have to make significant cuts and perhaps the one hard aging-related lever governments have to play with is the pension age.

The CSJ’s analysis shows that on current population estimates children in school today could face working until their mid-70s before receiving a state pension.

If the government attempted to maintain today’s ratio of workers to pensioners, the state pension age would need to rise steadily over the coming years, hitting 70 in the next three decades, and 75 well before the end of the century – that means children aged 8 and under today would not retire until they are 75.

Figures like this understandably provoke a response, particularly among those approaching pension age themselves. But we literally cannot afford to bury our metaphorical heads in the sand over this. Other countries with similar problems are grasping the nettle. Denmark for example recently passed legislation which will raise the retirement age to 70 by the year 2040 – not that far away. By 2060 it will likely rise to 74. Italy and Estonia are set to follow at 71, while the Netherlands, Sweden, and Cyprus are projected to reach 70.

To date, received wisdom in the UK has been to replace the human shortfall with imported labour – high immigration. But not only is it a strategy with declining public support, but it does not really work. High levels of immigration have marginally and temporarily slowed the demographic shift but they do not solve the underlying problem, as age and fertility rates among migrants also tend to fall over time. In short, migrants get old and stop having babies too.

Political capital to have these conversations is in short supply and so huge credit to shadow equalities minister Rt Hon Claire Coutinho MP, who is one of the first senior parliamentarians to put her head above the parapet in this debate. Writing the foreword to the CSJ report she does not shy away from hard questions.

She describes our falling birthrate as “one of the most significant yet least discussed challenges our country faces today”.

“A healthy society depends on its ability not only to preserve what it has inherited, but to pass it on. The institutions, freedoms and traditions that make us who we are were built up over centuries, and their continuation cannot be taken for granted. If we rely on making up the population shortfall with ever higher immigration, then we may risk losing more than we bargained for.

“If we want to be proud of passing on something of importance to the next generation then we must never lose sight of the importance of family.”

Donald Trump’s second administration has massively tightened the longstanding US stranglehold on Cuba. His escalating campaign of terror has brought the island’s health system to its knees, putting thousands of lives at risk. But many people around the world are refusing to just stand by and watch.

In recent days, Trump has insisted that:

I do believe I’ll be… having the honour of taking Cuba… Taking Cuba, I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it.

And he’s promised that:

we’ll be doing something with Cuba very soon

Numerous social movements, humanitarian groups, trade unionists, and public figures have stepped up to try and scupper Trump’s plans, though.

These groups and individuals have built a coalition to send humanitarian supplies to Cuba, including medicine, food, and solar equipment. In particular, this aid seeks to support medical workers and their patients, while ensuring children have access to vital nutrition.

The first of the venture from the ‘Nuestra América Convoy‘ has already arrived on the island. And more will arrive in the coming days:

BREAKING 🇨🇺 The first delegation of the Nuestra América Convoy arrives to Havana. pic.twitter.com/WEaln5H84S

— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) March 18, 2026

¡Qué viva Cuba! 🇨🇺

The first delegation of the Nuestra América Convoy has arrived in Havana from Europe, carrying more than four tonnes of critical medical aid. pic.twitter.com/nFhQ74B2X2

Advertisement

— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) March 18, 2026

🇨🇺✊🏽 ¡Ya está en Cuba el Convoy Europeo con ayuda solidaria proveniente de Italia!

Un puente de esperanza que une pueblos y fortalece la solidaridad.

📷 Jorge Alejandro
✍️Tomado de Naturaleza Secreta de Cuba
#NuestraAmericaConvoy pic.twitter.com/jE5AlDg08G

— Mov. Mexicano de Solidaridad con Cuba 🇲🇽🇨🇺 (@_mmsc) March 18, 2026

Advertisement

Trump’s escalating stranglehold on Cuba

More than six decades of US “economic terrorism” have cost Cuba over $170bn. They haven’t just pushed people to leave their country. According to experts, such sanctions also have a similar effect to war, killing hundreds of thousands of people around the world every year, with many millions of deaths over recent decades.

Amid the ongoing failure of sanctions to topple Cuba’s government, the US started to change strategies under Barack Obama. But Trump’s first administration reversed that and doubled down on aggression.

Then, in 2025, Trump came into his second term seeking to ramp up this stranglehold with a new escalation of collective punishment. This has since sparked a crisis in Cuba’s health system, bringing it “to the brink of collapse”. And it has just forced a 29-hour nationwide energy blackout.

So far this year, Trump’s regime has gone after Cuba’s key lifelines:

Global criticism of US terror must turn into action

Nations around the world have overwhelmingly opposed US sanctions on Cuba for decades, regardless of whether their governments are left- or right-wing. Ordinary people in the US itself, meanwhile, strongly oppose using force against Cuba. They prefer diplomacy, and generally agree that sanctions are the wrong strategy.

Moving from criticism to action is not easy, and rarely happens. But the Nuestra América Convoy offers hope that people are increasingly willing to follow through:

As Donald Trump’s illegal siege plunges Cuba into darkness, the first convoy flight leaves from Milan.

On board: 220 suitcases packed with life-saving medicines. pic.twitter.com/rVNSmPEpWL

— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

We deeply appreciate @JeremyCorbyn and @ProgIntl for standing with the Cuban people. As the US escalates its cruel and inhumane blockade, global solidarity is our greatest weapon. We eagerly await the historic Nuestra América Convoy in Havana on March 21. Cuba is not alone! 🇨🇺 https://t.co/BGEARsYBSs

— Cuba in the UK (@EmbaCuba_UK) March 18, 2026

ANNOUNCEMENT 📢: NACLA is mobilizing to Cuba. 🇨🇺

This week, NACLISTAs will be taking part in the Nuestra América Convoy to Cuba, a humanitarian mission delivering critical supplies to a people under siege.

For decades, NACLA has covered the U.S. pressure campaign against… pic.twitter.com/gfrirkGFyN

— NACLA Report (@NACLA) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

We’re busy packing suitcases of medical aid to bring to Cuba tomorrow. 🇮🇪 🇨🇺

GRMA to all who’ve assisted us source it (special thanks to Dr David Hickey).

The USA is illegally and savagely strangling the island and crippling its people. pic.twitter.com/EzIgQOgqda

— KNEECAP (@KNEECAPCEOL) March 17, 2026

We head to Cuba later this week as part of an international solidarity group to bring critical medical aid for the Cuban people. 🇨🇺 🇮🇪

To everyone who has assisted us gathering it, GRMA, we will travel with over 200kg of critical medicines.

Advertisement

As the Taoiseach heads to… pic.twitter.com/F1MdrWAgPI

— KNEECAP (@KNEECAPCEOL) March 16, 2026

Opposing Trump’s terror campaign against Cuba isn’t about whether you completely support its government or not. As with US-Israeli war crimes in Gaza, Iran, or Lebanon, it’s completely possible to oppose colonial violation of international law while also being fully aware of legitimate criticisms regarding the governments facing attacks.

The simple fact is that the US is using terror to ensure dominance for itself in the Americas (as it has for many decades), just as it’s been helping Israel to ensure its dominance in the Middle East through genocidal terror.

Trump is proudly displaying a brash imperialism that US leaders have historically hidden behind careful propaganda. And the world is increasingly aware of the danger of allowing this to continue.

But words aren’t enough. The world must also follow the example of the Nuestra América Convoy and turn criticism into firm action – for the sake of humanity.

Featured image via the Canary

As it promised on Wednesday 18 March, Iran struck Saudi energy facilities in retaliation for Israel’s bombing of Iran’s South Pars gas field, which it shares with Qatar, also a US ally in the Arabian Gulf.

The Iranian television broadcast its warning across social media channels, telling the US, Israel, and their enablers that their facilities will be reduced to “ashes.”

Iran military spokesman: “You attacked our infrastructure and energy in the south. Your infrastructure, energy, and gas facilities will burn to ashes at the first opportunity. Your era of glory is over — withdraw from the region or choose death.” pic.twitter.com/8i5KGPlDdD

— COMBATE |🇵🇷 (@upholdreality) March 18, 2026

The latest strikes began as soon as night fell:

Public Relations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps:

🔹 In the name of God, the Crusher of the Arrogant “Whoever transgresses against you, transgress against them in like manner as they transgressed against you”

🔹 Wave sixty-three of Operation True Promise 4 against… pic.twitter.com/wntAb6R0fU

— COMBATE |🇵🇷 (@upholdreality) March 18, 2026

Mobile footage published by social-media based news outlet, Kofiya News, shows a huge explosion at a refinery near Riyadh as an Iranian missile struck:

🚨🇮🇷🇸🇦 BREAKING: A massive explosion has occurred in Riyadh after multiple ballistic missiles launched from Iran struck the city. pic.twitter.com/9GrMkbWF19

— Nova Intel (@intel_nova) March 18, 2026

The aftermath of the strike was shared by Kofiya News:

💢 4 injured in Riyadh after “debris from an intercepted ballistic missile” fell near refinery, Saudi Arabia claims

Four foreign Asian residents were injured and “limited material damage” reported after Saudi Civil Defense said debris from an intercepted ballistic missile fell… https://t.co/q25Cvl5bkb pic.twitter.com/J5mur9D0w4

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 18, 2026

Advertisement

Qatari gas facilities were struck in the early hours of 19 March, local time:

Qatar LNG is on fire pic.twitter.com/uRKzzo3pGA

— COMBATE |🇵🇷 (@upholdreality) March 18, 2026

A mass retaliatory attack on Israel and its Haifa oil terminal has not yet been reported at the time of writing, although a repeat of last night’s mass—and largely censored—attack is surely imminent:

WATCH: Iranian Khorramshahr ballistic missiles with ~80 bomblets targeting Israel tonight. pic.twitter.com/HVVXkQ1FZf

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

The situation continues to develop rapidly.

Featured image via the Canary

What Happened?

SYLVIE HUSSON,SABRINA BLANCHARD via AFP via Getty Images

What Does This Have To Do With Trump?

What Does This Mean For Other Countries In The Gulf?

How Does This Impact The Rest Of The World?

What Might Happen Next?

2003: Harry Barnes at Labour Against The War event, London | Image by: PA Images / Alamy

4 min read5 min

I was very sad to hear that the former MP Harry Barnes had passed away. Harry was born in Easington, County Durham. He became a member of the Independent Labour Party and its successor organisation Independent Labour Publications in the 1970s, and was later elected as the Labour MP for North East Derbyshire in 1987 – a seat he went onto serve for almost 20 years.

Harry entered Parliament shortly after I did. He was very active throughout the 1984-5 miner’s strike and supportive of the very just cause of the miners in all parts of the country. He was a great friend of the trade union movement – and a regular speaker at the annual Chesterfield May Day Gala. A dedicated local MP, he was always focused on how to represent his community in Parliament. It is no surprise that so many tributes have poured in for Harry, who was a champion for his constituents for so many years.

He was, alongside me and fellow Derbyshire MPs Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, and we worked very well together on trying to steer the Labour Party in a socialist direction, rather than the retreat into neoliberal managerialism that occurred with the development of New Labour. He also worked well with great colleagues and friends in Sheffield such as Bob Cryer. He was a very different character to all of them, but they all blended well together – and were a real example of how differences in personalities and approaches can be a positive force in the development of a powerful political presence.

Harry was not afraid to rebel against the Labour whip – one thing we had in common! Harry rebelled against Tony Blair on issues such as asylum, benefit cuts for single parents and the privatisation of air traffic control.

In Parliament, Harry was particularly interested in Ireland and the relationship between Britain and Ireland, and I found discussions with him very interesting and thoughtful – even at times when we weren’t exactly on the same page. We travelled together to Northern Ireland, along with Dennis Canavan and other MPs on a delegation, during which time I got to know him much better.

Harry was not afraid to rebel against the Labour whip – one thing we had in common!

Advertisement

Harry was relentless in pursuing issues of social justice and workers’ rights, and particularly passionate about opportunities for adults in further education. He believed that too many people were unable to achieve what they wanted in life because of the barriers they faced in an inadequate education system. 

As an MP, he frequently held Sunday evening discussion group meetings, where he would come into his own with his encyclopaedic knowledge of labour movement history.

After he stepped down from Parliament, Harry, to his credit, remained very active in local affairs, serving as the political education officer for the Dronfield branch of the Labour Party. He was still very involved in local events, local politics and his community. As he had done as an MP, he always made himself open to debate and discussion.

When I visited his old constituency with Chris Peace, the Labour candidate for North East Derbyshire in 2019, Harry was there strongly in support – it was wonderful to see him. Harry set an example to many of us, and I was so grateful for his solidarity and comradeship. He was a decent, thoughtful socialist, who always sought to share his knowledge and share his ideas, and bring other people on board in that same direction. Thanks, Harry. 

My thoughts are with his friends, family, and all those he touched with his wisdom and kindness. Rest in peace.

Jeremy Corbyn is Independent MP for Islington North

Zeno Leoni, Benjamin Jones, Sarah Tzinieris, Bence Nemeth, Michele Groppi, and Zoha Naser summarise their recent report* on European security. They offer four recommendations on how to increase European resilience and defence capabilities in light of geopolitical crises and the unreliability of the US as an ally. 

For decades, European security has rested on a simple assumption: that the United States would ultimately step in to defend the continent. Today that assumption is becoming harder to sustain. Developments in Washington, combined with wider shifts in global politics, mean that European governments increasingly need to prepare for a future in which American support may be limited, conditional, or slow. This requires European countries to increase resilience to achieve strategic autonomy. This remains challenging in the short term.

Calls in Washington for Europeans to shoulder more of the defence burden are not new. Successive US administrations have said this for years – in 2011 Secretary of Defence Robert Gates referred to NATO as a two-tiered alliance, one providing ‘soft’ capabilities and one ‘hard’ capabilities. But the tone and method have changed.

The Trump administration relies on pressure in its dealings with allies. Even if this approach is intended as a negotiating strategy – seeking concessions through cycles of escalation and de-escalation rather than a disruption tout court of NATO – it generates uncertainty among allies. At the same time, US strategic documents continue to underline the importance of alliances, and Congress has introduced legal constraints that would make a formal withdrawal from NATO difficult. These factors suggest that influential pro-alliance forces remain alive within the broader American political system.

Still, assuming that the current period of uncertainty will simply pass once the Trump presidency ends would be risky. Debates in the United States about overseas commitments run deeper than any single administration. While US grand strategy increasingly emphasises projecting military power and influence from the seas, with limited interventions – a foundational element of many American strategies since the end of the Second World War – this administration is more strongly influenced by domestic political developments than its predecessors.

In response to the changed geopolitical environment, defence spending across the continent is rising, and several governments have announced major rearmament plans. But spending more money may not by itself solve the underlying problem. Many of the capabilities required for modern military operations – from intelligence and surveillance to space assets and advanced command systems – remain heavily dependent on the United States. These capabilities are expensive and complex, taking time to develop. Europe’s reliance on American support cannot be eliminated quickly.

Institutional fragmentation also complicates the picture. European defence efforts operate through multiple frameworks, including NATO and the EU, while national procurement systems remain largely separate. Greater coordination is clearly needed, but deeper cooperation can also slow decision-making and complicate procurement. Debates about European “strategic autonomy” have emerged partly in response to these challenges. Yet the concept itself remains politically sensitive and somewhat ambiguous. For some, it appears to suggest distancing Europe from the United States or weakening NATO. In reality, the issue is more practical than ideological. In the near future, the goal is not to replace NATO or to detach Europe from the transatlantic alliance. Rather, it is to ensure that European countries have enough capability to act with limited US support.

In near term, four recommendations should be considered.

The first step is to move away from a “D-Day mentality” and recognise that long-standing assumptions about automatic US intervention are no longer sufficient for planning. However, while strategic autonomy remains controversial, framing efforts around resilience rather than strategic autonomy may prove politically more productive and less sensitive. Building resilience means identifying capability gaps that could emerge if US support were limited and gradually working to fill them, while maintaining transatlantic ties. Diversifying partnerships beyond the Euro-Atlantic space will also become increasingly important, including deeper cooperation with countries such as Japan, Australia, and India.

Operationally, European security should adopt a strategy of flexibility to have more options. NATO will remain the central framework for collective defence, but practical initiatives will increasingly emerge through smaller coalitions capable of acting quickly when necessary. Coalitions of the willing of various geometries – including EU+ frameworks that allow non-EU members to participate or exclude some EU members– are likely to allow Europeans to react to Trump’s pressure. These arrangements could remain anchored to NATO standards while preserving the flexibility needed to respond to fast-moving crises. In other words, multilateral institutions remain essential, but smaller coalitions of countries are often better placed to move quickly.

In procurement, Europe should prioritise the ability to integrate quickly when required. Investments should focus on speed, scale and usability rather than technological sophistication alone, with greater emphasis on training, standardisation and interoperability. Defence systems should also be designed with future cooperation in mind, allowing integration when needed rather than treating it as an immediate objective. This will also require clearer signals from politics to the defence industry. Governments need to provide more credible long-term commitments if companies are to expand production capacity and invest in new technologies; but also intervene more profoundly to keep energy costs low and support manufacturing. Without addressing the energy–industry nexus, efforts to expand manufacturing and defence output will remain structurally constrained.

While strategic autonomy remains a longer-term ambition, the immediate goal should be to strengthen European resilience to buy Europe time while expanding its strategic options.

By Dr Zeno Leoni, Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London at the Joint Services Command and Staff College of the UK; Dr Bence Nemeth, Senior Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London at the Joint Services Command and Staff College of the UK; Dr Benjamin Jones, Teaching Fellow, Department of European and International Studies, King’s College London; Dr Sarah Tzinieris, Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London at the Joint Services Command and Staff College of the UK; Dr Zoha Naser, PhD Candidate, Department of War Studies, King’s College London; and Dr Michele Groppi, Senior Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London at the Joint Services Command and Staff College of the UK.

*This commentary summarises findings from a wider report produced at King’s College London. The report consolidates recent research and insights from a confidential Track 1.5 dialogue held at King’s College London in early January. The research was supported by the New Government Fund of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), administered by King’s College London.

Contact: Dr Zeno Leoni – [email protected]

Trump said America “knew nothing about this particular attack” on the South Pars Gas Field, even though the US and Israel are meant to be working together in the war.

Iran then launched a retaliatory attack on Qatar as the conflict threatens to spiral out of control.

The president said: “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar – In which instance the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.”

Commenting on X, Morgan said: “Trump is losing control of this war.”

His comment came just days after he told the BBC that he does not think Trump has a “clue” what he is trying to achieve in the war.

Morgan said: “I think he thought he could pull a Venezuela here – decapitate the leadership of Iran and it would all get settled quite quickly.

“I think two weeks in, what is very clear, is this is not going to get settled quickly.”

While the first US and Israel strikes on Iran did kill the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month, he has been replaced by his son and the Islamic regime is still intact.