828

Page 1

THE NAB: ONE BEIJING TO RULE THEM ALL, ONE BEIJING TO BIND THEM

Beaver Issue 828 | 17.02.15

the

newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

50 Years On: When Malcolm X Spoke at LSE

Rayhan Uddin LSESU Democracy Committee

“contrary to what was previously insinuated in The Beaver, this doesn’t mean it is a secret”. The spokesperson stressed that “the money does not come from the Chinese state” In October 2014, The Beaver ran an interview with the journalist and LSE alumnus John Sweeney, who produced the documentary ‘North Korea Undercover’ after accompanying LSE students on a trip organised by the Grimshaw International Relations club in April 2013.

ON THIS DAY 50 YEARS AGO, human rights activist Malcolm X delivered a talk to LSE students in the Old Theatre. Invited by the Africa Society, Malcolm addressed the topic of ‘the relationship between the African states today and the Black Muslim movement’. The event was part of his tour of Africa and Europe which took place from late 1964 to early 1965, and included academic institutions such as Oxford University and the University of Ghana. The talk on February 11th 1965 at LSE was one of Malcolm X’s last ever public addresses. He was assassinated 10 days later in New York City. The full content of Malcolm X’s speech at LSE can be read on page 9. Speaking on the conflict which occurred in Congo during its decolonisation from Belgian rule, Malcolm notes “If you recall reading in the paper, they never talked about the Congolese who were being slaughtered. But as soon as a few whites, the lives of a few whites were at stake, they began to speak of ‘white hostages’, ‘white missionaries’, ‘white priests’, ‘white nuns’—as if a white life, one white life, was of such greater value than a Black life, than a thousand Black lives.” Such rhetoric will no doubt resonate with many today, not least within the ‘Black Lives Matter’ campaign which formed in response to the deaths of unarmed black Americans at the hands of white police officers. More recently, it also strikes a chord with the ‘Nigerian Lives Matter’ movement which rallied in response to the lack of media publicity of over 2000 Nigerians killed by Boko Haram, in comparison to the media response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre which killed 12 people in Paris.

Continued page 2

Continued page 9

Hague Against the Machine: Hollywood actress and Special Envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Angelina Jolie joined former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague last week to launch a new centre for the study of violence against women in war zones. News, page 5

LSE China Programme Funded by Mining Giant • BHP Billiton Funds Civil Servant Training Scheme • Chinese state pays over £850 000 for Confucius Institute Jon Allsop, Executive Editor Mike Pearson, Staff Writer

THE EXECUTIVE PUBLIC Policy Training Programme (EPPTP), an LSE hosted centre training “senior Chinese government officials” is paid for by BHP Billiton, an Australian-based multinational mining and petroleum company, according to freedom of information requests (FOIs) seen by The Beaver. It has also emerged that the LSE has received over £850 000 to

date from the Chinese government to fund its Confucius Centre. For their role in running the EPPTP, which is based at the University of Peking and run jointly by the LSE, Columbia University and Sciences Po Paris, LSE receives US$33 000 a year from BHP Billiton, an Anglo-Australian firm which is one of the highest earning mining companies in the world. BHP Billiton has recently been striving to develop close ties with China. In December 2014, after announcing the shipment of the one billionth tonne of iron ore to the

country, Chief Executive Andrew Mackenzie said that “China is of immense importance to BHP Billiton and to Australia” and that the company “always strives to develop closer ties to China”. An article from the Financial Times written last June, meanwhile, argued that the company has been “pin(ning) its hopes on China’s energy demand”. An LSE spokesperson admitted that the BHP Billiton funding is “so small it doesn’t show up as a particular budget line in the School’s Annual Accounts” but argued that

Comment Features

LSESU Tibet Soc President on China Interview with David Blunkett Page 11 Page 30


Beaver Special Report

Tuesday February 17, 2015

2

the

Beaver LSE Receives $33 000 From BHP Billiton for EPPTP and £850 000 from Chinese State for Confucius Centre

Issue No. 828, Tuesday 17 February 2015 tinyurl.com/beaver828 www.beaveronline.co.uk, @beaveronline

Executive Editor Jon Allsop

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Alexander Fyfe

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Megan Crockett Mahatir Pasha

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editors Ellen Wilkie

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Jade Jackman Vikki Hui

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Mika Morissette

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editors Liam Hill George Harrison

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor Robin Park

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Design Editor Liam Hill

design@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Leen Aghabi

web@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Dorothy Wong

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Badwe, A Fraser, A Fyfe, A Howells, A Leung, A Lulache, A Qazilbash, A Santhanham, A Thomson, B Mehta, B Phillips, C Azizuddin, C Holden, C Hulm, C Morgan, C Naschert, D Hung, D Sippel, D Tighe, D Wong, E Wilkie, G Greenwood, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G Manners-Armstrong, G Rosser, H Prabu, H Toms, I Mosselmans, J Allsop, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Jackman, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wacket, K Budd, K Kalaichelvan, K Owusu, K Parida, L Hill, L Schofield, L van der Linden, L Weigold, M Akram, M Banerjee-Palmer, M Brien, M Crockett, M Domenech Ensenat, M Jaganmohan, M Malik, M Morissette, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pearson, M Pennill, M Petrocheilos, M Rakus, M Rakus, M Warbis, N Buckley-Irvine, O Hill, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, R Ahlawat, R J Charnock, R Chouglay, R Chua, R Huq, R O’Rourke, R Park, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Soni, R Uddin, R Watt, S Ash, S Barnett, S Donszelmann, S Haynes, S Povey, S Richards, S Sebatindira, S Thandi, T Maksymiw, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod. We have elections coming up, so we have updated the Collective. If you have been wrongly taken off the list, or you think your name should be on the list and is not, email collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk. You need to have written just three times of the print edition of The Beaver to qualify. Any opinions expressed herein are those of their respective authors and not necessarily those of the LSE Students’ Union or Beaver Editorial Staff.

The Beaver is issued under a Creative Commons license. Attribution necessary. Printed at Mortons Printing

Continued from page 1 In the interview Mr Sweeney criticised LSE for its opaqueness on the funding of the EPPTP, claiming that “nobody knows how much it is” and asking “what do they (the EPPTP) teach them: how to crack down on a demonstration in Hong Kong?”. In response to the revelation about BHP Billiton’s involvement, Sweeney told The Beaver “I’m concerned why the LSE runs a programme teaching Chinese government officials and why that’s funded by BHP Billiton for a pitiful $33,000. I suspect this figure masks a more complex picture, of the LSE getting more cash for promoting Chinese soft power with the mining conglomerate some kind of go-between. None of this feels right.” The same Freedom of Information request seen by The Beaver also reveals that the LSE has received £863,537.91 to date from the Chinese government for the hosting of its Confucius Institute. Confucius Institutes are run by Hanban, an arm of the Chinese government, which largely sets their curricula and selects their staff. The Confucius Institute for Business London (CIBL) is hosted by LSE and is one of 25 such institutions in the UK. It describes its aims as “promoting Chinese business to the local community and fostering greater understanding of Chinese language and business culture”. The revelations about the Confucius Institute funding are being published just days after the LSE Students’ Union voted by 338-30 to lobby the School to revise its Ethics Code, which

was revealed in The Beaver three weeks ago to have been ‘streamlined’ in a process removing specific obligations to consider human rights when making and receiving investments. The seconder of the motion, Ellen Lees, President of the LSESU Tibet Society, spoke about lobbying the LSE to end its funding from the Chinese government on the basis of its dubious human rights record. In a Comment piece for this week’s Beaver (see page 13), Lees writes that “last Friday, a motion was passed calling on the SU to lobby the school to improve our Ethics Code. This is an important first step in protecting our campus from Chinese Communist Party propaganda, and encouraging decision makers at LSE to disassociate ourselves from the CI programme which has caused so much controversy around the world.” Lees independently told The Beaver that confusion surrounds the contract for the Confucius Institute, specifically with regards to whether it is rooted in Chinese or English commercial law. She added her concerns that the agreement setting up the Institute is subject to a confidentiality agreement. 400 Confucius Institutes exist across the world, with the institutions criticised by senior politicians and academics. The American Association of University Professors wrote in a recent report that they function as an arm of the Chinese state and are “allowed to ignore academic freedom”. The prominent US anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, meanwhile, has voiced similar concerns about the control of the Institutes in America by the Chinese government. An LSE spokesperson told The Beaver that “At the CIBL, which has a specific focus on business language, we have never experienced any attempts to stifle discussion or inquiry. We have been able to invite a wide range of internationally renowned business experts from China and the rest of the world, who have been able to discuss openly the positives and negatives of China’s growing financial power. As LSE specialises in, among other subjects, the study of human rights and international relations, it is important that there is freedom to accommodate critics of any regime, and the School has hosted a wide spectrum of speakers on the subject of China.”

Donations exceeding £10 Name

£100,000 to £200,000

Date

Amount

25/11/11

£112,464

Dr Frederik Paulsen Foundation 30/11/11

£150,000

Dr. Paul Woolley

27/10/11

£106,667

Dr. Paul Woolley

11/07/13

£200,000

Emirates Foundation

03/02/14

£109,000

Health Foundation

01/08/11

£115,000

11/05/12

£135,000

21/01/14

£135,000

02/07/12

£100,000

Mr. Andreas N. Hadjiyiannis

28/10/13

£100,000

Mr. Aristotelis Mistakidis

25/07/12

£160,215

Mr. Emmanuel Roman

15/03/12

£149,200

Mr. Emmanuel Roman

22/05/13

£150,000

Mr. Emmanuel Roman

30/04/14

£150,000

Mr. James Anderson

21/05/14

£100,000

Mr. Mark E Denning

24/07/13

£100,000

Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou

01/05/12

£173,565

Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou

17/12/12

£186,180

Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou

27/11/13

£179,340

Standard Bank - UK

16/11/12

£193,824

Standard Chartered Plc

01/10/11

£156,926

The MacArthur Foundation

14/03/14

£120,128

The Wolfson Foundation

31/10/11

£100,000

The Wolfson Foundation

31/07/14

£100,000

Yayasan Albukhary

12/09/11

£200,000

Academy of Korean Studies Deutsche Bank AG

Kadas Family Charitable Foundation Kadas Family Charitable Foundation Mr. Andreas N. Hadjiyiannis

01/12/11

£160,455

These tables are reproduced exactly from Freedom of Informa the China funding revelations, as they come from a separa

LSESU Overwhelmingly V ‘Streamlined’ Ethics Code a Liam Hill Features Editor TWO MOTIONS HAVE been passed at the Union General Meeting (UGM) endorsing a policy that mandates the LSESU to campaign for LSE to divest from fossil fuels and to campaign for LSE to revise its ethics code. The first motion, proposed by Noelie Audi-Dor and seconded by LSESU Community and Welfare Officer Sebastian Bruhn, resolves to mandate the Students’ Union to “officially support the

Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign, as well as to lobby for various other changes to school structure and policy. The motion was passed by a large majority, with 432 voting in favour, 36 again and 30 undecided. The second motion, proposed by LSESU Environment and Ethics Officer Nadia Raslan and seconded by Ellen Lees, concerned LSE’s revision of its ethics code, and is story which was front page news in The Beaver three weeks ago. The motion resolves to mandate the Sabbatical Officers to campaign


3

China and Kuwait Funding

Tuesday February 17, 2015

School Gets £1.7 million from Kuwait Since 2011, But No 2013 Payment

00,000 since August 2011 Name

£200,000+

Deutsche Bank AG Deutsche Bank AG Dr. Paul Woolley Dr. Paul Woolley Dr. Paul Woolley Emirates Foundation Emirates Foundation Garfield Weston Foundation Goldman Sachs Gives Mr. Bill Bottriell Mr. William L Simpson Professor Ronald H Coase Professor Swee Hock Saw Professor Swee Hock Saw Professor Swee Hock Saw Professor Swee Hock Saw Professor Swee Hock Saw Standard Bank - UK Stiftung Mercator

Date

17/12/12 24/02/14 01/10/12 11/07/13 17/06/14 20/12/11 03/12/13 30/03/12 11/11/13 24/01/13 08/04/14 12/05/14 29/05/13 15/05/14 10/06/14 11/06/14 12/06/14 27/01/14 05/12/12

Amount £234,736 £246,736 £226,667 £200,000 £320,000 £394,988 £400,000 £250,000 £540,000 £338,744 £583,422 £293,453 £500,000 £400,000 £350,000 £300,000 £350,000 £225,160 £260,361

The Andrew W Mellon The Kuwait Foundation The Kuwait Foundation The Kuwait Foundation The Kuwait Foundation The Kuwait Foundation The Kuwait Foundation

19/12/12 12/09/11 12/09/11 05/09/12 05/09/12 08/04/14 08/04/14

£550,418 £239,150 £330,000 £230,000 £339,150 £239,150 £330,000

The Lees Charitable Foundation

02/04/12

£375,000

ation Requests submitted by The Beaver. They do not contain ate FOI seen by The Beaver but submitted by a third party.

Votes To Lobby School on and Fossil Fuel Divestment to re-instate clauses relating to human rights, anti-bribery, student and parents donations and sustainability into the Ethics Code. The ethics code motion was passed by 338 votes in favour to 30 against, with a further 15 voters undecided. Aysha al-Fekaiki, who headed

up the Ethics code campaign, told The Beaver “It’s a testament to the meaning and the outcome of teamwork. This has truly laid the foundations for building a stronger and bigger campaign to ensure that LSE only invests in ethical investments in the future.”

• 2013 funding absence coincides with cancelled London conference • Kuwait Programme rolled into Middle East Centre after Ulrichsen departure Jon Allsop, Executive Editor Mike Pearson, Staff Writer AN ORGANISATION CHAIRED by the Head of State of Kuwait has donated at least £1.7m to the LSE since December 2011, a Freedom of Information request has shown. Emir Al-Sabah’s organisation, the Kuwait Foundation, has donated approximately £560,000 on three occasions to the LSE over a three period; in December 2011, December 2012 and April 2014. The notable absence of funding in 2013 coincides with the cancellation of an LSE cohosted conference in London on 25-26 March of that year. The Gulf-focused information portal and political risk consultancy, Gulf States News, wrote in 2013, “GSN was told KFAS [the Kuwait Foundation] sent LSE a letter on 13 March saying the “timing is not right” for such a conference. Two days of debate followed; then the anodyne cancellation announcement. “Conference organisers were dismayed at the decision, which they saw as highly damaging to the Kuwait Programme’s credibility. They wanted LSE to either continue without KFAS, or at least issue a statement rejecting such interference.” Gulf States News also claimed that the cancellation of the conference was due to “the withdrawal of sponsorship from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS).” The controversy came a month after the then-LSE academic Kristian Coates Ulrichsen was denied from entering the United Arab Emirates for a different conference. The LSE subsequently issued a statement saying, “the decision was made in response to restrictions imposed on the intellectual content of the event that threatened academic freedom.” Ulrichsen told The Beaver that his being denied entry to

Dubai “had nothing whatsoever to do with Kuwait or the Kuwait Programme”, and was attributable to critical remarks he made about Bahrain. In 2007, the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences pledged to donate £5.7 million to the LSE over a ten-year period, in a deal which led to the establishment of the Kuwait Research Programme at LSE. The closure of the LSE Global Governance Institute under Professor David Held led to the Kuwait Programme moving to the LSE Middle East Centre. The Middle East Centre subsequently appointed Toby Dodge as Director following the departure of Fawaz Gerges in 2013 from the Centre. Professor Dodge is also Director of the Kuwait Programme at LSE. Ulrichsen told The Beaver that “the Middle East Centre is the natural home for the Program and I wish the move had happened in 2011 after the dissolution of LSE Global Governance.” He added that “under my leadership and also under Toby’s, the Kuwait Program has developed a reputation for very robust research that is hardly favorable to the funder -- you only have to take a look at the recent speakers that the program has hosted to see that they all are very critical of current trends in the Gulf and Kuwait.” According to the Kuwait Foundation website, “The purpose of this agreement is to establish a prestigious multidisciplinary global programme of mutual benefit to both sides, on issues of importance to Kuwait and the Gulf region. These issues will include development, governance and globalization in both political and economic aspects. “LSE maintains close links with government and other bodies. Many of its staff is [sic] actively engaged in policy development through membership of advisory bodies such as the Monetary Policy Commit-

tee, Low Pay Commission and the Press Complaints Commission.” The Kuwait Foundation receives its funding from financial contributions by the Kuwaiti Shareholding Companies, amounting to 1% of net annual profit. Between the period of December 2011 and August 2014, the Kuwait Foundation donated at least £1,710,450 to the LSE. Other Gulf nations are also known to donate to the LSE. The Freedom of Information request shows that the Emirates Foundation, an organization set up by the Government of Abu Dhabi, has donated at least £903,988 since December 2011. Prior to March 2013, the LSE had received at least £5.6 million from the foundation. The Kuwait Programme at LSE is scheduled to last until 2017. A School spokesperson said that “The research programme, ‘The Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States’, focuses on topics such as globalisation and the repositioning of the Gulf States in the global order, capital flows, and patterns of trade; specific challenges facing carbon and resource-rich economic development; diversification, educational and human capital development into post-oil political economies; and the future of regional security structures in the post-Arab Spring environment. 'The programme offers open and competitive research calls within LSE, a working paper series, produces cuttingedge original research on the Gulf, supports post-doctoral researchers and PhD students, and develops academic networks between LSE and Gulf institutions. “The Kuwait Programme is subject to triennial reviews at which time either party can elect to curtail or terminate the programme.”


News In Brief Energy Efficiency and High Rise Housing: an LSE Report RESIDENTS OF A HIGH RISE estate in West London experienced a significant improvement in their quality of life following energy efficiency refurbishments, according to new LSE research. LSE Housing and Communities, in partnership with Rockwool, launched High Rise Hope Revisited on February 12 2015, a new report examining the social implications of whole building energy efficiency refurbishments in residential tower blocks. Based on research conducted at the Edward Woods estate in Shepherds Bush, London, the report finds that upgrading work carried out across 754 flats in three 23-storey tower blocks has enhanced the quality of life and living conditions for residents, with aesthetic improvements instilling a sense of pride within the community.

‘Nurture’ More Important than ‘Nature’ for Overweight Kids PARENTS’ LIFESTYLES, RATHER than their genes, are primarily responsible for their children being overweight according to research by the Centre for Economic Performance, based at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Researchers compared the weight of biological and adopted children to that of their parents to determine whether children inherit their weight problems or whether they are the result of the environment they grow up in. They found that when both adoptive parents are overweight, the likelihood of an adopted child being overweight is up to 21 per cent higher than when the parents are not overweight. Because these children are adopted their weight problems can be largely attributed to their parents’ lifestyles rather than their genes.

Coalition Keeps Schools Promises A NEW REPORT, FROM LSE AND the University of Manchester, provides a comprehensive independent assessment of the Coalition’s record on schools. The paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Nuffield Foundation and Trust for London, provides clear evidence designed to help voters assess the Coalition’s successes and failures and identify key challenges facing the next government elected on May 7. The analysis shows that the Coalition kept its promise to protect school spending – which rose by 1% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2013/14. The Pupil Premium, given to schools for the most disadvantaged students, delivered a real increase in funding to schools with the poorest intakes.

Tuesday February 17, 2015

4

LSESU Feminist Society Hosts Anti-Harassment ‘Call it Out’ Lena Schofield LSESU FemSoc Vice-President LASTWEEKTHESTUDENTS’ Union (SU) Feminist Society (FemSoc) put on several events for our ‘Call It Out Week’, around the theme of anti-harassment. The goal of the week was to raise awareness about issues of harassment based on race, gender, and sexuality; and the ways in which these intersect. The events focused on issues such as sexual harassment and consent, the issues facing asylum seekers, and police harassment. Everyday last week the FemSoc committee was out on Houghton Street encouraging students to sign a petition to get the London School of Economics (LSE) to more effectively combat sexual harassment on campus. On Monday 2nd February

the National Union of Students (NUS) Women’s Officer Susuana Antubam joined FemSoc to run a consent workshop which covered the basics of consent culture as well as dispelling common myths about rape. Later that night there was an event co-hosted by FemSoc and Movement for Justice, a panel discussion entitled ‘Gender, LGBT rights, and Immigration’ to explore and discuss the LGBT and gender issues surrounding the treatment of immigrants held in detention centres, and share the experiences of those that have felt this firsthand. The panel were joined by Antonia Bright, chair of Movement for Justice, as well as others that have had direct experience of UK immigration detention centres. Tuesday saw FemSoc host a Police Monitoring Workshop with the Community Monitoring

Project for a lesson in monitoring police action that is excessive or discriminatory. The workshop informed students what their rights are with regards to the police, and how they could monitor police action that is excessive or discriminatory in their community. The following night FemSoc held a workshop led by a member of the London Campaign against Police and State Violence (LCAPSV), to spread information about Police stop and searches, your legal rights if you are stopped and searched, what to do if you are arrested, and how to fight back if you or someone you know is subjected to this form of police intimidation and control. Attendees learned about the extent of police stop and searches, and racist police practices in London. The Feminist Society’s BME Officer, Azita Chellappoo, who

organised the event said that, “As an intersectional feminist, I feel it’s so important to keep talking about race and racism in feminist spaces. Police stop and searches may not affect you personally, but it is a really destructive presence in the lives of women of colour, and our fathers and brothers and uncles and cousins. We can only build momentum in the movement against police violence if everybody gets involved, not just those it directly affects.” Thursday 5th saw FemSoc host an event with Sex Worker Open University which covered the present laws on sex work, and how their limitations influence the labour conditions of workers themselves. The event touched on some harmful tropes about sex work and the stigma society often places on sex workers. Audio of the event is available on the Femsoc facebook group. Femsoc was able to put on such a range of successful events for Call it Out Week thanks to the hard work and creative thinking of the committee and with help from the SU with promotion. The committee came up with so many ideas that there were actually a lot of events last week too, such as a screening of ‘Dear White People’, Women’s Officer Gee’s stall on Houghton Street, Valentine’s Day, and our production of The Vagina Monologues.

Judith Butler Addresses LSE on Human Shielding Questions Mercedes Doménech Enseñat, Staff Writer LSE’S MOST AWAITED PUBLIC lecture, given by globally acclaimed Professor Judith Butler, saw students from all degrees and disciplines queue outside the Old Theatre for hours. The lecture, which explored the concepts of embodiment and human shields in war techniques, was the kick off for a series of public lectures sponsored by the London Review of International Law, LSE Law and Oxford University Press. Students and visitors started queuing outside the Old Theatre from 14.00, and by the time the venue closed its doors several other rooms had been provided with streaming screens to accommodate the large amount of students who couldn’t get a seat in the theatre.

The lecture lasted one and a half hour of intense discussion of human shielding, with particular examples from the events in Ferguson, Israel and Gaza. The

lecture was received with much excitement from all attendees, both from the staff and student bodies. A podcast of the lecture is

now available online at LSE’s website, and the full transcript will be published in the next issue of the London Review of International Law.


5

News

Tuesday February 17, 2015

A Taste of What’s To Come? Politics and Forum Free Speech Debate Mahatir Pasha News Editor THE LSESU POLITICS AND Forum Society hosted one of their popular ‘Question Time’ events on Free Speech on the LSE campus on Tuesday this week. The events timing was welcomed by many amid international concerns raised around free speech, triggered by the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January that left 12 people dead. An LSESU Politics and Forum Society representative expressed satisfaction with the event and said, “we had a small, intimate discussion on one of the major aspects of university life and by extension wider society. Our panel, though diverse in views, agreed on some of the fundamental principles which gives us hope that students can exemplify social interactions that respect free speech and human dignity.” The diverse panel included Jon Allsop, Editor of the LSESU newspaper, The Beaver, Maria

Angela Cannatella, Head of Programming at PuLSE Radio, Omar Begg, Postgraduate law student and activist, as well as the Assistant Editor for Spiked Magazine, Tom Slater. Jamil Mustafa of the LSESU Debating Society chaired the event. The debate lasted for around an hour and a quarter and the panelists discussed three main questions before the audience questioned them directly. The main questions were, Is absolute

freedom of speech liberating? Should all ideas be up for debate in a university? And Is the new Counter-terrorism and Security Bill going to infringe on Muslim students’ free speech? There was a general consensus at the end of the event that free speech is an important right and whilst there were differing opinions expressed throughout the night, generally the panelists agreed with one another. Jon Allsop, Editor for The Beaver summed up, “Free

speech and surrounding questions are always relevant… It was refreshing that four panelists from completely different backgrounds and from different points of the political spectrum could come together to reaffirm the importance of free speech, which remains one of the fundamental principles on which we build the progressive society.” This article was originally written for the London Student

Angelina Jolie and William Hague Open New LSE Centre Kallum Pearmain Staff Writer SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE UNITED Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Angelina Jolie and former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague were on campus on Tuesday to open a new academic centre for the study of violence against women in warzones. According to The Guardian the new LSE ‘centre on women, peace and security’ will seek to ‘boost global campaigns for women’s rights’ and combat sexual violence against women in areas of conflict. Ms Jolie was reported as saying “I am excited at the thought of all the students in years to come who will study in this new Centre. There is no stable future for a world in which crimes committed against women go unpunished. We need the next generation of educated youth with inquisitive minds and fresh energy, who are willing not only to sit in the classroom but to go out into the field and the courtrooms and to make a decisive difference.”

The new centre will be headed by LSE Law Professor Christine Chinkin from within the LSE Institute of Global Affairs. Professor Chinkin, who said she was “honoured to be the inaugural Director of such a ground-breaking initiative” was present at the launch, alongside LSE Director Professor Craig Calhoun. Calhoun said “This Centre is a remarkable opportunity for us to bring together academic and policy experts and those in the front line of tackling violence against women. LSE has always had at the heart of its mission the goal of translating education – research and teaching – into solving real-world problems. This new initiative represents precisely that aim. I am delighted to have worked with William Hague and Angelina Jolie Pitt in bringing this project together, and I am very excited about the possibilities it brings.” An LSE spokesperson told The Beaver that the new centre has received messages of support from US Secretary of State John Kerry and his immediate predecessor, and likely Democratic presidential frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

London Uni Round-up KING’S WILL DESTROY ICONIC Strand buildings as part of a multimillion pound redevelopment project designed to hold 2,600 more students - but still have to face fierce opposition over planning permission. The plans involve knocking through the first two floors of the Strand Building to fit a floor-to-ceiling glass frontage, building a huge tower next to the Strand Building, laying a glass floor on the currently tarmacked Quad and opening an Embankment entrance. The College said they “won’t know” the project’s cost until April – but it is thought to be at least £20m, with College sources quoting figures up to £100m.

AROUND 50 STUDENTS FROM Fossil Free UCL staged a ‘love in’ protest outside a UCL Council meeting on Wednesday afternoon. Following the large-scale ‘die in’ that took place in November, UCL Fossil Free launched the next stage of their campaign against UCL’s alleged investments of £14.4 million in the fossil fuel industry. Protesters adhered to the Valentine’s Day theme by wearing broken heart placards on this occasion. The placards urged UCL to ‘Stop Breaking My Heart’ and ‘Hook Up With Renewables Instead’.

THE DOWNTON ABBEY CREATOR Julian Fellowes, visited Imperial College on Friday 6th February for a tour of the research labs. He also met with the College President, Professor Alice Gast. The tour finished with a trip out on Jezebel, the RCSU’s fire engine mascot, who appeared in Downton Abbey last September. Lord Fellowes and his wife visited South Kensington last Friday, where they visited the Royal British Legion Centre for Blast Injury Studies. The Centre is run as collaboration between military and civilian scientists into the reduction and treatment of injuries caused by blast waves, such as those produced by IEDs or landmines.


News

Tuesday February 17, 2015

6

Students in UK’s Cheapest Cities Losing Out Kanan Parida Deputy News Editor STUDIES CONDUCTED BY StuRents.com have revealed that students in the cheapest cities in the UK are paying huge premiums on accommodation. Students are paying up to 36 percent higher than non-students in the same areas, such as in Loughborough. Though many students are faced with extremely high accommodation

costs in London, the study shows that students pay, on average, 32.4 percent less than non-students. In fact in the South of the United Kingdom- in areas like Oxford, Reading and Londonstudents enjoy accommodation at a discount as compared to locals. In London, students pay an average of £202.40 per person per week, as compared to non-students who pay on average, £299.40 per person per week to live in the same areas.

Nevertheless, though accommodation is relatively cheaper for students in London, in absolute terms it is still one of the most expensive places to live for students. More so, student accommodation prices aren’t falling as in the housing market. With an increasing demand for accommodation by students, prices have risen by 25 percent since 2004, and the trend shows an expected increase in the years to come. University accommodation on average in

London costs £166.60, with private accommodation costing even more. However, the cost of living in northern or midlandsbased cities was the highest in comparison to local costs- with Durham and Lincoln coming second and third, respectivelyas the most expensive cities in the UK. Moreover, the ten most expensive cities were all in the Northern half of the United Kingdom. Tom Walker, cofounder of StuRents.com com-

mented, “In towns and cities where the mainstream rental market suffers from upwards pressure as a result of a burgeoning demand from young professionals and out-of-reach house prices, the student rental sector seems to trade at a discount to the market average”. Hence, though students in London may have to pay more than most students, on average, they are generally offered a discount as compared to non-students in the city.

John Woodcock MP Gives Candid Talk on Mental Health During Time to Talk Week Liam Hill Features Editor ON TUESDAY 10TH, LSESU Labour hosted ‘Politics and Mental Health’, an event involving a conversation with Labour MP Jon Woodcock, who spoke about his own experiences of problems around mental health and about mental health as a public policy issue, and about the Labour party’s

approach to mental health. Woodcock, the MP for Barrow and Furness, spoke frankly about his own previous mental health experiences, and use of anti-depressants at various times throughout his life, during his first year at university and after the death of his sister. Most recently, Woodcock suffered from depression after recovering from concussion suffered in 2012. Climbing into his attic, the “ladder gave way, and my feet

were 8 foot off the ground… I fell cleanly and smacked my head on a wooden block… I had prolonged concussion, which lasted a two full years.” Woodcock admitted that mental health had not been a focus for him until this incident: “Mental health is an area that, frankly, I hadn’t paid a great deal of attention to since I became an MP.” He added: “It’s not something that ever really crossed my mind.” Woodcock said he had taken

inspiration from fellow MPs Kevin Jones and Charles Walker, as well as former Director of Communications Alastair Campbell, who had all previously spoken publicly about their own experiences with mental health problems. “The only reason I could speak privately [to a doctor about mental health] was because other people had spoken our publicly, so I thought I should speak out publicly too.” “One of my concerns was,” he elaborated, “that I would become ‘the depressed MP’ and no-one would be interested in anything I had to say apart from depression, but that hasn’t happened… I’ve continued to be concerned about what’s happening in the Middle East, about manufacturing.” In terms of public policy, Woodcock spoke about the need to integrate physical and mental healthcare provision. “There are so many instances of people who need psychiatry or cognitive behaviour therapy who end up waiting months and months on waiting lists,” he said. He also said that the “terrible lack of children’s services” would also need to be addressed by a future Labour government. Woodcock also spoke about the power and importance of talking about mental health. Referring to his own decision to admit to his depression, he said: “If I believe what we all that we should treat mental health conditions in the same way we treat physical conditions, I should be prepared to talk about it.” Events like this “do make a difference,” Woodcock said: “Simply talking about it does have a tangible benefit.” LSESU Labour and Co-Operative Society Chair Samantha Jury-Dada told The Beaver: “It was fantastic to have John Woodcock MP join us for an honest and open discussion about men-

tal health. Having someone like John, who is in the public eye, be so frank about his personal experiences with depression, makes it much easier for others to have the same conversations and takes away the stigma associated with getting help. Jury-Dada added: “The Labour Party has already committed to a radical overhaul of current mental health provision with a particular focus on young people, early intervention and provision of services.” Disabled Students’ Officer Mark Malik told The Beaver: “It was great to hear an MP talk about his mental health problems and how his coming forward helped many of his constituents come to terms with their own mental health problems. “But the fact that we are talking about talking about mental health demonstrates how stigma is still a big problem. There has been a lot of progress in the last few years, but there is a long way to go. The more we all talk about mental health, the sooner we can banish the stigma.” Malik has also interviewed Conservative MP for Broxbourne Charles Walker, who spoke to the LSESU Disabled Students’ Officer about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which Walker admitted to suffering from during a debate about mental health in parliament in 2012, at which Labour MP for North Durham Kevan Jones also spoke about having suffered from depression in the 1990s. Walker’s interview with Malik was organised by LSESU, specifically by Education Officer Tom Maksymiw, as part of the Students’ Union’s voter registration drive, which coincided with Time To Talk. Another interview, this time with Jon Woodcock himself, conducted by Malik, will be released on Friday.


7

News

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Former Diplomat Roderic Lyne Addresses Grimshaw Society Julia Slupska LSESU Grimshaw Society SIR RODERIC LYNE, FORMER diplomat, ambassador, and Vice Chairman at Chatham House, gave an entertaining, insightful and very timely (considering Minsk 2) talk on Russia for the Grimshaw Club last Friday. The talk covered the past thirty years of Russia’s foreign relations through the lense of Lyne’s long and colorful diplomatic career – he described fascinating moments moments from the past like finding as a small jazz bar in Lithuania before the fall of the Soviet Union or mushroom picking with former defense ministers. His talk concentrated on the successes and failures of Western diplomacy towards Russia, starting with the hopeful breakthroughs of the 90s, when Russia joined the WTO and Boris Yelstin attended EU summits. However, he said, there was a tendency in the West to under appreciate the challenges Russia faced from losing great power status from one day to the next. After all, many observers note that it took several decades for the UK to adjust to losing its own empire – adjusting to such a change overnight is impossible. Instead, various actions like the NATO bombing in the Bosnian war fed into

Russian feelings of encirclement. Similarly, Lyne listed the Membership Action Plan at the NATO Bucharest summit as “the most obvious example of messy diplomacy” he had ever seen. The USA listing Ukraine and Georgia as future NATO members did not make strategic sense and went against the intentions of NATO allies – this led directly to the invasion of Georgia and bolstered Putin’s narrative of encirclement and victimization. Instead, Lyne believes NATO should have concentrated on losing its stigma in Russia by, for example, changing its name which has a negative resonance. Yet inaction in the face of violations of the ceasefire in Georgia was equally dangerous, leading Putin to believe future transgressions would go similarly unpunished. Regarding the current situation, Lyne is worried that the Russian system is becoming more authoritarian and more oppressive. Putin is developing Russia’s military rather than it’s economy – the opposite of what he promised ten years ago. The relationship with China is inflated in Russian rhetoric and cannot be a substitute for the relationship with Europe because the Chinese take advantage of Russia’s weakness. In fact, when Lyne spoke with a former Russian head of

armed forces and asked him what the biggest threat facing Russia was, he answered not NATO, or the rise of Islamic extremism, but just “China.” Yet Putin is concentrating on his Western neighborhood; he clearly believes that losing control of it is an existential matter. Yet his conceptual framework is short-term and focused on keeping himself in power rather than Russia’s long-term interests. He needs to appear victorious at home to maintain domestic support. Lyne

believes this will lead to the dissolution of Putin’s regime. However European diplomacy needs to adapt to the current regime – and handing out concessions would be the worst reaction. According to Lyne,“We need to say loud and clear - the narrative of the West isolating Russia is not true: what we want, and have wanted from the end of the Cold War, is an open Europe without borders or clashes. That is our long-term vision and I believe we will eventually be back on that track. But

until then we need to stand by the sovereignty of countries threatened by Russia.” With regards to the UK-Russia bilateral relationship, Lyne argued that in order to have a true strategic partnership, you need common values; the UK believes in self-determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. The UK should work through regional organisations like NATO and the EU – on it’s own it will not be taken seriously either with regards to Russia or the outside world.


News

Tuesday February 17, 2015

8

Tariq Ramadan Addresses LSESU Islamic Society During Successful ‘Discover Islam Week’ Tooba Mushtaq Staff Writer ON MONDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY LSESU Islamic Society hosted its last event of Discover Islam week, in the Hong Kong Theatre. The event, titled “Who was Muhammad, (peace be upon Him)?” , was chaired by Esra Ozyurek, Professor in Anthropology department. The panel of judges included Professor Garth Fowden, Professor of Abrahamic Faiths, Cambridge University, Prof. Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies, Oxford University and Dr Fuad Nahdi, Executive Director, Radical Middle Way. Prof. Fowden started by giving academic research on the Prophets of Islam, briefly discussing the early history of life of Muhammad, and how in the early 16th to 19th centuries of European history he was known as an imposter and how this perception changed when the Western religion research proclaimed Muhammad (PBUH) as an intellectual man with deep sense of morality and ethics. Dr Nahdi’s speech focused upon the need for changing the image of

Muhammad in the media. His lecture can be summarized by anecdotal account of Mullah Nasruddin, a man who found a necklace inside his house but went outside to find it as there was more might outside. Nahdi mentioned how the pressure to get the information out quickly and to meet deadline in media has caused authenticity of that information to be overlooked in most cases. Finally, the most anticipated speaker, Tariq Ramadan, took the podium. He focussed his speech on the gifts and the principles from the life of Muhammad that can be brought back in the critical discussion on faith we have in Europe today. He argued that no one should strive to be accepted, as the question is not to be accepted but to be respected. He then looked on to some critical issues from the life of Muhammad, emphasizing that the models are historical, limited by time and space but principles are beyond history and hence, we should not imitate Muhammad by model but his principles. He mentioned how Muhammad dreamt of his enemy’s children in paradise focusing on his principle for first to be considered innocent and then responsible he never

imposed Islam on Non-Muslims. Ramadan claimed that it is this deep philosophical discussion we need to have in European context of inter faith discussion, saying that there is no legal without philosophical. Ramadan then pointed out Muhammad’s way of dealing political and ethical issues. He stated that Muhammad never judged others by their actions, but by who they really were.

Forgiveness and compassion in him meant that he suspended his judgements unlike today, where religion is connected to a sense of guilt and judgement. Ramadan concluded his speech by stating that we need to stop being obsessed over our rights as with every right comes a responsibility and that was what Muhammad taught us, to be more useful and beneficial to others.

The floor was then opened for questions although a very limited time was left towards the end. The questions focused on need for radicalisation in Islam and romanticism of battles fought by Muhammad. Finally, on the request of one of the audience members, the whole theatre gave a round of applause to LSESU ISOC, for organizing the event and Discover Islam Week at LSE.


9

Tuesday February 17, 2015

50 Years On: When Malcolm X Came to LSE Continued from page 1 Malcolm X was a wellknown Muslim minister, preaching for the Nation of Islam for twelve years, before converting to Sunni Islam in 1964. In April 1964 Malcolm completed the Muslim pilgrimage of Hajj in Makkah. Whilst there he commented on how seeing Muslims of “all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans” interacting as equals led him to view Islam as a means to overcome racial problems. To that end, he began his speech at LSE by saying “It is only being a Muslim which keeps me from seeing people by the color of their skin. This religion teaches brotherhood, but I have to be a realist—I live in America, a society which does not believe in brotherhood in any sense of the term.”

Omar Begg, a Muslim student at LSE today, reflected on Malcolm X’s life. “He was a man sent to prison; a man told he couldn’t pursue his dreams of becoming a lawyer and representing his people, simply because of the colour of his skin. Yet he still excelled and gave his people an unparalleled platform through which to fight oppression. He smashed horizontal barriers and shattered vertical ceilings. He showed that an education could be derived from any situation if you are willing to extract it. For that he is inspiring not only to Muslims, but humanity at large.” Malcolm X’s speech was covered by this newspaper on 18th February 1965, and can be read in The Beaver archives, here. According to the piece, the speech was received with “prolonged applause” by

News

LSE students. Two weeks later, The Beaver dedicated its editorial to the death of Malcolm X and the impact the talk had on the students who attended. 50 years later, the legacy of Malcolm X can be seen far and wide across the globe. His works and ideas are cited globally in struggles against colonialism, institutional racism, and apartheid, among many other issues. Here at LSE, the SU BME Network will be launched next Tuesday to coincide with 50 years since the death of Malcolm X. The event will take place in the SSH Venue at 7pm, and will feature rapper Akala, spoken word artist Mo Rhymes Da Poet, NUS Black Students Officer Malia Bouattia, and founder of Choice FM and Roots Magazine, Yvonne Thompson CBE. The event is open to all, and will include a special tribute to Malcolm X.

‘To Divest or Not to Divest? That is the Question’ Ben Tippet LSESU Divest STUDENTS EATING LUNCH in the first floor cafe in Saw Swee Hock last Friday were greeted by a surprise theatrical performance from Divestment campaigners, who are pushing for the school to withdraw its investment in fossil fuel companies. The merry band of actors, consisting of students from UCL, SOAS, LSE and Kings, held a performance at each of the university campuses on Friday, bringing the arguments for divestment to life through the medium of drama. In fitting with the ethos of the school, LSE students were assigned the role of the rich oil executives, who in the plot, are overcome by the power of protest (and wind turbines) to end their financial relationships with the university. Creative protests are seemingly becoming a speciality for the fast growing Fossil Free movement, as UCL students made national news this week for having an “oil orgy” to highlight the incestuous links between the university and big fossil fuel business. The move-

ment has been growing over the last few weeks, with the SU passing a motion to lobby the school to divest from fossil fuels and constructive talks still ongoing between the LSE SU Divest society and the investment committee. Perhaps the play will illuminate the hypocrisy at the heart of LSE’s investments, much like

the travelling play in Hamlet exposes the guilt of his Uncle Claudius for killing Hamlet’s father and taking his place as King. In our own enfolding climate tragedy, from King Claudius to Craig Calhoun, let us remember Shakespeare’s own words, “the play’s the thing wherein we’ll catch the conscience of the king”.

From the archives: This article from The Beaver on the 18th February 1965 documented Malcolm X’s visit to LSE. It was reproduced this week in a blog post by the LSE archivist Sue Donnelly.


Comment Section Editorial:

Comment

THIS WEEK I ATTENDED the Feminist Society’s production of the Vagina Monologues. This was largely due to my lack of better Valentines Day plans (sorry Gareth), but also due to my interest in finding out more about Eve Ensler’s play. The play inspired me in a number of ways, but in particular inspired me to reclaim my personal favourite word for vagina (and most missed thing that’s okay to say in Sunderland but not anywhere else). One of most memorable monologues of the night inspired me to present this word in the form of an acronym, but due to my limited wordcount and lack of imagination after a long day spent on InDesign, I am using only four words taken from the NATO phonetic alphabet. The word is as follows: Charlie. Uniform. November. Tango. Yes, I’m talking about cunt. It’s a great word, but one that left my regular vocabulary as a term of endearment following my move to London and the disgust from my peers when I told them what cunts were during Freshers Week. The Vagina Monologues successfully reinstated my love of the word cunt. Ellen Wilkie

Tuesday February 17, 2015

10

Section Editor: Ellen Wilkie Deputy Editors: Ella Sun, Mali Williams comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

LSE’s Opaque Attitude to Information

Outgoing Executive Editor of The Beaver on the benefits of transparency

Jon Allsop I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS (or at least used to be) conventional for the outgoing executive editor of The Beaver to write a valedictory comment piece about the state of the LSE. Fortunately, this week’s big story has given me plenty to talk about. Our university’s attitude to foreign funding is at the very least amoral and exasperatingly opaque. Sadly, this seems to be a reflection of its attitude towards the student body at large when it comes to facing up to difficult questions. Whatever you think about us receiving obscene sums of money from governments as far afield as China and Kuwait, it is at the very least true that the LSE hierarchy needs to become much more transparent about exactly who is funding us. In an exceptionally challenging climate for universities, who have seen their research budgets slashed by the coalition government, it is probably inevitable that we are going to be taking cash from some people who, in the opinion of some other people, aren’t really very nice. This reality does not, however, excuse two basic principles to which we absolutely should hew when deciding how we pay our way. Firstly, it is imperative that the School becomes more proactive in telling students exactly who is funding us, and to what extent. Arguments about commercial sensitivity are a dangerous smokescreen when we consider that universities are still very firmly public institutions. It is precisely because LSE is such an influential voice on global political and economic challenges, and because its academic and practical influence snakes out around the world, that it is squarely in the public interest that we divulge details of our financial backers. Greater transparency is not just a moral requirement, but

could perversely have huge benefits for the School itself. The negative publicity generated from revealing that we are taking money off ‘bad people’ would in my view be offset by the reputational advantages of taking a strong stand on freedom of information and proving our ability to engage in thoughtful self-criticism and open debate. If transparency means that we have to tie our receipt of funds from authoritarian regimes to a wide-ranging programme rooted in cultural exchange, educational progression and the pursuit of liberalisation and democracy, the School could craft a radical new discourse around higher education funding on an international level. We could convert our contemporary reputation for perennial scandal into something a lot more positive and progressive, and it is a shame that those who lead us cannot see that. Secondly, and linked to greater transparency, we must reinsert a moral fibre into our decisionmaking in this area. This does not necessarily mean that we should give up our Confucius Institute or our Middle East Centre, even if some would claim that it should. It means that when we take money from those with less than perfect records on human rights and democracy, we must ensure that our academic principles are not being compromised and that academic freedom is absolutely being respected. When we (and admittedly many others) are allowing the Chinese government to choose which teachers we should employ on their behalf, it is difficult to have confidence that this happening. Clearly, these two principles go somewhat hand-in-hand. Greater transparency should create a climate conducive to the better execution of moral decisions. This was a lesson we appeared to learn in the wake of the Qadaffi scandal, and then promptly forget. The story we ran on the ‘streamlining’ of the LSE’s Ethics Code is a case in point here, and I for one was delighted that we voted last week as a Students’ Union to lobby the School for its strengthening. Whilst I can understand why the School might find codifying an abstract commitment to ‘human rights’ in its investment policy to be troublesome (presumably this would technically require us to divest from the USA, Britain and

pretty much everywhere else), I don’t see how enumerating some promise to strongly consider a regime’s basic human rights record before taking its money is at all problematic. The decision to remove the anti-bribery clause because it’s already a legal obligation is downright bizarre. There is a danger here that incidents like the Qaddafi scandal may not be covered in statutory anti-bribery laws, but may still be interpreted as bribery by some onlookers.

“It is imperative that the School becomes more proactive in telling students exactly who is funding us, and to what extent.” The Ethics Code story is a classic example of the School’s obfuscation of important issues. The response to allegations of a watering down of ethical commitments referred to a baffling series of cross-referenced documents. The School’s Chief Financial Officer Andrew Farrell, who admittedly makes the most effort out of any of the School’s management to communicate with students and who seems genuinely engaged over issues like the rent guarantor scheme and fossil fuel divestment, wrote a letter in these pages warning against confusion of the Ethics Code with the School’s Policy on Socially Responsible (Ethical) Investment, but then admitted that the latter cross-references the old, now defunct Ethics Code. This is more than just a question of “tidying up language”. Ethics, ultimately, is ethics. One strong unifying statement of intent should inform all the School’s decision-making, with no need for ancillary documents. Student confusion here is hardly surprising. Turning around and acting shocked when concerns are raised about this lack of clarity is, quite frankly, a little rich. You can say what you like about John Sweeney, and many have, but he was right when we interviewed him back in October that LSE has warped into a secretive and monolithic bureau-

cracy. Whilst there is admittedly a touch of the ‘conspiracy theorist’ around the way in which Sweeney articulates some of his concerns, he is correct when he asserts that the School does not engage with the student community or the wider world to a sufficient extent. Our university appears to have a hermetic siege mentality when it comes to crisis. Sweeney was right to say that Craig Calhoun should not have called for his North Korea documentary to be pulled back in 2012 and the reasons behind this must be challenged. If we confront difficulties with openness, we will emerge with more credit than if we scuttle reactively to try and make problems disappear. Openness does not mean quietly putting facts in the public domain or innocently insisting in response to freedom of information requests that the subject of the query has ‘never been secret’. It involves making active attempts to tell students exactly what is going on a regular basis, institutionalising a culture whereby students are directly contacted for their views on funding rather than satisfying oneself with including student representatives on confidential committees and panels. To quote former US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, too much of what the School does stinks of ‘the acrid aroma of a fait accompli’. Streamlining the Ethics Code is one example. The laughable ‘Inclusivity Report’ is another, compiled with precious little attempt to reach out to those vulnerable students actually hit hardest by the Men’s Rugby scandal. Protecting your own interests is understandable, but let’s at least involve students in an informed discussion on what this might entail. Our university has become in some sense a sclerotic bureaucracy, obsessed with reactive arse-covering. What is most sad about this is that it needn’t be that way. A little more openness would go a long way in projecting an image of a self-confident university, comfortable with public scrutiny. Our students deserve a university that takes a clear lead on telling students how it is run and then making an effort to include them in its governance in a broader way. Ironically, this would eliminate the vulnerabilities that those behind the scenes strive so hard to cover up.


11

Comment

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Behind The Closed Doors Of The Confucius Institute The influence of Hanban in the LSE Confucius Institute is questionable tion for 56 years, any attempt to speak about autonomy, or any display of loyalty to the Tibetan flag or the Dalai Lama will land you with a prison sentence, most often with no medical or legal access. A fair trial is out of the question.

Ellen Lees LSESU Tibet Society President LSE, LIKE 460 UNIVERSITIES around the world, is in the pocket of the Chinese government. Let me explain: A department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), commonly called Hanban, controls a programme of Chinese culture and language education centres called Confucius Institutes (CI). At LSE, we have the Confucius Institute for Business Language (CIBL). At Southbank they have a CI for Chinese Medicine, while Goldsmith’s CI focuses on dance. The values and teachings of the real Confucius are nowhere in sight, he’s just a well known Chinese thinker whose name people all over the world will recognise. So far, so innocent. However, Hanban’s aim as a government department is to spread Chinese propaganda worldwide. Propaganda is a funny word. In English, it has very negative connotations – we think of a corrupt government trying to cover up its actions. In Chinese, apparently, the connotations are quite neutral, and so the CI and Hanban are very open about their objectives. The CCP is extremely sensitive to criticism, both domestic and international. Domestic criticism is often met with torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, accusations of terrorism or ‘splittism’. In Tibet, a country under Chinese occupa-

“With the list of allegations of bribery and censorship growing worldwide, the Confucius Institute is in hot water. ” International criticism can’t be dealt with using these ‘hard power’ techniques, so the CCP must try something else. With international relations being increasingly crucial to China, the image of the CCP around the world must be improved. This brings us back to the Confucius Institute. The CI programme is an important part of China’s ‘soft power’. This means, in the words of Perry Link, a highly accredited China scholar in a report to the US Senate late last year, that it has three main aims: • to obtain advanced technical know-how for the benefit of the Chinese state • to spread abroad a version of Chinese history that is incomplete and essentially propaganda • to intimidate and punish Chinese and Western scholars who do not cooperate with these goals With the list of allegations of bribery and censorship growing worldwide, CI is in hot water. The head of the CI at LSE attended a recent event organised by our own China Development Society where

he dismissed these worries. He explained the recent spate of terminations of CI contracts as a ‘fall in demand’. However, those involved make it clear that the issue is more ethical than economic. University of Chicago terminated their contract with CI in September 2014 because of pressure from concerned academics. University of Chicago professor emeritus and prominent anthropologist Marshall Sahlins had this to say in an article dated November 2013: “Hanban has the right to supply the teachers, textbooks and curriculums of the courses in its charge; it also names the Chinese co-directors of the local Confucius Institutes. Research projects on China undertaken by scholars with Hanban funds are approved by Beijing. The teachers appointed by Hanban, together with the academic and extracurricular programs of the CIs, are periodically evaluated and approved by Beijing, and host universities are required to accept Beijing’s supervision and assessments of CI activities. Hanban reserves the right to take punitive legal action in regard to any activity conducted under the name of the Confucius Institutes without its permission or authorisation”. Toronto District School Board also decided to suspend their relationship after members of the public raised their concerns about the spread of Chinese propaganda. They were sensitive to the erasure of history, given the large TibetanCanadian population in Toronto. At Sydney University in 2013 the 14th Dalai Lama, spiritual and once political leader of the Tibetan people both in exile and living in occupied Tibet, was uninvited from speaking at the University. This was down to pressure from Sydney’s Confucius Institute. In July 2014, the CI partly funded a European Sinology conference in Portugal. The event was also funded in part by a Taiwanese re-

search group: the Chiang Chingkuo Foundation. Upon arrival at the conference, the head of CI herself, Ms Xu Lin, seized all the event programmes, realising that they contained adverts for the Taiwanese research institute and other mentions of Taiwan, and had the offending pages ripped out before they were given back to participants. There are many other examples, too many to list in detail, of censorship in Universities attributed to pressure from Confucius Institutes. These include North Carolina, Tel Aviv, Columbia and Oregon to name a few.

“LSE has a huge job to do in cleaning up its ethical reputation, and it can’t begin to do this while still working behind closed doors with the Confucius Institute” Earlier in this academic year, I started to investigate LSE’s relationship with its Confucius Institute for Business Language. I was met with defensiveness and hostility from LSE’s Directorship, who denied all claims that they were receiving money through the CI, and tried to play down the invasiveness of a Chinese-governmentrun educational institute housed directly on campus. We eventually managed to persuade them to live up to their promise that there was nothing secret about the CI contract, and were able to review it. We found that Hanban controls the employment of CI teachers

(meaning that, if this is regulated under Chinese law, they can discriminate on the basis of physical disability, and membership of ‘religious cults’ among other things). We also found, importantly, a confidentiality clause at the end of the contract, which confirmed our suspicions that the details of LSE’s relationship with CI are not open to the public. No wonder the only figure we have for how much money CIBL receives from the Chinese Government was found using a Freedom of Information request! So what do we do about it? There is a growing concern among both students and academics at LSE about the ethics of our fundraising policies, and the transparency with which the directorate operates. Last Friday, a motion was passed calling on the SU to lobby the school to improve our Ethics Code. This is an important first step in protecting our campus from CCP propaganda, and encouraging decision makers at LSE to disassociate ourselves from the CI programme which has caused so much controversy around the world. LSE has a huge job to do in cleaning up its ethical reputation, and it can’t begin to do this while still working behind closed doors with the CI. We have the opportunity to follow the example of Oxford, Chicago and dozens of others, in refusing to allow the Chinese government to bribe us into accepting their version of history. If you want to find out more, or get involved, you can follow the progress of the our CI campaign through LSESU Tibet Society facebook page, and read up on the CI programme on the internet and see for yourself. Email lsesu.tibetsoc@gmail.com to get involved with lobbying the school’s directorate this term, and watch out for our petition on Houghton Street later on this term.

Photo: Flickr: SomeDriftwood



13

Comment

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Hypocrisy, Hague and Horror At The Home Office

The LSE is ignoring real issues by inviting Jolie and Hague to open new centre Jade Jackman THE UNVEILING OF LSE’S Centre for Women, Peace and Security revealed more about the true nature of the university than their progressive promise to lead the way on the battle for the ‘global empowerment of women’. Whilst it is perfectly honourable to purport to support such an important cause, you’d imagine that an academic institution wouldn’t sideline true activism in favour of celebrity status and glamour. Failing to look beyond William Hague’s and Angelina Jolie’s campaign, Global Summit to End Sexual Violence, is more than hypocritical – it is an embarrassment. It has been remarked that it is, at least, good that a dialogue about the use of rape as a weapon of war has begun. That is really quite obvious. However, Hague should not be the one starting it. Women arrive in the United Kingdom desperate for safety women who have endured some of the most hideous atrocities of war, women who have been raped and beaten, women who are vul-

nerable. These women arrive at our shores hoping that the United Kingdom, supposedly one of the most ‘civilised’ governments in the world, will show them mercy. Instead, these women are stripped. Stripped of their dignity and denied compassion and, as the exforeign secretary, William Hague is partially responsible for this.

“Flashing cameras, press reports and internet hits shroud the reality of the situation and prevent the real news from making the headlines. ” How can he claim to support these women? On arrival, we drown out their voices, we lock them up and brand them liars

when they attempt to report sexual abuse– some of those crimes are committed by British guards, the ones who are entrusted with their protection. Hence, Hague only supports these women in theory. It is easy to proclaim to end sexual violence when it doesn’t arrive on your own doorstop. On arrival, these women stop being victims. In fact, they stop being people; they become another issue to be dealt with and for the bureaucracy to crush. During 2013, the Home Office detained 2038 who came to the United Kingdom to seek asylum. The UK based charity, Women For Refugee Women, conducted interviews with 34 women who felt comfortable disclosing their experiences. Out of these 34 women who shared their stories, 19 of these women said they had been raped; 21 women had experienced sexual violence; 28 women said they had experience gender based persecution under the headings the organisation asked about. These headings were rape, forced marriage, sexual violence and female genital mutilation. Their study, car-

“You’d assume that an ex-Foreign Secretary who really cared about Asylum issues would start his campaign making sure that the United Kingdom had a framework to support these survivors.” ried out in 2014, shows that our government is routinely detaining large numbers of women who are survivors of rape, sexual abuse and other forms of torture. You’d assume that the United Nation’s special rapport on Asylum seekers would be aware of this and challenge the hypocrisy. You’d assume that an ex-Foreign Secretary who really cared about these issues would

start his campaign by making sure that the United Kingdom had a framework to support these survivors. You’d imagine they’d work together to use their platform to do something about these forgotten women. LSE’s invitation risks legitimising this continual abuse. Flashing cameras, press reports and Internet hits shroud the reality of the situation and prevent the real news from making the headlines. It undercuts the testimonies of the women who are speaking out against Serco, whose experiences are ignored and places the United Kingdom on a pedestal. A pedestal we do not deserve because it is not progressive to treat humans like statistics, only useful to embellish essays or fuel for academic debate. It is progressive to invite activists who scream out from the frontlines, who call for real action and give up everything for their cause. You’d expect an internationally acclaimed university not to fall into a trap of populist politics and to invite speakers who really know something about their cause.

How Do I Love Thee, FemSoc? Let Me Count The Ways LSESU Feminist Society receives a lot of criticism on campus, and a lot of it is undeserved Layla Doyle I COULD REEL OFF A LONG list of reasons, I really could. But fundamentally, why I love the FemSoc is actually pretty simple. FemSoc has the most incredible support network and source of knowledge. I actually can’t emphasise enough how important support is for marginalised groups. It’s definitely been so important for me, and I’ve learnt SO much from the members and committee of the Feminist Society since I started at LSE. I joined FemSoc in my first

“The patriarchy is shit. It gets me down. A lot.” year at Freshers Fair. A friend and I decided we’d go to the feminist-themed pub crawl welcome social. It was the first experience I had with a university society. I wasn’t sure what to expect and I was quite nervous. However, it was the prospect of meeting like-minded people that pushed me to go. I wasn’t disappointed. Everyone was so friendly and the president (Sally Bonsall, at

the time) couldn’t have been more welcoming. I guess first impressions are important and my first impression of FemSoc was more than positive. I’ve never been on the committee for FemSoc; alas, I am just a lowly member. But I’ve always felt included and that the committee makes an effort to get to know their members. I’ve felt that this year’s president (Natalie Nunn) has extended the sense of approachability and inclusivity I experienced as a member last year. The numerous events and campaigns the society runs are really impressive and their Facebook group is the most active society Facebook group I’m a part of. The amount of people who have confessed that they’ve learnt more from that Facebook group than their actual degree is ridiculous! It’s a place to debate and explore both the mainstream and the seemingly banal or niche through a critical feminist lens. Admittedly, when I first joined, I was nervous to post in the group. However, this wasn’t due to any feeling of intimidation or that my ideas would be shut down. It was simply because I felt I still had so much to learn and I knew my opinion wasn’t prop-

erly informed. An important part of anyone’s feminist awakening is the realisation that your opinion isn’t always needed (shock horror). So I waited, I listened, and I learnt. There’s nothing wrong with doing that by the way. In fact, I’d encourage it. Research, read, absorb, decipher. You’ll never know everything of course, and you might feel like you can never know enough, but be assured no one (from the committee at least) is going to be nasty to you if you post in good faith.

“The amount of people who have confessed that they’ve learnt more from the Feminist Society Facebook group than their actual degree is ridiculous!” This year’s committee has some of the most genuine, friendly people I’ve ever met. Good faith debate is welcomed

and encouraged within FemSoc. It is only when an individual crosses the line and contributes to the systems of oppression, which the feminist movement seeks to dismantle, that you will unapologetically be made aware of this. For example, talking over or down to marginalised people, displaying a clear lack of desire to listen to the experiences of those people, or just being plain misogynistic/ racist/homophobic etc. It’s not actually difficult to avoid doing these things, it’s called being a decent human being, which I’m sure the vast majority of you are! (That’s another reason why I love FemSoc: they’re excellent at restoring faith in humanity - a pick-me-up I know many of us yearn for all too often.) If you feel uncomfortable by what you read, hear or see from FemSoc on campus or online, chances are this is a positive sign. Your assumptions are being challenged and you’re being encouraged to reformulate opinions you previously held on issues you were sure you understood. I wish more people would recognise that this is a massive part of the university experience and it’s a good thing. A great thing. Embrace it. Crucially though, for me

and many others, FemSoc is such a great support network because there’s this comforting atmosphere of understanding. The patriarchy is shit. It gets me down. A lot. The value of being able to just vent to people who get it cannot be understated. Not to mention the value of feeling like I have people I can

“FemSoc is a great support network because there’s this comforting atmosphere of understanding.” trust to go to when I need to. Honestly, I wanted to put some kind words out there about FemSoc because I feel like a lot of the criticism they’ve been getting recently (from a minority, albeit a very loud minority) is unjust and unqualified. As an active member of two years, I wanted to share my experiences of FemSoc and the reasons why I love it so. Feminist peace and love.


Comment

Tuesday February 17, 2015

14

Where Does Secularism Fit In A Multi-Ethnic UK?

LSESU ASH society invites you to question their belief that the UK should commit to secularism Will Mitchell DURING THE MICHAELMAS Term, myself and other members of The LSESU Atheist, Secularist & Humanist Society (ASH) did some vocal campaigning on Houghton Street. Although we received a predominantly positive response, I was genuinely shocked to discover that few had even heard of our society. I was further fascinated that at a time when secularism has never been more relevant, that so few people either do not know what it is, or have a ‘Dawkins-esque’ view of some rabid crazies getting together and sniggering about religion. So first, allow me to briefly elaborate on what secularism is. The National Secular Society argue that it contains two basic propositions; the separation of Church and State, as well as equality before the law, irrespective of belief. Fundamentally, this means respect for the freedom to believe, as well as the freedom to not believe. Secularism not only ensures you can practice your religion, but it also ensures no particular interpretation of faith is favoured by law. Traditional secularism has fought against privilege in the Church of England. 1/3 of publicly funded schools (of which the C of E dominates) are religious.

These schools exclude those of other faiths and those with no faith, whilst demanding everybody pay taxes for them! When so few Britons even attend church, the inappropriateness of such a dominant role of a relic of an ancient educational system cannot be justified. On a constitutional level, secularists highlight that the Queen proudly maintains the Defender of the Faith title, straddling positions both as Head of the Church and Head of State. Further, we are incredulous that the UK is a proud member of a select club of Nation States that have unelected religious representation in the Upper Chamber – the only other country is Iran. Traditional secularism, in spite of the title I’ve given it, is still very relevant. However, although these issues are still crucially important, there are increasing demands to expand the secular umbrella to engage more directly with ethnic minorities. With immigration following the Second World War, secularists have been slow to adapt to an increasingly multi-ethnic UK. Talking to secularists, a divide is growing between the ‘traditionalists’ who campaign and focus on constitutional issues concerning C of E privilege, and ‘modernisers’ who accept that the secular lens must broaden and change with a chang-

ing UK. Mainstream society, as well as traditional secularists, often miss their calling as Britain’s changing demographic dictates new issues that need greater representation and innovative solutions. For instance, society still ignores the inadequate representation of Muslims in the UK, often lazily typified and represented by a handful of “community leaders”. To my mind, there is far too little discourse in ‘traditional’ circles on the extent to which we should tolerate intolerance from self-proclaimed ‘community leaders’, who claim to speak for a majority of their community, masking the heterogeneity of those they claim to speak. Further, there is far too little conversation on how best to protect and engage with the minorities within minorities, those taking ‘heretical’ interpretations of the established religion, or those who leave their religion completely. For some apostates in the UK, the threat of physical violence is very real and far too little focus is given to them. It seems a strangle-hold of hysteric offence-seeking is gripping the media and society, which is used all too easily by religious fundamentalists as a barrier for legitimate criticism against some of their backward, homophobic, patriarchal beliefs.

The ability to speak out is coming under ever-increasing pressure. Many religious people across the political spectrum denounce ‘totalitarian’ or ‘militant’ secularism as something to fear, on equal status to militant religion. The comparison is laughable but often aped in intellectual discourse. A “militant secularist” in contemporary Britain “at worst” would lobby for the removal of the monarchy, the reform of the House of Lords, and the abolition of faith schools. These are all interesting debate points worth discussing, (none of which I have a confirmed stance on), but they are founded on the premise that any change that would come would be the result of countrywide consensus, following a stimulating debate. The views expressed by ‘militant secularists’ are far from the level of the nasty, intolerant views expressed by religious fundamentalists that would be imposed unilaterally on an unwilling public. I am keenly aware that the uninitiated or disengaged do not do justice to those who suffer from religious persecution, particularly those from ethnic minority backgrounds. This applies to the “white guilt” left, through to the racist right. But as secularists, we should know better and work harder for a modernisation agenda, not just

within secular discourse but in the wider community. That is why our up-coming conference, ‘the Future of Secularism in a Multi-Ethnic UK’, is so important. Our event on the 3rd of March, held in Tower 1 G.01 between 18.30 and 21.00, offers an exciting way to break the deadlock. Proudly, we can announce five prestigious speakers, including Maryam Namazie, a spokesperson for the Council of ExMuslims of Britain, Keith Porteous Wood, the Executive Director of the National Secular Society, Pragna Patel, the Director of Southall Black Sisters, Tehmina Kazi, the Director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy and Gita Sahgal, the founder of the Centre for Secular Space. I implore three types of people to come. For those who agree with us, come and make a positive contribution and get involved. For those who feel they do not know enough, come and learn. For those of you who disagree with us, come and tell us why! We at LSESU ASH are sad enough to genuinely get excited at the prospect of a discussion with those who disagree with us. Secularism can become an invigorating, inclusive force and everybody can help make that change. Come and help make that change.I hope to see many of you in attendance.

Can We Trust Germany? Benedict Hughes

LAST THURSDAY MORNING after lengthy talks in Belarus the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France brokered a ceasefire deal, due to begin at midnight on Saturday the 14th. By Friday there were reports of shelling. The previous Minsk ceasefire failed miserably. One could be forgiven for being pessimistic about the chances of this one succeeding.

“The Daily Telegraph describes Angela Merkel as ‘about the only world leader that Putin will talk to’. ” The US has toughened its stance recently, with President Obama openly stating that the option of providing ‘lethal defensive weapons’ to Ukraine is very much on the table. Germany has remained steadfastly opposed to

any such move. But what reason is there at this stage to believe that democracy will be effective? It certainly hasn’t succeeded thus far. Why think that Russia won’t just use these negotiations to distract, deceive, and continue to play the West for fools as it has done consistently up to this point. In Russian there is a word ‘maskirovka’, for which there is no direct English counterpart. The closest we have would probably be deception, or misdirection. The concept is central to Russian strategy in a way that is simply not the case for Western Europe and North America. The use of force to achieve political ends is not a last resort in Russian foreign policy as it is for ours, it should be used wherever it is advantageous to do so. Quite simply if they can get away with it, they will do it. Is there any sense in continuing to play by a rulebook that your opponent is not using, and not using to their advantage. The Daily Telegraph describes Angela Merkel as ‘about the only world leader that Putin will talk to’. Why is this? Is it because he views her as an equal as the head of the largest economy in Eu-

rope? Is it because her tough-talking reputation makes her someone Putin can understand and respect? Or is it because Germany is utterly reliant on Russian oil and gas imports. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sits on the board of the Russian energy giant Gazprom. He celebrated his 70th birthday with Putin. Out of all the major European players, Germany is uniquely vulnerable to Russian whims, putting Putin in a exclusive position to influence German policy. In these negotiations Germany along with France is supposedly representing the interests of the whole of the European Union. Members Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all have significant Russian speaking populations. Is Germany really the best nation to be protecting their security and preventing the Ukraine crisis playing out all over again across EasternEurope? If Russia continues to lie and deny its involvement with absolutely no blush, then what reason is there to believe they will take these talks seriously. Perhaps it is time Europe started toughening its stance and communicating in terms Russia will understand. Photo: Flickr: Techniker Krankenkasse



Photo

Tuesday February 17, 2015

16

Above and below: Reimagining Our Library took place in the library last Monday. Organised by LSESU Education Officer Tom Maksymiw in conjunction with the LSE library, it posed a large number of suggestions that students could feed back on, such as ‘should we ban all food?’ Somewhat ironically, there were free sandwiches.

London School of Economics and the LSE Students’ Union

Photo

Clockwise from left: LSESU Green Week was last week. LSESU Community and Welfare Officer Sebastian Bruhn holds up the Green Week banner on Houghton Street, and chats with stall volunteers. A guardening exercise was run by LSE Sustainability on the East Building, whilst Beaver News Editor Mahatir Pasha promised to recycle more.


The Beaver 09.10.2012

PartB

PartB COVER CREDITS: FLICKR - RICHARD ROCHE


14

Tuesday February 17, 2015

18

FOOD NEW! ROCKET RESTAURANT

J

UST a few steps away from LSE (literally), there is a fantastic new restaurant. From the outside, it looks quite small, but once you go down the stairs, you discover a large dining area with modern décor. Subdued lighting, candles…the works.

The menu is very varied, ranging from lamb kofta to pulled pork shoulder pizza and a sesame-crusted tuna steak as a main option. Do not be fooled by the ambitious nature of the menu. It lives up to its expectations. Before I get into the culinary details, I would like to mention how friendly the staff is. Ready to answer any question, always with a smile on their faces. This is what it should be every time you go out to eat. A nice evening all around. Back to the meal. We started with crab cakes and lamb kofta. Not only were the flavors right on point, but the portions just big enough to satisfy you, but not so big that we were stuffed before the main course even came to our table. The presentation of the dishes is also something to mention. It is clear that effort is put into making the plate beautiful. You almost feel bad for eating it. Almost. Next came a fish and chips salad and a surf and turf salad. Again, the taste was phenomenal. The idea of putting roquette lettuce under a plate of fish and chips to call it salad is brilliant and more people should follow their idea. My lovely date said that the tartar sauce was by far the best she had every tasted. The surf and turf salad comprised of rare beef, squid and king prawns with a tomato salsa. Everything was right about the dish. And the pizza bread. Oh the pizza bread. Pesto and tomato sauce on a thin crust. We were quite proud of our decision to order the side. The pesto tasted homemade, which is not always the case when it comes to pesto. Having had our fair share of food, we couldn’t fathom the idea of dessert. But we still ordered some, and we were very glad to have done so. Pecan and treacle tart served with salted caramel ice cream. Is there anything better? I think not. Rocket opened its new location in September. It already has a few other locations in London but this one is perfect because it’s just so darn close to LSE. Some dishes are little pricier, but for the most part it’s nothing your wallet can’t handle. It’s the perfect motivation for late night studying, or just a nice treat after a long day of classes/lectures/never ending essay writing. What are you waiting for? Rocket Restaurant is waiting for you enjoy their delicious food! Find them at 36-38 Kingsway CAROLINE SCHURMAN-GRENIER

Check out my blog for more restaurant reviews around London! http://mademoiselleaventure.blogspot.ca

PARTB EDITORIAL TEAM PARTB

FASHION

FILM

Jade Jackman Vikki Hui

Sanya-Jeet Thandi

Jade Jackman Maryam Akram

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

fashion@thebeaveronline.co.uk

film@thebeaveronline.co.uk

FOOD

LITERATURE

MUSIC

TECHNOLOGY

THEATRE

VISUAL ARTS

Caroline Schurman-Grenier

Gareth Rosser

Rohan Soni

Jon Rhys Foster

food@thebeaveronline.co.uk

literature@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Conor Doherty, Will Locke & Dominic Tighe

techonology@thebeaveronline.co.uk

theatre@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Jade Jackman Maryam Akram

music@thebeaveronline.co.uk

visualarts@thebeaveronline.co.uk


19

17

Tuesday February 17, 2015

THEATRE

REVIEW: HOW TO HOLD YOUR BREATH

T

HERE is something inherently impressive with the scope of Zinnie Harris’ new play at the Royal Court. ‘How to Hold Your Breath’ is a bold piece of theatre; it asks questions, it challenges its audience, however there is something slightly disappointing about the finished product. Harris script begins naturalistically, picking up with the comedic aftermath of a one night stand between Maxine Peake’s expert in customer dynamics Dana and Michael Shaeffer’s UN employed Jarron. However, upon Dana rejecting the offer of payment, Jarron’s angrily proclaims to be a Demon and vows that his debt will in some way be paid. Against the backdrop of financial and social meltdown across Europe, Dana and her sister Jasmine (played by Christine Bottomley) attempt to travel from Berlin to the Alexandria for a job interview. En route they are confronted by a violent miscarriage, limited resources, closing banks, sealed borders, an vengeful demon and their own mental unravelling. It is a play which delivers on its promise to ‘discover the true cost of principles in a twisted exploration of how we live now’ and trawls the depths of desperation humanity is capable of plummeting to. As to be expected, Maxine Peake, fresh from giving her Hamlet at Manchester’s Royal Exchange offers a sublime performance. Her Dana is simultaneously terrified and resilient, confident but uncertain. Her performance lends an incredible believability to what is for the most part an abstract piece of theatre; in doing so Peake only adds to her status as one of the finest actors working in Britain today. She is well supported by Christine Bottomley as Jasmine and particularly by Michael Shaeffer, who brings appropriate menace and wit to his demonic role. Alongside Peake, Peter Forbes gives a stand out performance as the librarian come guardian angel. Forever on hand with a self-help book, the librarian acts as a representation of modern self-help, quick-fix culture - Forbes fulfil this role, providing humour and successfully balancing genuine care for Dana with a slight creepiness. Indeed, it is Forbes exchanges with Peake that you find yourself looking forward to.

I

Vicky Featherstone offers confident direction, making the most of the dark humour in Harris’s script and staging a highly ambitious production. The lighting and sound design lend an appropriate malevolence to proceedings, whilst Chloe Lamford’s set design makes great use of the Royal Court’s stage. Filled with modern consumer goods and utilising a partially rising stage, Lamford's design when coupled with Featherstone’s fluid direction create a pice of theatre which is as well produced as it is well performed. However, underneath Featherstone’s direction and Peake’s performance, the script is flawed. Harris deserves great credit for

writing such challenging piece - a modern morality play of this nature is rarely attempted and ‘How to Hold Your Breath’ gets much right. But ultimately, it just fails to convincingly tie all of its strands of narrative together - there is simply too much going on, and whilst asking questions of the audience, Harris focuses too much on her own answers rather than letting the audience get their themselves. ‘How to Hold Your Breath’ is an ambitious, impeccably well produced, impeccably well performed play; but you are ultimately left frustrated at how great it might have been. JON RHYS FOSTER

REVIEW: UNNECESSARY FARCE

N an economy motel room, an embezzling mayor is supposed to meet with his female accountant. In the room next door, two undercover cops are supposed to catch the meeting on videotape. But there's some confusion as to who's in which room, who's watching the video, who's taken the money, who's hired a hit man, and why the accountant keeps taking off her clothes. This second production from LSESU Drama Society is the directing debut of Will Carne, co-creator of WAHEY Productions (yes, look it up on Youtube). An unnecessary farce, written by Paul Slade Smith, with definitely nothing unnecessary about

it being perfectly placed to banish any mid Lent term blues, proved to be fast paced and hysterically erotic; just people running in and out of rooms taking their clothes off. It’s a farce, a comedy. If you don’t laugh then, well, it’s rubbish. But Will need not have resigned from his duty as director because the audience did indeed laugh out loud.

The old theatre was a perfect venue for this exposing encounter to take place. Although the police may have originally placed their faith in the wrong person, they soon triumphed after eating copious Krispy Kreme donuts (LSESU Drama Society have not received any funding for this shameless plug).

The actors managed to create an involving piece with spontaneity and improvisation through every door. With a characteristically dumbed down mayor, his controlling wife, a saucy accountant, an extremely brave (and obviously inherently ‘manly’) security guard, two cops trying to prove themselves and a Scottish hit man thrown in for good measure, what more would you find in an American motel (apart from rats and a few faulty doors and falling closets)? The relationship between Sheridan ( Josh Terry) and Dwyer (Charlotte Coombs) was as organic as Scott and Bailey, Sherlock and Watson, Lodewijk and Jon, and was brilliantly

maintained in their quest to beat the baddies; any cop’s dream. But they soon came to the realisation that those baddies were closer to home than they first thought. Particular credit should be given to Claude Paret’s stella Scottish accent, the audience felt the trials (although may not have necessarily understood everything he was saying) faced by this mixed identity Scotsman battling through the ups and downs of his Highland life. From suffering the devastation of his broken bagpipes, any true Scotsman would understand the connection with a man and his bagpipes, to being knocked out by every door. If you ever wanted to join

the Scottish Mafia, the Highland Clan (with a C) is eagerly recruiting after losing its members in Dyer’s first proper police scoop. So if you fancy trying to smuggle $16 million under Mayor Meekly’s nose then The Chief is on your side. Thankfully at LSE we do have casual Fridays, we do not work in an American accounting firm. And the last night of the farce certainly did not disappoint.

ALICE HARRISON


14

Tuesday February 17, 2015

20

FASHION/TECHNOLOGY ONE FOR THE BOYS AFTER the release of Kingsman last month we saw the triumphant return of the glorious double-breasted suit in the mainstream media. Young men of classes 2015-2017; take note! Now, I know most of you LSE boys are probably rubbish with the ladies but what if I told you if you dressed half decent your life would be 30% easier in that field? We all know LSE lads think they’re all a bit of alright, whether this is true is yet to be proved (#NerdAlert #JerkAlert) but in the mean time it’s a good start to look the part. Whether or not you think you have swag, you can actually be perceived to have real life swag if you put on one of these beauties. Right now the double breasted suit is having a moment in the world of exquisite men’s tailor-

ing. Navy blue with a soft pin stripe, tailored at the waist, paired with some Oxfords, neat hair and if you feel so compelled go for the braces and blue shirt red tie combo though beware you probably will get rinsed for Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gekko being your style inspirations. A preferable, more tasteful option would be the new age way to do double-breasted, slim fit with a sleek modern aesthetic in mind. A sharp classic shirt and striped tie combo will do the job nicely. I know some of you might be a bit daunted by this handsome way of dressing but double-breasted is easier to pull off than you think. Switch in this style in place of your normal suit for any everyday occasion; as long as the fit is right (Go bespoke. Always. If possible) your look will be on point. The tailored waist of the blazer is crucial to the masculine silhouette of wider shoulders and long legs so as long as the fit is good you should look rather suave. Those private equity firms will be fighting over you, not to mention the hoards of impressed women. Though you are still an LSE boy so don’t get too excited. 1/200 women might now actually look at you if you’re lucky. Maybe you should just work on your attitude and social skills or just learn to be a top gent. Manners maketh man, remember that! Shout out to any Old Whykehamists appreciating the reference. Mr Porter has collaborated with Kingsman to create a collection fit for every gentleman. SANYA-JEET THANDI

HENNESSEY PERFORMANCE

The Hennessey McLaren MP4-12C HPE800 (which admittedly, is more of a mouthful than the original name), will keep the original 3.8-litre V8 from McLaren. However, Hennessey will be installing an upgraded intercooler, air intake system, ECU updates and ball-bearing turbochargers. In addition, the Hennessey titanium exhaust system will be incorporated, along with quad rear tail pipes. John Hennessey and his team do not plan to improve upon the suspension or brake systems, as they feel the factory setup is more than sufficient to handle the increased performance. They will, however, be throwing a set of Michelin Pilot Supersport tyres onto the HPE800 to help put the extra power down. Aesthetically, the HPE800 will seem more aggressive than the standard car, with a new hood air intake, CarbonAero body package to increase downforce, a lower front splitter and wider side vents. Additionally, redesigned rear apron and diffuser help the cooling of the transmission and exhaust system.

HENNESSEY Performance, the Texas-based company famed for tuning American muscle cars, has announced its newest venture. They wish to take the 592HP McLaren MP4-12C and upgrade the plucky British supercar to 800HP. Hennessey earned their reputation in the American tuning market from adding turbochargers and ECU upgrades for traditional

American muscle cars such as the Chevrolet Camaro, Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Corvette ZO6. They grabbed the attention of the world media upon the creation of the Hennessey Venom GT, a car based on the British-made Lotus Exige. What made the Venom GT special was the 7.0 litre turbocharged V8, which set a world record for the fastest production car time from 0-300KPH (equivalent to 186MPH) in 13.63 sec-

onds. Additionally, in February 2014, the Venom GT hit 270.5MPH on a space shuttle landing base. This speed would make it the highest top speed of any production car, however, it does not qualify for the Guiness Book of World Records as Hennessey have only produced 16 Venom GTs to date (and require the sale of 30 to qualify for a world record).

A new set of matte black wheels and luxurious Alcantara, carbon fibre and leather interior are likely to be installed, increasing the uniqueness of this model. These upgrades can be added to an existing MP4-12C, or shipped from Hennessey directly. Pricing is yet to be announced, but estimates place the HPE800 at around the $280,000 mark (£190,000), so start saving those pennies now! ROHAN SONI


21

17

Tuesday February 17, 2015

TECHNOLOGY RETAIL, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

W

HEN I first came into LSE, I already knew what I was going to be: I was going to be a lawyer that had a good degree and a training contract with a top law firm. As a result, I came into LSE with a closed mind. I shut myself off from any other alternative possibilities. However, like the old saying goes, "the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry."

One thing that I did not account for during my time at LSE was my latent passion for media and entertainment superseding my interest in law. Due to my exposure to subjects like Information Technology Law and Intellectual Property Law, I slowly began to picture myself working in the entertainment industry and it was an image that I couldn’t shake out of my head. The problem was that I chose to ignore those feelings and I carried on with my initial plan. Fast forward a couple of years and I’ve just finished my LL.M. at LSE, with the realisation that a career in the entertainment industry is what I wanted all along. The best thing about university is that it gives you the time to explore different options. It gives you the time to find out who you are and think about what you really want to do with your life. Had I known what I know now, I would have slowed down and considered other possibilities and, quite frankly, the Retail, Media & Technology Conference is something that I wished I had while I was still a student here. The Retail, Media & Technology Conference will take place from 10am – 6pm on Saturday 28th February 2015 in the LSE Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House. Its goal is to expose LSE students to the latest developments and trends in exciting industries that they may have overlooked as a career path. Most importantly, it will provide a way for LSE students to discover the professional opportunities beyond law, finance and consultancy by including a networking session after the conference where company representatives will speak to students in a more casual setting. Ultimately, we want to help LSE students achieve their dream of aligning their passion with their profession. We want to help students do what they love for a living. Because of this, we have invited over 15 industry-leading speakers from companies such as Barclays, Disney, PayPal and many more. These speakers will present and debate on a variety of topics including but not limited to Fashion & Advertising, TV & Print Media, Mobile Payments and Wearable Technology. So with all that in mind, give yourself the chance to not make the same mistakes that I made. Give yourself the chance to enter and explore a new world of countless opportunities! Tickets for the Retail, Media & Technology Conference are on sale now on the LSESU website (at lsesu.com/events/10583/3469/) for only £7. For more details visit www.LSERMT.squarespace. com or find the Conference page on Facebook.

JOLA ILUYOMADE Director Of Speakers, Retail, Media & Technology Conference Master of Laws (LLM), LSE, 2013 - 2014 Bachelor of Laws (LLB), LSE, 2010 – 2013


The Beaver 09.10.2012

PartB

COVER CREDITS: FLICKR - BRITTNEY BUSH BOLLAY


SA IF GA NDA LFI R ET UR NS ON HIS HOR SE

SHA DOWY-FACTS AS

HA NBA NDA LF THE WHITEWA SH

One Beijing to rule them All

The Battle of Hulm’s Deep

return of the Kingsway

One Beijing to bind Them

Jay Stollum

The Riders of Rohan the lift of khazhad-dum

radagast the Bruhn

(you shall not pass GV100)

Myners of Moria n

The

of

ee Thr

th

ld

ers

Wit ch

Tow

eO

“and my haxe”

The

e ey

a Sar

THE lse’s moral compass (wonky)


Tuesday February 17, 2015

Great deals from the LSESU Shop!

24

WURRZEL SCRUMMAGE, THE ANTI-LAD SCARECROW

RRP: Penitence

CEREAL PROMISER RRP: £26 500 p/a A healthier breakfast choice than Duncan Do-nots and Bruhn-flakes

More of a cunt than you since 1895

GENERIC OFFENSIVE T-SHIRT RRP: Your dignity Pick your own elitist slogan #onlyatLSE! OMG am i rite?

AU SORTING PRAT RRP: Free with a card Find out what club you should be joining: Quiffindor, Hufflebuff, Cravenclaw or Men’s Rugby

BLURRED PIPELINES

ROBBIN’ SLICK (FEAT. FARRELL SPILLIAMS)

RRP: Dirty money Snap up one of these limited edition CDs before they get forced out of the SU shop. Shortly to be banned by Divest for their crude lyrics. Just let me Libya-ate you!


25

Tuesday February 17, 2015

THUG FYFE!

UGM Motion: LSESU should stand in support of fox hunters against rural terrorists Proposer: Alexander, third Earl of Fyfe Seconder: No-wellies Land Rover Door

Name: Alexander, third Earl of Fyfe Politics: Unspeakable Hair: Some Face: Rubbery Is: an intensely private person Believes that: You have no right to privacy Likes: A row of dead pheasants, Waitrose, exaggerating, goats Dislikes: Saboteurs, Sabbs, foxes

This Union Notes: 1. That foxes present a clear and present danger to our urban and rural communities 2. That foxes are vermin 3. That me and my friends have a God-given right to trample all over the countryside shooting stuff This Union Believes: 1. That the little blighters have had it coming for a long time 2. That so-called ‘Hunt-saboteurs’ are rural terrorists 3. That therefore this is a counter-terror bill we can ALL get behind This Union Resolves: 1. To create an LSESU Fox Hunting Society with immediate effect 2. To ban the song ‘Meat is Murder’ from being played on campus 3. To mandate the LSESU Environment and Ethics Officer to go on a hunt to see just how fun it can be

Putting the execute in executive editor my year as a Sabb, by Tom Maksymiw

Hello? Is it Maksy-me you’re looking for?


Tuesday February 17, 2015

26

From the Beaver archives... Why I Literally Love Valentine’s Day lectern in front of you and a studio audience cheering you on.

MIKE PEARSON (A POOR MAN’S CHARLIE BROOKER) The argument goes something like this: “It’s a money-making tool of the evil capitalist system in an attempt to use and abuse, exploit, hijack our emotions and excrete them all out onto an A5 piece of card that they can re-label as an ‘affectionate gesture’ which masks their real motive of making money… GREEDY CAPITALISTS!” Now, you won’t hear me sticking up for the word ‘love’. It comes slightly behind “literally” in my list of most annoying overused words. “I literally love the lovely literary masterpiece 50 Shades, it’s literally brilliant.” Shove off. The word has been overused so much; it has simply lost all meaning, mainly through its use in popular culture. Take the ITV primetime show “Take Me Out” hosted by 4th rate comedian and love child of Adam Sandler and Peter Kay, Paddy McGuiness. Each week, 30 Stacey Solomon impersonators compete for the affections of a masculine Neanderthal still at the 2nd stage of human evolution. With over 4 million people absorbing this thunderball of wank, romance and love suddenly become concepts only emotionally reachable if you have a

For the record, I’m still convinced that the phrase “No Likey, No Lighty,” is a Derren Brown technique Paddy uses on the contestants. For example: Use 1) Turn off their light when ‘turned off’. Use two) A useful phrase for the contestants when they realize all mutual attraction was created by televisual effects and they reluctantly engage in sexual congress on the date with the “No Lighty” catchphrase becoming an instruction for the bedroom. And to make matters worse, they go to an island called “Fernando” on the date – which I guess is very aptly named. Both find it hard to score whilst getting ridiculously overpaid for what is a rather trivial task. But all this onscreen colour masks the reality that because the situations played out are all artificial, any scintilla of romance portrayed onscreen is in fact artificial. Therefore to understand romance you have to look to reality. Generally, there are three groups of people. Firstly, the group of people who are happily in relationships. Secondly, the group who are in relationships because they sort of stumbled into them, like a group of confused orangutans who play with a deflated football because it keeps them half amused. And lastly, those who are ‘happily’ single. (Which they say as it seems more so-

cially acceptable than saying: “I’m lonely, I feel like an empty vessel floating aimlessly on a gleaming sea of piss”). The first group will tend to enjoy Valentine’s Day. Eating. Laughing. Drinking. Bonking [probably at The Bureau of Bonking, Zoo Bar]. The day lets this group engage in what are very primal instincts. Good on them. The second group will feel the burden of the day weighing down upon

them. Not really sure how to approach it with more pressure on their shoulders than a Muppet giving an elephant a piggyback. They will stumble through the day somehow, but often make

some awk-

ward ‘ironic’ gesture to the other, attempting to make out that Valentine’s is ‘no big deal’. I reference you to ASDA’s Smartprice Valentine’s Card last year which cost 7p, was a mixture of the colour of anemic cat excretion and radioactive vomit, with the message inside reading, “My love for you is priceless”. Well done ASDA, another quality product. The third group will either attempt to say they don’t care, or simply get blind drunk. But no matter what category we fit into – probably none of the above – it’s a day when we can, and should relate to romance and love on our terms. So, in a world dominated by war, Geordie Shore, hostage crises in Algeria, despotic dictators in Syria, poverty, the bourgeoisie, Nick Clegg, shitcake celebs, those annoying M&M’s in the cinema and Justin Bieber, we all need a little light relief from the evil forces in the world. So Valentine’s Day – for all of its commercial hype and pink-coloured, flower-themed propaganda, is a great way for us ordinary folk to wrestle back romance from the television executives at ITV.


27

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Society space Drug Policy Discussion CASA’s first academic lecture of the term! Come join distinguished speaker John Collins from LSE Ideas to discuss Guatemalan Drug Policy: The Central American response to the War on Drugs.

John Collins is coordinator of the LSE IDEAS International Drug Policy Project. He is also coordinator of the Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy. He edited the 2012 LSE IDEAS Special Report, Governing the Global Drug Wars. John Collins will be discussing the important impact that drugs trade is having on Guatemalan politics and development and the coordinated regional response to this pertinent international issue. The event will start at 6.30pm on Wednesday 18th of February, we hope to see you all there.

Water Brigade by Elias Mead, HRH the King of Blandford

Do you love both coffee and humanity? This Thursday, the Water Brigades society at our beloved LSE invites you to the Fourth Floor Canteen in the Old Building. Brigaders will be serving and selling the Dorset Coffee Company’s delectable ‘American Blend’ coffee to raise money for sustainable development in Honduras as part of Central America Week. The money raised will allow first-year students within the brigade to work with local engineers and technicians to construct water systems custom designed for rural communities in Honduras. We will assist in digging trenches, connecting pipes, installing in-home water faucets, and providing education to improve family health. If you would like to talk about the projects, find out what we do, donate or simply enjoy a cup of quality coffee on campus, do come along. We look forward to seeing you.

Stand the chance to win £25 onto your LSE Squid account by simply Liking, Sharing or Following The Beaver on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. Two lucky winners will be selected at random each week for three weeks running. Don’t miss out, show your love and appreciation for LSE’s oldest student newspaper and you might enjoy free coffee on campus for a month!

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 18th 2015: LGBT+ MUN General training


The City Section Editorial:

MUCH OF THE NEWS THIS week was dominated by The Guardian’s spotlight on the Falcini leaks which demonstrated how the Swiss branch of HSBC was assisting rich clients from across Europe hide funds from their domestic tax authorities in Geneva. The leaks are not new – Falcini first released the information to the authorities in 2007/2008 – but the fact that the story once again rose to international attention shows, as Joe Walters’ article demonstrates, that fiscal evasion is made even worst by being seemingly institutionalised. Another issue this raises is that of whistleblowing. To make a perhaps tenuous connection, I had a chat this week with Simon Morrison, Head of Communications at Nesta, who has masterminded a new type of festival wholly dedicated to discussing what the future has in store, one aspect of which is the possibility for every day people like Falcini or Snowden (who will be giving a talk at the festival) to find themselves at the forefront of democracy. The festival will be discussing, among other things, the future of democracy and we’ll be giving away 4 tickets, so definitely read the interview!

The City

Mika Morissette

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Section Editor: Mika Morissette city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features: Africa in Focus: Features Special Pages 34-35

28

Sport: AU Fight Night Preview Page 40

Why The Rich Don’t Want Higher Taxes The desire of the wealthiest to pay less tax is based on greed, not growth Joe Walters City Corespondent THE RELATIONSHIP THE RICH have with taxes has been on centre stage in the past few weeks. As well as the accusations that the bank HSBC have helped their clients avoid tax, there has been a war of words between the Labour party leadership and some of the country’s most prominent businessmen over the party’s pre-election proposals to raises taxes. It is becoming abundantly clear that many of the richest in our society do not want to pay higher taxes and some do not want to pay any at all. The answer to the above question “why don’t the rich want to pay higher taxes” may seem obvious. The theory of Occam’s razor would lead us to the most simple explanation, which is they want to keep as much money for themselves as they possibly can. But perhaps we are being harsh on the old boys. When Lord Fink, the ex-treasurer of the Conservative party, claimed this week that everyone avoids tax, instead of admitting that himself and his friends are selfish, greedy and immoral, he may have been alluding to a real concern that those at the top have with taxation. Luckily for us those who have been criticising the calls for higher taxes have told us why it is such a bad idea. Apparently their dislike of higher taxes is not due to the simple want for more at the expense of others. These business leaders are actually concerned that a rise in taxes for the wealthiest individuals and businesses will stifle wealth creation, investment and ultimately growth. At the end of the day growth is good for everyone, so if we do not

grow everyone loses. This is why Stefano Pessani, the CEO of Boots, has claimed that a Labour victory in the upcoming election would be a “catastrophe” for the country. Lord Hoskin, the ex chairman of Northern Foods, has called the proposed mansion tax “nonsense”, and the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors have criticised the idea of a 50p top income tax rate. Maybe the upper echelons of British society are actually much more selfless than one would first think. Maybe lower taxes for the rich benefits everyone. Although Occam’s razor would have us believe the rich are primarily concerned with their own wallets and that lower taxes for the rich benefits no one but the rich, it is true that the simplest explanation isn’t always the right one. So does the idea that increasing taxes for the rich will lower growth actually bear out in reality? Well let’s look at the effects an increase in income tax would have. Currently the top rate of income tax is 45% and the Labour party have proposed a 5% increase to the dismay of many big business executives. However simply looking at the performance of other countries that have had top tax rates of 50% or more for decades suggests that this will actually not adversely affect growth. Denmark has a top rate of 60.2%, Sweden 56.6%, Belgium 53.7%, Holland 52%, and all of these countries have a higher GDP per person than the UK, with lower levels of inequality. Also during the post war golden age of growth, where economies grew quicker than at any other stage in human history, many European countries had very high top rates of income tax and communist countries, where the incentive for pri-

vate profit was completely removed, also performed well. It has also been suggested by the likes of Piketty that low taxes for the rich can be bad for growth as employers with earnings in the top income band have an incentive to spend more time negotiating for higher wages and less time innovating. Big business would have us believe that higher tax rates will discourage hard work and innovation as people only respond to financial incentives and an increase in tax undermines these incentives. Although I would like to think the workers in the biggest businesses in the UK are not purely motivated by money, even if they are, someone who is willing to work 100 hours a week to take home 55% of their pre-tax income will likely do the same work for 50%. Could it be that we were right to begin with? Is it true that those at the top of the economic ladder, those who are looked up to as the most productive and creative our societies have to offer, are actually only looking out for themselves? Well maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves. It is possible big business are against the idea of a Labour led government as they genuinely believe five more years of Conservative economic policy will be far more conducive to a society that judges itself on its ability to create wealth. After all the news coverage of the run up to the general election gives the impression that the Tories have a track record on the economy to be proud of. However the facts point the other way. In the words of the Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis “GDP per head (a much better guide to average prosperity than GDP itself) grew at an average rate of less than 1% in the four years

from 2010 to 2014. In the previous 13 years (1997 to 2010), growth averaged over 1.5%. So growth in GDP per head was more than 50% higher under Labour than under the Conservatives, even though the biggest recession since the 1930s is included in the Labour period”. The National Institute of Economic Research also released research last week that claimed slower cuts to public spending after the election, like those proposed by Labour, would be good for growth. This is not surprising. Since 2008 interest rates have been reduced to next to nothing yet the private sector is still tentative to invest due to the depressed nature of the economy and to add to this the Conservatives have been cutting at the expense of public investment with the result of very low growth. Unfortunately then our original conclusion was correct. Occam’s razor was right again. The rich do not want to pay higher taxes, and in some cases any taxes at all, as they are worried if they contribute a proper amount to the public purse they will not have enough left over to afford that new Mercedes they have been eying up. It is not because they are worried about its growth implications. The claim that higher taxes for those in the top tax band will actually be detrimental for the economy as a whole is not true. The age-old counter-intuitive claim that tax cuts for the rich benefit everyone is counter-intuitive because it is a myth, and so I would like to propose my own razor to deal with future claims of this nature. The principle behind Joe’s razor is as follows… When upon first inspection your intuition tells you a claim is bullshit, that is because it probably is bullshit!

Getting To Know The Golden ‘Snitch’

Everyone has heard of Snowden, but what do we know about Hervé Falciani? Mika Morissette City Editor THIS WEEK SAW AN AMAZING

amount of coverage given to allegations that the HSBC assisted clients hide millions from the taxman, attracting once again questions on the morality of the financial world. But

what about the source of what The Guardian termed “biggest banking leak in history”? Hervé Falcini, an IT expert at the Swiss branch of the bank, first hacked into HSBC’s system in 2007 but struggled to get the contents of his leak taken seriously, including by the Swiss authorities, for several months. Despite the information he leaked being used by governments across Europe to deal with tax evasion, Falcini was chased by French authorities, arrested in Lebanon, France and Spain as well as briefly imprisoned in Madrid. This leads to the important question of whether whistleblowers should be treated as heros or criminals. Currently,

whistleblowing falls into a legal grey zone and whistleblowers find themselves taken to court for charges like theft (since information can qualify as intellectual property) or breach of confidentiality contract if nothing else more serious. This might change, however: in 2013 the Home Office suggested that it wanted to increase incentives for whistleblowing, especially in the banking sector. But what is a carrot, however, without the serious danger of the stick removed? There also fears that this might encourage spurious claims or spills of information which might be of little social use but the leak of which dramatic for the companies.


29

The City

Tuesday February 17, 2015

R&B Legends, The Future Of Democracy And Candy FutureFest mastermind Simon Morrison, ex-Home Office media exec and Executive Director of Communications at Nesta, on innovation, changing the future and talking to Edward Snowden. Mika Morissette City Editor

I’ve always worked in communications and marketing, but I didn’t want to do something like helping someone sell beans or trying to get someone to increase the value of their share portfolio; I wanted to do something that made a difference to society, and working for Nesta really does that. On top of really feeling like I’m contributing to a wider social good, what I also get out of my job is enjoyment from the sheer variety of interesting projects we are involved in. I’ve got to say, for me the last FutureFest that we ran in 2013 was probably my most professionally rewarding experience because it was something that had never been done before. I was able to shape it from scratch and deliver something which was absolutely unique in the mixture of experiences it gave people. So where did the idea for FutureFest come from? The idea came from something we noticed over several years: when people think or talk or write about the future, it tends to be very negative. On one hand, you have all this dystopian fiction, and on the other, in general discourse, there is a trend for people to think that, for the first time ever, things are getting worst (“my kids will have worst jobs than I have” etc.) That is of course a possibility, but we think it is only one possibility and that there are different ways people can both individually and collectively change the future. So we wanted to stage FutureFest as a prompt for people to think about different ways of seeing the future and what they could do. How does FutureFest fit into the charity’s wider aims? One of our primary goals as a charity is to educate people about innovation. Throughout the year we host a wide range of specialist talks, but we thought this would be a way to engage with a wider public who may not have any technical knowledge on innovation but want a glimpse at what is ahead and what they can do. FutureFest isn’t just about presenting research. I really felt that our last FutureFest was something much more elemental – people

Photo: Nesta, Simon Morrison

SO FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS AN ‘innovation charity’ and why is it needed? In simple terms, what we try to do is take good ideas, wherever they come from, share them with people, and make sure that good ideas benefit everyone by using them and growing them to scale. We do that in a number of ways. Some of what we do is research, looking at what works and what doesn’t. For example, we’ve done a lot of things on alternative banking and crowdfunding, which helps us find alternatives to the broken banking system and new ways people can change their current financial model. Another part of what we do is conducting our own on the ground experiments. Our Policy Team looks at research, and our Lab Team puts that research in to practice. We are involved on the ground in projects around the country, working with, for example, elderly people or people with disabilities and health condition on how they can access better treatment. The third part of what we do is invest in ideas we think have the potential to make a big social change. Unlike venture capitalists who just invest to make money, we have an additional goal of bringing in social change. As an example, one company we have given money to is Oomph! which runs exercise classes in nursing homes. It helps tackle loneliness as well as keeping elderly people mobile, reducing the overall care bill, so it’s a win for everyone both on the social side and on the financial side for the NHS. It’s that kind of idea we are set up to make happen and that is why it’s important to have an independent charity like Nesta that isn’t being directed by any particular funding regime and can take an independent view on what is working. I understand Nesta recently moved away from backing individual projects and now has the wider mission of ‘im-

proving the innovative capacity and the innovation systems of the UK’. How do you go about tackling this formidable goal? It is a big task, but one we think that it is fundamentally ‘tackleable’. As you said we started out investing in individual companies, which had a big impact for them but did not have the same breadth of impact we believe we are having now that we have started focusing on changing overall systems. One area we are very involved in is the creative economy and looking at how the UK can stay top of the heap in sectors such as video games or in using Big Data to make good business decisions. By concentrating on those, it actually creates information which can be used by organizations across the UK, not just a few individual companies. I think that this, as a charity, is how we aim to have the biggest possible impact. If you could name a single project so far that you think has had the biggest social impact, what would it be? This is building on an already very long legacy in the social field, but we are trying to create modern versions of volunteering programs such as the Scouts or Special Constables. A piece of work we are very excited about at the moment is on how to get more people involved in volunteering in hospitals and healthcare – not as volunteer doctors but to bring an element of social wellbeing into a healthcare environment. We are working directly in pilot projects in several hospital trusts and the NHS, directing and helping as well as bringing in funding to ensure that volunteering is complementary to and not a replacement for the work that is already going on. We are very keen for people in these roles to get proper recognition and support and not be used as a cheap replacement for things which are not happening. What made you personally want to join Nesta and what has been your most fulfilling professional experience at the organization to date?

actually felt emotion by coming to this event. You could see that it wasn’t just curiousness: people were challenged, it made people happy and some were sad or even scared. Having that type of visceral impact on people whilst at the same time making them think in a positive way about the future was actually very inspiring for me. This year you have an amazingly wide range of speakers, from Oxford academics, to candy-makers and video game developers to legends like R&B master George Clinton and even Edward Snowden. What do all these people have in common and why have you brought them together in one place? What they all have in common is that they are inspiring and interesting: these are the types of people who actually have something to say that makes you think. The juxtaposition of such disparate people together creates an opportunity for discussion and thought, which you wouldn’t get elsewhere. For us, it’s about creating something extra out of this clash of all these people who are each innovators moving forward in very different ways. What are you most looking forward to at FutureFest? I am quite interested in hearing George Clinton, but that is prob-

ably because I am quite old and remember him from when he was very active. (laughs) I am also really interested in what we are doing on the future of democracy. It is really interesting to see how the current form of democracy is failing with more and more people becoming apathetic, but also how new parties are emerging and using new technologies to get people re-engaged. I am really looking forward to being part of a discussion on moving past the early 21st century ‘first past the post model’ and discussing where we go from here. Finally, I can’t help but ask, how did you convince Edward Snowden to give a talk? The process took about 4 months of back and forth through lawyers and various intermediaries, and the least I can say was that it was exhaustive. Ultimately, however, it was through saying to him: “everyone knows the work you have done through whistleblowing, but what next? How do you go forward from revealing this and enable people to gain engagement and confidence?” We told him that we could give him a platform to say this to a lot of influential people, and that was what convinced him. More at: futurefest.org


Features Section editorial: L A S T W E E K I WA S subjected to an appalling experience; I was one of many at the well-attended talk hosted by the LSESU Green Party with Natalie Bennett. Whilst I commend the society for landing such a prominent speaker, and hosting an event with such a high turnout, Bennett’s seemingly unending stream of ridiculous policy initiatives soon wore me down. Before the talk I had assumed that she was a well intentioned, far-left idealist with a common sense deficit. However, the reality is much worse. She is actually competent, and dangerously so. Her cynical, radical and impossible-to-finance policies are targeted deliberately at young people in the assumption that we are too naive to ever question them. Her agenda of taxpayer funded handouts to everyone is impossible; the considerably higher taxes that would be imposed as a result would drive the wealthy and able from Britain, whilst laziness and a lack of ambition would be incentivised. We should remember that stealing from the rich to give to the poor is theft regardless. We should also remember that Bennett stands on a platform of impossible promises that she knows will never have to be realised.

Features

George Harrison

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Section Editors: Liam Hill and George Harrison features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

30

Deputy Section Editors: Zita Chan, George Greenwood, and Taryana Odayar tweet @beaveronline

“We aren’t thinking imaginatively enough”

David Blunkett on IS and Education George Greenwood Deputy Features Editor DAVID BLUNKETT, LABOUR MP and former Education and Home secretary, is standing down in 2015 after nearly thirty years in the Commons. I talked to him about the future of education, social care, and how to deal with the threat of IS needed to be dealt with. We started off with discussing his proposals to reform the funding of old age social care through greater reliance on capital from the property of those receiving care. This has been dubbed in some sections of the media as a return to the “death tax” of Labours 2010 manifesto. “What I actually said was that if we were emphasising responsibility for those who are very badly off, i.e., getting into a job, conditionality for when people require benefits so that it’s something for something, that same logic should apply in terms of self-help for people who have very substantial capital wealth, but are cash poor. If they possess a house which is worth a very large sum of money then whilst they are alive and they need support, equity release, a longstanding and refined system, that allows people to take part of their equity out of their capital to look after themselves, and I think that’s a good idea. “I have apologies in the Daily Telegraph coming tomorrow, I have apologies in the Express today, and the Mirror, because they got it wrong. They were suggesting that I was backing what the Tories dubbed a death tax, which is simply not the case. I simply don’t see why, taxpayers, some of which are much poorer, should have to find the bill in order that the full amount of the capital wealth of these people’s homes can be passed along to their sons and daugh-

ters. But this was part of a much wider scheme, which was all to deal with a potential further round of welfare cuts in a more socially responsible and equitable manner. It’s also a generational thing as well though. At the moment, young people have taken the real hit in terms of austerity measures, but old people have been protected all the way round. Young people have seen the abolition of the child trust fund, the education maintenance allowances, the £9000 tuition fee, the future jobs fund, Sure Start, and all those things have affected young people. You might ask they question, well, why, and that’s because older people vote in very large numbers.” Continuing the theme of young people, I asked David what he felt the future of education funding should look like. “When fees were £3000, it was manageable. When after the 2010 election, it went up to £9000, the sums didn’t add up, and they didn’t add up partly because the government was borrowing very large sums of money to lend the money out, with the prospect that as little as 45% of it would be redeemed. That makes it a difficult economic scheme. The Labour party is struggling with an alternative scheme that adds up financially. Would a graduate tax meet that requirement? Well I thought so in 1998, but the word tax had a toxic element to it. Gordon Brown said we can’t have something that looks and smells like a tax. If it quacks like a duck it’s a duck. So we ended up with a different system, and this is why it is taking so long for Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to come to a conclusion. We would need to start with a com-

pletely different structure. The adage, “I wouldn’t start from here if I were you” is quite a good one to adopt.” I asked him how we might bridge the reputational divide between university and vocational education. “It’s the 64,000 dollar question, because its societal and to do with how this country over the last 200 years has seen things very differently to the Germans, for example. I think that if we were going back to 1992, we would probably have kept polytechnics, built on their standing and status, and made sure they were properly funded. But today, we don’t want to downgrade universities. I get annoyed with the Russell Group, when they talk about the need to take certain facilitating A Level subjects, when they seem to think that careers advice and careers education rests on going down a very narrow tunnel. Careers and proper advice for the future, should depend on what is right for the young person in question. I like the idea of mixing and matching as well. I was doing A Levels while I was doing a vocational course in business, and I saw no controversy in overlapping the two, so I think a much more imaginative link is needed.” We finally moved on to the threat of the Islamic State, and from his experience as Home Secretary in the early years of the War on Terror, how he felt such an issue should be approached. “I think this is about winning minds. I don’t just mean winning the minds of the individual, but winning the minds of those who have some beneficial influence on those individuals, we are very much dependent on the particular diaspora and the faith leaders behind that diaspora being willing to engage in a very positive way. And in return, the wider community being very supportive and protective to people being dubbed with the same brush. This happened when the Troubles in Northern Ireland were at their height, people began to blame anyone with an Irish accent, and it made it more difficult for people here who were from an Irish extraction to be helpful in rooting out those who were intent on taking life. We’ve got a real challenge, and part of the difficulty is that the mechanisms we’ve got for doing this don’t really apply to the modern era. People are picking up these ideas, and being indoctrinated online in a way that wouldn’t have happened even ten years ago.” He also questioned the efficacy of Cameron’s letter to UK Mosques as being a good strategy to take. “My query on this would be how

much discussion and testing the water was done with those who are closest to the Muslim community in Britain, to ensure that when this went out, it wasn’t seen as patronising. I think the important thing there would have been to get sign up, from respected figures, not just elders, but younger members of the community, to close those generational gaps as well. Because when I was Home Secretary, even after 9/11, it was clear that there was a mismatch between who we were talking to, and the younger members of the community who weren’t influenced by them. There’s quite a challenge to be talking to the right people, engaging positively with them, and then taking notice of them. I actually do believe very strongly that the generality of the Muslim community are really keen to engage, and to be part of the solution, and it’s just giving them the wherewithal and hearing their solutions, that we need to engage with.” He agreed that social media could be a useful tool in the right hands. “I think social media is a useful tool, but it needs to be used by those who are familiar with it. If it was me doing it that would be a catastrophe! So again, it’s about making sure that you are using those who know what they are doing, and can have a real communication, and a real relationship with those who we are trying to impact on. I cannot begin to think that people from this country would travel and join ISIS, when you hear their families talk about how normal they were before they were involved in this. Engagement is important, and trying to understand how (a medical student) who could be engaged in a positive, caring way, in a profession which required humanity, could then lay aside that humanity, raises some very profound questions about what messages reach them.” David clearly feels that that there is a lack of thinking outside the box in politics today. There are creative ways to solve the problems that we face in all three areas we discussed without approaching the issue in the false dichotomy of to cut or not to cut. For whoever wins the next election, this is a lesson that needs to be taken to heart if they are to achieve anything close to what has been promised, to improve the standard of social care and education, to prevent the radicalisation of those attracted towards Iraq and Syria, and more broadly, to reengage those fundamentally disaffected with politics. George’s full interview can be read at www.beaveronline.co.uk.


31

Features

Tuesday February 17, 2015

To Bibi Or Not To Bibi?

A crucial election for Israel Sam Barnett First Year Postgraduate BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, known as ‘Bibi’ to the press and electorate, is the Prime Minister of Israel and a fixture in international affairs. He lead the country from 1995-1999, and again from 2009 to the present, a very long time in uncertain Israeli politics. A fluent English speaker with an Americanfriendly manner, he was Israel’s main representative to the US during the Madrid peace conference. A right-wing security hawk, he is a former special forces soldier, brother of Israeli national hero and martyr Captain Yoni Netanyahu, and the son of a prominent founding member of the Israeli right. He is also an incredibly canny political animal, a pragmatist and supreme opportunist, and seen by many across the world as a major barrier to progress in the peace process, given his aversion to risk and dismissive attitude towards the Palestinian leadership. The Israeli election is, to all intents and purposes, a referendum on his leadership. Since his return to power, Bibi the born politician has dwarfed his domestic opponents, a shower of naïve novices, lacklustre stiffs, populists and sectarians. Yet in Israel’s odd democracy, he hasn’t had it all his own way. With a directly proportional system and one national constituency, no modern era political party can come close to an outright majority, and an Israeli politician’s job is as much centred on building and maintaining multi-party coalitions as winning votes. Netanyahu has excelled at this game, remaining seemingly strong and credible through two very different coalition governments, whilst his partners always seemed to end up somehow discredited by working with him. That, presumably, was why at the end of last year he expelled his moderate partners in government in a spat over a controversial Jewish State bill, and went to the country early, expecting a renewed mandate for right-wing parties and a more conservative coalition with less compromises. It seemed like there would be little stiff competition once again, and the election would merely ratify the composition of Bibi’s next government. Yet the sudden decision has catalysed opposition, and the fractured and disparate Israeli left has aligned against Netanyahu, rising in the popularity and playing on the idea that this is the best chance yet to remove the man who looked like he could go on indefinitely. The polls have narrowed between Netanyahu and his nearest left-wing rival; first place

gets the crucial first chance to form a coalition. There are three realistic scenarios for a result. The first is a Netanyahu-led coalition, probably with mostly right-leaning and religious parties, and whatever small centre or left parties he can entice with special issue concessions. The second is a Netanyahu-free centreleft coalition, built around his main rival Zionist Camp list (a coalition of two parties- see below) with other centre, left and possibly Arab parties, and whichever religious parties they can convince. Finally, there could potentially be a national unity government, in which the Zionist Camp put aside their pledge not to work with Netanyahu and only one or two small parties are required to join for the required number of seats (this has happened before, as recently as 2012). The runners and riders (n.b. the name most commonly used in media is used here, whether English or Hebrew). The parliament is called the Knesset, and 60+ Members of the Knesset (MKs) out of 120 are needed for a government. Likud Netanyahu’s party is the main body of the Israeli right, analogous to the UK Conservatives or US Republicans. They are economically free-market, centre-right socially and extremely security conscious. They see the West Bank settlements as tactically advantageous, whether as bargaining chips or strategic assets, and are sceptical of negotiation with Palestinian leaders, though have sat at the table in the past. (Currently on 18 seats)

Zionist Camp The formal name for a coalition of two parties. The bulk of this group is Labor, led by Isaac ‘Buji’ Herzog, the great left-wing party of Israel’s first governments, now diminished and usurped as natural party of government by Likud. The second is the small pro-peace centrist Hatnuah party, essentially a vehicle for former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Labor, flagging in opposition under the slightly drab Herzog, vaulted to a poll lead after arranging a deal to run with Livni, who provides the gravitas they have lacked in the recent past. They are focused on peace and social justice, but lack credibility on security. If they win, Herzog and Livni have agreed to 2 years each as Prime Minister, a slightly less odd proposition in Israel than elsewhere. (Labor on 15 seats, Hatnuah 6.) Jewish Home The party of settlers and religious Zionists, and the largest hard-

right party. Led by the charismatic former para and self-made millionaire Naftali Bennett, they would annex large tracts of the West Bank directly, and support settlement expansion. Were a part of Netanyahu’s last government and would likely be again. (13 seats) Yesh Atid A secular centre party led by the TV personality Yair Lapid, focused on middle-class issues like the high cost of living and lack of housing (and, lately, anti-corruption). Tentatively pro-peace, they did extraordinarily well as a new party in 2013, becoming the second largest party and installing Lapid as Finance Minister. His reforms remain largely undelivered and their popularity has crashed. Their strong support for a bill to draft ultra-Orthodox scholars means some religious parties are sworn not to join any coalition with them involved. Their opposition to the Jewish State bill forced this election. (19 seats) Yisrael Beiteinu A hard-right party with heavy support from Russian and Eastern European populations, led by Avigdor Liebermann, a swaggering post-Soviet style politician. Seen as racist by some for their suspicion of Israeli Arab citizens and advocacy of swapping Arab towns in Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Recently much diminished by corruption scandals, Liebermann has started making pro-peace noises. (13 seats) Kulanu A new party led by former Likud rising star Moshe Kahlon, they have had to rush to put a list together and nobody knows quite what to expect- probably a slightly centreright version of Yesh Atid, aimed at fed-up middle-class moderates. With a decent number of seats, they

Source: Flikr, IsraelinUSA

could be a key final piece in a coalition for right or left. (0 seats) United Torah Judaism, Shas and Yachad The religious parties of various denominations. UTJ are fairly ambivalent to the shape of government as long as ultra-orthodox issues are treated with due deference, though they generally wind up supporting the right. Shas have been a little more right-wing in recent years, though their current leader Aryeh Deir has supported pro-peace governments before. Yachad is a more rightist offshoot of Shas led by Eli Yishai, who moved Shas rightwards before Deri returned (from a stint in prison) to replace him. (UTJ 7, Shas 11, Yachad 0) Meretz A smallish leftist, environmentalist and vocally pro-peace party that is also pushing a socially liberal agenda on issues like gay marriage. May join a left coalition. (6 seats) Arab List Made up of three Arab parties, Hadash (socialist), Balad (Arab Nationalist) and UAL-Ta’al (Islamic). Usually these parties divide the Arab vote, some 20% of the electorate (though registration is disproportionately low), and as such play little part except protesting in opposition. However an electoral reform gambit by Liebermann to try and squeeze them out has forced them to join together, and polls suggest that they could grab enough seats to be crucial. Naturally pro-peace, but occasional anti-Zionist messages make other parties wary- Balad MK Haneen Zoabi is particularly vocal and disliked. (UAL-Ta’al 4, Balad 3, Hadash 4) Not running: Kadima The centrist party set up by deceased former PM Ariel Sharon dominated the scene from 20052009, but has gradually dwindled to nothing after Netanyahu took power. Their decision to work with him during his first recent coalition compounded the defections and unpopularity - a stark reminder of the danger of working with Bibi. (2 seats, not running). With Israel permanently in the international spotlight, this election decides who will treat with the PLO, oversee the handling of Gaza, police the border with Hezbollah, respond to Iran, juggle Arab allies’ needs, and a thousand regional issues beyond. It will decide who represents Israel to the UN, the US, and the rest of the world. For foreign policy watchers, this could be the most crucial election of the year.

Farewell section editorial: IT IS WITH MUCH SADNESS that I announce in these pages that after 16 issues this year I will no longer be editing the Features section. What has been an immensely enjoyable experience has only been made possible by tens of wonderful contributors, but a special thank you goes out to my fantastic Features colleagues, my co-editors and deputies throughout the year, whose invaluable input I simply could not have done without. Beyond the mushy giving of thanks, I actually do wish to say something about how happy I am happy with the direction I have steered the section in this year, with more articles about international affairs and more articles relevant to liberation groups than in previous years. It is something of an end of an era for me, however. The very first section editor of The Beaver I met was Chris Rogers, who edited the Features Section, with incumbent General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine, during my first year. It was Chris who appointed me the section’s dedicated ‘Politics Columnist’ and I wrote tens of thousands of words of content of varying quality. Then in the summer of 2013, Mike Pearson appointed me to be one of his deputies, along with incumbent Education Officer Tom Maksymiw. It was a role in which I not only learned to use InDesign, but also predicted the rise of ISIS and wrote a chunk more questionable rubbish about Ed Miliband. Taking over Features this year has not only been part of a natural progression, but has also been immensely fun. For anyone still reading this far, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to get involved with The Beaver in some shape or form. It has been a formative and crucial part of my LSE experience, and I hope that more people discover how enjoyable and inclusive a community The Beaver can be. If I have proved nothing else in this editorial, I have perhaps proved that if your life’s ambition is to be a sabbatical officer to the LSESU then getting involves with the Features section of the Beaver isn’t a bad place to start. Anyway, my trajectory is onwards and, maybe, upwards. But carry on writing for George, and for whoever my successors editing this section may be. Liam Hill


Features

Tuesday February 17, 2015

32

Politics and Twitter

Hello Carswell: A Digital World of Gaffes George Harrison Features Editor SO C I A L M E D I A represents both an enor mous campaigning opportunity and a potential mire of embarrassment for those in the political world; a good grasp of Twitter or Facebook, and it’s easy to gar ner substantial momentum for a cause or re-election campaign, however, it can all go wrong very quickly. Media “gaffes” are a contemporary staple of the rapidly digitalising political world, as highlighted by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell earlier this year; an inexplicable Tweet invited Carswell’s 28000 followers to “Come play Hello Kitty World” with him, followed by a link to the app, a screenshot and the expression

AN U N D O U B TA B L E staple in the world of digital slip-ups was contributed by current Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, when he tweeted simply “Ed Balls” on 28 April 2011. This tweet soon went viral amid intense speculation as to why the Labour MP would tweet his own name, with the common consensus being that Balls is actually rather vain and had attempted to search himself, instead unwittingly tweeting his name to tens of thousands of fol-

“Kittt”. The tweet was rapidly favourited by over 1000 people, and saw responses that varied from utter incredulity to a mock exclamation of appreciation for Hello Kitty World’s “Open Primaries” and “Tough Kitty recall system”. The Clacton MP was quick to laugh it off and shift the blame for the game invitation on to his 5 year old, claiming that it would be “the last time” that his daughter would be “left in charge of the iPad”; the eurosceptic defector did go on to add that it was a great game regardless. Remarkably, Carswell, a key UKIP figurehead, seemed to come off well from the incident. This is somewhat reflective of the party as a whole, which has endured turbulent press, yet still polls at a considerable 15% with the general election looming.

lowers. The confusion was cleared up by the Telegraph and the suspicions of the internet masses were confirmed when it emerged that Ed Balls was shopping for the ingredients for BBQ Pork in Castleford Asda, when an aide called him and advised him to search for an article referring to him on Twitter; instead of searching, Balls accidentally hit send and wasn’t aware that it was possible to delete Tweets, consigning it to digital histo-

ry. The tweet achieved instant popularity, gaining 25000 retweets and 10000 favourites in the following 3 years, and prompting the yearly digital celebration of “Ed Balls day”, when the tweet is retweeted by extra thousands of users and subsequently does the rounds again. Even Balls himself engaged in the anniversary of his eponymous tweet, as did John Prescott, Yvette Cooper and thousands of delighted Twitter users. Ed Balls indeed.

ANOTHER REMARKABLE Labour gaffe was the surreal “owl-gate” incident, in which an official Labour Party Twitter account essentially promised the electorate an owl if they were to vote Labour in the upcoming general election. The declaration “Everybody should have his own owl” prompted considerable ridicule from the digital community when the opposition party’s press account made the tweet on 19 June 2014. Criticism was levelled instantly at the Labour Party, not just due to the surreal nature of the tweet, but also due to its gender nor mativity. The link embedded in the tweet was said to be a link to a virus, according to angry members of the Twitter community. Particularly witty responses included a Tweet by @GuidoFawkes​ that read “For more infor mation about the Labour owl policy, contact their press office on 28 28 20”. The offending tweet was promptly deleted and blamed on a bot, with follow up tweets from the account making light of Labour’s new or nithological commitment and suggesting that the tweet was expected to be a “head tur ner”, although it “never took off ”.

DAVID CAMERON ALSO ended up in hot water when his official Twitter account accidentally followed @carltonslondon, an “Elite London Escort Agency”. Number 10 claimed that the account had been followed due to a somewhat glitched automated system, and that following the account is not necessarily indicative of an endorsement from the Prime Minister. Cameron is on record as being reluctant to take to Twitter; this incident, noticed by followers and the technology website, The Register, in 2013, led to the PM being lambasted by followers for an apparent air of ignorance regarding the digital world. Rife speculation as to why this account in particular was followed erupted, with the most commonly accepted suggestion being that Cameron intended to follow The Carlton Club, a Conservative club unconnected to the escort agency Carltons Of London.


33

Features

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Get Your Drachmas Out?

Is Greece Waving Goodbye To The EU? Martha Petrocheilos LSESU Democracy Committee GREECE HAS MANAGED TO become Angela Merkel’s ultimate nightmare; one could say the same about the rest of Europe. With the country having dominated the headlines and demonised by the media more than any other Member State, Greece has been the protagonist of its own circus show for way too long. After six years of recession, Greece seemed to be on the mend, re-entering the bond market, building up investor confidence and gradually decreasing unemployment. Yes, this was real— only it did not last long. Shortly before the government was preparing to conclude the final phase of its second bail-out, a miscalculation by previous Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, led the country into a snap election on January 25th. With a new, overly ambitious Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, Greece’s socialist party Syriza seeks to renegotiate the country’s debt. Although Spain has vividly vouched their support, countries like France and Italy who might otherwise be expected to be sympathetic to the new government, rushed to rule out debt haircuts. With the European Central Bank’s decision to cut off its support to Greek banks, the new government was forced to get creative. On a not-so-sweet trip down Memory Lane, they went as far as demanding Germany to pay its debts resulting from the Nazi war crimes back in WWII. The perceived forward-looking government by many, is bringing hope not only within Greece, but also in the midst of a Union in crisis, setting a revamped example as to the great lengths smaller countries will be prepared to go to in an effort to stomp their foot against austerity. Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has blatantly refused to further renegotiate the existing debt — an unpayable 175% GDP, now reach- ing

€300billion — arguing there have been multiple concessions made already. Can we blame them? Germany is Greece’s biggest creditor, and along with the Troika, consisting of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF, have been labelled as the big bad wolves constantly re-punishing a very much fed-up population. In a way, Greece is almost perceived as the permanently sick child of the EU family where no medicine seems to work — only contributing to the ongoing deterioration of an already weakened health system. Greece leaving the EU looks like a real possibility to some. Indeed, only a few days after Tsipras’s election, thousands of euros were withdrawn from banks in Greece, demonstrating fears of a GRexit. The EU Commission, on the other hand, has made it clear that the country is welcome to stay. The risks of Greece leaving the Union are greater than it staying: if the country leaves, this will bring into question the supposed irrevocability of membership. On the other hand, if the EU decided to overwrite significant amounts of the existing debt, it will be deemed unfair for other countries such as Portugal or Spain. Why would Greece deserve some form of special treatment? On that note, Greece is already paying a smaller share of GDP in debt service than either of those countries. The majority of people in Greece have nothing to lose. They are not particularly attracted to the prospect of more years of austerity to come. For them it is irrelevant whether the country is inside or outside the EU; either way, those people will keep queuing for the soup kitchens, dealing with unemployment and drowning further into extreme poverty every single day. It would be great if Greece could fulfil its financial obligations, but without creating strategies for future growth, this expectation is exactly that — an unrealistic expectation.

Greek national debt is currently at over 328bn Euros, although the interest on the debt is currently soaring at a rate of 783 Euros/ Second. The amount of national debt equates to over 167% of Greek GDP, with the rate of debt per Greek citizen at just under 30000 Euros.

Fighting tax evasion and corruption, as well as shaking up Greece’s cosy business elite, have been Tsipras’s main aims from the start. A fierce opposer of privatisation projects, he has gone on to promise rehiring thousands of public servants and raising wages to pre-crisis levels. With Greece’s bail-out programme expiring at the end of February, the EU fears the Prime Minister will not prolong it, instead hoping to negotiate the country’s way out of austerity. If anything, the country now needs further reforms, instead of fewer, in a solid attempt to boost economic growth and inspire fresh confidence to international investors. Even the riskiest gamblers would be insane to place their money anywhere near Greece at the moment — and we need to create opportunities to change that, using our unrivalled position in shipping and tourism, for example. This week, European leaders confirmed they would only take part in negotiations if Tsipras extends Greece’s bail-out plan, although it is unreasonable to expect more loans without conditions. As such, Tsipras needs to either take a step back and compromise, or be written in History as the prime minister who intentionally led Greece to its downfall. If the man insists on drowning, there is only so much the lifeguard can do. International media agree — unless the country changes course, it will be forced to leave the EU. We will almost miss having Merkel around; and she will certainly miss the cuisine, if not necessarily us. On the bright side, if this does happen, Tsipras can overcome his postfailure blues by having his face printed on Greece’s first drachma. And we could re-trend our Ancient Greek himations strolling around the Acropolis while we’re at it. A thank you to our new Prime Minister’s stubbornness, for making living in the past the only choice with which we might be left.

Alexis Tsipras Profile Liam Hill Features Editor ALEXIS TSIPRAS IS THE youngest prime minister in Greece’s history, and the country’s first self-declared atheist prime minister, and the first radical leftist to head the Greek government in 65 years. He is the country’s first leader to have been born after the end of the military junta which ruled Greece in the 1960s and 1970s. This all, however, pales into insignificance given that Tsipras’

80% of Greece’s debt is owed to fellow European nations, European institutions or to the International Monetary Fund. The Greek government is currently due to pay the IMF €1.4bn in March, and €3bn+ payments on ECB bonds are due in July and August.

election itself and the circumstances leading up to it are far more remarkable than any of his personal characteristics. With Greece’s growing debt nearing €330,000,000,000, nearly 168% of its GDP, Tsipras has been elected at a time of falling living standards for millions of Greeks, on a radical platform of renegotiating Greece’s growing debt at the same time as ending austerity and ending Greece’s ‘humanitarian crisis’ induced by cuts and recession. A politician whose public image portrays youth and vitality, Tsipras now heads a government charged with steering an economy overburdened by debt, and risks being the prime minister of a government overburdened by the enormity of the task it has set itself. The first and greatest test of Tsipras’ mettle will be the negotiations with the EU, especially the German government, between Tsipras, with his new leather jacket-wearing finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, about the restructuring of Greek debt. With the sides’ ambitions so far apart, any agreement will seem like an achievement in itself, and an agreement that is genuinely acceptable both the countries who have bailed out Greece and to this radical Greek government seems in itself a fantastical proposal. While Tsipras’ and Varoufakis’ collision course with Greece’s creditors is looming, Tsipras has already achieved what seemed impossible by breaking into government with a party that 6 years ago won just five per cent of the popular vote. But Tsipras’ - and Greece’s - greatest challenge lies ahead. Alexis Tsipras is a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders, and the fate of Greece in his hands.

Defaulting on any debt repayments might not only scare markets, but might also be the first step towards crashing the Greek economy even further. The social and political turmoil of deeper recession could be catastrophic.


Features Africa Rising: Time to Invest Kemi Akinboyewa Second Year Undergraduate I N M AY 2 0 0 0 , T H E Economist called Africa “The Hopeless Continent”, a decade later, The Economist had changed their tune, and was instead telling the world about “Africa Rising”. Africa is experiencing unprecedented growth – the International Monetary Fund estimates that between 2014 and 2015, real GDP growth will jump from 5.1% to 5.8%. This growth is already being utilised by Private Equity firms. Private Equity firms are some of the biggest money makers in any economy; they are spilling into Africa, where opportunities for company funding are limited, are introducing foreign talent and procedures into the economy, streamlining African businesses, and increasing their cash flows. Private Equity firms are paving the way from developed economies to get involved with the growth in Africa. There are definitely a few entrepreneurs whose names stand out when we think about growth and innovation within Africa, many of these entrepreneurs are women. An example is Winifred Selby, a Ghanaian national who founded Afrocentric Bamboo Limited, a company that manufactures and markets bicycles made from bamboo; or Banke Kuku, a Nigerian textiles designer who founded her selfnamed company in 2011. Many professionals believe that some African nations have the potential to double their economies over the next decade. The message is clear - it’s time to invest in Africa.

Tuesday February 17, 2015

34

Nigeria Political Spotlight

Nigerian Electoral Postponement: A Cause for Serious Concern Jarrett Bunnin First Year Postgraduate NIGERIANS THOUGHT THEY were past this. This doesn’t happen to Nigeria anymore. For the people of the most prosperous state, economically, at least, on the African continent (although the rise of the BRICS player South Africa might have a thing or two to say about that in the years to come). The events of this past year have brought about cries of outrage and calls for President Goodluck Jonathan’s resignation. With Boko Haram’s mass crimes against humanity in their attempt to create an African Islamic caliphate, juxtaposed against the backdrop of the postponement of the presidential election last Saturday for six weeks, Nigeria is going through turbulent times indeed. On Saturday, the electoral commission of Nigeria stated that the more important precedent to tackle at this moment in time was the insurgency in the Northeast that was limiting people’s access to voting ballots

and thus, skewing the elections. Yet, for members of the opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its presidential candidate to rival Mr. Jonathan, one Muhammadu Buhari, this scenario seems a bit bigger; they smell foul play. The ruling party of President Jonathan, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was up against it during the lead up to the initial Election Day, set February 14th. This move is seen by many as a ploy to attempt to gain ground in the electoral process. It is also designed to make up for lost time and opportunities due to the ongoing Boko Haram insurgency that is gripping the country, and the region for that matter. But scepticism runs amok in the Nigeria amid failures by the current regime of Mr. Jonathan to effectively and legitimately combat the efforts of Boko Haram and their reign of terror. Even when the Nigerian National army was having any sort of success in pushing back the insurgency, allegations of human rights violations committed by soldiers in the army upon

members of the insurgency, coupled with high levels of desertion among the same soldiers, has left the credibility of President Jonathan’s regime as whole in tatters; quite a far cry from the days when he first stepped into office in 2010 when Nigeria was one of the more stable and thriving African countries. Furthermore, questions have already arisen with the sketchy timing of this postponement with regards to what the President and his staff actually have in mind to do to wipe out this insurgency. Their reasoning for postponement was, of course, the lack of the possibility of a fair and legitimate election, due to Boko Haram preventing all members of the Nigerian populous to vote. But how they propose to defeat this gang of terror once and for all, in just six weeks mind you, is a conundrum that I dare say even the most brutal of realists would struggle to solve. If Mr. Goodluck Jonathan and his government fail to halt the progress of the Boko Haram caliphate in the next six weeks, what then? Another postponement? Surely

not. The people would not stand for it, and civil unrest, whatever that may entail for the Nigerian people, would undoubtedly be on the cards. An insurrection of Mr. Jonathan’s government seems unlikely, given the democratic nature of the Nigerian state inherent in its history, and the great pride that the people of Nigeria take in this fact. Nonetheless, another attempt at postponement would not be without ensuing dire consequence. The fate of one of Africa’s most prosperous and traditionally stable states for the foreseeable future hinges on the how the events of the next few weeks will play out through the actions made by President Jonathan and his staff. Only time will tell if this postponement was an act of political injustice, or a real attempt to give voting access to all of Nigeria’s people, if they so choose to vote. One thing is certain, times have not been so testing for this great state in many a year, and that is a real cause for concern in a postcolonial Africa where stability between and within in states is historically an issue.

A Nigerian Market. Source: Flikr, Robert

Source: Flikr, izabelter


35

Features

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Show Me The Way Togo: Olympio’s Long March Taryana Odayar Deputy Features Editor TOGO, OFFICIALLY KNOWN as the Togolese Republic, is a country in West Africa bordered by Ghana to the west, Benin to the east and Burkina Faso to the north. It extends south up to the Gulf of Guinea, where its capital Lomé is located. It has a population of just under 7 million people, its official language is French, and it is home to a particularly distinguished LSE

Gnassingbé Eyedéma President of Togo, 1967-2005 alumn; Sylvanus Olympio (6 September 1902 – 13 January 1963), who after studying Economics at the LSE under Harold Laski, went on to become the Prime Minister and then the very first President of Togo. Olympio served as President from 1958 until his untimely assassination in 1963, thereby making him the first President to be assassinated during a military coup in post-colonial era Africa. Upon graduating from our esteemed institution, Olympio, who spoke English and French equally fluently, went back to his beloved country as the General Manager of Unilever’s African operations. During the Second World War, Togo came under the control of the Vichy France government, which eventually arrested Olympio in 1942 because of their suspicion of his and his family’s alleged ties with the British. However, Olympio’s imprisonment in the isolated city of Djougou in French Dahomey would prove vital to the formulation of his political agenda, and upon being released, he began actively

campaigning to secure Togo’s independence from the French. Indeed, a large part of Olympio’s short life, and sadly even shorter political career, was dedicated to achieving independence for his beloved country. However, this would prove to be an uphill battle, as at that time Togo was not officially a French colony, but held the very complex status of being a trustee under the rules of the League of Nations, and following that, the United Nations. In 1947, Olympio resolutely petitioned the UN Trusteeship

CUT party which secured every elected position in the national council, granting Olympio the post of Prime Minister. 1958 to 1961 proved to be Olympio’s golden years in office, as he went on to hold not only the post of Prime Minister, but the posts of Minister of Finance, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Justice as well. Then, in 1961, the citizens of Togo voted to instate a President, as well as the Constitution created by Olympio’s party. With over 90% of the vote, Olym-

in 1963, was mourned by the entire country, who were devastated to have lost a true statesman without whom their country may never have achieved independence. The assassination, which was the culmination of a coup led by rebel army officers, angered many African states, such as Guinea, Liberia, the Ivory Coast, and Tanganyika, all of whom denounced the coup and the assassination, and refused to recognize the new government by excluding it from the Addis Ababa Conference later that year which formed the

Sylvanus Olympio President of Togo 1958-63 Council to grant Togo its independ- pio then went on to further cement ence, and in doing so, created his- his power in being elected as the tory, as this petition was the first first President of Togo, as well as ever petition for the resolution of finally achieving independence for grievances to be taken to the his country through the apUnited Nations. In the meanproval of the Constitution. time, Olympio founded the During this time, Olympio Comité de l’unité togolaise also sought to improve To(CUT), which later bego’s diplomatic relations came the dominant party with the rest of the interopposing French control national community, espeof Togo. Olympio’s cially Britain and the US, petition to the and to this effect visUN finally ited President John paid off F. Kennedy in in 1958, 1962, and mainw h e n tained friendthe Trusships with teeship many of the Council elites of the ensured day in both that French British and control over American the 1958 elechigh socitions was ety. limited, reOlymsulting in a pio’s brutal resounding assassinavictory for Gilchrist Olympio tion, merely Olympio’s Leader of Togo’s main opposition party 2 years later

Organisation of African Unity. Currently, Olympio’s son, Gilchrist Olympio, is following in his father’s footsteps, as the head of the main opposition party, the Union of Forces for Change, against the incumbent Gnassingbe government. Economically speaking, Togo remains amongst the world’s poorest countries, with a GNI per capita of US$ 570 (World Bank, 2011). Furthermore, it has been faced with wide international disapproval for its human rights record, and is also under considerable pressure to hold more credible parliamentary elections. Recently, opposition groups condemned the changes that have been made to the country’s electoral law which they feel give an undue advantage to the incumbent government coalition. As a republic under transition to multiparty democratic rule, the country is now holding its breath as the 2015 presidential polls draws closer, as whispers of a new political contender challenging the Gnassingbe family’s decades-long rule, grow in both volume and frequency.

Operation Black Vote Lois Mensah-Afoakwah ACS Vice-President WITH UNDER EIGHTY days until the General Elections, never have black people been more powerful. According to research carried out by Operation Black Vote (OBV), in 168 marginal seats, the ethnic minority vote is bigger than the majority of the sitting MP. Further still, black political leverage extends to areas such as Southampton, Oxford, and Northampton. Black activists have rarely been so despondent, complaining that the party’s efforts to reach out specifically to minority communities and to secure more minority MPs have dissipated. However, if black people nationwide realised the extent of their influence, they’d see that they have the power to demand that parties tackle race inequalities now. Politicians need ethnic minorities more than we need them right now. A third of MP’s can be voted in or out depending on the extent that they can appeal to ethnic voters. Twenty eight per cent of Africans alone were not registered to vote in 2010 general elections, compared to seven per cent of white residents. Policies that address disproportionate racial disadvantage and BME political representation matter to reverse apathy. Concerns have been raised at how parties struggle with the notion of minority-only shortlists. Concerns are heightened, as black women are not produced from these short lists to a significant degree. In the 2010 general elections, 68% of ethnic minorities voted for the Labour party. Out of habit and traditions, black people typically vote Labour. But Labour shouldn’t be complacent. As Dianne Abbot has said, “As time passes, people become more likely to consider other options”. Labour does not have hold over ‘the black vote’ as it used to. If current trends continue, future elections will see greater proportions of black people (and other ethnic groups) making choices irrespective of historical voting patterns. The difficulty in convincing ethnic minorities to register and vote is nothing new. However, now the black vote is worth much more; parties are attempting to win us over. George Osborne, the conservative Chancellor of Exchequer, surprisingly wrote a column for the ‘The Voice’, a black newspaper, last year, detailing how “Labour’s tax on flights is a crazy system that mean people pay more tax going to Jamaica than Hawaii”. This tactical exposure was to persuade potential West Indian voters to think well of him and his party in time for May’s election. This is one of many ‘forward steps’ politicians and their parties are making to attract black voters.


Features

Tuesday February 17, 2015

36

Jie Wang interviews Lord Adair Turner of Ecchinswell

China: Hereditary, Revolutionary, Paradoxical

Lord Turner talks to The Beaver about China’s prosperity, its spirit and its future LORD ADAIR TURNER OF Ecchinswell has combined careers in business, public policy and academia. Since April 2013 he is Senior Fellow of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET). Prior to that Lord Turner was Chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority from September 2008 until March 2013. During this time he played a leading role in the redesign of the global banking and shadow banking regulation. In the LSESU China Development Forum, Lord Turner made a speech on “the macro challenge of China in a global context”. In the speech, he argued that China’s economic growth has focused too much on infrastructure building. The infrastructure boom may result in bad debts and spare capacity. China has recently announced the New Silk Road initiative, which aims to build infrastructure along the old Silk Road. What is your comment on the project? It’s a perfectly good thing for China to do. China now has a set of capabilities in infrastructure building in particular things like high-speech railways. It makes sense essentially to export that capability. It makes sense for individual companies to export that capability as well. But that amount is relatively small in relation to the big macro aggregates that I was talking about. All roads that need to be built along the old Silk Road are still relatively small in terms of China total employment or total Chinese domestic demand. But it’s still a perfectly sensible thing to use the capability. However, there is danger as well. Infrastructure investment is an interesting part in my theory. On the hand, infrastructure building done correctly can be very positive for growth. When I visited Guangdong province, the great infrastructure are absolutely essential to the extraordinary effective sup-

ply chain, manufacturing and hub for the world. Infrastructure development done well is a hugely powerful drive for economic growth. But infrastructure throughout history has also been has a huge potential to produce white elephant, or wasted infrastructure. So clearly, that will be the danger. Infrastructure development in some emerging countries have produced large amount of corruption, expenditure driven by people who supply the concrete rather than where there is real needed. There is an economic case for strong transport links from China through central Asia and into Europe. If it is not done well, however, there is also a plenty of opportunity for waste and corruption along the route. In your book Economics after the Crisis, you argued that GDP growth should not be regarded as the overriding objective for economic development. However, there is a strong GDP worship in Chinese government, at both central and local level. Do you think this is going to change? I noticed with interest that Shanghai has now moved away from it and said that they are not going to do GDP worship in future. And I think that logic is that

there is an early state of economic development where there probably is a very strong correlation between GDP growth and the welfare of people, because you are simply putting people in a house for the first time, giving them basic food and basic employment. But the higher the income level gets, the less is the clear correlation between yet further income growth and human welfare. So it’s not surprising and indeed very sensible that Shanghai, one of the richest place in China, which is being one of the richest to say that we are now at the level of GDP capita where our focus should no longer be simply on yet more and more GDP, but should be on a wider set a measures. And clearly that’s very important to the Chinese environment. The GDP focus in terms of the competition between different regions and cities and in terms of the performance measurement of party cadres has generated some wasted productivity, because the easier way to drive GDP in the short term is to do infrastructure investment, to pour concrete and to build heavy industry. This gives rise to two disadvantages. First, it can produce eventual problems which will slowdown even GDP level let alone human welfare. And it obviously produces major environmental problem that we are all aware of. I think that we will see and we should see China, even while it is focused on GDP growth, accepting a lower rate of GDP growth. And I think we will move into an environment where Chinese GDP growth is more than 6 or 7%, rather than 10%. I think we will see China and we should see China saying there are other things we’ve got to achieve even it means a slighter slow rate of GDP growth, for instance much cleaner air. I think China also through the deployment of renewable energy has the opportunity to grow, to continue to grow, but in a much more environmentally friendly fashion. And

I think in the most advanced bits of China like Shanghai we will see cities and provinces increasingly saying that we are now rich enough. We no longer have to be fixated on growing GDP faster and faster and faster. What impact has China produced with regard to its economic slowdown? It had a very major influence already. I think the Chinese economic slowdown over the last 6 month is fundamental to the trends we’ve seen in global commodity prices, in iron, ore, coal and oil. I think that’s important to point out that although the oil price fall was partly driven by supply factors, in particular dramatic development in oil shale gas. It was also a reflection of global slowdown in demand of which the slowdown in of China was very important. That's very important because if it was simply a supply factor, it would have been strongly positive for developing market. If the fall in oil price is in itself driven by a general slowdown of demand, then it is a deflationary effect for the world. I believe at the very start that the oil price, although I think it will be net positive in developing market, I am less optimistic than some people have thought. I think its origins had quite a lot to do with the slowdown of demand in China. The Chinese economic slowdown would be significant this year, because China is dealing with an incredible difficult transition, from switch off an infrastructure investment, a credit-driven model of growth, and move to a different one of growth. I have huge confidence in the technical competence of Chinese authorities. But however competent you are, you can’t do that transition without a significant transitional slowdown. So I think that China this year, the net effect will be deflation. Price index in China is very deflationary at the moment. Producing prices have fallen in probably around last 24 months, Lord Adair Turner has previosly described himself as a “technocrat” and boasts a distinguished career and a life peerage to show for his success, in recognition of his public service to the nation. He has chaired a UK government enquiry into pensions and was once the chair of the Economic and Social Research Council.

retail price index is only above 0, and consumer index is only 1.5%. I think we will see the PBOC reducing interest rate further. I think the natural tendency might be for the Chinese currency to devalue. But the authority is ambivalent about that because they are interested in the internationalisation of RMB and its role as reserve currency. But I think we are in a world where the deflationary pressures derive from a debt overhang are very deep. And I think what’s happening in China is a further intensification of a set of deflationary trend which will be there in any case. In the recent anti-corruption campaign, we could see that people who are standing behind the big banks or private equity companies are the socalled “princelings”. What do you think is the problem of it? I think we live in a world of very significant inequality, where rich people have the ability to ensure that their children can do well, through the education they can afford, the places they can go to, the experiences they got, and the contacts they got. I think China has a quiet extreme variation of that. If you combine the generational accumulated advantage or disadvantage with one-party state, and with a leadership selection process whereby the leaders of this generation select the leader of next generation, it is quite clear that you may end up with a political system in which the princelings would play a very big role. Combined with a high level of economic inequality, it leads to a very hereditary element within the social structure. This would be very ironic for Chinese communist party because it does not fit with Mao’s ideology of smashing the old, etc. So clearly that is a challenge. I think in the anti-corruption thing has to make sure there is no corruption element of that. It is interesting, of course, that even in an elective political environment, people who are in families which understand politics are often good at politics. After all, we may have a U.S. presidential election in 2016, which has a Clinton against a Bush. This is quite interesting. For a long period of time, the Democrats always wanted someone who called Kennedy, or vitiate of Kennedy. Other countries, even in elective systems, there is often name recognition and also a familiarity with political process which create a natural capabilities. But one has to make sure that it does not go too far and it is also not the basis for the corruption of accumulated wealth.


37

Features

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Kurdistan: A State Waiting for Recognition Dween Billbas First Year Undergraduate THE SUMMER OF 2014 saw an unprecedented offensive by the Islamic State. Having seized the third largest Iraqi army base on October alongside millions of dollars worth of Iraqi weaponry, the Islamic State have vowed to take control of the Iraqi-Kurdistani capital, Erbil and other Kurdish-occupied regions. Reaching within 40 miles of the capital, the IS have recently suffered major setbacks at the hands of the Kurdish armed forces, also known as the Peshmerga. Air superiority from coalition states has paved the way for Kurdish fighters to secure major positions and cities on the ground. The Yazidi people, who had been besieged by the IS terrorists for months in the Sinjar mountains were liberated in December last year. The Mosul Dam was retaken on August, which has been followed only last week with an advance on the city itself. Currently, the Iraqi-Kurds are operating as a semi-autonomous entity within Iraq. It has its own practices, policing and domestic laws. The relative stability in Kurdistani regions has attracted foreign direct investment, bringing growth and opportunity to the regions. Alongside economic prosperity, many political ties have been made with foreign states. Countries including the United States, France and the UK have consulates in the capital, Erbil. The Europeans are particularly sup-

portive of the Kurds’ secular and integrative policies. Some European states, such as Germany, have granted support in the form of ammunition to tackle the ongoing IS threat. Moreover, the Israeli Prime Minister has outwardly supported the move for Kurdish Independence. In fact, Israel and the Kurds have had historic economic and social ties, and an alliance would bring greater stability to the hostile region. Granted that progress is being made both economically and politically, the issue with Kurdish independence is still a tricky one. Contemporary use of Kurdistan refers to four parts of a greater Kurdistan, which is made up of southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, and western Iran. There are approximately 35 million Kurds scattered across these regions, including many European countries

and the US. The displacement of the Iraqi Kurds was a result of Saddam’s brutal regime, which sought to persecute and ethnically cleanse. The greatest barrier, however, to achieving independence comes from neighbouring Turkey. There is an estimated 12 million Kurds currently living in the East of Turkey and a possibility of independence of the Iraqi-Kurdish region may warrant a movement by the Turkish Kurds. Also the US and other western countries are opposed to the breakup of Iraq, as it could result in further fractionalisation and would bring added insecurity to the region. Hopefully, in my lifetime we will see Kurdistan be officially recognised as a state. Having almost achieved statehood following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, almost 100 years later, the boundaries of a state for the Kurdish people exist only in

the hearts and minds of those who live within them. The road to official recognition has seemed to slowly drift away. Arguably though, the Kurds are now in the best position to finally secure absolute autonomy. The current conflict has brought a lot of positive media focus on the Kurdish response. They now share a common enemy with the secular states in the West and this has bolstered support for their ultimate cause. The humanitarian crises like the fleeing of Yazidi minorities in Sinjar and the besiegement of Kobani have put the Kurdish struggle on the agenda of many media outlets. But what do we actually mean by an independent Kurdish state? Does it stop at the Iraqi-Kurdistani region or could that merely be a catalyst for the ultimate creation of a greater Kurdistan? Right now, the IraqiKurdistani region is the most likely part to attain complete independence and what may follow in terms of the other regions’ reactions is still uncertain. Statehood for the Kurd signifies something greater than a simple, nationalistic ideal and conveys the struggle of a minority that the people have not been able to represent. It is quite surprising to know that it is the largest ethnic group without a state. Once the identity of a people is officially recognized, it will create a way to reveal a hidden culture and to understand a history of hardship that has been overshadowed. I believe it is the right for them to give their story and to be heard – it has been long overdue.

Political Bulk Buying and LGBT+ Rights Lorenz Kost LGBT+ Alliance Officer B R I TA I N , E U RO P E A N D the Western world in general has come far when it comes to LGBT+ rights and the wider struggle for equality and minority rights. But in this article I would like to address an issue that bothers many within the community and risks alienating them from our causes. The movie ‘Pride’ has been a massive success and heavily acclaimed by critics. However, the issue I want to address is the centre piece of this great movie - the coupling of LGBT+ rights with other political issues. In the eyes of many, Thatcher did not have had the best record on equality, but her economic reforms were necessary to modernize the country. Britain had just been bailed out by the IMF and was running double-digit inflation. The question is whether I can hold these apparently contradictory views? Can I support gay rights and support Thatcher’s economic policies?

The main aim for LGBT+ rights is to achieve our equality; not equality for others. You might think this is selfish, but there is a serious point to be made. Many campaigners have nowadays combined LGBT+ rights with other political priorities. In Germany, for example, it is impossible to vote for a strongly pro-LGBT+ party without choosing the Greens or a ‘loony left-wing’ party that is the direct legal successor of East Germany’s communist dictatorship. Although LGBT+ rights are very close to my heart, I am forced to ignore them as I would otherwise have to vote for a bunch of policies that I fundamentally disagree with. Now the situation in Germany really isn’t that bad, so I find myself prioritising other economic policies and foreign affairs over LGBT+ rights. It’s either many policies I want and one I disagree with or a single one I want and many that I oppose. As an economist, I’d say the former bundle clearly puts me on a higher indifference curve, although it’s nowhere close to Pareto efficiency. The point I am trying to make

is that the LGBT+ campaign risks alienating important supporters and voices from within the community by combining our rights with other political priorities. Although this is not meant to target a certain political ideology, this ‘clustering of causes’ often happens on the left. I have never found myself at an Occupy camp and neither do I want to scrap Trident or leave NATO. You might think differently, but these are my legitimate opinions. Even at LSE I have been confronted with the choice of “rising up against the capitalist regime because I’m gay”. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I don’t really see the link between capitalism and LGBT+ oppression. After all, the most liberal countries in the world are all market economies. So why should I have to choose LGBT+ rights campaigns that are heavily interlinked with the hard-left, the Greens or other political movements? I am a very liberal person. Deriving this from John Staurt Mill’s point of view it means that freedom goes as far as possible until I restrict someone else’s, i.e. cause them

harm, advocate hate speech or limit their freedom of choices in life. But this is exactly what the LGBT+ community risks doing. Many feel that their political choices are limited as one has to ‘bulk buy’ policy packages that contain LGBT+ rights but are generally opposed. Maximizing our voice means that we have to make the campaign for equality accessible for everybody in the community. Anything else is neither fully democratic nor very liberal. So when I say we have to fight for our own rights, not for others’, I mean that LGBT+ campaigns shouldn’t get involved with other political causes, as it presupposes what others think on nonLGBT+ issues and risks alienating our own supporters. Disclaimer: I would like to state that I am not advocating any political views from right or left in this article, but argue for exactly the opposite. This article is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the LSE SU LGBT+ Alliance, which remains apolitical on any issues other than LGBT+ issues.

corner Katie Budd RAG President THIS WEEK WE’RE promoting our annual European Hitch! A very simple concept you have to get from London to a selected European city, with no money. Easy, right? Wrong. Past destinations have included Berlin, Prague and Zagreb. But this Easter we’re going even further and taking our intrepid travellers all the way to Budapest, Hungary. This might sound like one of the most challenging things you’ll ever do, and it probably is. That being said, it’s also some of the most fun you’ll ever have and all for an incredibly worthy cause: War Child. To give you an idea of the simultaneously challenging and amazing a time you’ll have, I’ll tell you a little about my experience hitch hiking to Zagreb, Croatia last year. My team set off from London with much enthusiasm. We quickly made it to Dover, which only served to boost our confidence. But our luck would soon run out because it was around this point that our teammate, James, forgot how to smile. After hours waiting for a lift we finally made it on to a ferry across the channel, finding a nice driver heading south. This may have been the wrong direction, but we were sure it was the right decision to avoid getting stuck in Calais. 3 days, 2 nights on service station floors and 1 accidental trip to the Eiffel Tower later, we began to regret this choice. Eventually, we got to Germany where we blagged lifts in cars and trains across the country (did I mention that one of those cars had a Bugatti Veyron in the trailer?) and somehow ended up in Munich. From here we were picked up by our guardian angel who took us to Salzburg. After a long traipse through the Austrian Alps and Slovenia, we finally made it to Zagreb and only thinly escaped coming last. That night we indulged in what felt like the world’s heaviest night of sleep and then spent two days exploring the city and getting to know its nightlife with our fellow hitchers. Knowing were raising money for charity (through sympathy) made the whole thing so much easier and I honestly had a hilarious time with two of my best friends. I’d highly recommend it to anyone. This year’s hitch sign ups are open until the end of the week, find your team and sign up!​​


Sport

Tuesday February 17, 2015

38

Netball Sixths Enjoy Victory Over UAL To Round Off Successful Season Saran Richards Netball Sixths Captain LAST MONDAY, EIGHT sixth team veterans braved the cold and headed to Kennington Park to play their last ever game for LSE Netball. Tears of sadness were mixed with tears of joy as the girls enjoyed a final glorious win of 27-10 against UAL 2nds. The girls were immediately off to a promising start as they scored a goal within the first few seconds. However, the match took an unexpected turn as a sprained ankle forced the team’s captain to retire from the court, leaving the girls to fight for survival without her. Somehow, the girls managed to cope and continued to shine as the match went on. Once again, it was no surprise that player of the match was awarded to the incredible Amy Bremner who well and

truly dominated the court as Goal Attack. As always, her ability to motivate, direct and assist her teammates in every aspect was extremely impressive and proved vital. The girls can only thank Amy for her consistent excellence in every match this year. Despite her height, Centre Milli Karlstrom was successful at every single attempt she made to get her hands on the ball. Never has a short person seemed so tall. A slightly taller Laura Weigold made her annual debut as Wing Attack. Her careful eyes anticipated each move and she was thus able to under mine the opposition’s defence and maintain possession for her team. An ever versatile Miriam Cable also shone as she played Goal Shooter for the first time. Little did her teammates know that there was a superb shooter hiding inside her, itching to come out.

Thanks to excellent work from the attacking players, it wasn’t often that the ball reached the defending side. However, when it did, it certainly wasn’t there for long. Martha Averley pivoted like she’s never pivoted before as she carefully assessed which player was in the best position to receive her sneaky passes. Louise Capon leaped like she’s never leapt before as she ensured that each attempt made by the other team to shoot was as unpleasant as possible. Finally, Leena Kang stretched her long ar ms like she’s never stretched them before as she hit the ball out of court whenever it came within an inch of the opposition. This year has certainly been the best yet for the sixth team. The change from dramatically losing every single match last year to winning over half their matches is certainly one the girls will remember for life.

Their sheer deter mination, strong teamwork and constant positivity are admirable and

has certainly been responsible for the team’s beautiful blossoming.

Women’s Hockey Secures Promotion By Defeating Reading University 2s Sahar Khan Hockey First XI Captain LSE WOMEN’S HOCKEY 1st XI has secured their promotion in a well-fought 5-0 victory over Reading University 2nds. The pressure was on as the Beavers battled to defend their winning streak. After a strong start from LSE, Reading defence had a lot of work to do. The first goal was scored from a rebound off Reading’s keeper which was swept into the goal by India Steele to put the beavers ahead 1-0 at half time. Reading came out fighting hard in the second half; however the Beavers came out harder with exceptional and consistent work rate by the whole team in a bid to prevent an equaliser from Reading. The team’s work on fitness this season has really paid off on the pitch. After a disallowed goal by Reading in the middle of the second

half, LSE found fifth gear and attacked hard scoring a further 4 goals in the final 15 minutes. Goal scorers were Carole Apotheloz, Lili Kettlewell, Amy Clarke and ViceCaptain Nicola McCabe who scored an absolute screamer in the closing moments of the game deflecting the ball into the top right hand corner of the goal. The team is now looking to complete the entire season unbeaten and have their sights set on winning the cup with the quarter final next week at the Olympic Park. Our success this season is a testament to a phenomenal team effort. Everyone’s commitment to training and tactic sessions as well as early mor ning fitness sessions has led to our excellent perfor mance on a Wednesday. Umpires have described our playing style as “class hockey” and “a pleasure to watch”. The great perfor mance of this team is attributable to every player.


39

Sport

Tuesday February 17, 2015

Mixed Hockey Finishes Incredible Season By Winning League Title Krishna Aswani Hockey Mixed XI Captain WE’VE WON THE LEAGUE, again! This season has been incredible. With over 30 different players playing throughout the season, from experienced first team players to people picking up a stick for the first time, the achievement of the mixed hockey team retaining (yes retaining!!) the LUSL Premier League title has truly been a collective effort. After winning the league last year, we were heading into this season with high spirits. There was a large third year presence in the team last year so at the start of the season there were many places up for grabs. As the captain, I knew fresher’s fair was really important in terms of building a large squad. Our good fresher recruitment helped us remain optimistic for the season ahead; however, there were a couple of changes that we had to adapt to. This included the number of participating teams in the league doubling and the league now included very strong teams such as UCL and a strengthened Kingston side. We knew that we would have some extremely difficult fixtures, coming up against teams technically better player for player than us; however, we didn’t let this get to us. The start of the season saw us come up against Middlesex as well as the Royal School of Mines at our new home pitch, Lee Valley Olympic Park. Man-

THIS WEEK’S REPORT IS for all the Zoo Bar lovers out there who give ‘drunk in love’ a whole new meaning. With the singles dwindling, this report pays homage to the romances that somewhat, somehow, made it through the grunge and grime

aging to secure the Olympic pitch in Stratford as the mixed team’s home turf was a big change from last year. Upgrading from the sand-based surface that barely qualifies as a pitch at Mile End to the astro where Germany and the Netherlands battled it out just over 2 years ago for the men’s field hockey gold medal was a privilege for all of us but the surfaces were completely different so it’s something we had to adapt to. This change didn’t seem to faze us as we won 6-0 and 5-1 in the respective fixtures, the first fixture seeing a goal by a debutant to the sport, Conor Rohan. One of our toughest fixtures of the seasons was against our rivals from Bloomsbury, UCL. Having very strong men and women’s first teams, we knew that they had the ability to put an end to our winning streak. This, however, turned into one of the greatest mixed team victories with the score line ending up as 3-1 to LSE (the score maybe hiding how tough this fixture in fact was). This win against UCL marked a point in the season when there was widespread belief that we may be able to compete against the very top teams to push for that first place spot. I would say our hardest game, however, was when we travelled away to Kingston University. After a convincing five goal win when we played them the previous year, we were reasonably comfortable of putting in a repeat performance but from their warm up, it was evident to all of us that this may

not be as easy as we had expected. A tense first half ended with neither side scoring but the deadlock was broken when one of their players, who plays for a championship equivalent hockey club, put the ball in the top corner of our goal. Knowing we had matched them more or less in the first half, we kept our heads up and a few minutes later, Matt slotted a goal past their keeper. With the score at 1-1, a draw would have been a fair result for both teams due to an evenly matched game. With 5 minutes left on the clock, a solo effort from our men’s club captain, Matt, ended in a chip that flew over the keeper into the bottom corner, securing a hard earned victory that made the journey via several replacement buses a lot easier to handle on the way back. My time as the mixed team captain throughout this year will

of Zoo Bar. This AU’s President and his Great Britton have shown us that Zoo is no place for romance. The couple take opposite sides of the dance floor until the doors close and they leave together. That’s a true AU couple if we ever did see one. An FC Executive hasn’t Passe’d over his opportunity for love with a Netball CC. An exSocial Sec has Waltzed away with a Foll-LAD. A non-rugby gent has taken a netballer out to Eit. A Hardwood has Robbed

be memorable for many reasons including winning 16-0 against Goldsmiths just last weekend. Having very dedicated players as well as players that are happy to play at short notice meant that we rarely played with the same team, making a two year unbeaten streak an even bigger achievement. The fact that we have been able to include a variety of hockey standards in the team, week on week, is really an advert for the opportunities that are available in the hockey club for those who are thinking of picking up a stick for the first time. Being able to say that you played a crucial part in a premier league winning team when a few months ago you had little knowledge of anything hockey is something truly unique to mixed hockey at LSE. It has given social members and debutants to the sport game time against strong opposition at some of the

herself an FC. And another non-rugby-non-Exec has Evantually found himself Mad-ly in love with a rower. A WRFC Social Sec has Trained a football lad. The Captain regularly h‘Eds home with her man. A netballer has Captured a hockey fella. And another has found her way into the heart of the Poole and made it Facebook official. How cute….ish. Despite the love in the air, some beveraged souls still managed to make some real gossip for this report…

biggest hockey stages such as Surbiton Hockey Club and the Olympic Park, Stratford. Off the back of our results we have been invited to play several friendlies against nonuniversity mixed hockey clubs, which presents us with further opportunities not only to offer our members more pitch time but also to improve as a team going forward into next season. Our successes to date show how the joint efforts of both clubs continue to take the mixed team from strength to strength, promoting not only sporting excellence by achieving the highest possible accolade but also inclusion, allowing all who want to play the sport to do so at a competitive level. I have been privileged to lead the mixed team to victory in this year’s league and I look forward to seeing how we can build on our current success for next season.

Two ‘balling flatmates made the Hard choice to Tay’ste both their guests. Our CC of the slopes Phill’ed his Pot. An 8th team lady had a rather Cic night. And an extra-social-social-sec finally showed us how to Liv the high life. The best things do come in Small packages? So here we are once again, waving goodbye to one Zoo and hello to another. Commiserations lovers, and good luck to this rest. We hope to see you there next week, as truly, madly, and deeply as ever.


Sport

SUBMIT A MATCH REPORT AND GET YOUR TEAM’S ACHIEVEMENTS IN PRINT

the

Beaver

Editor: Robin Park Email: sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

AU Fight Night Preview DOB: 13/09/1993 Height: 5ft 10 Weight: 61kg Ringname: Becca ‘eat my hook’ Brooks Club: Rowing Why you’re fighting: I ‘volunteered’

Chat about opponent: “If you even dream of beating me, you better wake up and apolo-

DOB: 17/05/1995 Height: 5ft 3 Weight: 61kg Ringname: Beast from the East Club: Women’s Rugby Why you’re fighting: I always wanted to try boxing but I either didn’t have time or felt weird about going into one of the most rough and not-for-women sports. My uncle was also one of the best young boxers in his area in Russia so no pressure on me haha Chat about opponent: Becca is a very nice girl! We’ll see how it goes on the night though.

Becca Brooks

Kate Khmaruk

DOB: 10/12/1994 Height: 5ft 8 Weight: 80kg

Josh Berman

Ringname: The Butcher Club: FC Why you’re fighting: The Butcher loves meat Chat about opponent: He’s going to get chargrilled and spit-roasted like a nando’s chicken, butchered like a Wright’s bar chip butty, minced like a beef lasange, braised like a lamb shank then stuffed like a Christmas Turkey!

DOB: 08/09/1988 Height: 6ft 4 Weight: 94kg Ringname: The Eel Club: Snowsports Why you’re fighting: Something to do on my Wednesdays Chat about opponent: He is a gentlemen and a scholar

Will Gurney

DOB: 08/12/1993 Height: 5ft 8 Weight: 74kg Ringname: Conor ‘CJ’ Rohan Club: Hockey Why you’re fighting: It’s all part of my unstoppable journey to BNOC

Chat about opponent: I hope Josh remembers his glasses - he’ll need them to find all his teeth after the fight

Conor Rohan

DOB: 29/10/1993 Height: 6ft 1 Weight: 88kg Ringname: Max ‘The Earl’ Gumpert Club: Cricket Why you’re fighting: Work off the extra Christmas weight Chat about opponent: I’ve witnessed a lot of Gurney’s antics over the years. He wont be getting naughty in Zoo after I KO him in the third

Max Gumpert

Fight Night will be held Wednesday, 25 February. If you want to submit a review article Email sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.