Preview 2017- the pupil-led politics magazine from Caterham School by Caterham School

PREVIEW The political magazine of Caterham School

Spring 2017

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Preview 2017!

Looking back, how many of us thought that we would have our second female Prime Minister, that we would be triggering Article 50 and that Farage would be best mates with the new US President Donald J Trump?

8 Southern Rail: the death throes

The U.S. Presidential Election saw Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders play on the broad consensus that the establishment works purely for its own self-interest. Promises to return back power to the people dominated their campaigns, with Trump coining the phrase: “Make America Great Again”. Post-Truth Politics emerged throughout the election, with politicians appealing to personal beliefs rather than objective truth. Most prominent of all was the branding of opposing views as ‘Fake News’ with Trump often taking to Twitter to directly speak out on controversial issues. Collusion with Russia in the cyberhacking scandal for instance – a likely truth – was shot down almost immediately after its release. Across the globe, the five-year-long conflict in Syria roars on. With external powers increasingly drawn into the conflict and supporting different sides, the civil war has been thrust into the world of geopolitics. The resultant instability has provided for a strengthening Islamic State, culminating with numerous attacks in the name of its supporters. As always, this year’s Preview assembles a diverse range of articles, written mainly by Sixth Form students, which seek to explain (sometimes controversially) why some of these events have occurred. We’re privileged to have one of the most high profile politicians, Tim Farron MP and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, to have written an article on the House of Lords reform – Preview is certainly gaining momentum! Finally, it has been a pleasure working with such an enthusiastic and hard-working team. Without their support, Preview would not be possible and I cannot thank them enough for the roles they have played. Katie Thompson Editor

PREVIEW

of the labour movement

Will Ayres

14 Since when did the UK adopt an

Clare Wandless

16 Where are the school unions? Tiernan Quantrill & Daniel Davidson

Hannah Owen

42 The Syrian Solution

12 Theresa May’s Mental Health Pledges Sophie Edmunds

American style Supreme Court?

Daniel Davidson

40 China’s Orwellian Future?

Going Global

38 Is there hope for the Left in France?

10 Addressing the death of Margaret Luxton Gabby Criscuolo

Tiernan Quantrill

44 Universal Civil Code: India’s future? Shrina Patel

46 #FertilityDay Dawn Howe

48 Russian mischief in the Olympics

Seb Paul

18 Under Representation of the Majority

Emily Thompson

20 Politics, Power & Pantsuits Hana Peacefield 50

The Big Picture

52 Truth or Dare?

Lucy Etheridge

54 Is Voting Rational or Emotional?

Stars & Stripes

24 #MAGA: a fantasy? Phoebe Paton

26 The Right bears arms

Lauren Hunt Williams

28 Voter Suppression in North Carolina

is Bipartisan

Tiernan Quantrill

Niamh Williams

56 The Aristocracy of Meritocracy

Matthew Lee

58 2016: It’s PC, stupid! 60

Mr Tom Murphy

60 Challenging the Ism

Timmy Pinnick

62 Normalising Terrorism

Nadine Greenhalgh

30 Obama: The Failed God? Daniel Davidson 32 Mike Pence: Making America

Straight Again

Elise Knowles Cutler

34 Top Trumps: the US Election

Queen & Country

6 House of Lords reform Mr Tim Farron

The momentous decision to leave the EU left the UK in a state of political tumult, with an unelected Prime Minister now championing ‘Hard Brexit’. Opposition to the European Union stemmed from more than just demands for migration cuts and the restoration of sovereignty to the UK. Instead, the public, driven by false promises plastered on the sides of buses and “take back control” rhetoric, made the decision based on opposition to the establishment. This has formed the start of an antiestablishmentarian wave that could later hit France, Holland and Italy.

Cover Illustration by Sam Burns

Well it’s certainly been an interesting year! With unprecedented political turmoil, it is safe to say that this is the most exciting edition of Preview yet.

& Vladimir Putin Katie Thompson

PREVIEW

Queen& Country

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

House of Lords reform It may be rather boring, but it’s unbelievably important

loudly applauded by their backwoodsmen in the Lords.

Mr Tim Farron, Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

There are many members of the House of Commons

to make ends meet because of the actions of the une-

and the Lords (of all political colours) that support

lected, the unaccountable but unimaginably powerful

reform to the House of Lords to join us and make our

leaders of the financial sector. Again, the forces of reac-

sn’t it ludicrous you have our government lecturing

if you’ve got half of our Parliament appointed, some of

second chamber fit for purpose as part of a modern

tion here would love us to get outrage fatigue and just

many undemocratic countries overseas and here

whom have inherited their places there?

democratic system. The Liberal Democrats stand ready

let the powerful few continue to direct our economy

to work with anyone, in any party, to create a wholly, or

from the city.

we are and half of our legislature are being appoint-

ed and not democratically elected? I know it’s not a sexy issue but it’s unbelievably important if we are going to have a democracy that is even remotely modern.

So, yes, it is very important. It won’t be going on any of my leaflets because it’s not really a top cam-

at the very least, mainly elected second chamber. Our

paigning issue.

new Peers in the Lords will add weight to our voice and

about the House of Lords. I accept that it is hard to

our ability to make this happen.

get as worked up about our Peers as it is about people

Every party in their manifestos hints at reform or abolition of the second chamber, but the Liberal Dem-

“Free fair and open elections are crucial to the

The Liberal Democrat peers will be, as they always

ocrats are the only party committed to it. So today we

future of our democracy and the Liberal Democrats

have been, constructive and conscientious. Where we

recommit our party – and its new Peers – to working

are committed to making sure democracy is at least

agree with the government we shall support them and

actively for the reform of the House of Lords and ideal-

dragged into the 20th century.”

where we don’t we shall work to amend and if needs

ly its abolition in favour of an elected second chamber.

If we are progressives we should be just as furious

like Rupert Murdoch or Fred Goodwin. However, with a recent Independent investigation uncovering a number of peers, including Lord Stevens, who have used the House of Lords dining rooms as a private club to wine and dine business clients

be oppose. But the principle matters, Liberal Demo-

We urge the other parties to join us in this effort.

crat peers were appointed on the pledge ‘to abolish

There is a simple reason for this and it is called

themselves’. There are currently 102 Lib Dem

democracy; the people’s laws should only be made by

We send our soldiers abroad to fight (and some-

part of the same problem. The unelected and

Peers, that is more than there have been Lib Dem

those whom the people have elected. They should not

times die) for democracy. But we do not yet

the well-connected, running a country that is

MPs at any time in the House of Commons ever.

be made by cronies appointed by the Prime Minister.

even have it fully in our own Parliament. The

supposed to be a democracy.

The Lords has two functions. To revise and to

Why should Church of England Bishops be voting the

time to put this right is now. To delay further in

hold the Executive to account. The first it does

House of Lords when no other religion is officially

the face of recent abuses would be an affront

accountable House of Lords, then the Liberal

quite well, the second it does not at all – how

represented. Furthermore, the only other country

to our democracy and to our country.

Democrats are the only party that are pre-

can it when, by definition, it is a creature of the

that has the head of the country’s official religion in

pared to get rid of our own peers and create

parliament is Iran.

an elected second chamber.

Executive? How can we have a Government that is even remotely

Right across this country, millions are struggling

PREVIEW

Time to get angry

– despite a ban on them using the facilities for commercial purposes – we can see this is all

If you like me support a democratic and

We Liberal Democrats attempted to bring about

legitimate, under

House of Lords reform in the last Parliament. But

whoever’s ban-

it was scuppered by a lack of political will by both

ner it might be,

Tory and Labour leaderships in the Commons,

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

The Death Throes of the Labour Movement

hough becoming more contentious, trade unions are unarguably some of the most important institutions in Britain. For a free society to exist it is essential that workers have the right to withdraw their labour and present a unified front when expressing grievances to their employers. As such, it has become apparent that there is more to the Southern Rail strike than simply an argument over who pushes a button. Under increasing threat, this strike may be the last hope for trade unions to show they still have influence in British society, especially in a time when there is not a large enough bloc in government that will fight for their continued existence. On our current path, it is difficult to see any outcome other than the death of the trade union movement. Research carried out in 2016 found that if individuals were offered help by a trade union, only 19% would accept it. When we compare this with the 75% who would accept help from an independent source, perhaps it is time to raise the alarm. These statistics clearly show the demand for workers’ representation is there, but the public are overwhelmingly reluctant to interact with the unions. Perhaps this is due to the negative connotations built up about them in recent years (see ‘militancy’, ‘belligerence’, ‘self interest’). According to the assistant general secretary of the TUC, John Park, people are put off

PREVIEW

trade unions due to the tone of voice and confrontational language used by the union leaders. Clearly, the megaphone toting, coarsely spoken union leader of old is to be done away with. The internal struggle of the Labour Party will only exacerbate these problems. Union’s near unanimous support of Jeremy Corbyn stands in stark contrast to the Blairites of Labour’s Parliamentary wing, who have opposed him at every turn (however rare said turns may be). The so-called Labour Party is now fractured to the point of impotence - even as a Conservative myself, the lack of proper opposition or working-class representation worries me greatly. These worries are compounded by issues including increasing wage inequality, reduced job security, and legislation such as the Trade Union Act in 2016. Under which, , under which workers rights and freedoms are being restricted to the point where unions are more of an annoyance than a countervailing force, their ability to negotiate being curtailed by stricter, pro-employer laws. Despite my earlier praise of trade unions, it is hard to side with them when considering the current Southern Rail strikes. Southern is run at huge cost (£4.8 billion per year), and their subsidised status means much of this is passed on to the taxpayer. Introducing Driver Only Operated (DOO) trains will reduce labour costs that automation has rendered un-

necessary. Though the unions have claimed that DOOs are dangerous, the fact that they have been used across all other British rail networks for almost 30 years should prove otherwise. As harmful as it is to lose jobs to automation, stasis in the face of technological advancement will be to the detriment of all. I cannot sympathise with the idea that jobs should exist simply to keep people employed, as this is surely the most likely gateway to oppression, and the efforts of the unions to fight modernisation (despite the fact that trade unions have traditionally supported technology and its role in easing the burden of what is genuinely hard labour) set a concerning precedent. However, the specifics of Southern Rail are rendered insignificant by the more abstract matter that these strikes confront: the future of unionism. This is about more than keeping jobs in the train industry, it may be the trade unions last attempt to assert themselves as a force in British society, as anti-union legislation becomes more frequent and reduces their prominence. Without the unions, workers are powerless to

Will Ayres

Illustration by Lydia Self

the inevitable advances in automation and the huge tolls on workers’ livelihoods that it could potentially bring. See Uber, the darling of the ‘gig economy’. Its drivers are offered no legal protections, no minimum wage, and can be out of work with as little as a flat tyre. What kind of livelihood is this? There should be consensus between the right and the left that these abuses will not stand. If one cannot be reached, then the ‘compassionate’ Conservative Party with which I so strongly identify will have failed its people. History has taught us that unionisation is the most effective protection for workers, and must be strongly supported in every workplace, even if its presence serves as an annoyance to commuters such as myself. At the time of writing this article the RMT is showing that unions are not yet completely crippled and I believe there is still a chance for them to fight for their continued existence. The RMT’s actions have led to Southern Rail receiving the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in the UK. With the business receiving a one star rating for punctuality. This shows that unions in the

UK can still have an influence on employers, despite the wounds they have sustained over the years due to increased anti-union legislation and a decline in membership. The issues surrounding Southern Rail vs the RMT union can therefore no longer be seen as a disagreement over whether a third worker is needed on train services but about ensuring workers in the United Kingdom continue to have a voice in the face of a growth in pro-employer government policies and a fall in the support of the unions themselves. As frustrating as the civil disobedience of the RMT is, neither unjust, nor ineffective. Even a monopoly such as Southern will cave to consumer pressure eventually, it is the job of the unions to keep this pressure sustained. I do not believe that this issue will be solved along ideological lines, but what is obvious is that the trade unions need to adapt and

modernise to encompass a wider range of people in the economy today. With the rise of self-employment, the “gig economy” and freelancing, the demand for the various services that the unions offer are at a high, while supply is desperately low. The unions must be open to change as it occurs in the economy and be flexible to work around changing opinions on unions and employer-employee relations. But simply changing the attitudes of the unions is not enough. They must be open to radical restructuring, bringing those Uber drivers, Amazon deliverers and other under-protected freelancers into the fold. They need to accept the severity of their situation and understand why they are losing membership and support amongst the British people and fight to change these perceptions. A consensus across all trade unions needs to be reached, about how to increase their strength which will allow the unions to modernise and expand the benefits they offer to workers; not taking away from the flexible business models the sharing economy offers, but not allowing flexibility to become an excuse for extortion. Whilst this is not a solution by any means, it will allow them to group together and try to rebuild their membership, create a tripartite framework with the government and employers where unions do not stand as disadvantaged as they are today.

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

I Addressing the death of Margaret Luxton Gabby Criscuolo

Margaret Luxton was one of two women who died in May 2014 as a result of a coach crash. The coach driver, a man using a hands-free mobile phone when he crashed, was sentenced to five years in jail, a minor charge for such damaging consequences. Terry Luxton, the victim’s son, stated that; “we need tougher legislation for drivers using mobile phones while driving- it should be the same as drink driving”. He is not alone in this, with many people holding the view that the two crimes should be given equal punishment.

PREVIEW

n the UK, the legal limit for driving is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Driving whilst above this limit results in a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 and a minimum of a twelve month driving ban. Causing death by careless driving, when under the influence of alcohol, carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment, an unlimited fine, a minimum of a two year driving ban and the requirement to pass an extended driving test in order to legally drive in the future. The Institute of Advanced Motorists calculated that a conviction of this type could cost between £20,000£50,000, owing to fines, solicitor fees, an increase in car insurance and the possibility of losing one’s job. Comparably, the fixed penalty notice for those using a hand-held phone whilst driving is much lower, consisting of three penalty points and a fine. In more extreme circumstances, people are taken to court and are disqualified from driving, with a fine of up to £,1000. This amount can surely not suffice for the loss of a life and the pain that it inflicts on the people around the victim. Thus, we are forced to question: what price can we place on a life? Statistics suggest that the danger associated with driving whilst using a phone is greater than driving whilst intoxicated. Brain scans have confirmed that talking on the phone makes a driver’s reaction time 30% slower than driving with a blood alcohol level of 80mg per 100ml of blood. Also, a large-scale study found that individuals who drive while sending or reading text messages are 6 times more likely to cause an accident than an intoxicated driver. What is more, Human Factors & Ergonomics state that texting whilst driving slows your brake reaction speed by 18%. This coupled with research conducted by the VA Tech Transportation Institute, exemplifying that texting while driving is the equivalent of driving

blind for five seconds, can suggest that driving while using a phone is more detrimental . With this in mind, it is unsurprising that motorist, Hoden Auden, killed a toddler, despite only travelling at 5mph when on his phone. Auden was not given a jail sentence: in the words of Namin Nur, the victim’s mother, we must ask; “how can this be justice?”. Distressingly, evidence suggests that phones present a risk of danger due to addictions and habits. More than 40% of those who admitted to texting whilst driving referred to it as a ‘habit’. With developments in technology, society is inevitably becoming increasingly obsessed with phones, instinctually responding to messages immediately and checking social media repeatedly. Speeding driver, Danny Warby killed an off-duty police officer, by responding to a text despite having only been driving for two minutes. Warby, who was sentenced to six years in jail, opened the message instantly after receiving it. Tougher penalties are therefore required so that people attempt to break this habit rather than dismissing it as harmless. Since when did “habits” become a fair excuse under the law? Additionally, the effects of using a phone while driving and drink driving are closely related. The National Highway and Transportation Administration states that texting while driving is the same as driving after “downing four beers”. The Administration also found that the impairments associated with both are almost indistinguishable: slower reactions, increased stopping distance, poorer judgement of speed and distance, reduced field of vision and difficulty controlling speed and lane position. In both circumstances, drivers will also break more sharply in response to hazards, thus increasing the risk of rear-end crashes. Laura Jane Thomas was killed by lorry driver, Ian Glover, after he hit her car while looking at images of women on an explicit dating site.

Glover was only jailed for five years. Again one questions whether this is justice for the family of the victim -with such similar effects, surely the punishments should be equalised at the least? RAC road safety spokesman, Pete Williams stated that “drivers have little or no confidence that they will get caught when breaking these laws”. Identifiably, this complacency derives from conviction rates for driving while using a phone having halved between 2010 and 2014 to 16,012; perhaps due to the Tory cuts to police budgets. It is apparent from this that the current law is not a deterrent, and as demonstrated by the change in drink driving laws, increasing the penalty will be of substantial effect. This is further stressed though photographs collected by the Mirror which caught 21 drivers using mobiles at the wheel while travelling at speeds of up to 70mph. It is also notable that when travelling at 55mph, an offender will drive without looking at the road, at least the length of a football pitch. The dangers associated with this make a change in the punishments for a crime of this type imperative. Conclusively, statistics strongly favour the increase in penalties for driving using a phone, as do the hundreds of tragic cases relating to offenders using a phone while driving: Jacy Good, for example, was driving home after her graduation, when a teenager, distracted by his phone, turned left at a red light, causing a fully loaded tractor-trailer to swerve and hit her car. Good’s parents were pronounced dead at the scene and she attended rehab in order to relearn basic actions. It is clear from this that driving whilst using a phone can destroy people’s lives and is just as dangerous as drink driving, if not more. The current law alone is not a deterrent; therefore, the best solution is to increase the penalties of using a phone while driving to the same as those associated with drink driving.

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

Theresa May’s Mental Health Pledges January 2017

Sophie Edmunds Illustration by Joey Pang

ental health, although it still does not carry the weight of its physical counterpart, is finally receiving the attention it deserves by our Tory government. In her speech addressing the issue, Theresa May promised to transform attitudes to mental health, which she said had been, “dangerously disregarded”. The UK mental health statistics serve to highlight the issue as a cause for concern. While, in England, 1 in 6 adults have been diagnosed with a common mental health disorder, such as anxiety or depression, at least two-thirds of those diagnosed received no treatment for their condition. Therefore, in May’s own words, the, “inadequate treatment”, the National Health Service is currently providing needs to change. Despite the coalition government’s 2012 pledge to give mental healthcare “parity of esteem” with physical healthcare, the system is still structured badly, with Cameron’s promises seeming meaningless. The consequences of mental illness, including healthcare and reduced economic output caused by sickness and unemployment, cost the British economy more

PREVIEW

than £100billion per annum (according to the Centre for Mental Health). One of the main issues with the existing system is that treatment is not integrated and money is wasted because physical and mental care is run and funded separately. Moreover, as is sometimes the case with government spending, disproportionate funding is at the heart of the issue. Currently, the NHS spends 13% of its budget on mental illness, even though the aforementioned aliment represents 28% of the national disease burden in the UK. Additionally, another rising complication is that government money for mental health care is often used to fill gaps in funding for emergency hospital care, or other areas, because it is not ring-fenced around mental illness. As a result, as stated by the King’s Fund think-tank, funding for mental health actually fell in 2011-2012; even though the NHS predicted that such funding should grow in line with increases in acute care. To address the rising urgency of this issue, during this parliament, May is pledging to spend £1 billion on adult mental health and a further £1.4 billion on youth mental health. As well as this, she plans to offer

mental health first-aid training to teachers in every school. This is in response to statistics showing threequarters of mental health problems start before the age of 18, whilst providing better support for within the workplace too. However, although these promises sound extremely encouraging and effective, there are noticeable similarities between May’s pledges and those promised by her predecessor, David Cameron. In his own mental health statement from January of last year, these promises have been largely unfulfilled. Therefore, this has caused many to view May’s announcement as illusory, particularly when one recalls how, despite Cameron’s “parity of esteem” pledge, the gap in funding between physical and mental healthcare has actually increased. Contrary to this, there are marked differences between the respective Prime Minister’s approaches. Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ solution focused on community problem solving, thus meaning the responsibility of managing mental illness was often transferred to charities. Significantly, these charities

were already enduring government funding cuts. In comparison, in Theresa May’s vision of a “shared society”, she is placing emphasis on preventative state intervention, where the government will work with schools and employers to prevent the emergence of illness in the first place. The Prime Minister’s speech particularly stressed the need to tackle stigma, thus creating an effective soundbite, whilst also drawing attention to an important element of the mental health crisis at the moment. On balance, the issues raised by May appear to be hopeful proposals at a time when the need to combat mental health is growing and becoming ever more prevalent. However, with additional funding of just £15 million for community care and £67 million for digital services (such as online therapy), it is unclear how Theresa May’s “preventative measures” are to be fully realised. While further funding and other action is needed to match May’s ambitious aims, it is, at the very least, good news that a prominent world leader is talking about mental health in such blunt and frank terms.

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

I Since when did the UK adopt a US model to our Supreme Court System? Clare Wandless

PREVIEW

t would be a generally accepted view that the Supreme Court upholding that treaties with foreign UK Supreme Court is a weak institution. It has relations are a purely governmental prerogative. never, historically, had an agenda beyond making Whatever the court’s excuses, there is still good the decision that best complies with the law of the reason for outrage. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh land. All of this was widely accepted until recentAssembly and the Northern Irish Assembly have ly, when the Supreme Court issued the verdict on not been given an individual role in the decision. who was allowed to trigger article 50. In aversion to Since Common Law is part of English Law, it would norms of Westminster, this has resulted in a furore, only be voted on in Westminster, this is another exwith media outlets and increasingly discontented ample of the outdated system of government under MPs leading the charge. Now we find the Court in a which we live. The belief that devolved powers lack radically different position being more present and the status to vote is destructive to representation, proactive than ever. and will only fan the flames of separatist sentiThose in support of Theresa May’s plans argued ment. If a politically involved judiciary cannot hear that the government had royal prerogative to leave the outrage from Scotland, Wales and Northern Irethe EU unhindered. However, in keeping with the land, then it is better that one does not exist at all. precedent set by our joining of the EEC, it was ruled We can now draw an accurate comparison bethat “the government cannot trigger Article 50 withtween the US and UK Supreme Courts. It has been out an Act of Parliament” (Lord Neuburger speaking remarked that ‘they are no longer solely learned in November). While this may people who uphold English seem to be nothing more precedent’ but ‘empowered than compliance, it carries to impose theoretical ideas huge political consequence. upon the decisions of the The Supreme Court, an uneelected government’. Our lected body, has hindered the Supreme Court will become elected government and its just as political and divisive dedication to carrying out the as its stateside counterpart, popular wishes of the British especially without European public. Though referenda Court oversight. Perhaps have always been advisory, it is inaccurate to suggest now was the chance for the that the Supreme Court has Lord Neuburger speaking in November Supreme Court to push for made Brexit more difficult. modernisation and democraNevertheless, the Supreme tisation, overturning the elitist opposition to direct Court is blatantly trying to consolidate power democracy. No other modern state assumes their before the constitution is pulled from their reach populace stupid, and neither should Britain. by democratising forces. The Supreme Court took the view that withdrawProfessor John Finnis said, ‘Just as the Rule of al from the EU meant a change in domestic policy, Law is not the rule of judges…so too judicial power therefore requiring an Act of Parliament. In the is not a power to remake the constitution’. It is words of Casciari “membership of the EU is messy plain to see that in ordering an Act of Parliament in constitutional terms” highlighting the benefits to trigger Article 50, Finnis’ claim gains significant of having a proactive Court, as a legal certainty in weight. However, all precedent led us to expect such tumultuous times is always welcome. In their this, even if that precedent is poor we can not purdefence, the justices explicitly stated that this court port to be surprised. We should probably prepare decision did not concern whether or not the UK ourselves for the political and social upheaval of should leave the EU, but rather how to best carry out our new constitution, so to be delivered by the very the process. May’s government was relying on the out-of-touch elites that we voted to usurp.

“the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament”

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

Tiernan

PREVIEW

nionisation has been a hallmark of workplaces and university campuses for over a hundred years, offering protection from exploitation and a fairer relationship between employee and employer.

avidson

aniel D

ill & D Quantr

The history of this movement has taught us that workers cannot rely on the benevolence of their employer who, mostly, aim to maximise profits at any cost. We must therefore ask ourselves why unionisation has failed to reach our classrooms? Millions of pupils are currently exposed to the whims of the government administrators; whose operations are as business-like as those seen on any factory floor or rail line. This must be corrected, and in order to make such a correction we must also address the reasons as to why senior-school unionisation is yet to occur. Admittedly, the conditions of a school pupil are less severe than that of a coal miner or steelworker. But if pupils find their sports facilities inadequate or a punishment to be unfair, having them compelled into silence is as damaging for them as it is advantageous for administrators. Though few schools are without some sort of pupil participation, in almost all cases students simply register their complaints with little expectation of any result. Programmes like a ‘Student Council’ or ‘Student-Teacher Alliance’ fail because they provide no incentive for change. The labour movement was not successful because workers asked nicely. Change is affected by a united body with a common aim. The powerless will live in stasis if they remain fractious, and it is no accident that school pupils are so radically and structurally divided. Such division is a means to an administrative end. Designed to be asymmetric institutions, schools give those in charge excessive power, and unquestioning obedience is demanded under the guise of ‘respect’. Extreme as it may sound, only prisons are comparable in this regard, as those who obey cannot question their orders, and are therefore damned to obedience forever. Justice is non-existent in a state where pupils can be arbitrarily punished with no means to appeal and no ramifi-

cations for the teachers if justice is served wrongly, or even maliciously. It is dangerous for children to learn that authority should simply be accepted. This is not an education for life. The principles of democracy are integral to our nation; however we seem quite willing for them to fall at the wayside when it comes to schools, and such a precedent is not without its ramifications on the future generation. Now, I am sure there are many who argue that pupils are not capable of wielding such power or even they do not need it. They are not mature enough; they do not have the necessary experience. All these statements are the same thing; a patronising view that those younger than us are our inferiors. It is a complete fallacy that has no place in the education sector and anyone with such beliefs should reassess them immediately.

Designed to be asymmetric Institutions, schools give those in charge excessive power. As to why unions have not emerged in our schools is an interesting question. There is by no means a shortage of demand for change among the pupil body, but little has come. This is the result of government policy pushing more aggressively for good grades and good behaviour, disregarding the role of pupils, parents and teachers in establishing a common good, rather than an impressive statistic. This top-down leadership will always be reluctant to encourage any sort of unionising effort that would jeopardise this, even if all evidence suggests that this effort is harmful to the same standards that they are obsessed with achieving. Take Summerhill school in Suffolk, which has received outstanding Ofsted results and produces highly academic students. It is run as a perfect democracy, with all lessons being op-

tional and all changes to school policy being decided on a vote. This exceeds the aims of unionisation, but does paint an effective picture of how radical pupil democracy would function. Contrary to the words of its detractors, Summerhill and its system perform fantastically, with the democratic element being both a driving force in, and the centrepiece to, this. But it is not simply in the interests of a school’s attendees to make this effort towards unionism. Teachers undeniably find themselves subjugated by a governmentally enforced curriculum, complete with its corrosive obsession with examination. These policies, designed to please the most regressed amongst the ruling classes, looks to placate the view that modern children are stupid, and that standards are in desperate need of raising. Forget how each successive set of exams get harder, while each successive set of grades sees a median improvement, teachers must forego much of the valuable service they trained to give in favour of explaining exam technique and multiple choice questions just so a few second-home owners can be gratified. Pupils also oppose this, and while action from either group is ineffective, a united pupil-teacher base would transcend any of the issues with teacher strike action, due to its increased power and publicity. The culture bred by schools, universities and workplaces is one of resignation. Injustice, unfairness, unhappiness are all taken with a passive, downcast acceptance. Overhauling such a mode of thinking is the first and hardest step pupils must take towards improving their schools, and such a renewed mind-set is only possible if we stop deferring self-responsibility to unaccountable politicians and administrators. Ultimately, it is this that will bring true change, and the change that is necessary to see pupils, parents and teachers address the imbalance of power, the ill-intentioned examinations and lack preparation for real life is pupil unionisation, a tried and tested method for addressing similar issues in the workplace.

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

Under Representation of the Majority Emily Thompson

PREVIEW

hough numbers are slowly rising, women still remain under-represented in politics today. As a result, women’s matters are often neglected causing the disengagement that leads female participation to be a median 22.6% worldwide. Even when looking only at Westminster, women hold a meagre 191 seats, less than a third. Parliament is supposed to represent the UK by demography as well as party, but no one could claim that the UK has achieved this democratic ideal. With few female parliamentarians, it is harder for their needs to be heeded as, no matter how moralistic, men are less likely to understand and act upon the interest of women. It has been nearly 100 years since female disenfranchisement ended, but at every level of UK politics, from local governments to the Cabinet, women are still severely under-represented. It is imperative that more women become involved politically, as critical issues like maternity leave, equal pay and domestic violence will go unaddressed. Take Conservative MP Philip Davies, who recently spoke of his opposition to a bill looking to give more support to women under threat of domestic violence, particularly those from relatively insular Muslim communities. He cited the fact that “domestic violence affects men too”, and will attempt to stop the bill again when it returns for its third reading. This is an explicit example of how harmful under-representation can be, leaving those men more concerned

with themselves to abandon battered, marginalised women. Young girls today need role models, and seeing rows of men in the House of Commons, will give the impression that it is naïve for a woman to wish to enter politics. While many have failed in this capacity, politicians should be idols for young children, as they fight for what they beliefs and for others, but with overbearing numbers of men, girls might lose interest. Leaders of some of the biggest countries in the world such as the USA, Russia, China and Australia are all male. Even though the current UK Prime Minister is a female, Theresa May, the last previous female Prime Minister was about 27 years ago. Far from simply affecting women, under-representation also affects children and the disadvantaged. Female politicians have been hugely active when advocating for children, the disabled and minority groups.

Women hold 191 seats in Westminster

This greatly expands the importance of women’s representation, as their gains are also gains for those who cannot defend themselves. Women face many challenges in the aim to improve female representation: gender stereotyping, double standards, heightened levels of scrutiny. Politics, we have been led to believe, is contentious and competitive, demanding masculine traits, with female attributes being synonymous with shaky leadership. This fabrication means that, even when appointed, women tend to hold “soft” positions, in culture or environmentalism. This acts as a further roadblock to female representation, as their work (in comparison to the work of other politicians, rather than that of real people) is seen as less significant. Policies and methods have been created in order to raise female representation, through education, quotas and legislation. Although these improvements are important, women need to become directly involved with politics, forcefully making their way through the all-male miasma to push for gender equality when those across the political spectrum will not do so. In the 2015 election, there were over 1,000 female candidates, which is an all-time high for women standing, but this figure must continue to rise. If women’s voices cannot be heard now then we will suffer at the hands of the Westminster and Washington boys’ clubs, and those who would oppose feminist progress deserve all this brings.

PREVIEW

Queen & Country

e all know that first impressions count, that you

ordinary British people. Nevertheless, it is undeniable

should dress for the job you want, and that you

that fashion is used by women in politics as a tool of

must look the part. But to what extent is clothing really important? And is society’s tendency to focus and comment on women’s fashion materialistic and sexist? Last December Nicky Morgan, former education

Power, Politics, & the Pantsuit An icon of female strength or evidence of our sexist society? By Hana Peacefield

PREVIEW

power to represent their political values. Yet women in politics, constantly in the public eye, are often criticised or commended for their fashion decisions and the media is always voicing their opinion,

secretary, took to Twitter to criticise Theresa May’s

with the Daily Mail, the Mirror, and even the Guardian

supposedly extravagant spending on a pair of £995

publishing articles titled ‘What Theresa’s shoes reveal

leather trousers. Dubbed #trousergate on social media, a

about her march to power’, ‘Hilary Clinton’s fashion: 7

Downing Street row ensued between Morgan and May’s

subtle power dressing tricks to show who’s in charge’ and

close aide Fiona Hill, offended by Morgan’s comment.

‘Feeling Rotten: the meaning of Theresa May’s Vivienne

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries also condemned

Westwood suit’ respectively. It is clear that female poli-

Morgan for criticising May’s dress sense, implying that a

ticians themselves realise and accept that style is vital

male politician would receive no such criticism. Morgan

in their image, but does that make this specific focus

was due to be part of a group to discuss strategy with the

on women fair or acceptable? The controversy of Nicky

prime minister for the forthcoming article 50 negotia-

Morgan’s comment on May’s trousers was derived from

tions; as a result of her comment, Morgan’s invitation was

the hypocrisy of Morgan herself carrying a £950 Mulberry

rescinded. From this social media spat, the importance of

handbag, but it more significantly arose from the fact

the clothing choices of women in power was highlighted.

that the choice of May’s clothing had been judged for the

This importance of clothing is acknowledged and often utilised by female politicians to present an image of themselves through fashion. In particular Hilary Clinton

price, and yet the prices of men’s suits reaching triple that amount are not criticised. Jane Tynan, a lecturer in fashion history at Central St

and Margaret Thatcher, two key female figures in western

Martin’s School of Art in London, claims that our tenden-

politics, have both used clothing as a tool of political

cy to scrutinise what women wear is a reflection of a sex-

power. Clinton’s now signature look of the bold colour-

ist society that draws attention away from the real work

ed pantsuit can be seen as a bid to portray herself as a

they do in politics. She says “The PM was criticised for

strong politician, capable but still feminine, a leader who

what she was wearing simply because she is a woman.

is relatable. This balance was also executed by Margaret

It is clearly unfair that women come under more scru-

Thatcher’s “power dressing”.

tiny than men in this regard, particularly as male poli-

Pieces of Thatcher’s wardrobe were donated in Sep-

ticians often purchase expensive clothes, for instance,

tember last year to the V&A, and one iconic outfit was the

Savile Row suits.” Savile Row suits can set one back

blue Aquascutum suit she wore to the Conservative Party

£3,500 at least, as did one such suit of David Cameron’s

Conference in 1987, and again to cast her ballot in that

while he was PM. This lack of commentary on the price

year’s winning elections. Thatcher often wore Aquascu-

of male politicians’ clothing does suggest this inherently

tum in a bid to represent a certain form of Britishness

sexist judgement of women in power based on clothing,

with the designer’s strong tradition of Military and Royal

as opposed to their political capabilities. However, male

clients, and the Conservative blue made a common

politicians’ style has been commented on in the case of

appearance in her clothing. She then softened her look

the criticism towards Jeremy Corbyn’s baggy shorts and

with tie-neck bow blouses to strive for an equilibrium of

generally scruffy attire. Yet the volume of commentary

Conservative femininity, something that was difficult

on fashion and clothing of the most influential women

for Thatcher to achieve and tough for many to swallow

in politics far outweighs that of male politicians, and this

considering the contradiction of women in power and

may be reflective of our society’s prioritisation of materi-

Conservative ideology.

alistic trivialities over the value of the skill and ability of

Other female political leaders also use fashion to represent their political views with Yulia Tymoshenko,

female politicians. The utility of fashion for women in politics to create

Ukraine’s first female prime minister, sporting her dis-

an image of themselves is well established, and the

tinctively patriotic plaits, and similarly to Clinton, Angela

capability of female politicians to accept and exploit this

Merkel choosing the style of the power pantsuit. Howev-

is evident. So does this make society’s judgement and

er, there are women who adopt a more ‘authentic’ look,

commentary of female clothing acceptable? If female

something that is much demanded today, and one who

politicians are using this and benefiting, is it entirely

achieves this with aplomb is Michelle Obama. Moreover,

admissible? Or does it represent the lingering, intrinsic

whether any of these women achieved the image they

nature of our society to judge women by their appear-

intended is often contested, evident in Morgan’s criticism

ance and not their intelligence or aptitude, hindering our

of the price of May’s trousers as distancing her from the

progression towards true equality?

PREVIEW

Stars& Stripes

PREVIEW

Stars & Stripes

Phoebe Panton

s America being made great again?

ments. Trolling and threats on the internet have always

President Donald Trump has created an enormous

existed but Twitter bots allows it to occur on a whole

political movement, which he cultivates through

new scale. This spiral of silence results in less discus-

immense social media outreach. With 40 million

sion and ideological diversity in politics. How, exactly,

followers on Facebook and Twitter, we can safely say

does an organised assault on an adversarial press help

that these websites have become the political battle-

‘make America great again’?

ground of the 21st century. But all is not what it seems.

Twitter bots have become a key feature in creating

Automated ‘twitter bots’ have become foot soldiers in

the echo chambers that have defined this election, as

Trump’s social media war: spreading fake news and

supporters on both sides insulate themselves from

pro-Trump propaganda as well as attacking Clinton

rational debate, instead perpetuating falsehoods about

supporters. These bots can post up to 50 times a day,

the rival candidate. In this new age of “alternative facts”

creating a false air of populism and ascent. Though

and fake news, Twitter bots find a receptive audience

most experts agree that these Twitter bots did not win

upon which to push absurdities in the vein of the

Trump the presidency, they undeniably sowed doubt in

murder allegations made against Clinton shortly before

the minds of millions of voters, turning his supporters

the election. They can also blow real stories out of

into fanatics and swing voters to tepid Republicans.

proportion. One only needs to look as far as the ‘e-mail

Tweets that have been analysed and studied by Ox-

scandal’ and resultant FBI investigation, an event that

ford University Professor Philip Howard, show that 33%

eviscerated Clinton’s polling lead and was a factor in

of the tweets made in favour of Trump were fake. The

her loss.

most popular hashtags being #AmericaFirst, #MAGA,

The Twitter bots are near unidentifiable and perhaps

#MakeAmericaGreatAgain, and #NeverHillary. Not only

even unstoppable. If they continue in this vein, the

do these Twitter bots influence the public by creating

mainstream discourse of the internet will become

the façade of widespread agreement – discouraging

dominated by deception and fear. When supporters

Clinton voters and galvanising the Right – but they

have no idea who Trump really is, how can their choice

can interact with other users, being used to spam and

in electing him be seen as rational? As politics becomes

harass Trump’s enemies.

more divisive than ever, bots do nothing but perpetu-

Sadly there is virtually no way to figure out who

ate this division spreading lies at every turn. The only

creates these bots, and some posit that their anonym-

remedy here is for those who oppose Trump to create a

ity and scale makes them seemingly unpreventable.

real life alternative, with tangible political gains. If the

“There’s evidence that political action groups are behind

Clinton campaign could not win the social media war,

some of the bots” says Howard. “But Twitter bots are

then its successor must win one in the reality that faces

also unique in that it’s possible for pretty average users

every day voters – their economic hardships, American

to generate them.”

institutional racism and Washington corruption –

Twitter bots also seek to silence opposition through

otherwise, instead of seeing America made great again,

sheer numbers, with journalists receiving thousands

it will be reborn in Trump’s grotesque image, to the

of violent responses when they make anti-Trump com-

detriment of all its people.

#MAGA a fantasy? 24

PREVIEW

Stars & Stripes

The Right bears arms Lauren Hunt-Williams

n Sunday 12 June 2016, a mass shooting shook

severe life long injuries and little support to help them

the North East coast of America, stimulating

through the trauma of the event, or their recovery?

increased concern over the regulations on guns in the United States.

During the morning of Tuesday 4 December 2012, in Newton, Connecticut USA, 20 children between the ages

In a passionate hate crime - the deadliest terrorist

of six and seven years old and six staff members of the

attack in the US since 9/11 - Omar Mateen, a 29 year old

Sandy Hook Elementary School were fatally shot. One

security guard, opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando,

man - Adam Lanza - with the ‘constitutional right’ to “keep

Florida, killing 49 people and wounding a further 53. The

and bear Arms” was given the power, by the US Constitu-

repercussions shook the country, and after 2015 saw 1,000

tion and Supreme Court, to instigate the deadliest mass

mass shootings in 1,260 days, many Americans were

shooting at a high school or grade school in US history.

once again thrust into the debate over reformation of gun

The shooting prompted a huge debate over reforming the

regulations. Yet, America denies it has a moral duty to re-

regulations on firearms, and yet despite this terrifying

strict gun ownership, re-educate individual citizens who

event, still more than two thirds of American citizens said

own and use firearms or to challenge the role the media

“no” to ‘Gallops’ survey question: “Do you think there should

has in glorifying violence; instead the NRA continues to

or should not be a law that would ban the possession of

fight for Americans constitutional right to “bear Arms”.

handguns, except by the police and other authorised per-

Defence of self and property is a central feature of the

sons?”. The 2015 San Bernardino attack is further evidence

debate over gun control and stems from the traditional

that gun reform needs to occur in the US. The attack came

standpoint upheld by the second amendment, which

to an end with 14 dead and 22 seriously injured at the

argues that reformation of gun laws is unconstitutional

Inland Regional Centre on Wednesday 2 December 2015 at

and unnecessary in the United States. According to a

the hand of “homegrown violent extremists”, according to

survey by ‘Pew Research’, 61% of men and 56% of women

FBI director James B. Comey. Through the second amend-

said that stricter gun laws would “make it more difficult

ment, the Constitution acts as a retroactive protection for

for people to protect their homes and families.” The

the US citizens, giving terrorists a platform in which they

second amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being

are granted the right to own and carry arms. This allowed

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the

the perpetrators of the San Bernardino attack to amass a

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

large number of weapons in their home prior to the event.

After Scalia’s ruling on this amendment in the 2008 case

The lack of regulations allows, even minors, to buy weap-

of DC v Heller, citizens of America are allowed to possess

ons without any form of background checks at gun shows;

and carry firearms, specifically handguns, as a constitu-

perhaps this is why firearms were the 12th leading cause

tional right. A later lower court ruling gave an extension

of all deaths between 1999 and 2013 representing 1.3% of

of this right, allowing the use of a gun for self defence

total deaths.

in a public area, reaffirming America’s disinterest in the

In America, it is estimated that only 35% of house-

need for gun regulation. Prior to this case, the 1975 fire-

holds, and around 25% of individual adults own a gun.

arms control regulations act, of the District of Columbia,

In percentages, this figure appears to be relatively small,

banned residents from owning handguns, automatic

however America holds around 35-50% of the total civil-

firearms, and other forms of guns. This was struck down

ian-owned guns in the world, with around 65 millions

by the 2008 case as unconstitutional and the second

adults and adolescents owning a firearm in the country.

amendment then declared a right of all Americans to self

A mere 10% decrease in ownership of handguns was

defence, portraying the evident step back in reformation

recorded between the years of 1960-2010 and despite this

on guns in America and the apparent disregard for the

small decrease, the National Rifle Association’s surge in

overall safety of the country and it’s citizens.

popularity is worrying, as it seems to be mirroring the

At present, constitutional rights are interpreted by

increased mass shootings ending in tragedy that Amer-

the undemocratic, unelected Supreme Court and are rife

ica has seen over recent times. When is America going

with ambiguities with regard to the founding fathers

to wake up to the fact that mass shootings and killings

true meaning of them. How can it be that these outdated

are continuing to escalate and yet the establishment

rights are continually upheld when every 12 months

continue to support the right to bear Arms whilst bearing

more than 130,000 people are shot and killed or left with

no responsibility.

Albuquerque vigil for Orlando nightclub shooting 2016

PREVIEW

Stars & Stripes

“An assault on our democracy.”

Voter suppression in North Carolina is bipartisan Tiernan Quantrill

hat is how Governor Pat McCrory described the

This works in the same way that the oppressive poll

firebombing of the GOP headquarters in Orange

taxes of Thatcher and Crow did, only more effectively

County, North Carolina.

targeting the poor and ethnic. The message scrawled on

To those without wider context regarding the state

the side of a small business nearby the headquarters:

of democracy in NC, such a statement may appear self

‘Nazi Republicans go home or else’, should now seem

evident, as ‘horrific and unacceptable’ as the Clinton

apt, rather than ‘animalistic’.

campaign’s statement said. The perpetrators could be

Why is it then, that supposedly Democratic liberals

easily accused of being ‘animals’, in Trump’s words,

fund this further? Such civility is the vanguard of the

without this seeming an excessive insult.

limp centrism of Clinton and Obama. As Amber Frost

Instinctively, in the face of political violence, we

said: ‘vulgarity is the language of the people’, Donald

recoil. This instinct was exhibited by local Democrats,

Trump would not have won without realising this, and

who raised over $20,000 in support of the GOP, urging

the Democrats will continue to lose until the restraint

civility and bipartisanship in turbulent times – a mes-

and accompanying acquiescence to rapidly expanding

sage which the party’s more mainstream voices have

right wing extremism is usurped by aggressive opposi-

continued since Trump’s election.

tion and messaging. In North Carolina, political protest has been ren-

Such an instinct is wrong.

dered impossible. Marches have proven impotent, opposition from within Washington by Bernie Sanders

North Carolina Republicans are the most extreme

‘unacceptable’ response? To anyone with even the most

existence is an ‘assault on… democracy’. Their offices

minor awareness of the situation it should be nothing

were insured, and all money raised went towards

more than the logical progression. Anyone who wishes

impending re-election campaigns. Bipartisanship is

to see the true “assault on democracy” reversed should

regularly the most oppressive machination of federal

be supportive of said progression.

politics, and liberal civility translates for a desperate grab for the moral high ground; achieving nothing. Through an ongoing process of legislating and ger-

embarrassing it is to donate money to any group that would recycle the tactics and aims of last-century seg-

Republicans, are assaulting the voting rights of ‘urban’

regationists is perhaps the greatest problem of all. Not

(political code for black) Americans.

only because it will lose them elections – Wisconsin and Florida being key states which, along with North

city dwelling working classes and African American’s

Carolina, swung for Trump; all unsurprisingly engaged

disproportionately do, due to the time commitment

in aggressive voter suppression in 2016 – but because

voting requires. In conjunction with this, voting booths

anyone who is too concerned with exhibiting moral

in cities are being removed, while rural areas (which are

superiority to stand with the oppressed on principle is

disproportionately conservative) are being given more

complicit in their oppression.

voting booths, despite the fact that there is no issue with general election voter capacity in the countryside. Voter ID laws will soon be introduced to combat ‘vot-

PREVIEW

The fact that the obsession of the liberal elites with etiquette and unity has blinded them to just how

rymandering, the NC GOP, and a number of other state

Voting on Sunday has been made illegal, which

and Keith Ellison ineffectual. Why then is violence an

proponents of voter suppression in the US. Their entire

When Donald Trump fails and those who saw him as a vote against the establishment have nowhere else to go, I hope that all Americans, left or right, will muster

er fraud’, a total of 23 incidents (one incident equalling

the courage to overthrow the fascists and fascist-apol-

one fraudulent ballot) of which have been recorded in

ogists who govern them. Until such a time, the truest

US history, meaning that those who don’t drive, have a

form of ‘white-privilege’ will be your ability to partici-

passport or work for the state will have to spend beyond

pate in democracy, and political violence will remain as

their means just to have the ability to cast a vote.

inevitable as it is (given the circumstances) moral.

PREVIEW

Stars & Stripes

OBAMA the failed God Daniel Davidson

PREVIEW

As the Obama presidency comes to a close, sane and intelligent people experience a fit of madness; declaring Obama the greatest President in the history of the Republic. The great reformer whose actions will be cherished by posterity. He isn’t and they won’t. Obama will go down in history for what he is: a well-meaning failure. A President unsure of what his administration is, creating a presidency of hesitancy and half-measures. However, you would not get that message from reading the liberal press in America who vehemently laud his successes with no serious mention of failure. This is nothing but damaging to refuse reality, simply because you want Obama to be a success; in short the cult of Obama must end. He is not perfect and has made some terrible decisions that rival those of his predecessor. The perpetual state of war that Obama has created must be the first thing we consider. Drones roam the skies of the world nearly constantly, silently watching for the next suspected combatant who needs to be illegally executed from 50,000 ft. The drone programme will be a stain on Obama’s legacy he cannot remove. For both the damage it has already caused, but also the dangerous precedent it sets for the future. 2,753 people have been killed by the drone programme since Obama took office with about 800 civilian deaths. I am sure a success rate of 70% looks acceptable in Washington, but if it were your family member or your wedding celebration ended by a Hellfire missile you would begin to understand the immorality of this programme. Most of those killed were in Pakistan, a country that the US is not at war with and who is even an ally of the US. This is the next problem with drones, they have completely trampled over national sovereignty and international law, blurring the line between warzone and everywhere else. We must question why the US has the right to operate with such flagrant disregard for law. If China began bombing citizens in France, we would be naturally concerned. We should be even more concerned for what future Presidents might choose to do in following this precedent. In his weak defences of the drone programme, Obama normally portrays the CIA as a lawless and murderous organisation that were secretly carrying out the strikes without his knowledge. While it is a fair description of the CIA, in this case, they were operating under his authority and most of the strikes that occurred were signed off by the President himself, making him accountable.

Beyond drones, US foreign policy has been haphazard and confusing. Obama’s indecisive doctrine has left the world more unstable than before. He obviously inherited the spectacular failures of George W Bush, but still the interventions have occurred have not helped the world. The US’ confusing policy in Syria is a prime example of Obama’s legacy. Obama was unwilling to either commit entirely to Syria or to leave it alone, resulting in the muddled semi-intervention we have now, which has failed to protect civilians or hasten the end of the war. Obama has made it very clear he does not wish to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor with large interventions; but he seems to have succeeded in repeating them with small interventions. Surveillance is another facet of this deeply authoritarian administration. During the Obama presidency, the NSA was given free rein to collect data from American civilians on an unprecedented scale. Programme after programme was created to monitor the American people, supposedly for their own safety. By 2010, the NSA looked more like the Stasi than an institution of a democratic state. That is why Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowdon rightly took it upon themselves to do their duty to the American people in revealing this grotesque creation. Instead of receiving congratulations from the supposedly liberal administration, Manning was arrested and imprisoned for seven years and Snowden was hounded out of the country. Obama has sought to correct his mistake by commuting Manning’s sentence but has failed to pardon Snowden. I do truly believe that Obama meant well when he expanded surveillance, but that level of power will always be abused and no government agency should be allowed it, whatever the circumstances. Another great mistake of Obama’s was his reluctance to accept the status quo. This was seen in economic terms as, despite inheriting the disastrous culmination of decades of neo-liberalism, he chose to keep going with this dangerous ideology. Instead of dismantling the failing system, he allowed the system to be brought back to life in a more grotesque form. Once seen as an outsider and enemy of Wall Street, Obama is now a dear ally of the banks. In election years, the President

was quick to call out the “fat cats” but still took hundreds of millions in donations and many key advisors were appointed straight out of banks. It was even revealed in leaked emails the intimate role Citigroup played in selecting Cabinet appointees in 2008. Then there was obviously the disastrous bailout carried out by the President that saw the banks rewarded with trillions of dollars for crashing the economy. TARP and other bailout packages allowed America’s largest banks like JP Morgan and Citigroup to profit massively off the collapse of the economy. It was, of course, the same Citigroup that was receiving hundreds of billions from the US government, that was also picking the government officials who would be overseeing their bailout. The administration, up until Trump, was one of the most established in recent memory, catering to the special interest groups that dominate American politics. The regulation against the banks remains as weak as ever and the bailout did nothing but reassure banks that the cost of their absurd hedonism will be paid for by the American people. The banks, which were too big to fail in 2008, have kept growing and now the government has admitted that the banks are even too big to regulate. I say all of this, not because I think if Hillary Clinton or John McCain had been elected in 2008 anything would be different, because I am sure both would have done the exact same thing, if not worse. I say it because it is even more painful that Obama seemed to realise the danger of Wall Street and the establishment and still allowed it to grow even more out of control. I should say I hold no personal dislike for the President. He has been, for 8 years, a symbol of decency in the face of an increasing vicious and base political landscape. He has sought consensus when others have sought division. He has attempted much needed reform in gun control and Guantanamo Bay, but has been blocked by an increasing dangerous and fascist Republican party. However, to vindicate Obama of all fault is wrong. He made decisions which were dangerous and the legacy of which will live for generations to come. So, with his Presidency over, let us attempt to learn from his mistakes so we can finally get the President America deserves.

PREVIEW

Stars & Stripes

Mike Pence: Make America Straight Again

n the aftermath of the shocking Trump victory in

to protect the community. When Obama introduced a

the US Presidential Election, attention has turned

law requiring schools to allow transgender students to

to the new President’s second-in-command.

use the bathroom with which they identify with, Pence

Though there were hopes of John Kasich, or a similar

was a leading opponent. The scariest part of this? Pence

moderate Republican, taking the post, Trump has

has stated he and Trump shall “resolve” this law once in

chosen Mike Pence, a Vice President who is an

office. A group that already suffers widespread stigmati-

anti-LGBT, anti-women’s rights and a darling of Tea

sation and discrimination should never find their rights

Party extremists. Any optimists who believed the Vice

regressed by a democratically elected government. It

President would bring some sense to the White House

appears Pence will put an end to America’s proud legacy

should be severely disappointed. Pence’s appointment

of civil rights progression.

only serves to exacerbate the fears of those who were excited to see America become a more tolerant nation, more in line with its European counterparts. In 2000, Pence claimed that: “despite the hysteria

Some of Pence’s proposals are even more frightening than his words. In 2000, on Pence’s campaign website, he proposed that funding should be taken away from HIV and AIDS programmes,

Elise Knowles Cutler

from the political class and the media, smoking

stranding 1.2 million affected citizens.

Illustration by Lydia Self

does not kill”. In return for this, he received a

He took this even further, by suggesting the

generous $100,000 donation from the Indiana

funding should be diverted to programmes

tobacco lobby – which went towards his

which, “provide assistance to those seeking

governorship election campaign in 2013.

to change their sexual behaviour”, one being

This is a clear indicator of the kleptocrat-

conversion therapy, a hugely controversial

ic style which Pence will bring to the

practice which has never shown evi-

White House. A style that should be

dence of working, being more effective

in aversion to Trump’s ‘Drain the

driving the subject to suicide.

Swamp’ rhetoric –

I cannot

if said rhet-

muster the

oric were

good faith

genuine.

required to

Being a

believe Pence does

born again evangelical

not know this. Further to

Christian, as well as

this, it is offensively stupid

beholden to the money

for Pence to believe that HIV

of ultra-conservative Christian lobby groups, Pence has used his platform

and AIDS is a problem exclusive to

to oppose marriage equality, not only believing that being gay is a choice, but also that: ‘societal collapse’ was always

heavily on his VP. This means that one of the soon-to-

Pence’s suggestion that same-sex marriage would lead

be most powerful men in the world is the same man

to ‘societal collapse’ is just one example of his back-

who believes that the animated children’s film Mulan

wards world view. Pence further attacked the LGBTQ

was produced by ‘some mischievous liberal at Disney’,

community in 2015, by signing the Religious Freedom

with the evil intention of encouraging

Restoration Act. This law allowed businesses in the

acceptance for women in combat.

state of Indiana to discriminate against people based

I sincerely hope that as a country,

on their own personal religious beliefs. A pathetic

America will reject the narrow

attempt to veil homophobia in as religious tolerance.

minded and insular views of the

rights and opposed many of President Obama’s attempts

PREVIEW

powerful Vice Presidents America has ever seen. Trump’s lack of experience means he may rely

brought by ‘the deterioration of marriage and family’.

Unsurprisingly, Pence is also against transgender

the LGBTQ community. Pence will likely be one of the most

new Vice President, but we should not be naïve.

PREVIEW

Stars & Stripes

ccording to Donald Trump, any Russian hacking had ‘absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.’ Is this true, or simply one of Trump’s many alternative facts? Contrary to most of those in the mainstream commen-

NATO, with the notion that the other member nations have

and why, of all candidates, choose Trump?

not “fulfilled their obligations”, despite the objectionable warmongering of previous Presidents clearly making such

trying to re-establish itself as a relevant, global, superpower.

obligations excessive and immoral. With American military

Following a national identity crisis, Russia has shown an

expenditure making up 3.61% of total US GDP, it is unrealistic

insatiable desire to be seen as America’s equal, ratcheting

to expect most other nations to match this huge cost. The Kremlin has been quick to agree with Trump,

sire is embodied by President Vladimir Putin, an autocratic

claiming that the current system is based on confrontation

strongman driven by overbearing nationalistic pride.

and is unfit for the modern world. This, however, is unlikely to be the real aim for Russia. Rather, Putin’s desire to fur-

utmost to restore Russia to greatness. Strobe Talbott, a Rus-

ther Russian military influence and cripple its opposition

sian specialist and deputy secretary of state for Bill Clinton,

is the prime motivation.

has even gone so far as to say “he basically wants to make

Trump’s isolationist ‘America first’ policy will no

Russia great again”- sound familiar? The Cold War-esque

doubt please Putin, as he may turn a blind eye to Russia’s

Great Power Politics that Putin has adopted and his focus

attempts to take back control of neighboring countries.

on the reassertion of autocracy and territory compounds

America has traditionally opposed this and continued

the threat he poses to peace.

to pledge support for its European allies, at least those in

In this vein, the 2016 cyber-hacking incident can be

NATO, to protect them from Russian influence and aggres-

seen as an attempt by Putin to further his international

sion. Controversially, the president has voiced his opinion

influence. It was not just an attempt to win the election

on the topic suggesting that Crimea, the main flashpoint in

for Donald Trump, a man he believes he can manipulate,

the Ukraine crisis, should be given to Russia, a change in

but a grave infringement on American democracy. The

American policy to date.

belief that the election result was a ‘win’ for Putin due to

Throughout Trump’s campaign, he spoke about improv-

his perceived influence therein. A poll conducted by the

ing relations between Russia and America and forming a

Washington Post found the leaks to be hugely effective,

much closer relationship with Putin. The War in Syria has

with Clinton’s twelve point lead falling to just one after the

arguably allowed Putin to re-establish Russia on the world

second email scandal broke.

stage and position himself as a ‘peacekeeper’, supporting

So why did Putin do it?

the Assad regime. Obama’s failure to take a strong stand

The answer is simple: the pair have a lot more in

against Putin made way for this, and Trump may well go

common than first meets the eye. John Mclaughlin, a

one step further and support the Russian position at a

previous CIA acting director has described them both as

painful loss of Anti-Assad forces. More importantly howev-

having “rather brittle personalities when challenged.” Many

er, it would mark the end of U.S. support for the expansion

of Putin’s opponents have mysteriously ‘died’ during his

of democracy, something that previous Presidents have

time as President. Boris Nemtsov, a Russian statesman and

worked hard to establish.

politician, is perhaps the most prevalent example of this

All of the concerns expressed force us to wonder what

– with his assassination having likely been authorised by

a Trump-Putin alliance would really mean for the future.

Putin himself.

Trump may well turn out to be Putin’s puppet, but he may

Nothing that Trump has done thus far gives us reason to believe that he will go to the same lengths. Yet, we must not ignore the fact that he also expresses rampant hostility towards his critics,

PREVIEW

More significant, however, are their similar beliefs regarding foreign policy. Trump has repeatedly questioned whether the US should continue to defend their allies in

Over the past seventeen years, Putin has done his

Americans hate.

Russians would want to effect the presidential election,

hostility between the two nations in recent years. This de-

Katie Thompson

traying her as the archetypal untrustworthy politician that

tariat, I believe that we should instead be asking why the

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been

Vladimir Putin & the US Election

out of control’, threatening to imprison Clinton and por-

stick to his campaign promise to take a harder line than Hillary Clinton ever would have. Perhaps more controversial is the idea that the positive relationship between Trump and Putin is actually genuine. After all, if

praising the often dishonest Fox

the ‘boozy Bill-and-Boris show’ of the ‘90s can

News, while tarnishing all outlets

happen then it is not much of a stretch to

that oppose the radical right

believe that an amicable relationship is

as ‘fake news’. The September

possible. The ultimate issue is that, more

Presidential Debates marked the

so with Trump than any other President,

first time Trump’s “freewheeling

we have no idea what is to come, and no

approach had been spun wildly

concrete truths with which to predict

PREVIEW

Going Global 36

PREVIEW

Going Global

Is there still hope for the Left in France? On Sunday 23 April 2017, France will begin voting for their new President. It will be the most important political race of 2017 as people ask if the anti-establishment surge can drive Marine Le Pen, of the National Front, into the Élysée Palace Daniel Davidson

f elected, Marine Le Pen would be the first far-right

a dominant force in the centre of

duction of a maximum wage which

candidate to win a presidential election in

French politics who appeals to both

would have made €360,000 the most

Europe since World War II and possibly bring an

Republican and Socialist voters. He

a person could earn in France, as well

end to the European Union.

has positioned himself as an outsid-

as drafting a new, more progressive,

The presidential election will almost certainly go to a

er, which 2016 has taught us is a good

constitution.

run-off round where all candidates but the top two are

move, and will fight the election on

eliminated and the public votes again. It is expected

behalf of the brand-new Forward!

his eloquence in the debates as

that the run-off election will be fought between Le Pen

party. His policies focus mainly on

well as his open aggression against

and François Fillon, the candidate of centre-right The

economics with strong neoliberal

capitalism. He will surely be hoping

Republican party. Fillon offers a heady mix of catholic

tendencies. He would scrap the

to top his previous performance with

conservatism and rigid fiscal austerity promising to fire

35-hour week for younger workers

his new movement ‘Unsubmissive

half a million civil servants. However, Fillon is currently

and wind back aspects of the welfare

France’. He has already been growing

embroiled in a possible corruption scandal with allega-

state. His support is estimated at 21%

his following as a popular youtuber

tions his wife received €500,000 of government money for

putting him just behind the front-

with over 14 million views. His plat-

work she never did. He has promised that he will drop out

runners, and Fillon’s trouble should

form is mostly unchanged from 2012,

of the race if he is criminally investigated by the police.

benefit him further. This statistic

with maximum wages, a new con-

This opens up the possibility for a candidate from the Left

does not quite explain the massive

stitution and environmentalism as

to get into the run-off election.

show of support Macron has been

his key policies. Mélenchon will find

receiving with packed audiences at

himself, like in 2012, wrestling with Le

its candidate with Benoît Hamon beating out former

every event. There is, however, an

Pen for the working-class vote.

Prime Minister Manual Valls. President Hollande chose

obvious contradiction at the heart of

It is uncertain if he will be able

not to contest the primary given his approval ratings

the Macron campaign. He calls for

to hold on to it with immigration

of just 4%, a rare decision in France. Manuel Valls was

a “democratic revolution” and styles

becoming a dominant issue in French

originally seen as the favourite however suffered a

himself as a populist, but his policies

politics following the refugee crisis

beating in the primary, which is perhaps unsurprisingly

and background show him to be far

and IS terror attacks.

as one of Valls’ most important pieces of legislation

from a man of the people. In reality,

was the ‘El Khomri law’ which, forced through without

he is a former Rothschild banker and

offering this election a wide variety

a vote, was a direct attack on trade unions. It caused

government minister who supports

of ideas, however they will destroy

months of strikes and political unrest, and exemplified

neoliberalism and the European Un-

themselves if so many candidates

the disconnect between an increasingly neoliberal

ion, where he actually deviates from

remain, splitting the vote and letting

government and the workers who elected it. Valls, who

the ‘establishment’ is very unclear.

Fillon and Le Pen into the run off.

compares himself to the recently ousted Matteo Renzi,

Jean Luc Mélenchon completes

The Socialist party has finished its primary to decide

PREVIEW

Overall, the Left in France are

A choice between Thatcherite and a

would likely be annihilated if he had been chosen as

the spectrum of the Left. Repre-

neo-fascist government is not what

the party’s candidate. Benoît Hamon might fare a better

senting the disgruntled socialists of

France deserves. France deserves a

chance with a more radical and progressive platform

France, Mélenchon is running on a

credible and sensible left wing candi-

that promises cannabis legalisation and a basic income

platform to the left of the Socialist

date who can offer real change. This

for all. Hamon has been called the Bernie Sanders of

party. He was formerly a member of

candidate must make a break with

France for both his policies and his staggering rise from

the Socialist party and a government

the disastrous presidency of Hollande

obscurity. However, he faces a tough election where it is

minister, but left due to the party’s

and seek genuine socialist policies to

unlikely that he will be able to get any higher than fifth.

movement to the centre. He went on

attract back the disillusioned voters.

Jean Luc Mélenchon and Emmanuel Macron, both for-

to create the Left party, and became

Furthermore, the Left must unite

mer Socialist ministers, are expected to beat whichever

a MEP. The year 2017 will not be his

around a single candidate if it is seri-

candidate the Socialist party nominates.

first try at the presidency, having run

ous about contending in this election.

in 2012 with the backing of the Com-

We must hope that such a candidate

a doubt, Emmanuel Macron. A young former economics

munist party. He won nearly 4 million

emerges or a dark future lays ahead

minister in the Socialist government, he has become

votes with promises of the intro-

for France and its people.

The most viable candidate from the Left is, without

He became very popular with

PREVIEW

Going Global

uch a question may seem

public opinion that trustworthiness

phase out any political dissidents,

archaic, but with the Chinese

is glorious’, building ‘a fairer and

leaving only those who have acqui-

government building an

better society’. Supporters of the

esced to its illegitimate laws.

all-powerful, all-controlling ‘social

new system argue that currently

credit’ system, with which it plans

a conman can commit a crime in

the risks of data falling into the

to monitor and control almost every

one place and then another in a

wrong hands, or being used improp-

aspect of its citizens’ lives, it is one

different place, whereas this new

erly. According to William Glass, it is

that we must ask.

system will track all of a person’s

naïve to believe that the system will

The aim: by 2020, every single

past history making such activity

be safe from scams. He states that

person in China will be a part of a

much harder.

“there is a big market for this stuff,

national database, which tracks

3.9

7.9

conceivably fathom how ‘trustwor-

there will be a great incentive for

most intimate details of their life.

thy’ you are. If anything, the way

cyber criminals and state backed

in which citizens are encouraged

actors to go in, either to steal infor-

this system, but we know that every

to report ‘bad’ acts from other

mation or even alter it. This system

citizen will receive a numerical rat-

citizens, with rewards being offered

will be the ground truth of who you

ing, which determines how good the

in return, undermines any idea of

are. But considering that all this

ruling party think you are. The cen-

trustworthiness. This will turn into

information is digital, it is certainly

tral principles for the system being

a competitive nightmare, making

not immutable”.

that “if trust is broken in one place,

China a place where people both

restrictions are imposed elsewhere.”

publicly shame and secretly inform

2020, the government is monitoring

Good behaviour will be rewarded

on colleagues and neighbours. In

how the system plays out in eight

and bad behaviour punished, with

stark contrast to the bland ideal of

high profile, state-approved pilot

the dictatorial Communist party

a ‘credit system which builds trust

projects across the country. Sesame

acting as both judge and jury.

between all citizens’, it is quite

Credit, the most notable of these

possible that it could create a lack of

pilots, is an online shopping plat-

to affect all aspects of a person’s

trust and paranoia as self-preserva-

form with over 350 million users. Its

life. From travelling abroad and

tion and human instinct kick in.

database is using the consumer’s

The ‘social score’ is predicted

acquiring loans, to what property

6.2

5.0

Is China moving towards a society of absolute totalitarianism? 6.4

7.6

5.3

6.9 2.1

8.6 4.2

dividuals and give them their social

children will go to. Muring Xuecun,

personal freedom and ending the

credit scores, dependant on what

a social commentator from Beijing,

reliance of impoverished people on

they buy and how much they spend.

compared the potential new system

oligarchs and technocrats, the Com-

The users are then encouraged to

to Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ – where the

munist Party is rightly concerned

‘flaunt’ and ‘boast’ their scores to

government has all the information

about losing control. It is an obvious

acquaintances and it can even go as

from your personal life and the re-

indicator of the increasing repres-

far as trying to find someone with a

sultant power allows them to harm

sion of freedoms in China under the

similar score to consider them for a

you in whatever way it pleases.

current president Xi Jinping. Citi-

‘potential mate’.

PREVIEW

zens are being blacklisted due to a

This is just a small insight into

the score is an attempt to control the

low social score, rendered unable to

the path that China finds itself on,

fraud and corruption within the huge

run for public office and gain access

one where privacy could cease to

economy it controls, one where poi-

to social security.

meaningfully exist, with everyone

Someone with a low score will

competing for the best social score

are readily traded with no consistent

find themselves frisked more often

at the cost of personal relation-

penalty. However, as in any absolut-

at Chinese customs, prevented from

ships. A China where hackers and

ist government, these plans aren’t

getting a bed on overnight trains and

cyber criminals prosper and where

without an ulterior motive – the

not being allowed into higher starred

the government has total control

motive being to absorb all remnants

hotels and restaurants. Despite its

over all citizens who still exist

of autonomy from its people.

other egregious features, the system

within the law, the Communist

is defined by its status as an almost

party filtering out all opposition to

China’s elite state council explains

insurmountable barrier to democ-

consolidate itself as an immovable

that the social credit will ‘forge a

racy. The government may simply

political force.

A planning document put before

personal information to assess in-

development is stimulating more

soned food and phoney medicines

5.7

At a time where rapid economic

Currently to be set in motion by

they can buy and what school their

The Communist Party has said

Hannah Owen

and as soon as the system sets up,

their every move and publicises the We only have a vague picture of

China’s social credit score an Orwellian future?

A computer algorithm cannot

With mass surveillance comes

PREVIEW

Going Global

The Syrian Solution Tiernan Quantrill

f for no other reason than to

mostly from Kurdistan, where a

don’t know the true colours of the re-

interests) with no consideration of

a disastrous global conflict. Russian

far preferable to giving ISIS a sizeable

clearly state the urgency of the

conglomeration of such ideals allows

bels that should stop us funding them.

the fact that Saudi princes habitually

bombing would be much less neces-

foothold (which will bring its own, far

following issue, I shall keep this

for an ease of organised rebellion,

From a purely ergonomic standpoint,

funnel their vast wealth to Al Qaeda,

sary and more easily curtailed in a

crueller regime, as well as having fatal

article brief. My thesis: regardless of

and Western support can easily reach

this is the wrong place to invest if

ISIS and Hezbollah. America is intent

climate where their opposition is not

repercussions domestically), or cre-

your views on foreign policy, to claim

reliable rebel groups, as few unreliable

we truly care for the well-being of

on simultaneously strengthening

being kept afloat by Western money.

ating a chaotic void, almost certainly

that anything other than a complete

ones exist in the region) are genuine

the Syrian people. The democratic

altogether too weak moderates for

If things continue in this vein,

giving way to perpetual civil war and

reinstatement of the pre-war, Assad

in their ideologies. This, however, is

rebel groups are too small, lacking the

altruistic reasons, while business in-

then it is likely that all combating

status quo is a good (and simulta-

mostly irrelevant. It is a geographical

technology and structure of Assad’s

terests decimate any such hopes and

forces will destroy each other, culmi-

Until such a time as the West is

neously realistic) outcome for the

impossibility for Kurdish rebels to

forces, as well as the global recruiting

strengthen the groups out to destroy

nating in a fractious, post-Gadaffi-Lib-

giving its full support to Assad, Russia

Syrian people is a fallacy.

have influence in Damascus, and

power of ISIS. As a result, they are des-

such altruism. US foreign policy is the

ya style state, left desolate by warring

and Iraq (w/r/t the Syrian Conflict),

the West’s goal to give aid to similar,

tined to lose in a battle against either

snake that eats its own tail.

factions. Such an outcome will come

then the Syrian people will continue

Syrian, groups in the area is evidently

– as has been seen by their failure to

at immeasurable human cost, vio-

to suffer terribly, the current refugee

failing.

take hold of a single major city – and

inhumane by Western standards. Yes,

lently fan the flames of international

crisis will become the most severe

simply serve as a hindrance to the

the Russian and Iranian bombing

terrorism, and ratchet up the tension

in world history (contributing to the

between global superpowers.

critical mass of division in domestic

Blunt? Indeed, and such will persist. Hopefully I shall illustrate why herein. We should, before any nuance materialises, discuss those who consti-

The impact of this failure is

Yes, an Assad regime will be

a resultant end to Syria as a nation.

tute the alternative to the State. Recent

drastic. While ISIS and its subsidiaries

government forces who, though des-

campaign has taken many innocent

footage of US-funded rebel fighters

combat government forces, the West

tined to enact totalitarianism through

lives – 115 in a single strike as recent-

celebrating their destruction of buses

is funding untrustworthy rebels to do

martial law, are surely preferable to

ly as November. But I cannot fathom

dream of a modern democratic Syria,

to be assassinated and trucks will

intended to evacuate victims of the

the same. This stretches the military

the most dangerous terrorist group to

how the Western policy of opposing

as it should have done in Iraq and

continue to be driven through market

fighting should be enough to illustrate

too thin, allowing ISIS – the most

have ever existed – bar none.

these forces will do anything but

Afghanistan – the results in those

squares or along seafronts.

the extremist bent of these supposedly

prominent external threat to Western

A sickening irony is also present

increase the perceived need for more

nations surely foreshadowing Syria’s

‘Democratic Forces’. Further proof can

democracy – to fill the vacuum left

here. The US, despite its desire to have

air strikes. How Hillary Clinton’s pro-

likely future. It must cease directly

currently happening on the planet,

be gained by looking at the state of

by the government’s eventual defeat,

a “moderate and committed opposi-

posed ‘no fly zone’ would have served

funding unreliable rebellions, and

and it is imperative that anyone with

Eastern Aleppo as of early December,

while rebels are either swept aside,

tion” (Barack Obama, in conversation

the Syrian people any better than

cease indirectly (but knowingly) fund-

the capacity to speak up does so. The

where “all the hospitals are gone”.

or amalgamated into radical Islamic

with Aljazeera) to Assad, continues

cooperation, where all nations work

ing Jihadists through Saudi Arabian

conflict may be remote today, but that

terror groups.

to fund Saudi Arabia (with the aim

to a common, and achievable, end

oil, as both only serve to destroy a re-

will certainly not continue unless

of protecting its Middle Eastern oil

in what has the potential to become

gime who, though genuinely cruel, is

action is taken.

This is, perhaps, unfair. The secular and democratic forces (hailing

PREVIEW

It is not simply the fact that we

The West must put aside its pipe

politics), ambassadors will continue

There is nothing more urgent

PREVIEW

Going Global

Universal Civil Code India’s future? In 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Manifesto pledged that they would impose the controversial Uniform Civil Code. Shrina Patel

PREVIEW

urrently, Indians follow personal laws in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. Personal laws are based on religious scriptures and customs, hence these laws differ depending on the religion. There are many examples of personal laws, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Code Bills, Christian Divorce Act, inter-religious Special Marriage Act and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. Initiating a Uniform Civil Code will replace these personal laws, making India a more secular country and enhancing the rights of all Indian women, as well as adhering to Article 44 and 25. However, this is a very controversial topic since the BJP are Hindu nationalist and there is fear that this Code will “Hinduise” the minorities, mainly Muslims, by imposing majority views and reducing the diversity and culture of India. Firstly, Article 44 of the India Constitution states that “The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India”. Therefore by implementing a Uniform Civil Code the government will only be adhering to the original plan that previous leaders wanted to be carried out. In addition, Article 15 says that “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them” making personal laws a total contradiction to the Constitution, and the principles of secularism and gender equality, as they are based on religious customs and practises. In order to resolve the discrimination of personal laws, Narendra Modi’s government run by the BJP has filed an affidavit to the Supreme Court in India to ban polygamy and Triple Talaq that are incorporated into Muslim personal law. Their argument is that these laws restrict “gender justice and overriding principle of non-discrimination, dignity and equality” and the “evolution of women”. Triple Talaq is an Islamic practise which refers to the husband’s right

to dissolve the marriage by simply announcing to his wife that he repudiates her. This has been argued to be a patriarchal law which violates women’s rights to equality and causes more than 90 million Muslim women in India to live in fear of being divorced. A part of Talaq is that the wife is not entitled to any alimony that she would have a right to under secular law. Additionally, there is the fear of the unknown as a wife does not have to be present at the time of Talaq, which further shows how unilateral this law is. Even more shocking is that triple Talaq has been banned in 22 Muslim countries, including India’s neighbouring countries Pakistan and Bangladesh. The fact that Islamic counties such as these do not see the religious necessity of such a practise, emphasises the point made by Narendra Modi’s government that these practises are not covered by Article 25, which provides freedom of integral religious practise, as the triple Talaq is not mentioned in the Qur’an. Polygamy, also allowed under personal law, is neither mandatory nor encouraged in the Qur’an. It is however an entirely patriarchal practice which reduces a woman’s dignity and equality in not only their marriage but in society, as it is used to assert a husband’s dominance over his wife. In addition, the minimum age that a Muslim girl can get married in India is 15 years old, whereas for most non-Muslims it is 18 years old. This is another reason why uniform code laws should be implemented; child marriage is a deeply troubling issue in India and needs to be regulated more to give girls a better chance in life. If a Uniform Civil Code can ensure that girls cannot be forced to marry so young, it will mean that they partake in education for a longer period of time, enabling them to have more opportunities in life and depend less on men for support. This all shows that personal laws are patriarchal and are used to oppress Islamic women, and something must change to create equality for all Indian women.

Furthermore, personal laws do not protect religious freedom as much as initially assumed. This is because many people are wrongly categorised and forced into a religious identity, causing issues. This is exemplified by Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains being forced into the bracket of Hinduism which imposes the ‘integral religious practices’ on those that do not follow that religion. This of course also applies to atheists, who’s non-religious beliefs are ignored. Moreover, within religious communities, there are many different denominations that interpret religious texts in various ways with some having more conservative views than others. This provides a further reason to adapt a Uniform Civil Code as followers of the religion have to follow these personal laws which cannot adhere to all the diverse interpretations within the religion, even if they do not entirely agree. However, members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) argue that a Uniform Civil Code will reduce the diversity within India created by personal laws and ‘Hinduise’ minorities. This is a very serious concern given India’s dark past of suppressing minority groups from the Blue Star attack against Sikhs to the Gujarat riots in 2002. Those riots in particular highlight the concerns of many minority groups because of the leading role Prime Minister Modi played in the pogrom which saw the brutal slaughter of 2,000 innocent Muslims at the hands of Hindu nationalists backed by the BJP. It is therefore important that if a Uniform Civil Code is introduced it is not exploited to further the goals of Hindu nationalists like Modi. Overall, a Uniform Civil Code should be implemented as it is integral to achieving gender equality in India. It would also promote religious freedom and tolerance creating a more secular and stable society. However, with personal laws being in existence for such a long period of time, it will be a battle to bring about this necessary change but a battle that can and will be won.

PREVIEW

Going Global

Dawn Howe

n August of last year, Beatrice Lorenzin, the Italian Health Minister, announced ‘Fertility Day’. The campaign was an attempt to encourage Italians to be parents and increase Italy’s birth rate, which is among the lowest in Europe. The Thursday 22 September 2016 was to be Italy’s first ‘Fertility Day’, with several state-sponsored events being held in Rome, Bologna, and Catania, to encourage couples to start a family. The events would offer information about family planning, as well as alternatives to reach parenthood. While the obsession with traditional family structures may strike some as exclusive, the intentions of the campaign are, superficially, benign. The rationale behind this campaign has resulted in further criticisms. Italian women have a birth rate of 1.35 children, compared to the European Union average of 1.57. With the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development saying that a birth rate of 2.1 is required to ensure a stable population growth, rates below this being

PREVIEW

bad for countries with ageing populations, generous social services, and rigid economics, all of these descriptors fitting for Italy and its sustained industrial dependency. With the air of good economics about it, Italian parliamentarians were all too willing to allow Lorenzin free reign to continue with this policy. The campaign itself included posters with slogans stating ‘Beauty has no age. But fertility does’, ‘Fertility is the common good’, and ‘Male fertility is much more vulnerable than you might think.’ Perhaps the most demeaning read: ‘Young parents. The best way to be creative.’ These ads and slogans are an insult to everyone, especially those who cannot procreate, those who cannot afford to raise children, and, in an act of oversight so extreme as to seem deliberate, same sex couples. Other posters urge Italians to ‘Get a move on. Don’t wait for the stork!’ and one which was particularly aimed at men showed a hand holding a sagging half-smoked cigarette with the message ‘Don’t let your sperm go up in smoke.’

The Italian government claims that this campaign is intended to promote sexual health, and a reminder not to leave having children too late. However, its aggressive and offensive sloganeering has resulted in many Italians being put off having children, as it now carries a sense of enforced duty, becoming removed from free will and proper preparation. As if its condescension and sexism wasn’t enough, one ad in particular has also garnered disapproval for being racist. It features a poster entitled a ‘Proper lifestyle for the prevention of sterility and infertility’, and shows a smiling group of friends, with the slogan ‘the good habits to promote’. This was then contrasted with another group of hooded smokers, in a sepia tone and captioned: ‘the bad companions to leave behind.’ It was not long before social media photos pointed out that the group promoting ‘good habits’ were all white, whereas the second group were of mixed ethnicities, sporting Afro hairstyles. This implies that not only should couples be focusing on just procreating, but also th at they should be surrounding themselves with white people, rather than those of ethnic minorities, who are portrayed as ‘bad companions’. This is yet another offensive addition to the campaign, suggesting those of ethnic minorities should not be involved in familial life. This campaign also fails to address social changes, which include the need to enable same-sex couples the opportunity to have children as well. In Italy, LGBT couples are still not allowed to have children because the country fails to provide IVF for same-sex couples, nor does it allow them to adopt or use a surrogate mother. Refusing same sex couples the right to parenthood in a time of dwindling population growth is not just poor policy making, it is morally objectionable in the extreme.

Save for its derogatory nature, ‘Fertlity Day’ does little to solve the birth rate issues. Low female employment rates and widespread poverty among the young and working class, make the conditions for parenthood hard to obtain for many. A simple ad campaign will not address this. Italy’s Prime Minister, Renzi, and his government have tried to help families with a ‘baby bonus’ for low and middle income households, as well as approving labour laws which grant more flexibility with parental leave. Yet this does not solve the phenomenon known as ‘dimissioni in bianco’ (which translates as blank resignations). This ensures that thousands of Italian women have been asked to sign undated letters of resignation, so that employers are able to fire them without penalty, in case of pregnancy. As well as this, although abortion is technically legally guaranteed in Italy, the procedure can be complicated to obtain. Italy also only allocates 1% of its gross domestic product to social protection benefits, which is half of the European average. This means that one child out of three in Italy is at risk of poverty, hardly an environment likely to encourage young couples. The campaign as a whole should be abolished, as it implies that women are nothing more to Italy than baby-making machines, and it does not help that the campaign is reminding people of the childrearing approach of the dictator Mussolini. If the government expects women to procreate more, and increase Italy’s birth rate, then they need to do more to fix the social and economic problems that are deterring couples, rather than putting the blame of the economic and social problems on the low birth rate, and essentially putting blame on Italian women. It has been reported that Italy has one of the lowest gender equality rates in the EU, and that there are very limited resources and spending on

childcare, which unless altered by the government, will also discourage women from having more children. The sexist nature of this campaign is also reflected in Italy’s on-going struggle to get more women in positions of power. Although women made some gains in June when Raggi became the first female mayor of Rome, still just 28% of Italy’s Senators and 31% of its House member are women. Even Italy’s Prime Minister, Renzi, has distanced himself from the initiative. He told a radio station that he did not ‘know of any friends who decide to have kids because they saw an advertisement. People have children if they can get a fulltime job, afford a mortgage or find a place in nursery close to home’. He also added that, ‘If you want to create a society that invests in its future and has children, you have to make sure the underlying conditions are there’. This highlights that if Italy wish to increase their birth rate, it is the duty of the government to address Italy’s social and economic problems, rather than making it the duty of Italian women. Not only is this campaign pressurising and unfair, the words, phrases, and imagery used in the advertisements are of a nature that could have a negative impact on women, those from minority backgrounds, and the LGBTQ+ community. The Italian government should have no right to create or publish a campaign that alienates any section of their society.

PREVIEW

Going Global

Russia up to Mischief Before the Olympics Seb Paul

Illustration by Joey Pang 2016 has witnessed many scandals in sport - ranging from match fixing in tennis, Maria Sharapova testing positive for meldonium (which led to her being banned for 15 months) and the corruption of FIFA. Despite this, the sport controversy that is deemed the most heinous, is the 118 athletes from Russia who were banned from competing in the Olympic Games because they had been tested positive for doping. This is not anything too out of the ordinary for the Russians. In London 2012, it was reported that six Russian athletes should not have competed at all. The six Olympians in question were reported to have had abnormal substances, which are suspected to be performance enhancing, present in their bodies. Additionally, the International Olympic committee (IOC) found that 28 out of the

PREVIEW

95 Russian athletes competing in the Winter Games in Sochi 2012, were implicated in some type of doping scam. It seems it is becoming a common theme for Russia trying - and failing - to win the Olympics through unnatural means. I wonder when their lesson will be learnt? The IOC thought it was not paramount for each and every Russian athlete to be excluded from the games due to the belief that it is unreasonable to ban the athletes who were clean from drugs and had been training hard for many years. Despite this, the IOC banned Russians completely from Athletics and weightlifting, with partial bans on, for example, aquatics, rowing and cycling. As well as this, all Paralympic athletes were banned from competing. This left the banned athletes having to compete at an alternative event, hosted in Moscow.

This embarrassment, which was somewhat inflicted upon Russia’s Olympic Committee, led to the resignation of the head of the Committee, Alexander Zhukov. It is apparent that being both the head of Russia’s Olympic Committee and Vladimir Putin’s first deputy speaker in the lower House of Parliament was all a little bit too much for Zhukov to control. Putin revealed to the press that Zhukov stepped down due to his desire to focus on his role as first deputy speaker. It is fair to say that the person who steps up and replaces him, as head of the Committee, has a lot of cleaning up to do. It is going to take a lot of grit and determination from the new head of the IOC to rebuild Russia’s reputation in the global sporting community. Many athletes and coaches believe that the Russians were being unfairly treated. Yuri Butnev, a member of the Russian Olympic committee, told the press, ‘We think that [the ban] is an unfair punishment and we do not agree with it’. This response was expected from athletes who have been kicked out right at the tail end of a four year process, therefore, it was not taken into account. Yuliya Stepanova thought her exclusion from the Games was also ‘unfair’. Stepanova had been previously cleared to compete in the Games by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), until the IOC introduced a new rule stating

that any athlete with a previous doping ban could not compete. This seems fair enough, right? However, what seemed ‘unfair’ to Stepanova is that a US based track and field Russian athlete was still allowed to compete under a neutral flag, even though every other track and field athlete was banned. This admittedly does not seem right. There is still a future for Russian athletes. The IAAF has created new guidelines that can allow clean Russian athletes to compete again in international events. The guidelines include the need for athletes to establish evidence that they are ‘not directly implicated in any way (knowingly or unknowingly) by their national federation’s failure to put in place adequate systems to protect and promote clean athletes’. This message was sent around to 200 Russian athletes, 60 of which are now part of the IAAF international registered testing pool. This means that they have been tested, however, they are not guaranteed to compete. Hopefully, Russia and its athletes have learnt from this foolish attempt to manipulate and bypass the ethical standard of sport in the sporting community. What became clear in this event is that sport has political importance and indicates that, whilst there is fairness and co-operation in sport, there will be a correspondence to this on a political level.

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

Truth or Dare? Lucy Etheridge

n November, Oxford dictionaries announced ‘post-truth’ to be their international word of the year for 2016. It is defined as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals. The phrase was chosen due to a spike in its usage over the past 12 months, unsurprisingly almost always in the context of politics. The 2016 presidential election is a conspicuous demonstration of the powers of emotional appeals in the political process, but then this can be seen to be nothing new. Politics is an emotional subject for many, naturally provoking strong feelings. It is the other aspect of this definition that is a new development, the declining importance of objective facts. This devaluing of facts in politics was

PREVIEW

confirmed by Trump as he described fact checking to be an ‘out-of-touch, elitist, media thing’. Trump’s campaign is a clear example of the proliferation of post-factual politics and his emotional appeals, notably appeals to fear, seem to be an inherent characteristic of the right-wing nationalism we have seen come to the fore in the past year. Many of Trump’s assertions during his campaign were clearly false, including his branding Obama as ‘the founder of ISIS’. This spread of questionable ‘facts’ is also evident closer to home, with Brits still waiting in anticipation to see a £350million (a week) better-off NHS following the Brexit vote. As much as the spread of falsehoods such as these should be criticised, to claim that the sole reason for the dramatic political changes of 2016 was simply a misinformed electorate

undermines the democratic process. After all, the definition of post-truth politics is when objective facts are less influential than emotional appeals. In other words, people are simply losing their faith in ‘experts’ and can be seen to have been won over by concepts such as Brexit or a Trump presidency, giving little weight to statistics and the speculation of academics. As an enthusiastic remain supporter, what concerns me is not the idea that people have been fed false information, but that they don’t seem to care. Perhaps it is unsurprising that these political changes have occurred in line with another feature of our modernising society, the increased use of social media. The internet has, of course, had a number of positive effects on democracy. Its use can be seen to have provided an increased

engagement, accountability and participation. Yet, the internet also provides the perfect platform for the proliferation of false information. Recently, prominent political figures have joined in with the social media trend – with @realDonaldTrump being the fastest growing twitter account as I write this article. A recent tweet by Trump, just one of eight from the last 24 hours, seemed relevant: ‘Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans - FAKE NEWS!’. The tweet is in reference to accusations that Trump coordinated with Russia prior to the election, just one example of politically-motivated stories that have emerged on social media this year. This highlights a key issue with the increased use of social media, not only by politicians themselves, but also by the press.

Online news pages differ from the traditional press in that less value is given to a reputation for journalistic integrity. Instead, they often prioritise maximising the number of views of their articles. In this system, the most successful news outlets are those which produce the most outrageous headlines, regardless of accuracy. These changes have led to a number of scandalous, yet fallacious, conspiracy theories receiving unwarranted attention, notably the ludicrous ‘Pizzagate’ accusations that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex abuse ring, inspiring a man to travel hundreds of miles to attack a Washington pizza restaurant, his aim being to ‘self-investigate’ the claims. With the increasing emergence of fake news, it is undeniably important to remain skeptical of far-fetched, sensational stories in order to prevent

their, often political, ulterior motives being realised. Despite this, the impact that these stories have actually had on the political process can be overstated. Instead of arguing about the accuracy of each other’s facts, perhaps a reversion to debates over principles and ideological differences would be more productive. For example, I am certain I disagree with Trump’s politics and yet have no statistics and facts to support my convictions. My judgements were formed based on clear ideological differences, not to mention my low opinion of the President as a person. The way for liberals to unite against recent political developments is surely to win over those who support ideas such as Trump’s, not by a patronising claim that they have been deceived by facts, but instead by making the case for a more inclusive and equal society.

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

Voting: rational or emotional? Niamh Williams

PREVIEW

very five years, the British people participate in a general election, every four years the Americans, and every five years the French. Essentially, somewhere in the world a general election will be taking place each year. This means that millions of people will be voting to decide a very important outcome for their country. How important is voting to people and how do people decide which box to tick? One way would be to read the party manifestos and keep an eye on the election news. As psychologists have observed, however, humans do not tend to respond rationally. They are, rather, influenced on an emotional level by social class, a ‘gut reaction’, and personal factors. Class voting is one of the most important influences in deciding who to vote for. Although it once was an overriding factor, this has now changed. In post-war Britain, voting behaviour was predictable: greater than 90% of the electorate voted for the two main parties and said that they had a strong attachment to a political party, therefore there was little swing between elections. More than 2/3 of the working class supported Labour and 4/5 of the middle class supported the Tories. However, there were still deviant voters, with 30% of the working class supporting the Tories. Working class solidarity was a powerful feeling and had much to do with loyalty to community and a collective sense of justice. Some voters faced prejudice if they did not follow others’ expectations and would sometimes vote for a party that contradicted their private beliefs. However, since the 1970s voting patterns have become less predictable. This has been caused by the disintegration of class consciousness, with many voters being increasingly influenced by shortterm factors instead. Experts in political psychology have discovered that “gut reaction” is now a prime factor in voting choice. Dr Bull has said that many theories

are losing relevance and, “the prime thing now is the perceived competence and perceived responsiveness of the politician.” How politicians look, not their attractiveness but how they look under pressure, contributes to our gut reaction. Dr Capelos said that; “British politics is becoming increasingly personalised and presidential.” Appearance and character, although probably always relevant, play an increasing role in a voter’s choice - perhaps due to television, social media or just a more image-obsessed society. The character of the politician has also become more important. Politicians’ private and past conduct which, arguably, does not affect their job, are under closer scrutiny. It has been found that the most appealing character trait in a politician is a feeling that they care about you. Exit polls from the 2012 US presidential election asked which of the characteristics voters valued the most out of “shares my values,” “strong leader,” “vision for the future” and“cares about me”. Mitt Romney had an advantage in the first three but for voters who chose “cares about me,” Barack Obama was favoured 81-18 by all age groups. An American High school asked children around 8 years old who they would vote for in 2012. All of them ‘voted’ for Obama (apart from two who drew superman) and when asked why, the majority said “he’s nice.” It is clear that thinking and feeling go hand in hand and as Dr Capelos said, “emotions help people make decisions.” Unsurprisingly, personal factors greatly influence voting choice. For example, younger voters are more likely to question authority and favour radical policies, with the majority voting for Labour. However, younger voters are also more likely not to vote compared to older voters: In 2001, six out of ten 18 – 24 year olds stayed away from polling booths. As a result, many parties shape their policies around the interests of the older generation who are more likely to turnout and vote.

This in turn leads to the younger generation becoming even more dissatisfied with the political process, making them even less likely to vote. This brings us on to the power of the ‘grey vote’. The UK’s population is ageing rapidly which increases the potential of older people’s votes. Even the Pensioners Party won a seat in the Scottish Parliament! It has been found that the older generation tend to vote Conservative - perhaps due to wealth, or because they are more opposed to change. In the post-war period, gender voting could be tracked with a clear pattern. Post-war women were more likely to vote Conservative than men. This reflected social attitudes and as few women worked they were not exposed to the heightening class consciousness caused by unions. This gender gap has narrowed during the Thatcher and Blair years and continues to narrow even now. Where you live also has a part to play. In the 1980s, there was an increasing ‘North – South’ divide: Labour held only a few seats south of Bristol and the Wash (excluding London) and the Conservatives held few seats in the North and none in Wales or Scotland for a while. Liberal Democrat support was strongest in the ‘Celtic Fringe’. The regional divide has decreased hugely now, and these are generalisations and arguably largely a reflection of class factor and the rural/urban divide. The factors that influence people’s voting decision have changed throughout history and will presumably continue to change. Right now, emotions drive people’s choices more than ever. This makes it hard for politicians, as they must try to appeal to everyone, not just one ‘tribal’ group of people and it appears people care less about what is said than how they present themselves. So, if voting patterns can come from unconscious bias, does that mean their value is decreased? Your vote matters, so it is worth being aware of these biases next time an election comes around.

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

The Aristocracy of Meritocracy Matt Lee

hroughout what many have called a tumultuous year for politics, 2016 has given more prominence than ever to antiestablishment politics, primarily with events such as Britain’s decision to leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump to the office of US President, but also through the impeachment of figures such as President Park of South Korea. One of my favourite war cries uttered as part of this, was that the British people “have had enough of experts” and instead want to do what they know is right and not what society tells them. This led me, however, to question why: if the problem is with a broken society and the governance that caused it, why should aim also be taken at economists, statisticians, people whose professions it is to make predictions and give advice? The answer I came to was that even ‘experts’ represent the establishment somewhat, as the problem is not simply with a government, but with the whole idea of a meritocracy. Meritocracy has been at the cornerstone of western society since the 17th century, that it should be those with capability into whose hands power should be placed. The whole idea of ‘the American dream’, that the American who works hard can achieve upwards social mobility, is entrusted in a meritocracy. But throughout time, this system has become more unequal, as the ‘elites’ of society take precautions to safeguard the privileges which they enjoy and to ensure that their children

PREVIEW

will enjoy the very same. While this would seem to be standard economic inequality, it is greater because of the entanglement of class and social status – while the middle class compare themselves to the 1%, the 1% compare themselves to the 0.01% and so on. However, the so-called ‘equality of opportunity’ is just a mythological aspect of meritocracy rather than something which exists in real life. Leading universities, such as Harvard and Yale, never used to admit women, and even though they do now, they should have always done so, if they were judging prospective students purely on merit. Nevertheless, this too causes problems as some students with well-off parents would be able to spend time with a tutor preparing for a written admissions test, whereas others would just have to do the best they could on their own. Over time the cycle repeats itself, it is usually those who have contacts and a good education who can become wealthy and then extend that same privilege to their children and so on, as meritocracy does not take into account the advantages and disadvantages faced by people in trying to ensure equality. This failure amasses in politics, many politicians’ first ambition once they are elected is to get re-elected at the next election – and they will exploit any advantages they have in trying to achieve this. Whether it be corporate deals or gerrymandering, politicians are willing to go back on their word if it means getting a resource advantage which they can then leverage. In a world where politicians are

ignoring their electorate to cut closed door deals, is it any wonder that the backlash has been so visceral. How would traditionally Democrat Rust Belt states such as Wisconsin be willing to support Hillary when she was the first major-party candidate since 1972 to not campaign there and would rather spend her time on the coasts rocking out with Bruce Springsteen? This is how a candidate such as Trump, who has thrived on challenging the media, promising to ‘drain the swamp’ of the fat cats of establishment politics has been able to succeed with disenfranchised voters. As much as he would pose outside his penthouse in Trump tower and fly around on his private jet, he was still a self-made man, in a way that the Wall Street after-dinner speaker Hillary Clinton was not. This flaw has only expanded in an era of globalisation which, following the 2007-08 financial crisis, has led to an increase in nationalism as people reject the unfair advantage which transnational corporations can use to fill their bank accounts in tax havens. Decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC have left corporations with free reign with their involvement in politics. How can the meritocracy exist when deals such as NAFTA stipulate that it’s not who works hard who will get rewarded, it’s who will accept the least reward? The North American Free Trade Agreement is one of the best examples of how the elites have expanded their economic superiority to a political one. Indeed, it is the audacity of these groups who do not rest on their laurels but attempt to further their advantage with deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This leaves politicians in a dangerous position where they either try to fight without money – likely a losing battle as in 9 out of 10 U.S. Congressional races for example, it is the highest spending candidate who wins – or they ‘go corporate’ and work for the highest bidder rather than the greater good. However, this is not exactly a new phenomenon – Ronald Reagan begun his political career butting heads with the Californian Republican Establishment, later defying the GOP and opposing an incumbent President in Gerald Ford at the primaries, before he became arguably the head of the establishment, halving income taxes and increasing U.S. debt by $1.6 trillion. Was the former Hollywood actor using the guise of making the system fairer by decreasing government involvement to benefit those who were already the apex predators? Indeed, Reagan’s introduction of Adjustable Rate Mortgages as part of his plan for financial deregulation was a major factor in the subprime crisis of 2008 and this was yet another example of society feeling slighted by the establishment in their preference of the elite. Although both the UK and the U.S. bailed out the banks in 2008, the latter’s plan to purchase unsellable mortgage backed securities further played into the belief that the government would act as a crash pad should the elite get greedy in their practices. A successful meritocracy would use regulation to maintain equality and prevent poor corporate risk man-

agement, something which severely hurt businesses such as the insurance corporation AIG (American International Group) who received a $180 billion bailout by the U.S. federal government. As corporations seek to take their business elsewhere (such as Ford’s proposed $1.6 billion plant in Mexico), yet still seek financial protection from established economies, it is no surprise that people are turning to policies which puts the control back in their hands. While the traditional viewpoint would be that it was the poorest who were the angriest voters and therefore most likely to support candidates such as Trump, Gallup data from senior economist, Jonathan Rothwell, suggests it is in fact the middle-income Americans who have lost the belief that their children would succeed through enterprise and now feel consigned to a system of weak mobility. Moreover, the establishment have further shamed themselves by their deplorable levels of greed. Not many can forget the MP Expenses scandal which rocked Parliament in 2009 and saw the traditional Oxbridge-educated privileged politicians, who have reaped the benefits of a perverted meritocracy, striving for more yet being slighted in their Icarian attempts to claim thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money for trivial purchases such as duck houses. As with the TPP, it seemed that the elite grew more defiant – the Panama Paper scandal of 2015 was just another weapon of the arsenal of those seeking to take down the lawmakers who saw themselves above the law. How can a Prime Minister who claimed “We’re all in this together” somehow add “as long as you have the contacts and resources?” In this way, Brexit saw the people push back. Politicians attempting doom-laden promises that the abandonment of the EU would lead to the abandonment of our trade deals actually resulted in firing voters up – that a successful Brexit would allow us to hit the reset button on globalisation and proceed with a Britain first policy. And so, 2016 should be the pièce de résistance for the anti-establishment. Even when candidates such as Bernie Sanders, a stalwart of the war on elite, are beaten by establishment veterans such as Hillary Clinton, it was the complete outsider of Donald Trump who promised a national revitalisation and who won the presidency. But to say that the meritocracy is vogue again would be rather naïve. The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election has been riddled with allegations of Russian involvement, with even President Trump suggesting that they were the ones who orchestrated the hack on the Democratic National Committee. Even upcoming elections for office such as the French Presidency have seen rumours that the anti-establishment National Front have received Russian funding for former electoral campaigns. Donald Trump promised to bring some of his business acumen to the role of President, but Russia may have beaten him to adopting corporate influence. And so even if the sun is setting on the elite, they will leverage the resources and do what only they can do, move to where the sun is about to rise.

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

2016:

It’s PC, stupid! Mr Tom Murphy

BAL LO T BO X 58

PREVIEW

2016 was the year when the political pundits got everything wrong. First, Trump couldn’t win the Republican nomination. Then he couldn’t possibly win the election, even with as dire an adversary as Hillary. As one Democrat said of the 1976 Presidential election ‘we could run an aardvark this year, and win’. Brexit? No chance; turkeys voting for Christmas. Going back a bit, very few of us foresaw the Tory overall majority in 2015, and the Scottish referendum was much closer than it should have been. And the uncertainties are set to continue. Marine Le Pen looks strong in France, and Angela Merkel is looking vulnerable. Politics just ain’t what it used to be. The times they are a changing. I have no intention of rehearsing what is now well-trodden ground by looking at why the predictions were so badly wrong. Nor do I intend to gloat at having got the 2015 UK election result right- I even won some money on it- since I got almost everything else wrong. I want to look at the role that the establishment may have played in the changing face of politics, and in particular at the impact of political correctness on the mood of the populous. Let’s look at this from the perspective of transactional analysis; the idea that human relationships work best when we behave as adults towards each other, respecting each other’s point of view and arguing rationally. When we go into ‘child’ mode, insisting on our own way and ignoring logic, relationships break down. The same happens when we assume ‘parent’ mode, scolding and lecturing the wayward child, rather than listening, adapting and calmly persuading. Politics has always had more than its share of children and parents, but we haven’t had to look very far to find the adults, and generally their voice has won through. If we apply this to current US politics, it isn’t hard to see the child. Donald Trump screams child in just about all his behaviour. It seems to me, though, that the establishment on both sides of the atlantic shouts ‘parent’ just as loudly, and is at least in part responsible for the current state of affairs. Recently the politically correct consensus has increasingly stifled debate and labelled dissenters as the detritus of

society. Those who oppose immigration are racist. Opponents of gay marriage are religious nutcases or homophobes. Those who oppose Project Europe are unenlightened Little Englanders. They aren’t worth talking to. There is no debate to be had; they are simply wrong. In other words, the politically correct act not as reasoning adults but as parents, scolding the unruly (and rather stupid) children. And the opponents of the establishment are forced more and more into child mode, and made to feel guilty. Sue Lyons has argued recently that, from a Freudian perspective, in Trump America has elected its own ‘id’, and that this is at least in part a reaction to the ‘super-ego’ of political correctness. The most revealing moment of the appalling US election campaign was not Trump’s ‘locker room’ tape or Clinton’s emails, but her ‘basket of deplorables’ comment. She was not condemning views, but people. Her statement was not an aberration; she was really, for once, speaking the truth as she sees it. Basically ‘if you disagree with us then you simply aren’t worth talking to. You’re a deplorable basket case. In fact you probably shouldn’t even be allowed to vote’. An American friend, a lifelong Democrat, told me that after Hillary’s miserable comment he found it really hard to vote for her. He did so in the end, but with a heavy heart, and only to keep Trump out. Turning to the Brexit referendum, it seems to me that the real villains here are not the much vilified Cameron (except, perhaps, for calling the referendum in the first place) or Corbyn. The angry parent here is the EU, or more particularly the cabal of unelected Eurocrats who micro-manage from their ivory tower in Brussels. They have behaved like angry scolding parents for years. On three occasions – Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty – voters initially rejected an EU accord. The EU’s answer? Listen? Change? No- simply wait a bit, apply pressure and put it to the people again. Nicola Sturgeon is following their dubious example. The stupid voters got it wrong the first time, so we will make them do it again. There are many, of course (Tony Blair is one) who would

like to do the same with the Brexit referendum. Their arguments completely miss the point. The voters didn’t necessarily get it wrong; they rarely do. Two of the brightest and most enlightened people I know voted for Brexit. They are not xenophobes or nationalists; they dislike intensely being lectured and bullied by Brussels. Brussels gave Cameron nothing of significance in the negotiations. Why should they? They are right, aren’t they, on everything of importance? The European Project must sail on, regardless of the disasters trailing in its wake. Greece found this to their cost following their bailout referendum in 2015. Perhaps the EU doesn’t really care if there are a couple of casualties along the road to political union, whatever that means. If anyone needs to ‘do it again’, it’s Brussels, not the UK voters. Do we really doubt that had they allowed us to limit immigration to those who already had an offer of a job then the referendum result would have been different? They won’t change their stance of course, and neither am I not optimistic about our chances of getting a good Brexit deal. Brussels needs to put us in our place. The errant child needs to be punished, not listened to, lest others should follow its wayward path. In the end I voted Remain, but rather like my American friend I did so without much conviction. I love Europe and Europeans. I think we need to look forward, engage with world problems and be part of the future. But I am appalled by the arrogance and insularity of the Brussels power-brokers. They have much to answer for, and if the EU does fall apart it will be they, not Farage, Le Pen and their allies who will be most responsible. If we are to avoid any further huge political shocks then the powerful need to stop treating those who disagree with them as idiot children who don’t know what’s good for them. Just because Trump or Greece or the UK or Scotland act like children, that is no excuse for the establishment to act as parents. They need to listen, and to consider the possibility that just occasionally they might be wrong. In future it would be helpful to do that before, not after disaster strikes.

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

Challenging the “ism” Timmy Pinnick

acism, sexism, classism and many other prejudices have been apparent in the world for as long as we have existed in it, and although we have made leaps and bounds towards a more equal society, are we still making progress, or are we instead choosing to ignore the atrocities taking place in the world? A third of the population with access to the internet actively uses Facebook. Others are engaged in Twitter, Instagram and similar applications. The number of users is ever increasing, hence these applications’ influence continues to rise. They recently updated their algorithms, which has resulted in selected viewing for the consumer. Their “news feeds” are now tailored to prioritise not only posts made by friends and family, but also, posts that the user would normally like. This update, although innovative, results in us becoming isolated from certain information, thus sheltered. This can, in turn, lead to

PREVIEW

certain issues that plague our world being lost from direct view. In my country, Nigeria, the topics of sexism and homophobia are often neglected because those around me do not want to “share” or speak of it. Rev. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela challenged racism in the latter half of the 20th century, and although that sped up the progress towards a world free from it, there is still work to be done. While the trials Nelason and King faced are now less apparent in our society, they still exist. When we teach about what they accomplished, we tend to distance ourselves from that time; despite the fact that these events happened not even 60 years ago. In some ways, we go so far as to idealise the present. This separation from this reality could result in some people believing that there is no longer a problem at all, hence leading to progression slowing down and in some places, the return to old habits. BBC studies have shown that racist acts in

the UK have been increasing since 2014. We can see this, not only in the comments made by individuals during Brexit, but also further away from us with the most recent Presidential Election. If we become less engaged with ending xenophobia, this will allow some individuals to feel more confident with expressing their discriminatory views. Many are now concerned with the “crisis of the feminazi”, but most of these individuals do not understand the proper definition of the coined term. As a result, many feminists are finding themselves radicalised and subject to mockery. Women have been given the vote, have been Prime Ministers and Presidents and CEOs. However, we are still facing basic discrimination in the workplace. Women are still paid less than men in 90% of sectors - but how can we make progress when many women who want change are ignored and passed over as ‘radicals’?

Change cannot occur when we are being nonchalant and dismissing the voice of progress. We need to use the technology, media and internet to be actively involved in ending prejudice worldwide. We cannot choose to ignore problems until they become a crisis. The shootings in America, the KKK, the gender gap and slandering of the LGBTQ community can all come to an end if we simply choose to be active. In order to come up with a proper defence against the “ism”, we all need to use the means at our disposal. If we stop, we halt progression and face letting the hard work of those who fought before us go to waste. Rev. Martin Luther King had “a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. He and many others started the war on discrimination, but it is us who must complete it.

PREVIEW

The Big Picture

Does the Media & Social Media drive terrorism? Nadine Greenhalgh

“Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle

dia has, without a doubt, caused an increase of attacks

mouthing look over there”- Randall Monroe.

globally. An example of this would be the constant

Is this the case for the symbiosis of terrorism and

that terrorists “must be eradicated from the face of the

effect on terrorism, nor does it act as a driving force for

Earth”. This is a sentiment shared by many in the West-

it. These people, in my view, are misguided. This does

ern world, but such statements do nothing but create an

not mean that they are completely wrong, but rather

‘us vs them’ mentality among potential terrorists. This

fail to see the evidence on the opposing side. There is

is one example of many comments made by Trump.

overwhelming proof that concurs that, in fact, the media

Another one of note would be “I would bomb the s***

does drive terrorism.

out of ‘em!” While his words may feel empowering to his threat, they will only cause the situation to be made

2012. All 60,000 attacks have been written about, one way

worse by increasing the motivation IS have to destroy

or another, in the New York Times. After his study, he

the Western world.

has come to the conclusion that terrorism has gradually

Aside from the traditional media, Professor Gabriel

increased and reached its zenith in 2012 - with 8,441

Weimann (University of Haifa) discovered that almost

attacks compared to only 1,395 attacks in 1998. But how

90% of terrorism on the internet is planned on social

does this proves causation?

media. Weimann suggests that terrorist organisations

My immediate response would suggest that this is

use social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook,

only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to proof of the

YouTube, and internet forums to purvey their messages

media unintentionally encouraging terrorist attacks. One

and recruit members. Western governments have been

set of data which I believe perfectly echoed this argu-

scrambling to suppress such extremist groups from

ment, would be the fact that one New York Times article,

spreading on social media, but with little success.

concerning an attack in one country, caused between

To end my review, I would like to share a quotation.

11% and 15% more attacks in that certain country.

This, I believe, perfectly portrays the causal links be-

been utilizing the media to boost their propaganda,

PREVIEW

supporters, who feel impotent against a rising terrorist

over 60,000 terrorist attacks between the years 1970-

There is no denying that terrorist organisations have

tweets made by President Donald Trump, who said

the media? Many would argue that the media has no

Michael Jetter, a professor in Medellín has analysed

Causation or Correlation

Discussion concerning terrorism within social me-

its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while

tween the media, social media and terrorism: “To summarise briefly on the symbiotic nature of the

though I do not believe journalists and their superiors to

relationship between terrorists and the media, the recent

be wittingly complicit in this. Perhaps some of you have

history of terrorism in many democratic countries viv-

seen the abhorrent footage of the beheadings posted

idly demonstrates that terrorists do thrive on the oxygen

by the Islamic State. The media was the source of these

of publicity, and it is foolish to deny this. This does not

horrendous deaths being viewed throughout every

mean that the established democratic media share the

continent. While most will react with disgust to these be-

values of the terrorists. It does demonstrate, however,

headings, there is a minority in our society who celebrate

that the free media in an open society are particularly

such actions and are inspired by these videos, showing

vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation by ruthless

the press to have a role in proliferating terrorist activity.

terrorist organisations.”

PREVIEW

Mr Neil Parker & Mr Mathew Owen

Across

1 Forget all Trump's 1 Forget all Trump's errors at the errors at the beginning - this is beginning - this is what we can look what we can look forward to (4) forward to (4) 3 One is a senior 3 One is a senior church figure (8) church figure (8) 9 Republican first9 Republican first enters Trump's enters Trump's small, final cabinet.small, final cabinet. A post that has A post that has been seen before been seen before (7) (7) 10 Strange dream:10 Americans are legally following the Second Amendment (5)

Strange dream: Americans are legally following the Second Amendment (5)

8 9

8 10

12 13

15 16

16 17

11 What a commander 11 What a commander does at a twenty does at a twenty 7 Peeress 7 Peeress and young comeback in the comeback in and young one gun salute? one gun the salute? politically strange politically strange fellow with happy fellow with happy (4,3,5) (4,3,5) times. (4) times. (4)ending (4) ending (4) 13 Plants one of the 13 Plants one of the 8 Athenian ails badly 8 Athenian ails badly Milibands in the Milibands in the Down Down after set-up: proof after set-up: proof midst of midst of of his character of his character 1 Predict calculations (6) calculations (6) F.Castro1toPredict F.Castro to (12) about (12) be distressed aboutbe distressed 15 Sci-fi weapon 15 Sci-fi weapon end of alliance (8) end of (8) 12alliance Uncertainties a12 Uncertainties a reported to be reported to be French knight French knight 2 NATO talks created by created2 by NATO talks possesses about possesses about President (6) Presidentinclude (6) final include final end of election (8) end of election (8) number (5) number (5) 17 Maintain OPEC 17 Maintain OPEC 14 14 Start of devolution Start of devolution out of order in out of 4order in Assembly4 Welsh Assembly Welsh managed badly: managed badly: lifting controls (12)lifting controls member(12) embraces member embraces north new article new article - is forced out north is forced out 20 Follow endlessly 20 Follow endlessly andtoinstand a bad way and in a bad way something to standsomething crazy orthodoxy (5)crazy orthodoxy (5) (7) (7) up for! (6) up for! (6) 21 Inital muddle at21theInital muddle at the 16 16 Laid back about Laid back about 5 Date they plan 5 Date they plan opening of opening of security measure security measure terribly for the terribly for the Westminster's bookWestminster's book ultimate sanction ultimate initially, sanction but it's initially, but it's (7) (7) really bad (6) (5,7) (5,7) really bad (6) 22 Ministry of 22 Ministry of 18 of 18 Choir stirred the Choir stirred the 6 Keeper of the keys 6 Keeper the keys Defence associatedDefence associated blood of the gods blood of the gods goes up for goes up for with strange style, with strange style, (5) (5) identification identification in an understated in an understated badge (4,3) badge19(4,3) 19 Eden's man is an Eden's man is an way (8) way (8) obstruction (4) obstruction (4) 23 Creative skills 23 on Creative skills on

The Preview Team, Caterham School, Harestone Valley Road, Caterham Surrey CR3 6YA Telephone: 01883 343028 Email: enquiries@caterhamschool.co.uk www.caterhamschool.co.uk