837

Beaver

Issue 837 | 20.10.15

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

School Scraps £50 Admin Fee for Masters Applications James Clark Staff Writer

A F T E R OV E R A Y E A R of lobbying the school, London School of Economics Student Union (LSESU) General Secretary, Nona Buckley-Irvine, has managed to secure the removal of a £50 application administration assessment fee for current London School of Economics (LSE) students.

The non-refundable fee existed as LSE do not use an external company for graduate admissions unlike other universities. For that reason, the School is required to cover the cost of processing the sheer number of applications that are submitted to the LSE. The fee covers the administrative work that is required to process a Masters application, which includes checking applications to make sure that transcripts, graduate entry test scores, CV’s and references are in the application before it is moved onto Admissions in the relevant department.

As a result of the lobbying, current LSE students will not be required to pay to submit their application to masters programmes at the LSE. The extra fee could have been offputting to potential students who, because of it, may be reluctant to apply for a master’s course at LSE. The new policy does not apply to

students who are applying from other institutions, nor does it apply to LSE Alumni. Many are disappointed that The School has yet to expand the policy to include LSE Alumni. At the next committee meeting there are plans for a request to be submitted so that Alumni will be exempt as well as current students.

The £75 charge for amending programme choice is still currently in place, which is only charged if a student fails to gain an offer for both of their initial choices or wishes to change one of their choices. The relevant form only changes the courses and if applicable a personal statement, so the reason for a higher charge on this is still yet to be explained as the effect of such a form on an application is less admin than an application itself.

The success of this campaign comes as part of a broader emphasis on Widening Participation from the Students’ Union this year.

Applications for Masters Courses at LSE open on 19th October and continue on a rolling basis until places are allocated for entry in September 2016, with a Graduate Open Evening on the 4th November giving potential students the opportunity to find out more about postgraduate courses at LSE. The School’s Undergraduate and General Course students are also entitled to a ten per cent discount on taught Masters programmes.

‘Understanding Inequality Group’ kick off the first Whiteboard Campaign of the year

Comment: Student Satisfaction: We’re All In This Together Sam Povey Former Features Editor

I DON’T THINK I CAN count the number of times that I’ve been disappointed during my two years studying Economics with Economic History at LSE. The woeful teaching, the constant timetable screw-ups, and a student nightclub queuing system that would test a monk’s nerve. It was to my surprise, therefore, to discover that I was one of the lucky ones.

As an article in a previous edition of The Beaver declares, ‘Student dissatisfaction at LSE is due to the prioritising of quantitative course over others.’ If I’m being ‘prioritised’ what the hell are they doing to everyone else?

The author rightly bemoans the state of LSE’s student satisfaction. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. LSE ranks third in the country, but is placed in the bottom 20 for student satisfaction, alongside King’s and UCL. But

the pain is not equally shared, apparently. As she puts it, ‘I don’t know what the [Accounting and Finance] and Economics people have to grumble about.’

On what basis should we, ‘the quants’, keep our mouths shut?

Three reasons, according to the author. The first is lecture capture. I will admit that here, she has a point. Students taking the core courses for economics enjoy having all lectures recorded, allowing them to watch, pause

and rewind at their leisure. This is certainly an area that other departments at LSE lag behind.

As for our ‘nifty handouts’ we are given for every lecture, they are nice, but certainly no luxury. The average economics student sees more graphs in a sing le lecture than most historians during their undergraduate career – this makes note-taking a bit of a challenge.We weren’t selected for our artistic ability after all. But hey, I suppose we do save money on our LSE gym

The City Features

“Osbourne’s political ploy isn’t just Interview with North Korean vacuous; it will actively risk Defector, Hyeonseo Lee the UK’s recovery”

Page 23 Page 26-27

membership by lugging those packs back and forth to campus every day.

Most baffling of all is the author’s admiration of the ‘huge’ Peacock Theatre. But to econonmics students, it is better known as a hellish chasm of despair, filled with broken dreams of intellectual curiosity, and the shrill echoes of Margaret Bray explaining uncompensated demand. Its cushy seats...

Continued on Page 9

Room 2.02, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE Executive Editor Ellen Wilkie

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Managing Editor Megan Crockett

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 837- Tuesday 20 October 2015 -issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Shwetha Chandrashekhar Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editors Mali Williams

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

PartB Editors Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui Flo Edwards

partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The City Editor Alex Gray

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editor Alex Hurst Taryana Odayar

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor Alex Dugan

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Gee Linford-Grayson

online@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Perdita Blinkhorn

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Doherty, A Fyfe, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, C Holden, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Sippel, D Tighe, E Arnold, E Wilkie, G Cafiero, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G Manners-Armstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, I Plunkett, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wurr, K Budd, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, L Kang, L Kendall, L Erich, L Mai, L Montebello, L Schofield, L van der Linden, M BanerjeePalmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pasha, M Pennill, M Strauss, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N BuckleyIrvine, N Stringer, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, R Browne, R J Charnock, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Crabbe-Field, S Kunovska, S Povey, S Sebatindira, T Mushtaq, T Odayar, T Poole, V Hui, Z Chan, Z Mahmod

To join the Collective you need to have written for 3 or more editions of The Beaver. Think you’ve done that but don’t see your name on the list? Email collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk to let us know!

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.

Ellen Wilkie on taking a well deserved break for her 21st Birthday

From the Executive Editor T H I S W E E K I ’ M TA K I N G a break. Not only will I be taking a break from banging on about PTO pay in my editorial but I have also taken the weekend off from the paper. As I’m turning the big 2-1 I thought that it would be a good time to allow myself a lie in, not spend all 7 days of the week on campus and spend a ridiculous amount of money on Japanese food. All credit for these pages this week can go to my very capable Managing Editor, Megan Crockett.

Even though I haven’t actually done any work towards the paper this week, I thought that it would be a good time to reflect on what this position means to me personally, as when can you be self indulgent if not on your birthday?

For as long as I can remember I’ve occupied myself with reading and writing. In the beginning this was solely through my endless rereads of Little Women (which I can probably still recite word for word). At some point in my youth, though, I started to take an interest in my parents’ copies of The

Guardian that always littered the kitchen table. Whilst this is almost certainly responsible for my left leaning tendencies, it also definitely got me started in the world of journalism, news and writing.

Skipping forward a few years (and skimming over a number of dubious fashion choices) at the age of 16 I was published for the first time in a monthly listings magazine for the North East of England, having written a review of the live show of a now irrelevant but then up and coming indie band.

It was during this, admittedly short lived, music journalism career that I came to London for the first time. I was down to review the newly re-formed Pulp at Wireless Festival while it was still in Hyde Park, in the first of many times that I blagged my way into a festival for free. To this day this was one of the best weekends of my life. I ate Sushi for the first time (and dropped most of it on the table as I hadn’t used chopsticks before), I got lost on the tube, I met people that to this day are some of

my best friends, I got horrendously drunk in a field, screamed along to Mis-Shapes and I set my heart on living in London at some point in my life.

A few weeks ago I went to see the Jarvis Cocker Prom at the Royal Albert Hall and on my way there walked past Hyde Park Corner station. In many ways a lot has changed since I was a wide eyed teenager stumbling off the tube at that station to see one of her favourite bands live, but in many ways I’m still the same lost but ambitious little Northern girl.

As I write this editorial I am mere hours away from turning 21 and into a proper adult. It is refreshing at this point to be able to sit down, look back and know that my 16 year old self would be pretty impressed with where I am now.

In these four years I’ve managed to live her dream of moving to London, getting into the LSE, editing a newspaper, and most importantly, not embarrassing myself whilst using chopsticks in public.

From the Managing Editor Megan Crockett on the importance of celebrating the arts at LSE ON COMING TO LSE I WAS shocked by the sheer number of people talking about their summer internships, Bank of America and their take on Fiscal Policy; it well and truly lived up to the stereotype. I’m sure many of you have the same experience when telling someone you study at the London School of Economics; they immediately assume you study economics and dream of working in The City.

Although this does sum up many individuals on our campus, it would be a lie to say that it stands for all of us.

The Sabbs have been working to ensure The Arts have a more prominent, respected place in LSE life. In her Sabb report (which you can read on page 13) Katie Budd discusses how she is setting up an ‘arts community’ to try and raise the profile of arts at LSE and get specialist support for arts societies on campus. In addition, she is lobbying The School to include

sports facilities, rehearsal/performance space and music practice rooms in 44 Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I think this is absolutely brilliant; it’s about time The School acknowledges the importance of interests other than political science and getting a good graduate job.

I know people who were deterred from coming to LSE as they feared that they wouldn’t have the same opportunity to pursue their interests in the arts here as they would have at another Russell Group University. Perhaps it’s because we are a somewhat specialised university, students assume that there isn’t room for theatre, literature, music or so on. I think it is important that we let them know there is a place for them to pursue their extracurricular interests here at LSE; our SU is not comprised solely of consultancy and business societies! I always knew we had arts societies on campus, I attended an LSE production of Avenue Q in my first year,

but even I was shocked at the number of arts societies we had. There’s everything from Music to Fashion and Photography to Anime and Manga.

I think this is something we need to celebrate more! I think all students on campus would agree that life at LSE can be stressful and manic at times, what better way to wind down than being able to attend an on-campus screening of a movie by LSESU Film Society or go to a ‘hilarious’ improv session with the Drama Society?

On a completely different note, and this will only benefit those of you eager to pick up a copy of the Beaver the day it hits campus, it’s our Media Group Social tonight and it would be fantastic to see as many of you as possible join us in our adventure down Fleet Street! We’re meeting in the Tuns at 7pm and taking it from there, so who knows what shenanigans we might get up to!

Meet The New Team LAST WEEK SAW THE Beaver hold it’s first election of term. We would like to welcome our new editors to the team: Shewtha Chandrashekhar and Greg Sproston for News, Flo Edwards for PartB, Alex Hurst for Features and Alex Dugan for Sport.

Congratulations to those elected and a big thank you to everyone who stood for election, it was a fantastic turnout and we look forward to seeing more from all of you this coming year!

There are still some position the editorial board at the Beaver needs filling within PartB. The positions we require are: 2 x Technology Editors 2 x Visual Arts Editors 1 x Literature Editors 2 x Theatre Editors If you are interested in any of the positions listed above express your interest by emailing partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk specifying why you would be good for the role!

Finally, don’t miss our social tonight! Meet us in the Tuns at 7pm for a night of fun and frolicking on campus and down Fleet Street!

Harry Maxwell @HarryMaxwell The Apprentice is back tonight! This means I can look forward to a bump in my followers over the next 10 weeks.

Craig Calhoun @craigjcalhoun LSE students and alumni always ask hard questions and Emily Lau makes sure hard questions about Hong Kong are raised today #lseasiaforumhk Katie Flynn @katieflynn95 I think I went to zoo last night Mckenzie Crockett @redbutnotred So @HarryMaxwell is definitely one of the best looking on the planet. Near perfection.

Andrew Farrell @andrewxfarrell @beaveronline grateful that you haven’t published that picture of me that graces page 4 of today’s print version - was I really that heavy?

Tweet us @beaveronline to see your 140 characters in print!

LSE Commission Confronts Gender Inequality Zaimal Azad Postgraduate Student MANDATORY QUOTAS, gender auditing of policies, creation of a National Care Service and a media watchdog on gender representation are only some of the bold recommendations in the ‘Confronting Gender Inequality’ report published by the LSE Commission on Gender, Inequality and Power at the Gender Institute.

The aim of the commission as set out on its website is to contribute to ‘understanding and addressing the complex and multi-dimensional character of inequality and power imbalances between men and women’.

The report was released on Tuesday last week to a packed

theatre with a panel discussion featuring Shami Chakrabati, director of Liberty, journalist Rebecca Omonira-Oyekanmi and Anne Perkins, editorial and comment writer for the Guardian.

The commission, headed

by Nicola Lacey (Professor of Law, Gender and Social Policy at LSE) and Diane Perrons (Director of the Gender Institute) focused on gender inequality in four key areas: the economy, politics, law and media. Drawing on research, expertise and evidence from a range of academics, practitioners and activists, the commission has made recommendations on redressing gender inequality in these four spheres. The most controversial of these recommendations is a call to introduce a ceiling gender quotas for MPs

for each party. In effect this would mean that each political party would only be able to have a certain percentage of MPs of one sex – starting from 70% and eventually being lowered to 50%. This comes a day after Lord Justice Leveson publicly spoke against quotas, referring to them as ‘demeaning’.

Some of the other recommendations in the report include gender mainstreaming of all government policies, gender awareness training for all government employees, gender friendly working patterns including flexibility for both men and women with caring responsibilities, better use of equality legislation, improved rights for women in custody, introduction of media literacy in the PSHE curriculum, implementation of the recommendations from the

Leveson report. The entire list of recommendations can be accessed via the LSE website.

Reactions to the report have been interesting so far with a lively and sometimes heated Q&A session at the launch, including a question on the lack of men on the panel. Speaking on the importance of this report and more specifically the issue of gender inequality, Shami Chakrabati referred to gender inequality as ‘the greatest injustice on earth, an inequality global in scope and millennial in timespan’. This quote and the speeches from the rest of the panel exploring the role of women in politics, public life, and the media, did well to set the background for the need for bold steps but it will be interesting to see what it means in real terms.

LAST WEEK THE BEAVER gave a substantial amount of coverage to the HeForShe event at LSE which took place on Wednesday 7 October.

Although this event was primarily organised by the UN Women’s HeForShe movement, it was also delivered in conjunction with LSE’s new Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Taskforce. In case students are not familiar with us, the EDI Taskforce was established on 1 September 2015 to consider – in the broadest terms – both (a) the

extent to which the School currently achieves fairness (equality and equity), diversity and inclusion, and (b) what might be done to improve the School’s performance. This is an iterative process. Behaviours are just as important as policies and procedures, and we are committed to exploring and understanding different views.

Our ambition is to ensure that LSE is not only diverse, but also equitable and genuinely inclusive. We are most likely to achieve this if we embrace the idea of constructive challenge, both to existing structures, and around our efforts to address and improve institutional practices and culture. This is a learning experi-

ence for LSE as an institution, and – in seeking to achieve our overarching goal – we welcome practical contributions from the student body.

One of our first priorities is to review and improve procedures around harassment and bullying (as identified in Rahat Siddique’s article on page 4). We welcome the Students’ Union view that King’s College London’s guidance notes and procedures represent good practice in this area. As we seek to improve our own procedures, we are looking at King’s as well as other universities and their practices.

At this early stage of the Taskforce’s work we are engaging with the Students’ Union, primarily via the Gen-

eral Secretary and the Liberation Officers. We welcome the opportunity to continue a constructive dialogue, and to work in partnership to build a more inclusive, diverse and equitable institution.

Finally, I would like to correct one factual point in Purvaja Kavattur’s article on page 9. Douglas Booth, Elizabeth Nyamayaro and Charles Stephens were all invited by HeForShe, not by LSE. The LSE-invited participants were Lena Schofield, after consultation with the Students’ Union; Hilary Stauffer, after consultation with the Gender Institute and the Centre for Women Peace and Security; and Craig Calhoun, as Director of LSE.

Section Editor: Shwetha Chandrashekhar Suyin Haynes Greg Sproston Deputy Editors: Joseph Briers Bhadra Sreejith

News

A Statement On The HeForShe Event From LSE’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Taskforce Joy Whyte Executive Officer of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Taskforce

News | 3

4 | Tuesday October 20, 2015

LSE Students Create Aid Group For London’s Homeless Berenice Low Undergraduate Student

WHILE MOST STUDENTS are rushing to as many career fairs and networking events as they can possibly squeeze into their schedule, final-year undergraduate students Jessica Davis and Alice Rowland have been freeing up their schedule to collect items to help the homeless tide through the cold winter months fast approaching.

The self-initiated project was sparked off when Alice came into contact with homeless people during her summer job. It was then that the twenty-year-old first understood the gravity of the situation, and saw the need for more action than the mere donation of spare change.

“In my summer job we get a lot of homeless people begging outside the shop and we would always offer them a hot drink and have a chat. Hearing their stories made me realise how privileged I am. Making care packages is a worthwhile way to make a real difference to a homeless person’s life without having to go through the bureaucracy of a charity, so I teamed up with Jess to make it happen,” said Alice.

This was echoed by Jessica: “It’s not just a roof over their head that these people are going without, it’s every aspect of normality that comes with it. Imagine having no control over the way you smell? Or over your dental hygiene?”

The duo had only envisioned for 10 care packages, but the project has been off to a better than expected start with a few big contributions from individuals and widespread promotion by some AU clubs. For instance, the women’s and men’s rugby, cycling and cricket clubs have pledged their support for this project, while the netball club already has a few packages prepared.

Jessica told The Beaver, “Initially we were only aiming for 10 care packages as we had 10 duvets left over from a collection for Calais migrants; however, with the overwhelming response, I think we can set our sights much higher.”

Two care packages were distributed over the weekend to the homeless people in the local area where the girls live, and collections for more care packages will continue throughout term.

Interested donors can contact Jessica and Alice directly on the Facebook page ‘Help Us Help The Homeless’, where they will be posting details of what they need for the care packages, as well as timings and locations for meet ups on campus.

Items such as toiletries, articles of clothing, or “anything nice you may want a homeless person to have (chocolate, sharpies for making signs, vitamins... you are limited only by your imagination)” is warmly welcomed by the team, but there is a special request for more men’s, or larger sized clothes.

PULSE Radio Said To Be “Constantly Evolving” Alice Huggett-Smith Undergraduate Student LSESU’S PULSE RADIO hosted their launch party on Tuesday at The Nest, Dalston.

Showcasing some of their best DJs, including Keitel and Banika, the event looked to be a promising start for a year of big plans. Harvey Lawrence, DJing as Keitel and a member of PULSE trio ‘Three’s a Crowd’, is especially excited for the year to come: “We’re hoping to make events like that more regular and become really professional on air. The end goal is to win some awards at the Student Radio Awards in the next few years.”

With LSE DJs playing at XOYO, Phonox and even Fabric, this doesn’t seem like a pipe dream.

On Tuesday, great PULSE music and cheap drinks meant The Nest was abuzz with excitement: these events will only become even more popular.

PULSE radio is known for hosting a massive range of different DJs and shows; from the quirky Will and Claude Radio Show (Tuesdays 6-8pm) to Listen with Lauren (Tuesdays 1-2pm), who plays her picks of the week with a mix of new discoveries and classics, there’s something for everyone: PULSE broadcasts live to over 5,000 listeners, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The station is open to all, too: Give-ita-Go sessions are held at the start of the year, with the opportunity to try out the radio equipment and be broadcast across the SU. Whilst many shows were started by first year undergraduates, such as Ben, Harvey and Nits of the popular ‘Three’s a Crowd’, other students have decided their final year is the time to be a host: Silke Juul-Sorensen has just started ‘Funking Mondays’ (Mondays 1-2pm) with friend Grace Bennett. DJing under the pseudonyms Groovy Grace and

Silke Smooth, the show will be a hotspot for all things funk: interviews, jazz and ‘funky’ goings-on on campus. “We’re so excited to bring funk to LSE,” she told The Beaver. “This will be the first funk show in its history and we’re eager to give the people the funk they are so hungry for!”

Juul-Sorensen makes an important point: PULSE Radio is constantly evolving and expanding, with new shows, roles and events constantly being added to its repertoire. Lauren Godfrey, who wants to start inviting non-PULSE guests to speak on her show, hopes to increase PULSE’s presence on campus: ‘We’ll be covering lots of new events and are hoping to get an app with The Beaver so it’s even easier to listen in.’ If hosting a show isn’t for you, then reach out to PULSE at the Media Centre in the Saw Swee Hock for more ways to become a part of things.

From being a guest on a show,

Cameron At 10: Verdict Delivered At LSE Event Joel Pearce Undergraduate Student

TWO OF LSE’S ALUMNI returned to the Old Theatre this week to give their verdict on David Cameron’s first term in Downing Street. Anthony Seldon, Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, and Peter Snowdon, a BBC journalist, gave a talk on their latest political biography: “Cameron at 10”.

The event, chaired by LSE’s Tony Travers, was an opportunity for them to outline (and plug) the recently published book, before answering questions from the packed audience.

After the obligatory pig joke - the audience were told that this was the “kosher” Cameron biography – the pair gave their analy-

sis of Cameron’s personality, his leadership and his political programme.

They painted a picture of a competent and compassionate leader, whose pragmatism is driven more by conciliation than a fundamental lack of conviction. In this way, they think he echoes a long line of traditional Tory pragmatists, most closely reflecting the early 20th century leader Stanley Baldwin. The Prime Minister’s problems, they said, arise when his pragmatism clashes with a desire to be seen as decisive.

Seldon stressed that any analysis of Cameron cannot be isolated from the influence of George Osborne. The close personal and political relationship between the Chancellor and Prime Minister was highlighted as being unparalleled in modern times; they see

this as the key factor behind the success of the Cameron project.

Snowdon went on to defend the research that had gone into the book. He explained that they used a “contemporary historical method” to write it, interviewing over 300 people including politicians, friends and civil servants. It is this focus on hard evidence, Snowdon argued, that distinguishes their book from its main competitor, Lord Ashcroft’s salacious biography, “Call Me Dave”.

Moving on to questions from the audience, Travers struggled to rein in Seldon’s eccentricity and maintain some form of order. However, in response to questions covering breadth of contemporary British politics, from the European referendum to Syrian air strikes, Lynton Crosby to Ed Miliband, the au-

thors continued to reveal stories and gossip. They talked of Osborne’s ruthless desire to crush the Lib Dems; the extensive control over party and policy given to Crosby; and Cameron’s deep anxiety during the Scottish referendum.

The event ended with an assessment of the current political situation. Seldon and Snowdon thought that Cameron’s conference speech demonstrated an unshackling from the constraints of the election campaign. His focus on social issues, they thought, was a return to the early years of Cameron’s modernisation project.

Looking ahead to the next few years, they had a number of cautious predictions. It sounded like they would hardly be surprised if “Osborne at 10” was hitting the shelves in a few years’ time.

‘Going Beyond The Discussion’ With The Understanding Inequality Group Remya Nair and Andrea Sze Undergraduate Students THIS YEAR, ALL LSE students (and staff alike) have quite the unique opportunity: the chance to help an idea materialize.

Starting out as a simple thought that occurred to second-year Social Anthropology student Gemma Edom, the idea is now shared between herself and a close group of other ambitious students: to explore and engage youth in any and all issues of inequality under the sun.

Their simple, all-inclusive and neutral name of ‘Understanding Inequality Group’ is also accompanied by a motto of “Going Beyond the Discussion.” Working in partnership with the all-new International Inequality Institute (III) of the LSE, co-directed by Professors John Hills and Mike Savage, the group aims to band together with fellow students and staff to spread awareness on the matter at hand. Some plans in the making include holding student led discussions and dialogue sessions, research workshops with members of the III academia, running or involving in new/pre-

existing charity programs, and creating an avenue for students to attend an array of captivating university public lectures as a group, with the opportunity to have informal discussions on the events afterwards.

You may have already spotted them on campus - especially after their recent introductory opening held on the 1st floor at the Saw Swee Hock building. For two consecutive days, the group manned a booth inviting students and staff to write down “What Inequality Means to you”. The interest from the crowd “surpassed expectations” said

Gemma, with many contributing valuable insight and ideas on the issues that they deem crucial. The flexibility of the group’s outlook allowed for a diverse range of areas to be explored - inequalities in terms of the wage gap, education, the environment, race, class, and many more. Students and staff were invited to join the cause, something that can be done as easily as liking the group’s page on Facebook to keep updated on the upcoming projects and discussions to be held. Some examples of upcoming events to take note of include: attending the III public talk “Too

Many Children Left Behind” on Wednesday 21st October (Clement House, 6.30 – 8pm) followed by an informal discussion at the LSE’s Three Tuns, and the group’s first ‘Open Meeting’ on Friday, 23rd October to discuss the sessions and topics that will be run in the course of the year (details to be found on the Facebook page).

The group urges that all are welcome to join the cause – a component they consider crucial to allow the facilitation of truly open discussion, with the representation of different perceptions and viewpoints.

Students Not Suspects Tour Brings Big Turnout To KCL Kanan Parida Staff Writer LAST WEDNESDAY SAW THE inauguration of the “Students Not Suspects” tour at King’s College London. Organised by the National Union of Students (NUS), the Black Students Campaign, Defend the Right to Protest and Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), the movement is also supported by the University and College Union (UCU)- the largest national union for lecturers and academics in the UK. It specifically aims to counter the “chilling” government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which supports the PREVENT strategy, an infamous agenda to counter homegrown terrorism that has received heavy criticism. The PREVENT strategy

has been so controversial because it allegedly seeks to demonise Muslim students. For example, it states that university staff, lecturers and chaplains were to report to the police “any Muslim students who are isolated or depressed”.

Despite governmental pressure and the fact that King’s as well as all other universities are duty bound under the CTS Act to follow the PREVENT agenda, the tour proceeded as originally planned. Whilst the audience was largely supportive of the “Students Not Suspects” agenda, security was tight and attendees were subject to numerous checks by KCL security and were all handed a copy of the ‘Safe Space’ policy, prior to entering the event, measures that would be considered extreme for any other academic event. The event began with former Guanta-

namo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg speaking on the problem of creating an Islamophobic culture. In a broader context, Begg explained why the implementation of PREVENT marked the end of freedom and democracy and how “because of these PREVENT laws, we are heading into a police state.”

Following these rather dismal conclusions, the audience heard the experience of a student who faced discrimination as a result of PREVENT. Mohammed Omar Farooq, a postgraduate student at Staffordshire University was reported to senior management as a threat because he was spotted reading a “Terrorism Studies” book for one of his modules. The panel also included a representative from the Defend the Right to Protest campaign, Rachel Hager- a trainee solicitor in Police Actions,

Marcia Rigg, an anti-Police activist and a King’s College London academic and UCU representative, Jim Wolfreys.

While the official KCL management has been bound to comply with the PREVENT agenda, Wolfreys made a compelling case on how this would hinder the university experience for students and academics alike. Stressing on the anti-PREVENT stance adopted by the UCU, Wolfreys urged for senior management to adopt a similar stance, which got him a thunderous round of applause from the audience. The panel received numerous questions from the audience on how to deal with the PREVENT agenda. Many questions focused on how this agenda might impact the relationship between academics and students. A GTA present at the event stated that she was deeply concerned about the way that PREVENT undermined her ability to teach. In her opinion, “teaching requires a relationship of trust between everyone in the classroom.

If students feel they are being spied on, they cannot speak openly and express their opinions”.

Despite governmental opposition and KCL’s official stance on the PREVENT agenda, the event took place with no reservations. It was enormously well received and sought to raise an issue which has been contentious in the UK for decades.

News | 5

London Uni Roundup A NEW CONTRACT FOR junior doctors outlined by the BMA (British Medical Association) assembled over 16,000 NHS staff, supporters and King’s medical students to Parliament Square in protest. Extended working hours for up to 40% less pay, is one amongst numerous tenets in the contract which is anticipated to have ‘very negative consequences for both doctors and patients.’ A majority of current practitioners involved in the protest will be affected by these contractual changes only to a certain extent, nevertheless, are rallying their voices in unison ‘to protect the future generations of doctors.’

OVER THE COURSE OF 21 months, between ‘January 1, 2014 and October 7, 2015, UCL spent £57,196.75 on biscuits.’ The Freedom of Information request prompted by President of UCLU Pi Media reveals that the institution’s taste for the wrapped biscuit selection, by Sodexo, UCL cafés’ choice catering company, amounted to £41,974.95, with the cost of Oatmeal and Raisin falling short comparably at £1,617.00.

VALERIE AMOS, recently appointed Director of SOAS, shared her plans to slash the school budget by £6.5million through a reduction of the school’s post-graduate recruitment targets, resulting in 184 courses to be cut. This five-year-plan is attributed to ‘lower student numbers, and high levels of investment in IT infrastructure and support systems for staff.’ A £100k funding cut from the government for the academic year has also put strain on the school’s income and budget allowance hindering its ability to recruit. This is amidst a student and staff protest in the Brunei Suite in response to course cuts and expected job losses.

6 | Tuesday October 20, 2015

Is it Possible to Beat a Casino?

LSESU Poker Society Place Their Bets

IN THE MEDIA, A CASINO is often a glitzy, glamorous place, full of wine, beautiful people, and music; the perfect setting for a high-stakes gamble between a spy and the enemy.

In reality, a casino is a psychological minefield, full of tricks to keep customers spending, and the real battle is between the casino and the elite gamblers who try to beat the house edge. In such a situation, is it justifiable for gamblers to employ any tactics they can to win, given that they are up against such massive odds? In short, is it ever really possible to beat a casino?

This is the intriguing question that LSESU Poker Society are posing in the upcoming event on Wednesday 21 October. It will be focused on a highprofile case involving top poker player Phil Ivey and his £7.5 million winnings at the Crockfords Club in Kensington, London. He used a technique called “edge-sorting”, which gives the

player the advantage of determining whether a face-down card is likely to be low or high by observing unintentional differences on the backs of some type of card. The action requires the player to ask the croupier to rotate the cards, which the croupier is not required to do, but may if thought to be due to the players’ superstition. A judge determined his actions to be illegal, but he will be requesting an appeal which will be held on 20th December.

“I organised the talk because I wanted people to consider the wider impacts of this case,” said Daniel Cullen, the President of the LSESU Poker Society. “Is it really fair that the law should side with the casinos when they do so much to part people from their money? You will never see a casino with a clock, because they don’t want you to know how long you’ve been gambling. I want people who go to the talk to challenge what they might have thought coming in. I also want to show people how intertwined with everyday decisions poker is-it’s

Hult Prize Comes To LSE

Paula Grabosch Undergraduate Student

ARE YOU INTERESTED IN doing business, but with a social element? Do you have a burgeoning idea in mind, but need capital and mentorship to get things started?

Would you like to win US$1 million in seed funding?

The Hult Prize has arrived at LSE and is looking to launch disruptive, poverty ending startups right here from Houghton Street.

The Prize is a social impact competition hosted in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative.

Each year, Bill Clinton (former US President) selects a case challenge centred on a social problem, inviting teams from all over can pitch innovative and exciting solutions focussed on the important issue at hand. The Hult Prize@LSE is the official quarterfinal programme to the Hult Prize, of which the winner will represent LSE in the Hult Prize Regional. LSE teams are needed to represent the university on the world stage, to win the Hult Prize and the eventual prize US$1m.

To prepare prospective teams, the Hult Prize@LSE Committee will be providing students with dedicated mentorship, marketing, and funding support.

The 2016 Case Challenge, as selected by Bill Clinton, is “Crowded Urban Spaces“. A detailed case study of the endemic overcrowding of urban spaces can be found here: http://www.hultprize.org/ en/compete/2016-prize/2016case-study. The initiative is open to applications from all LSE current students and alumni, working in teams consisting of three to four students, with a maximum of one alumnus per team.

Applications are currently open until Wednesday 21 October. The Committee will be having an Info-Social on Monday 12 October, 6pm, KSW 1.04, where students can find out more about the competition and meet potential team members! The Social includes an additional pitching segment; if you already have an idea, you can briefly present it and recruit team members!

For more information, visit facebook.com/hultprizeatlse.

about psychology, statistics, instincts and discipline. A lot of careers that people will go into require the same skill set.” Incidentally, the LSE can speak of its own alumnus specialising in the field, Christoph Vogelsang; a poker player who has amassed £7 million in tournament winnings.

The event will take place at 6pm on Wednesday 21 October

in a yet to be disclosed location. The interest on Facebook has been unprecedented; more than 1000 people have selected “going”, but the room can only hold 130 people. Tickets will be assigned via lottery, with 20 tickets available on a first-come first-serve basis on the day itself.

The discussion may be recorded.

The panellists present at this

event are David Mills, Managing Director of a casino security consulting firm, Neil Channing, a poker player and columnist, Joe Stapleton, presenter and comedian, and Peter Wilson, an expert on gambling law. The Poker Society organises regular tournaments, teaches people how to play, and provides a platform for discussion for those wanting to improve.

Photo credit: Flickr: Nick Ares

Bhadra Sreejith Deputy News Editor

UNSOC Celebrate 70 Years Of The United Nations Shahnia Rahman Staff Writer IN COMMEMORATION OF the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, LSESU’s very own UN Society will be hosting a week of intellectually stimulating and exciting events for all to take part in.

The UN is an inter national body that works to promote inter national cooperation. Its objectives include aiding development, maintaining peace and security, providing aid, promoting human rights and protecting the environment.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter which founded the organisation. The LSESU UN Society have come together to organise a week of interactive events and socials for students, not only to commemorate the UN as an inter national body, but with the aim to get students evaluating its work and even better, challenging it as an inter-gover nmental organisation.

The UN Society want students like you to join in with the debates. Do you have an

opinion on events happening around the world? Does the lack of progress frustrate you? Well, this week is your chance to voice your opinions.

Has the UN been an effective body in the last 70 years? Are there any UN actions that you disagree with? Is there still room for improvement?

If you’re interested, come along to the events and have your say by getting involved in discussions and debates surrounding these topics and much more.

There are a range of events on offer from lectures and workshops to film screenings and even a UN archives showcase in the LSE Library. “We felt that this would be a good opportunity to have a balanced reflection on the work of the UN, both its successes

and failures. The screening of ‘Shake Hands with the Devil’ (with Film Society) on General Romeo Dallaire’s experience in the Rwandan genocide will be particularly poignant.

But we also hope that through discussion we can look with optimism at the future potential of the organisation” said Dana Kamour, LSESU UN Society.

Students can also join in with the celebrations by posting a congratulations message on social media for the UN’s 70th anniversary using the #UN70!

Events will include a crisis simulation of the Morsi Egyptian Cabinet, a workshop on the future of energy, food and water, and a UN archives tour, as well as many more that can be found on the society Facebook page.

An Insight Into Indian Media Sehr Taneja Undergraduate Student

SHOBHANA BHARTIA, Chairperson and Editorial Director of the Hindustan Times Group, one of India’s largest media houses, explored and revealed the depth and challenges of Indian media in her fascinating conversation with Mukulika Banerjee, Head of South Asia Centre, at the LSE on 13 October.

The discussion covered media in India through the eyes of business, politics, the masses and the position of women. The conversation opened with a discussion about the HT Group as a business entity. With two main newspapers – one English (Hindustan Times) and one Hindi (Hindustan) – and a niche business newspaper MINT, the HT Group reaches millions across India every day. The readership of the Hindi paper is five times as much as that of

LSE Looks For New University Challenge Team James Clark Staff Writer

THE TIME HAS COME: LSESU are looking for a new University Challenge Team to compete in the upcoming series.

Whilst a world-leading institution in social sciences, LSE still continues to fail to make it to the televised stages of the annual competition.

University Challenge has been running for over 53 years albeit with a 7 year gap between 1987 and 1994. The aim of the infamous quiz show is to score the most points through starter questions worth 10 points and a set of 3 bonus questions worth a total of 15 points available to the winning team of the most recent starter question. The winner of each round continues on to the next round, with 2 extra places available in round 2 for the winners of the 4 highest losing score teams, till only two teams remain for the final round. As a rule, every university can enter one team, apart from universities with colleges who are allowed to enter one team per college such as Cambridge, Oxford and London, meaning that these universities have a constant presence in the competition every year since the 1994 reboot.

The closest LSE has come to winning the competition was in 1996 in which the team at the time came 2nd to Imperial College London by 55 points. LSE

has only made it into the final rounds twice in the past decade, in 2009 and in 2015. This year however, the LSESU is looking for masters and postgraduate students along with any other student who has knowledge of natural sciences. This has been LSE’s downfall on a number of times, due to the specialised nature of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

The selection process has been slightly altered this year at LSE, in addition to the timed try-outs throughout the coming weeks with paper tests and timed answers, there is also a University Challenge Pub Quiz on the 22nd October. This is available to all and free, with the winning team of 4 automatically being passed through to the LSE selection final. This final will allow students to meet the contestants, and enjoy two teams of four compete against each other, from which the team for LSE will be chosen by a panel of judges and will take place on the 11th November at 6pm on the 6th floor of the Saw Swee Hock Student Centre. The criteria for the final team will include speed, accuracy and proportion of correct answers.

After the team has been selected at LSE, the show’s producers put the teams through a general trivia quiz to test their suitability along with the producer’s assessment for television purposes. To get involved, check the what’s on page on lsesu.com

the English newspaper, and as Mrs. Bhartia stated, makes this version of the paper a great medium to arouse the public and run campaigns.

Bhartia then took a few minutes to describe her time in the industry.

Bhartia started working at the age of 30, soon inheriting the HT Group from her father. However, entry into the industry wasn’t all that easy for her as a woman in India during this period. She began her career working only in the Sunday Magazine, describing her experience as follows: “”You’re not taken seriously enough as a woman. At the time, people thought you were only there to pass time. But, India has changed since.”

Whether or not the position of working women has seen new light in India is open to debate, although Bhartia stressed that there has been some progress.

In the following years, Bhartia used her position to draw and learn from successful international media houses, such as The Washington Post. Bhartia also served as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the upper house of Parliament in India. She

emphasized that her experience as an MP, stirred her interest in challenges such as gender equality; noting that “it was a humbling experience”.

The most intriguing part of the discussion was the Q&A session, where LSE students challenged the ideas of media and Bhartia offered candid answers, drawing from her own experience. Questions addressed the issue of politics, mockery of grave realities in India and prematurity of television media. Bhartia stressed that she believes that Indian television media still has a long way to go in order to do away with the “9 shouting heads” that often appear on our TV screen. A crucial discussion point was sensationalisation by the media, especially in the case of the recent Sheena Bora murder. Bhartia explained that this is partially unavoidable in the industry, given that this obsessions comes first from the masses; however, it is important to understand where to draw the line. With this, the event ended on a thoughtful note, leaving the audience and Bhartia to think about the path of Indian media in the coming years.

A Note From Your Education Officer: WHY IS IT A WORLD LEADING institution determined to ‘know the causes of things’ fails so catastrophically at a simple general knowledge quiz?

When I became LSE SU Education Officer, I knew there were a vast number of sacred responsibilities placed upon me to uphold the educational standards LSE students expect. One thing I was not aware of was that it falls to me as Education Officer to uphold the ancient honour of the LSE University Challenge team.

Faced with this daunting challenge, and hoping to avoid the crushing disappointment that seems to have befallen chief selectors of English national teams recently, I dug into the history of our great institution. When it comes to LSE and University Challenge there is a distinct lack of ‘ancient honour’. In all honesty, the LSE’s record is pretty dismal – apart for a crushing final loss to Imperial in 1996, things have been pretty

bleak. In fact LSE has only made the TV Stages twice in the last decade.

In the face of this record, excuses can be made (and when we crash out early once again, I will be the first person to make them) – with a dearth of natural sciences expertise, the odds are generally stacked against us. Without a history of competing you could even say LSE students don’t care. But with all the deluded optimism of an English football manager embarking on a World Cup Campaign, we are still going to try.

On Thursday 22nd October, we will be holding a University Challenge themed Pub Quiz in the Three Tuns from 7pm to kick off the process. If you’re an expert quizzing veteran, a trivia geek or just generally enjoy free drinks and coming up with inappropriate team names, come along and find out more (Especially if you know anything about natural science – please don’t make me beg…)

News | 7

News In Brief Get a Tin, Bring it In! RAG Harvest Collection in Full Swing LSESU RAG took over halls of residence and the ground floor of the Saw Swee Hock Centre on Monday, aiming to collect 10,000 tins of food to provide direct support to St. Mungo’s Broadway who work with emergency housing projects across London. The event is expected to help around 2,5000 homeless men and women, and RAG were keen to emphasise the importance of direct action within our own communities, stressing that ‘giving’ is just as important as

‘raising’.

Michaelmas Term Election Dates Announced LSESU have announced the key dates for this year’s Michaelmas term elections. Various hustings sessions will take place from Thursday 22nd October to Tuesday 27th October. Voting will be open for 33 hours from 10:00am Wednesday 28th October, with the results set to be announced at 8pm on Wednesday evening in The Venue. Given the impressive turnout of the 2015 lent term elections along with the contentious decision to award part time officers a ‘bursary’, these elections are set to be the most well contested for some time.

Students March Against Migrant Treatment London students joined with a broad coalition of protesters from the Campaign against Fees and Cuts, Labour, Unite, Sisters Uncut and Black Dissidents among others to march under a banner of ‘Open Dover, Open Europe’ this Saturday. Protesting against the treatment of refugees and calling for more inclusive, responsible and humane policy from governments across Europe, planned marches occurred simultaneously in Calais, Dover and London. Speaking on the importance of peaceful protest, NUS NEC Sahaya James said “The show of material solidarity has been incredible...but that’s not enough; we need to take a political stance.”

8

| Tuesday October 20, 2015

The Room Booking Trial By Fire

The recent room booking debacle has played havoc with LSESU’s societies Jack D’Arcy Drama Society Treasurer

Comment

Section Editor: Mali Williams

A LETTER HAS RECENTLY been circulated by the LSESU Debate Society condemning the room booking system that the LSE implemented at the start of the term. The aforementioned letter seeks to identify a culprit in a judicial style; a style towards which the society is generally inclined. However, the allocation of responsibility is secondary and, in all likelihood, a pointless endeavour.

The real issue lies in what the fallout of this decision has meant for the student body at large. As treasurer of the Drama Society, my contemporaries and I have had a ‘trial by fire’ barely a third of the way through the first term. Yet, the room bookings disaster this year has really only exacerbated its underlying ineffectiveness. This is, however, certainly not an issue limited to the arts societies.

Firstly, from the perspective of a performing arts society, this level of incompetence is inexcusable. We have been forced to book venues prior to even having made a decision as to what productions we want to put on later in the year. Welcome parties (for which some societies receive a massive influx of members) have been postponed, moved around, and in the case of the Amnesty International and Animal Rights Societies, have actually had to be combined. General administration

for our societies has developed into a farce without a punchline.

In the atmosphere of a university that already places its public lecture circuit ahead of its feepaying students, we should be nothing but disappointed. Note that while these events are often very interesting and raise the repute of the institution, unfortunately they are symptomatic of a devil-may-care attitude towards the student body’s needs.

It goes without saying that provisions need to be made to make students’ extra-curricular experiences something students want to come to university for, not wish to leave as a result of.

“General administration for our societies has developed into a farce without a punchline.”

It goes without saying that rehearsal venues are invaluable for societies such as ours. Yet still, there are no dedicated spaces with this in mind. The Music Society have only one music practice room in the whole institution (funnily enough, this is also only accessible through the room booking system). With the demolition of the East Building, three rehearsal spaces have been lost, with no provisions for new locations. For the Drama Society, this also means that more and more of the aforementioned public lectures will take place

in the Old Theatre, one of our main performance and rehearsal venues. The room booking fiasco has placed additional stress on these societies that already feel side-lined by the university; it is especially unfair given that in the last academic year, arts societies’ membership totalled a massive 1,852 students.

There is, however, a longterm solution to this issue. The SU are currently lobbying the LSE Estates Strategy Committee to include sports, rehearsal and performance facilities in the plans for the co-curricular space in the newly acquired 44 Lincoln’s Inn Fields building.

If successful, we would see the arrival of a new purpose-built black box rehearsal and performance space of a similar size, as well as more music practice rooms and sports facilities. This would certainly remove a significant amount of stress away from performing arts societies and clubs, but the existence of the new building would also make good provisions for societies such as Amnesty, Debate and others that wish to hold events throughout the year.

The obvious issue is that the current student body will never see these facilities or enjoy the liberty of a new building.

What do we do then? What is our short-term resolution? One could always Occupy if one is so inclined. However, the best way to lobby Mount Olympus is also the most British: to write a strongly worded letter. Academics have a habit of reading

more than they listen. The issue that some people have had with signing the letter drafted by the Debate Society is that it affirms to, ‘Seek to hold accountable the individuals responsible for the failure to launch the room booking system.’

“The best way to lobby Mount Olympus is also the most British: to write a strongly worded letter.”

As vigilante justice as this sounds, it is important that, without issuing a witch hunt, there is some accountability.

Whether this amounts to someone getting a slap on the wrist or a stern look of disapproval from Craig Calhoun, something must be done. We won’t know whether this fiasco was a mistake or not, but without all the facts we cannot call for a resignation. All we can do is make the university aware of our disappointment, and place our dwindling faith in the hope that they will find a resolution soon.

It is difficult to know whether this new room booking system will actually get better with age, but if nothing else, in Darwinian terms, surviving the omnishambles that was the room booking and timetable disasters of 2015 have shown an adaptability and resilience that LSE students can be proud of.

LSE100: The LSE Brainwash Course LSE100 fails to engage its students due to narrow-minded teaching Will Carne Undergraduate Student

I AM CURRENTLY A SECOND year undergraduate here at the LSE, in the midst of the joy that is writing my LSE100 essay. For those living under a red-blockshaped rock, or naïve first-years yet to experience the shock coming to them in the Lent Term, LSE100 is LSE’s ‘flagship interdisciplinary course for undergraduate students… designed to broaden and deepen students’ minds…’ and the official description goes on with much of the usual waffle.

Let me first be honest and say that when I first found out about the course on the LSE open day, spring of ’14, I liked the premise: ‘famous’ lecturers who really knew their stuff, engaging the undergraduate student population with interesting discussions.

Perhaps that was the foundation that the course was set up

on, but it hasn’t lived up to my expectations. Because the reality is the occasional good lecture - and I mean occasional in the sliding survey response sense where the only worse option is never - but most of the time the Peacock Theatre consists of only a few eager students, and classes consist of everyone else desperately trying to remember the readings they skimmed over five minutes ago.

Now, perhaps I’m being unfair, you could plausibly argue that the problem isn’t the course, it is the fact that students don’t engage with it. You could say it’s a prisoner’s dilemma problem, everyone has to join in or it doesn’t work (there’s something subtly ironic about using the prisoner’s dilemma here). But I argue the problem is that the course has the right idea, but the wrong design. If you want a course that confirms already established beliefs (or shoves down your

throat the beliefs of the course creators) then well done, great course.

But if you want a discussion on, for example, climate change, even if everyone on campus accepts the scientific evidence and are willing to bet their internships on its validity, wouldn’t it be refreshing to have a lecture by someone who reasons that there is no such thing? (That’s rhetorical, I can’t hear your response, and even if I could I’ve been pre-programmed to only accept material that reconfirms my existing belief).

As the feedback forms we are allowed to fill in pretty much restrict you to rating out of five the degree to which your lecturer can speak English, I’ll put my suggestions for improving the course here: if you want to gather all us intelligent fiends to discuss the major issues facing humanity today, i.e. climate change, changing world order, or LSE Room Booking, then present unbiased lectures (or at least lectures that bal-

ance over the course), a greater variety of readings (not to be too political, but I’ve only ever seen The Guardian extracts on the reading list…) and a less structured class (where if anyone actually plucks up the courage to raise a valid thought-provoking point, the teacher doesn’t glance at the clock and say “sorry we have to move on.”) This, combined with a consistent series of lectures by people who (a) know what they’re talking about (granted, they’ve mastered this already) and (b) can keep a lecture hall of law, history, mathematics, and all the other students engaged (granted, these students have to turn up), I think you might have a course where people are proud to get out their oversized red LSE100 folders in the library, rather than facing the solemn nods of third-years who feel our pain.

Anyway, back to writing this week’s portfolio.

Comment | 9

Student Satisfaction: We’re All In This Together Quantitative courses are not prioritised, LSE’s poor student satisfaction has common causes Sam Povey Undergraduate Student Continued From Cover ...are designed purely to lull naive economics freshers into a false sense of security, before devouring them whole for the next two years. I suspect there are few holders of an LSE BSc in Economics (et al.) who look back on that place fondly.

The supposed benefits of being a quant at LSE are just that, supposed. Rather, our courses are plagued with problems that make the student experience for an undergraduate economist at LSE distinctly lacklustre.

Shall we start with the teaching? The generic, uninspiring teaching is ladled out to first year Economics students like

academic gruel. Economists are not exactly renowned for their social skills and our GTAs (Graduate Teaching Assistant) are no different - selected with an apparent disregard for their teaching ability or passion. So far, so LSE.

“Add on that the shambles that is LSE’s Administration. The only thing LSE Timetables successfully timetabled this year was their massive screw up” Add on to that the shambles that is LSE’s administration.

The only thing LSE Timetables

successfully timetabled this year was their own massive screw-up.

A post in the second year Econometrics Moodle forum this week reads, ‘Class group 17 has still not been assigned a class teacher . . . no GTA turned up to our class last week.’ Fingers crossed for this year’s exam timetable, right?

And then there are the little things. Never being able to find a space to study as soon as Lent Term rolls around. The School’s refusal to put students and teachers alike out of their misery and kill LSE100. Or a Student’s Union whose primary concern appears to be raising the pay of the ever-growing corps of part time officers.

But these are issues LSE students, across all departments, have in common. The cause, I believe, is common too. And it

is one that the author inadvertently points out at the beginning of her article. ‘When I applied to study at LSE,’ she writes proudly, ‘it was ranked second highest in the country for my course.’ Herein lies the problem: LSE students are victims of our university’s success.

“Our courses are plagued with problems that make the student experience for an undergraduate economist at LSE distinctly lacklustre.”

She, like I, and countless others applied to LSE with two things in mind. The first was

LSE’s seemingly unassailable position in the league tables – an internationally renowned institution from which we would begin our journey to rule the world. And secondly, we saw London. The bright lights of one of the world’s great cities – multicultural, vibrant, and industrious. The place to be.

The sad fact is that with these two factors counting in its favour, LSE simply doesn’t need to bother with ‘student satisfaction’. LSE attracts the sort of students who are driven enough to accept a university that doesn’t really give a toss about them if it boosts their prospects of finding a job in the City (or an NGO) or getting onto a top-flight master’s programme.

And with places oversubscribed 10-to-1, it seems this won’t be changing anytime soon.

LSESU’s Democracy Is An Unfunny Joke The insidious abuses of our democratic system is detrimental to our student experience

George Harrison Former Features Editor

Credit: darc awards

SOME JOKES START OUT as utterly hilarious but quickly become painfully unfunny when you’ve been exposed to them for too long. UK Students’ Unions, including our very own beloved LSESU, are one such joke. Our Union’s hypocritical stance regarding free speech, the apparatchiks who run the show and the obsession with imposing a political agenda at any cost has ensured that our often ridiculous SU has become very unfunny, very quickly. SU decisions are frequently wrong in so many ways, but the crushing consensus amongst its supporters and the pressure of the SU groupthink is enough to prevent its many opponents from speaking out against it. It’s about time that changed.

We can start with the fact that LSESU’s General Secretary and one of London’s most influ-

ential people (according to the Evening Standard), Nona Buckley-Irvine, is proving to be utterly tenacious in her campaign to transform our democratic Student’s Union into an imperial dictatorship. Her repeated abuses of executive power highlight the lack of respect she has for the student body; first came a botched attempt to introduce a new ‘student council’ system of governance through the backdoor, and now we have the hurried and dishonest introduction of Part Time Officer pay, without any votes cast or any voices heard in favour - other than her own. As noble as the intentions of our SU overlords may be, they show a flagrant disregard for the bye-laws that exist to check abuses of executive power and to safeguard the democratic structure of our SU. These are not isolated cases of occasional heavy-handedness – these abuses of our democratic system are indicative of an insidious, creeping epidemic.

UGMs, which supposedly exist to keep the student electorate in the loop, have long been a joke.

Under-advertised, under-attended and overrated, the weekly ‘spectacle’ of the UGM is not to be taken seriously. Come along on a Thursday afternoon to watch utterly meaningless ‘motion showing solidarity with x’ or ‘motion condemning y’ pass the pathetically low quoracy threshold, whilst anything which could impact our lives as students in any way is ushered in without a vote.

It’s difficult to imagine that Benjamin Netanyahu’s phone would start ringing uncontrollably if a few hundred members of our SU were to vote in condemnation of the actions of the Israeli state at a UGM, yet endless affirmations of the Union’s perceived political stance seem to take precedence over any decisions which could actually enhance the student experience for us all.

The two-bit technocrats and

Stepford students who immerse themselves in this sad display are happy to keep it this way, whilst the rest of us are just too turned off to engage with it – even though we know we deserve better. Add to this the fact that UGM was planned to be held in a fucking canteen this year and this display of cringe comedy becomes even more tragic.

That quoracy stands at an unbelievably low level throughout the SU is testament to how poor student democracy has become, with only 300 odd votes from the entire student body required to make a UGM motion

“This SU is all too quickly becoming an in-joke at our expense - you have to laugh, otherwise you’d cry.” quorate. This is blatant hypocrisy on behalf of an SU which enforces a quoracy standard of

20% on its societies but only a few arbitrary percent on itself.

This is all pointless anyway though if our General Secretary is just going to abuse her executive power and then claim that it is actually democratic and legitimate of her to do so – as she already has. This disregard for the students who SU officers claim to represent is clearly endemic and utterly poisonous; as much as they deserve respect for actually putting their necks on the line, their apathy towards the opinions of the student body raises serious questions.

Even more egregious and illiberal is the complete disregard of free speech by SU officials, who defend the right to be offensive only when the likes of Bahar Mustafa are involved, whilst clamping down on the free speech of anyone who isn’t a political bedfellow. Meanwhile, national newspapers and pop songs are banned outright for being off-colour or tasteless, to the detriment of everyone else’s student experience.

Students’ Unions are truly sad places. The saddest thing is the impression that everyone is on board, just because it is the incredibly vocal SU minority who shout the loudest. This SU is all too quickly becoming an in-joke at our expense – you have to laugh, otherwise you’d cry.

Do you agree?

Tweet @BeaverOnline or email

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

10 |

Tuesday October 20, 2015

Alfano And The Call To Absent Arms

The Italian Interior Minister’s speech failed to offer practical solutions to the migrant crisis Francesca Bucchi Postgraduate Student ON TUESDAY 13 OCTOBER, the Italian Interior Minister, Angelino Alfano, gave a speech on a very delicate topic for current European politics: migration and its related security concerns. Being from Italy, a country that has long suffered the burden of having to deal with thousands of migrants arriving daily on its shores, no one could have possibly illustrated such a pressing issue better than an Italian policy-maker.

The speech was relatively short, yet quite emotional. Alfano started by tracing a gloomy narrative of the decline in European security, which later led to a much-expected denunciation of ISIS and the current state of affairs in the Middle East.

His strong condemnation of the Islamic State, whose ideology was labelled as ‘evil fanaticism,’ brought to the fore the question of migration. The two

issues were obviously presented as deeply intertwined, as critiques of religious extremism mingled with desolate remarks on the migrants’ situation. The solution to these, according to Alfano, was simple: a common European response.

Despite such a straightforward statement, the achievement of this solution seems much more intricate. The Italian Minister was actively calling for European cooperation in order to fight the migration problem at its roots; namely, within the countries from where migrants constantly flee. Alfano suggested Europe should help them more, but the terms of this aid, like the strategy to achieve it, were left quite blurry. There is no certainty whether the Italian Minister did that on purpose or he was just too carried away by his calls for European cooperation. In fact, Alfano kept stressing throughout his entire speech this impellent need for European unity, this fundamental ‘human duty to not let people drown.’

A question spontaneously arose from such enthusiasm though: can we actually solve the issues of migration and security just through the ‘strength of democracy and freedom?’ As much as one may like idealistic stances, that assertion seemed a little bit overstated.

The answers of the Minister to some of the questions asked at the end were of a much more practical nature. He stressed the importance of Turkish cooperation in solving the migration crisis and preventing security threats from reaching European soil. Alfano even cared to systematize the ‘four pillars’ upon which the Italian strategy to tackle the migration problem lies: the fight against smugglers, the creation of hotspots in places where the migration crisis is stronger, the re-location of migrants, and their repatriation. Considering the current situation in Italy, one may definitely doubt the actual strength of these pillars. The Minister finally went as far as defining

the Dublin Convention, a 1997 EU decree dealing with asylum claims, as ‘obsolete’ to tackle the current migration crisis.

Yet, even here, an alternative was not concretely provided.

In the end, Alfano’s speech was a carefully crafted patchwork of optimistic stances, some criticisms and numerous proposals to try solving the problems presented by the speech itself. The whole discourse was diffused by an overarching sense of Europhilia, and whether that was sincere or dictated by the pragmatism of having a European backing in solving the migration crisis remains hard to discern. Nonetheless, the speech had some appeal, especially among the most pro-European people in the room. Professor Fraser rightly referred to the Italian Minister’s intervention as a ‘call to arms.’ Yet, the arms were hardly provided, if not even mentioned. Alfano left the audience with an impellent need for action coupled with a frustrated sense of impotence.

Credit: Flickr: LSE in Pictures

‘Safe Spaces’: Spaces For Whom?

The ‘No Platform’ movement presents a worrying obstacle for free debate at universities Sadie Hale Postgraduate Student A FEW WEEKS AGO, AN event entitled ‘From liberation to censorship: does modern feminism have a problem with free speech?’ was to be held by the University of Manchester. The confirmed speakers were radical lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, and the rather more right-wing – and provocative – gay journalist Milo Yiannopoulos. It would no doubt have been a heated debate.

Yet before the week was out, both speakers had been cancelled on the basis that their views violated the university’s ‘safe space’ policy.

The aversion to Bindel stems from an article she wrote back in 2004. Published on The Guardian’s website and entitled ‘Gender benders, beware’, it contains some pretty awful choices of phrase which understandably caused much offence among the trans community, and for which Bindel has since apologised.

Yiannopoulos, for his part, has been labelled a denier of rape culture and has described transgenderism as a ‘psychiatric disorder’.

This process of refusing to host people deemed to have

harmful views – racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, antiabortion – is known as ‘no platforming’, and it isn’t the first time it’s gained national attention.

“What’s most worrying is that no platforming could have a negative impact on feminism and left-wing politics more broadly.”

In January 2015, Cambridge University recommended that famed feminist Germaine Greer ‘should not be invited back’ to speak there after her views on trans people were deemed too offensive. At Oxford University in November 2014, a debate about the harmful effects of abortion was cancelled after outcry from students.

But what are the effects of no platforming at universities? Does such censorship actually protect students, or merely stifle debate?

In a letter published in The Observer earlier this year, dozens of signatories including antiFGM campaigner Nimko Ali, professor and poet Mary Beard, and prominent LGBT+ rights activist Peter Tatchell implored

universities ‘to stand up to attempts at intimidation and affirm their support for the basic principles of democratic political exchange.’

The letter goes on, ‘‘No platforming’ used to be a tactic used against self-proclaimed fascists (such as protest movement English Defence League) and Holocaust-deniers. But today it is being used to prevent the expression of feminist arguments critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists.

‘The feminists who hold these views have never advocated or engaged in violence against any group of people. Yet it is argued that the mere presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group’s safety.’

It isn’t just here in the UK that no platforming seems to have got out of hand. A major concern in the US and Germany, too, is that in trying too hard to create a truly safe space, universities violate democratic processes and actually silence those who might be well-intentioned, yet dissent from the ‘accepted’ view.

What’s most worrying is that no platforming could have a negative impact on feminism and left-wing politics more broadly.

“I think this is incredibly dam-

aging for the feminist movement,” Caroline Criado-Perez, prominent campaigner for better women’s representation and postgraduate at the LSE Gender Institute (GI), told BBC Woman’s Hour last week.

“To respond to controversial views with well-reasoned arguments not only simulates conversation on campus, but it’s the best way to dismantle and publicly discredit such views.”

“It’s such a bizarre thing. I think it [comes] from this ideological totalism, [the idea] that you can only be safe in a world where everyone 100 percent agrees with you.”

As a fellow GI student, I’ve studied an array of approaches to and theories about the intersectional issues faced by individuals and society at large, some of them deeply troubling. Creating an environment where university students feel safe and welcome is vital, but so too is giving the student body a chance to challenge such unsavoury opinions

for themselves.

A liberal institution should be one which is open to all ideas, even those which deviate from the socially-accepted norm.

Even if everyone in the audience is outraged by a speaker’s views, it’s surely more important that students are given the chance to ridicule and critique such views, rather than have them snuffed out in the first instance. Isn’t that what we’re here to do – to use our own minds, to develop our own opinions, and to debate with those we disagree with?

Ultimately it isn’t a question of free speech, but of free debate. Universities need to consider whether it is more important to shield students from all potentially controversial views, or to allow an open space where opinions can be subjected to necessary public scrutiny.

Only with the latter can we prevent unpopular opinions from being pushed underground, where they might gain greater traction or worse still, portray their proponents as martyrs. To respond to controversial views with well-reasoned arguments not only stimulates conversation on campus, but it’s the best way to dismantle and publicly discredit such views. We, as students, must be allowed the space to do this.

Comment | 11

Help Us Help The Homeless This Winter

As the nights get colder, LSE students should work together to help London’s homeless Alice Rowland Undergraduate Student WINTER IS COMING, AND homelessness is a hugely prevalent issue along the streets of London. As the temperature drops, life becomes even more harrowing. Homeless people become more sleep deprived and struggle to get enough food and shelter to keep themselves warm.

Over the summer I had the chance to meet and talk to homeless people. Taking the time to listen and get to know these people made me realise how often we dehumanise and ignore them; yet I also realised it is so easy to make a tangible difference. Therefore, I have teamed up with my friend, Jessica Davies, to try and make

homeless people’s lives more bearable this winter.

We have decided to make up care packages (think Operation Christmas Child) to distribute to homeless people across London, serving the dual purpose of making their lives a little bit more comfortable as it gets colder and making them feel more like people. Daily activities that we all normalise aren’t an option for people living on the streets, and this is what we want to try to change. So, we need your help.

A few simple items that you probably already have, or could definitely afford to buy, would go a long way in making someone’s life more bearable.

Anyone who has ever been camping knows that an extra layer makes all the difference!

If you have any of the items

we need spare, or if you can pick it up from your local supermarket, we would really appreciate it if you could donate it to our cause. Just drop us an email at a.rowland@lse.ac.uk or j.davies6@lse.ac.uk or join our Facebook group: ‘Help Us Help The Homeless’, and we can meet you on campus to pick it up.

“I personally have found the worst thing about living in London to be homelessness.”

The original aim was to make 10 care packages, but the amazing support we have had so far suggests that we help

many more people living on the streets this winter. We have already some fantastic donations from individuals and AU Clubs (shout out to netball).

If you can help us in any way and spread the word we can all make a big difference.

I personally have found the worst thing about living in London to be homelessness.

We hope that by giving homeless people perfectly simple items, it will make them feel more like humans, improving their quality of life. It is time that we stopped ignoring people on the streets and started treating them like the people and individuals that they are.

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of all the things we need: Clothes: jumpers, hat, scarves, gloves, new or nearly new underwear, waterproofs, trackies,

socks.

Toiletries: condoms, hair brush/bobbles, soap, shaving foam/razors, deodorant, body spray, toothbrush/paste, moisturiser, face wipes, tampons.

Miscellaneous: bumbags (handy for valuables), roll up sleeping mats, sleeping bags, towels, anything nice you may want a homeless person to have (chocolate, sharpies for making signs, vitamins, notepads, packs of cards... you are limited only by your imagination), old toiletries bags, old holdalls.

If, for whatever reason, you are unable to donate any of these items, please do something nice for a homeless person this winter. They must feel overwhelmingly hopeless, and a simple act of kindness can make all the difference.

Socialism And Creativity Are Incompatible Creativity and the Arts cannot flourish in such economic tyranny as a socialist state Will Locke Music Editor IN MY LIFETIME, IT SEEMS that most creative thinkers I have met or been exposed to one way or another tend to sympathise with left-wing policies, and consider themselves more a socialist than a capitalist. This, as an economist, has confused me for many years, as it is my view that socialism is a system of governance which suppresses individualism and liberty far more than capitalism.

Although a few individuals I’ve met have praised the leaderships of Lenin, Mao, and Stalin, most left-wing supporters back a more democratic form of socialism. However, it is important to remember that even these aforementioned leaders came to power promising democracy, and ended their tenures as dictators.

This process has been repeatedly observed and in my opinion, this is because democracy and socialism are practically incompatible due to the following economic reasoning.

In a socialist state, the government must, by definition, take direct control over all domestic industries, and hence make all the decisions that would otherwise be made by markets under a capitalist governance.

However, unlike many political decisions, economic decisions are almost always impossible to democratically agree upon. For example, the state will have to decide whether to produce beef

or not. If it decides to produce beef, it would then have to price beef in relation to: other substitute goods, such as chicken; other complement goods, such as leather; the incomes of beef consumers; and the incomes of beef producers.

Due to these fundamentally conflicting and likely equally weighted stakeholders, it would be very unlikely that a socialist government would be able to satiate the majority of the people it serves to represent when pricing beef. Consumers of beef would want lower prices, producers of beef would want higher prices, and political stalemate would likely ensue.

“Economic tyranny is the most absolute form of power because it gives an unelected minority in government responsibility to the means of life of all its citizens.”

Even if a price could be eventually democratically set on beef, decisions such as the wages of beef producers, their hours of work and leisure, and the amount of beef to be supplied, would also have to be decided upon. In addition to these complications, beef is one of many products demanded in capitalist markets today, so these processes would have to be reiterated

thousands upon thousands of times.

Therefore, it is clear that economic decisions cannot feasibly be democratically determined. In the face of these issues, socialist leaders have historically abandoned democracy and given the responsibility of making economic decisions to themselves or an elite few, resulting in the most absolute form of tyranny: economic dictatorship.

For this key reason, I believe that democracy cannot be combined with socialism, meaning that any socialist government must realistically exercise tyrannical control.

However, it may still be believed that this does not pose a threat to the individual liberties of the people such a government would rule over. Many political thinkers, and many of my peers, see economics as mutually exclusive from political and social issues, and the economy as a mathematical machine that can be operated and altered at will by experts. This could not be further from the truth.

Economic tyranny is the most absolute form of power because it gives an unelected minority in government responsibility to the means to life of all its citizens. Such a government has the power to dictate which job you do, how long you do it for, which products you’re able to possess, etc. Consequently, it is clear that economics overlaps significantly with politics, and upon understanding this, that socialist economics directly con-

tradict with the widely supported political notions of liberty and democracy.

“Many socialist intellectuals apply greater value to the concept of equality, but I believe freedom and autonomy are vital to the creative process for artists.”

Many socialist intellectuals apply greater value to the concept of equality than to freedom and autonomy, but I believe that freedom and autonomy are vital to the creative process for artists.

It is my opinion that the creative process is a highly personal one that can differ massively between individuals, and is ever-changing. It is also a process which cannot be fully realised when trying to actualise anyone’s vision but your own or a select few like-minded collaborators. In short, the creative arts are highly reliant on an environment where individualism, diversity, and change is accepted.

I believe that a socialist state cannot provide such an environment, because it strips away the liberties of the artist, and hence her right to actualise her own creativity, not allowing for the fluidity or diversity that is required in the artistic pursuits.

For example, if the government were to dictate the music

industry, it is likely that it would be grossly simplified and underfunded, with resources being directed to fewer individuals who’ll be instructed to produce music likely to appeal to as many people as possible. Even if this satisfies the majority of the country’s populace (which it likely wouldn’t in the present, and certainly wouldn’t in the future), the strong minority of fans and musicians who enjoy and produce independent music respectively, and do so not for the monetary or social advantages of mass appeal but for the furthering of creative and forward-thinking music, would be stripped of their interest and their livelihoods. After all, when a socialist government is tasked with dictating an entire economy, it is unlikely they will satisfy the desires of such a minority when resources could be allocated to more vital causes, as it is likely to cause a public outcry.

Hence, although I am sure that there exists much debate around the assumptions and examples I have made and factors I have omitted, it is my conclusion that socialism cannot be feasibly combined with liberty, and subsequently cannot support an environment in which creativity and artistry can flourish.

Do you agree?

Tweet @BeaverOnline or email

comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk

12 | Tuesday 20 October, 2015

Sabbs Summarise Successes So Far

The Union

During the most recent UGM the Sabbatical Officers of the Students’ Union give reports on what they have been doing this past term and their plans for the coming academic year. The Beaver spoke to each of the Sabbatical Officers to push them further on what they have achieved so far and what they aim to do by the end of Michaelmas Term.

Nona Buckley-Irvine General Secretary WHAT I HAVE ACHIEVED so far this term? Well I have: scrapped the £50 Masters application fee for final year undergraduates, secured £15k of funding for our hardship funds, lobbied on NSS scores and successfully got teaching put as the School’s #1 priority, participated and led the Union response to the Socially Responsible Investment review, with news to follow in November, participated in the NUS Lad Culture audit and presented a paper on sexual harassment to the Ethics Policy Committee, prioritised financial accessibility to our Union, introducing bursaries for part time officers and a participation fund for every student to access if they cannot afford an activity, scrapped the minimum card spend in all our catering and shop facilities, changed pie provider for cheaper pies, and introduced a £3 LSE entry. Also, I have led a redesign of our website and a slight rebrand so our Union looks more studenty and less corporate!

I oversaw the biggest Orientation period yet, delivering presentations to over 6000 students and more events than ever before What do I hope to have achieved by the end of term? By the end of the term may mean by the end of year knowing how slow change can be at the LSE. My priority for this year is working to ensure that the LSE is as financially accessible to students as possible, both for incoming and current students, and this takes different forms. It means action in our own Union like introducing the participation fund because we can inadvertently create our own barriers too sometimes. It means looking

at who runs for our elections and whether there is a class bias in who runs and wins. It means continuing to look at the price of our events, and what we sell, to check that people can afford things within in reason.

But ultimately LSE is increasingly elitist as it continues to be reliant on fee income. Many people do not actually know that seventy per cent of our income is from student fees. We do not receive any government funding for teaching.

As a consequence, students lose out with high halls rents, premium international fees, and even more premium postgraduate fees. However, as your student representative who sees the policies governing this being passed all the time, I genuinely believe that something can be done about this.

My first priority is halls rents.

The price of living in halls has escalated at an unprecedented pace over the past six years, to the point where it is making university financially inaccessible for many.

Bankside wasn’t always £200 a room - in my year it was £143.50 and even that was a real struggle financially. Similarly, the cheaper halls like Passfield and Carr-Saunders cannot be considered to be genuinely cheap.

The problem that I want to overcome is that currently the pricing strategy is to charge eighty per cent of the market rate to ensure ‘affordable housing’. Yet this cannot be considered affordable when near to one hundred per cent of your student loan will be spent on rent. Moreover, we are a university and universities have a radically different duty to its students than property developers do to the general population. Any university that genuinely prioritises getting in students from any and every tule of background, regardless of income, would be developing an innovative and bold residential strategy that minimises cost on the student.

My second priority is international student scholarships and funding. A common misconception at the LSE is that every international student is rich. This is totally false. Research undertaken last year during our ‘Fix international fees’ campaign showed that there are students having to undertake part time work, take out com-

mercial loans, or even contemplate dropping out of university because of hyena financial pressures they are under. A part of this remains linked to the price of accommodation, which was cited in our research. However, there is scope for a more equitable approach to international students with the creation of a hardship fund that students can access should they run into financial difficulty. There is very little assistance on offer and the LSE conceded last year that the amount of fees money that is reinvested into international student support as compared to home students is low. By the end of the term I will be hoping that together we can persuade the LSE to create a specific hardship fund.

Another issue is the claim to a global outreach when in fact we are not diverse in terms of the countries we recruit students from.

We have low numbers of students from the African continent, from the Middle East, and given how international we are, I want to see the LSE commit to widening participation beyond the UK too, because as an international institution we should be. We are in the position to change the world not just through our research but by our educational mission. So, I hope to raise this issue and lobby for region specific scholarships, especially from conflict areas.

My third priority this year is postgraduate funding. It’s increasingly on the radar nationally and it should be on our radar too given how costly it is to undertake a postgraduate degree at the LSE specifically, and how few funding options exist for students who are not of the financial means to pay for it themselves.

Notably, the number of UK students studying at PG level at LSE has halved in recent years, and it would be remiss to not place this in a national context of increased debt from tuition fees, but there are still barriers in place that LSE needs to be working on. The £50 fee was an immediate barrier to applying and I am encouraged that that has now been removed as an initial step, but the question of how to pay for fees upwards of £10,000, as well as bearing the cost of actually living in London, remains. We are fortunate to have

a significant amount of money for postgraduate support but students have consistently raised concerns about how it is administered, as the Graduate Support Scheme applies an algorithm to its allocation methods rather than looking at individual applications. I will be looking at other systems to ensure that this is as fair as possible.

Underpinning all of this is about how LSE approaches and acknowledges the fact that it is increasingly elitist and there are no grounds to argue that wealth or ability to pay does not significantly determine your chance of actually coming to study here. The National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) stated in research that the biggest impact of the UK fees system is that students are 40 per cent more likely to study close to him. In that case, it is no wonder that our student body is predominantly from the South, with little recruitment from the North, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Add to that extortionate living costs, which fall within LSE’s control, and we are posed with a significant problem.

Over the summer I lobbied the Director to come out against the cuts to maintenance grants and the choice was to not do so, despite the fact that these cuts hadn’t even had an equality impact assessment undertaken, and the fact that the cuts will literally put more debt onto the poorest of students.

This typifies the real challenge we are faced with that underpins all three of the priorities that I have listed: getting the LSE to embrace, lead, and challenge the status quo in higher education. The status quo being it’s elitist nature.

It goes without saying that this is not an exhaustive list of what I’ll be up to over the next few weeks.

We have elections coming, I am lobbying the School to diversify its committees in terms of liberation groups, and teaching (as well as basic things like timetables!) needs to see radical changes, as well as a different approach to sexual harassment on campus. However, it is my hope that as an institution that was founded on the principles of social justice, it can start to match actions with words and change the elitist reality of what the LSE has become.

The Union | 13

Katie Budd Activities and Development Officer MY BIGGEST PRIORITY since the start of term has been making sure that The School deals with their room booking fiasco, which has had a huge effect on societies’ ability to hold events.

First and foremost, I have tried to

Jon-Rhys Foster Education Officer WHAT HAVE YOU DONE SO far this term? Well, Welcome Week has been the dominant event of the term thus far - in the run up I worked with the other Sabb’s to put together what I think was the most comprehensive Welcome Week offer ever. I was particularly proud of our engagement events with Postgraduate students and that for the first time we as a

Aysha Fekaiki Community and Welfare Officer THIS TERM HAS BEEN incredibly busy, and with help from Part-time Officers, heads of societies, the incredible Student’s Union staff team and students I’ve managed to achieve an incredible amount of things already… here it goes! With regards to national campaigns I organised prefresher’s Refugee banner making

get clarification from The School on what exactly the situation is, why the problems have occurred, and when we can expect a fully functioning system. This week we met with the school management to express our dissatisfaction with the situation and their response. We’ve also called for financial compensation for our societies, given the huge amount of disruption they have faced.

Holding the school to account on this has probably been my biggest achievement so far.

I’ve spent a lot of time lobbying The School about the need to include sports facilities, rehearsal/performance space and music practice rooms in the project brief for the new building at 44LIF. I’ve worked with societies and clubs to write a joint letter addressed to key people in the school, demonstrating the need for all of these facilities. This, combined with our behind the

scenes work, will hopefully see the co-curricular needs of students taken seriously by The School.

In other lobbying news, I’ve been sitting on the socially responsible investment review group with Nona, where we’ve pushed for The School to divest from fossil fuels, tobacco and arms.

I’ve met with several different arts-related societies, and we’ve discussed what a representative structure for the arts at LSE could look like. The purpose of a newly structured arts community would be to: raise the profile of arts at LSE (with flagship events like arts festivals), specialise the support we give these societies, make sure societies are co-ordinating in terms of rehearsal and performance space, encourage collaboration between groups, have more lobbying power for arts societies at a school level, and create a social community amongst the societies. I’ve also

been researching the ways that other universities and institutions represent and support the interests of students involved in the arts, to see what we can learn from them.

Lots has been happening with funding too. We’ve set up the Participation Fund, which is means tested for students who find that finance is a barrier to any of our activities. This can cover different types of costs, from membership fees to sports kit. We’ve also opened up this term’s round of applications for the LSE Annual Fund, a pot of £330,000 for starting up student projects, funded by charitable donations given to the school by alumni and family. Alongside this, I’ve been meeting with students who want to set up new societies, and chairing the activities committee which makes decisions on that, as well as how the activities fund is given out.

By the end of this term I want to have a new representative structure for our arts societies set up within the union, after holding an arts forum to decide exactly what that will look like.

Further, I want to have secured co-curricular space in the project brief for 44LIF. I want to have completed our new sports strategy on the basis of consultation, ready to implement in Lent Term. This will review why and how we offer sports opportunities, from the way we fund it, to the way we communicate our opportunities, to how accessible sports here are. Last but not least, I want societies and sports clubs to feel fully supported by the SU, whether that be in terms of the training and networking opportunities we have offered, or in terms of more fundamental things like venue-booking and funding.

Union were able to offer a comprehensive package of alternative events. Personal highlights include the pleasure of speaking at thirteen departmental inductions and my shocking attempt to channel my inner rockstar whilst hosting battle of the halls.

Welcome Week aside the term has been incredibly busy - I have been designing this year’s ReImagining Your Education Series to follow on from Tom last year, which kicked off with ‘What is an LSE Education - the Academics speak’ on October 8th. The event provided students with a chance to interact with senior LSE figures including Craig Calhoun and was the best attended Re-Imagining event the SU have held thus far.

It also provided a useful starting point for the wider consultation I’m going to be holding later this term. In addition, I have been working with the SU staff team to consolidate last years Employability and Development sessions with the launch of the new ‘Beyond the

Classroom’ programme. Beyond the Classroom was a key pledge I made during elections which aims to improve students personal and professional development through one cohesive programme. The skills sessions launch was attended by over sixty people and the sessions so far have been a great success. We will also be launching the Beyond the Classroom lecture series this Friday (23rd October) in the 6th Floor Studio at 7pm with ‘A case for the Arts’.

Over summer and the term so far, I have been working to improve the SU’s engagement with the school and the course rep system. We have designed and begun delivering the new, even more comprehensive SSLC training sessions, in advance of the first Course Rep Congress of the Year.

In a further attempt at departmental outreach, I spent the summer trying to meeting with every Head of Department at LSE (so far I’m on 18/23) to get to grips with the ongoing educational issues across

the school. This emphasis on increased outreach has extended to all areas of LSE study and I’ve also been working with Aysha and our engagement team to promote greater links with PhD students and the new PhD academy.

I have been in regular contact with the school discussing the issue of study space - both in the short term and what can be done for students and in ensuring the development of the Centre buildings and 44 Lincoln’s Inn fits the needs of students with respect to both study and teaching. I have also been vocal in expressing the student dissatisfaction with the ongoing timetabling crisis.

By the end of Michaelmas Term, I aim to build on the success of the first Re-Imagining Your Education event to deliver a meaningful and wide reaching consultation on what students want from their LSE education.

The findings of this consultation will feed directly into the direction of The School’s new Educa-

tion Strategy 2015-2020 and into The School’s ongoing Academic Advisor and Dean reviews. With these consultations and the impact I believe they can have, I am hopeful we can begin to make real progress on teaching at the LSE this academic year.

Also by the end of term we will have held three Beyond the Classroom lectures and numerous skills sessions which should be engaging with more students than ever before. I also aim to be preparing a revamped Student Shadowing Scheme to provide students with further opportunities for professional development.

Finally I hope that by the end of term, we will be able to see the benefits of greater engagement with SSLC, with the best trained, most pro-active course reps we have ever had. If we can ensure a greater democratic platform for students at department level as well as through the SU, we can begin to have a greater impact than ever before.

and LSE bloc for the protest with all new first year undergraduate and postgraduate students. Also, we were able to put on a refugee collection point at LSESU with the help of old and new students.

I have also started the Wellbeing Project and have allocated a free slot for wellbeing classes i.e. yoga, de-stress, tai chi on Monday’s at 5pm . A wellbeing community update email is sent to students who signed up to the mailing list with weekly tips and future sessions. In addition, five hundred student made packs containing a wellbeing poster, stress balls, bubbles, freebies and time to change materials were handed out to new students during Welcome Week. I have also made the first ever wellbeing poster with all the advice and support services in the school and SU and set up a webpage with all the information about mental health support services, free sessions and tips.I have also created a plan for outreach-

ing with peer-supporters and halls committees to deliver wellbeing nights and day activities by December.

In addition, I am currently filming for a Time to Change video with Disabled Student’s Officer, Isobel, to reduce stigma around mental health and to signpost students to our advice and support services. We are also preparing a wellbeing survey to be released in November to start research into the policy side of mental health within the university, Student’s Union and general LSE cultural attitudes towards it.

I was able to achieve a lot during Fresher’s Week, such as the alternative fresher’s (all booked out and great feedback), Halls road trip about well being, the “Living in London Day” which was all about well being, culture shock and adjusting to life in London.

Postgraduate engagement during the week tripled with all the postgrad only events and we held

an International students culture shock quiz for the first time, thus improving inclusion further.

Finally, there was the Cultural Festival where fifteen societies showcased their music, food and cultural activities to new students.

We are currently coming to the end of Black History Month and the huge number of events that were laid on. There was free BME women’s yoga , BME women’s and all public speaking workshop, self-defence and dance classes. Society engagement is much higher than it has been in previous years; all liberation PTO’s are involved to create an intersectional and inclusive BHM with their own events. In particular, there is Black Her-story Week with Jasmina, Anti-Racism Officer, which includes the Her-story exhibition of Black women at LSE and Black women’s networking panel.

Finally, I am lobbying to keep negotiations open within the committee to relocate the nursery

rather than closing it. I will be launching a campaign next week to reinvest, relocate and renovate the nursery!

By the end of this term I would like to have got more students involved in the wellbeing project and have one thousand students fill out the wellbeing survey about mental health services. I would like to have delivered a wellbeing workshop to every halls of residence with Part-time officers, peer-supporters and halls committees. Also, I hope to have lobbied the school successfully to relocate the nursery to an acceptable location. I aim to put on a fantastic Inter-faith week, Green Week and Islamophobia Awareness Week. I would like to have increased the representation of BME, international and postgraduate students in elected positions as well as developing a stronger relationship with PhD students and a better network for long-term support.

14 | Tuesday 20 October, 2015

This Week in RAG A round up of LSESU’s Raising and Giving Society’s Give it a Go session and a heads up about their upcoming challenges, why you should get involved and the ways you can!

Valentin Weisner RAG Hitch Officer ON TUESDAY OF WEEK 2, RAG held its give it a go session and first bucket collection of the year at Stratford station in order to raise funds for the Haven House Children’s Hospice. Participants were spilt up into shifts of two hours, so I found myself at 7am in a purple T-shirt with a red bucket outside the tube station’s office, expected to make individuals of the monotonous mass, streaming from one train to the other, halt for a moment and give me some of their change. A futile task, as I thought standing there.

While at first one could presum-

ably see our insecurity, and only James’ roaring voice from the other end of the room made people notice the presence of our little group, confidence gradually built up as the waves came crushing in. The more our levels of confidence increased, the louder our voices seemed to become, and the “Good morning, would you like to make a small donation for Haven House Children’s Hospice?” in conversation volume was replaced by a carnival-barkerlike “Laaaaadies and gentlemen, any spare change for the children’s hospice on this beautiful morning?

Aaaaaany spare change?”.

It was surprising for me how kind most people reacted and how

indeed some of the stopped to reach into their pockets and bags for a few (or sometimes quite a lot of) coins.

One gentlemen actually gave me a tenner *wink emoticon* Of course we got to hear the occasional angry “No” or sassy “I’ve only got card mate”, but for me, these two hours were a kind of personality development training, given that before, I wouldn’t have shouted out loud over the heads of one hundred and fifty busy people in a tube station just like that for two hours.

Overall I can really say that I had a fun time at my first bucket collection in years, and I definitely recommend everyone to try it out at our next one coming up soon.

Your Chance To Take On A Challenge RAG Committee

RAG Gets Lost November 14th hosts the first in our series of Hitchhikes. RAG gets LOST is great for those of you that have never done a hitchhike before.

You’d never think a Saturday could be so action-packed. Blindfolded, on a coach to an unknown destination, your team in all manner of fancy dress, the goal, make it back to London as quickly as you can while completing challenges on the way.

Simple enough, but with one twist. Your team must return using absolutely no money. Bus, train, car, however you manage to hitchhike back is up to you.

Fancy having a great time with friends? A story you’ll be telling for years? And above all, helping charity in the process. Find out more about this amazing event at the info session on Tuesday 20th October Kilimanjaro Sign ups are now open for LSE’s Mount Kilimanjaro trek which will be taking place at the end of August/ beginning of September 2016! We will be climbing Kili in aid of Dig Deep which is an incredible charity that helps create sustainable water sources and provides hygiene education in Kenya.

Over the academic year we will be raising money as a group and individually for the charity and for your travel. You will receive constant support from Taye Le Monnier, Kili Officer, and the Dig Deep team.

The trip will consist of six days trekking up and down the mountain and then around ten days of independent travel either on safari or in Zanzibar. The trip will be an incredible experience for

us all and will mean that Dig Deep can give their support to so many more people!!

Sign ups close on the 15th November.

London to Paris Join RAG for the ultimate European Cycle Challenge – London to Paris in aid of Breast Cancer Now! This event is available to everyone, whether you’re still on stabilisers or you’re the next Bradley Wiggins, you can sign up now, check out the RAG Facebook page for more details.

The London to Paris Cycle Ride is one of Europe’s great cycling experiences. Travel through the beautiful Kent countryside, cross the channel, continue through the small villages and medieval market towns of Northern France, passing the famous battlefields of the Somme and Agincourt. With three days in the saddle and some hill-climbs, the sight of the Eiffel Tower, our finishing point, will evoke a real sense of achievement.

The trip will be taking place in late July and the fundraising target is the lowest of all the external challenges that we offer. Breast Cancer affects 50,000 people every year so sign up and help prevent it.

Morocco Trek For those who have a passion for travelling and enjoy the outdoors, trekking in Morocco could be the next challenge for you. A trek put together by Worldwide Cancer Research and Choose A Challenge, you’ll be able to experience one of nature’s greatest gifts while contributing to making a significant contribution to the best cancer research projects worldwide.

In September 2016, participants will be on their way to a 5-day hike in a land of incredible history and culture with a unique mix of Berber, Arab and European

influences, followed by 8 days to explore Morocco. Perched between the Atlantic Ocean and the Sahara Desert in the far northwestern corner of Africa, Morocco captures the spirit of the region; with the smell of incense in the narrow labyrinths of the ancient souks in the cities, verdant Berber oases and the rolling golden dunes of the Sahara.

Our journey through the High Atlas is a great chance to explore the rocky gorges and high altitude settlements that have populated this area for centuries.

In return for this chance of a lifetime challenge, you will be set a minimum fundraising target of £1,200. All proceeds will go to Worldwide Cancer Research. So...

What are you waiting for? Join the group and let your journey begin today.

Get a Tin and Bring it in Here at RAG, we aren’t just about Raising money. We are also about giving something back to the community (It’s kind of in the name).

From the 19th to the 23rd October we will be running our GET A TIN, BRING IT IN CAMPAIGN. We would love every student to bring in tins, cans, or other dry goods, which we will then donate to St. Mungo’s Broadway, providing dinner for their emergency housing projects across London. St. Mungo’s Broadway support over 2500 homeless men and women each night and is our student-nominated local charity of the year!

There will be a collection point in every halls at LSE and also in the Saw Swee Hock ground floor Reception.

If every person at LSE gave just a single tin (costing less than a pound) we would have over 10,000 tins. So please be generous and donate any spare tins you have (make sure they are in date though!!).

Pictures from Top to Bottom: Kilimanjaro Trek for Dig Deep, Morocco Trek for Worldwide Cancer Research, London to Paris Cycle Challenge, RAG Gets Lost Credits to LSESU RAG Dates For The Diary: - 19th - 23rd October - Get A Tin And Bring It In - 20th October - RAG Gets Lost Info Session, location to be confirmed - 23rd October - Bucket Collection at Tube Stations near LSE Campus - 14th November - RAG Gets Lost begins -15th November - sign ups for the Kilimanjaro Challenge closes For more information our events and challenges check out the RAG Facebook page!

16

LITERATURE

| Tuesday 20 October, 2015

READING IN PUBLIC 14

CONTROVERSIAL BOOKS Camila Arias Buritica THIS LAST WEEK I CHOSE TO READ A BOOK THAT had been on my reading list for a while. As I usually do, I read this book on my commute, taking it out once I had settled down in a seat. However this book, I noticed, was gaining me some awkward, even disgusted, glances from my fellow commuters.

First of all, I spotted the eyes of the man sitting opposite me grow wide in surprise at the book in my hands. When I looked at him, his face was one of disgust. The next day, another man leaned forward to double check the title, then sat back while clearing his throat, averting his gaze. I held the book higher for him to see.

This has been the effect of Vladimir Nabokov’s famed ‘Lolita’ on other commuters (in particular, the male ones). Why? Yes, the subject is a shocking one – the book is about a 40-yearold man and his obsession with a 12-year-old girl, Dolores, or ‘Lolita’. Much of the book is about the pair pretending to be father and daughter as they travel around the United States, not staying anywhere long enough for people to see through their façade and learn the truth of their relationship. The book not only gives us an insight into the dynamics of their relationship but also shows us the effects of it on the young Dolores.

I also admit that the book is probably not for everyone. It is uncomfortable and shocking, but why people find it so weird to see somebody reading it baffles me.

It may be a taboo subject, but isn’t this sort of thing what the aim of literature is for? It is often said that one goal of art is to disturb the comfortable, and so, by this definition, are books like Lolita not what art is for? We read to stretch our minds and take in literature that tackles tough topics, like abusive relationships. How are we ever going to have a chance at being able to discuss these difficult issues openly if we balk at the view of a controversial book?

And so, I didn’t put my book away in shame, I didn’t buy a digital version to read it without people knowing in embarrassment. I held my head high and continued reading Lolita.

So I say to you, hold up your ‘shameful’ books with pride and keep reading.

part

B

PartB

Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui Flo Edwards

editorial team fashion

film

Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva

Sarah Ku

music Rob Funnell Will Locke

food & lifestyle

literature

Alexander Lye Camila Arias Caroline SchurmanBuritica Grenier technology theatre visual arts Vacant

Vacant

Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin

VISUAL ARTS

17

HAPPENING NOW

AI WEI WEI AT THE ROYAL ACADEMY

Noah D’Aeth AI WEI WEI IS CURRENTLY the most famous figure in art.

His stance against the Chinese government has made headlines and grabbed attention the world over. Despite this, his work is still relatively unknown in Britain.

We seem to know more about Ai the activist than Ai the artist.

The new exhibit at the Royal Academy sets out to change that.

Simply called ‘Ai Wei Wei’, the title is a nod both to his minimalist style and the global recognition of his name. It encompasses 20 years of his work and features sculptures, video installations and purpose made pieces. Ai’s work covers many themes and this exhibit quickly gives you a flavour of what he is about. It is art as the everyday, art as abstraction and art as recycled product. The result of this is an exhibition which is at times dazzling and at others baffling.

Nevertheless, some of the works in this show remain powerful pieces. In his sculptures Ai uses reclaimed wood to question the value Chinese people attach to their heritage. ‘Table and Pillar’ is made from a Qing dynasty pillar and table which have been stuck together. The join between them is seamless and the original craftsmanship of each object has been kept. In a new form though, its original pur-

pose has been subtly transformed.

It now resembles a factory complete with a belching chimney and heavy with the lore of Chinese economic development. Whilst maintaining its original charm, the object poses a serious question about the value of craftsmanship in the modern age and is surprisingly elegant at the same time.

This theme continues with his other sculptures. In ‘Table with three legs’ we are presented with a wonderfully ornate table, but with two legs striking out into the air. This new composition brings to mind a kung-fu fighter more than it does a mandarin’s desk. Ai’s sense of humour comes through in this piece. He is playing with our notions of purpose, and it is a joke we can share in.

You are never more than a few steps from a serious political piece though. None of which are more impressive than ‘Straight’. This 90 tonne collection of steel rods was salvaged by Ai from the wreckage of the shoddily made buildings which collapsed during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Each bent and twisted rod was then painstakingly straightened out and placed in this composition to form a long rectangle. The varying lengths and diameters of the rods also give the piece a rather mystifying texture. It could be a wave, landslide or the needle moving up

and down the Richter scale. This work reflects more than any other the sense that Ai has become the morale voice of modern China.

The weight of this responsibility can make some pieces quite bizarre, however, as Ai’s increasing fame means his campaigner image comes to dominate his work’s subject matter. The results of this are a number of pieces which slide into self-indulgence. A video installation detailing the destruction of his Shanghai studio features home footage of Ai playing with his son, and whilst perfectly pleasant it seems odd given the other themes explored in the work. It more resembles a passing clip of ‘dissidents do the funniest things’ than something to be taken seriously.

This aside, the RA has delivered an excellent show. The works sit and hang purposefully in the gallery, each given enough space for you to wander around them and observe them from every angle. It is therefore a useful education on Ai’s art. Attempting to pick apart the artist from the activist is almost impossible though. But we now have a far better picture of who he is thanks to this enthralling exhibition.

‘Ai Wei Wei’ is at the Royal Academy until December 13th

18

| Tuesday 20 October, 2015

FASHION

FASHION

FASHION

SUPREME X AIR JORDAN

JUMPMAN UP TO SOMETHING

Jamie Lloyd SUPREME AND AIR JORDAN released their long-awaited collaboration this FriDAY to the baying mob that had for med outside their London and Japan stores, camping outside in their hundreds for the chance to gain the limited release. Release in Supreme’s New York and L.A. stores was withheld for fear that of a public disturbance.

To the uninitiated, this wanton lust for sole and sneaker might seem perplexing – but to the hardened streetwear enthusiast, the combination of Jordan and Supreme represent nothing less than a universal cosmic event (I exaggerate, but not unduly, which is the point here). Both brands provide a product of limited stock. Supreme, in particular, is notorious for having a catalogue that sells out almost the instant it is put online, meaning individuals are willing to brave the dark and cold early morning streets of Soho in order to guarantee their purchase. The end product – three exclusive colourways of a Jordan V - has been making the rounds on the reselling circuit for easily double the retail price, with proxies on the day (paying someone to camp out and ensure the release) being procured for as high as £800. This article is not an as-

sessment of the aesthetics of the resulting Jordan V collaboration, but rather an assessment and exploration of the hype culture that has developed in the streetwear subculture and the reselling game that plagues it.

But first, a cursory look at the brand themselves. Air Jordan and the legendary mythos that now surround it, hardly need mentioning – the shoes, if not the resulting sub-culture, have become part of the zeitgeist of modern society. Supreme, by contrast, is not universally known, but the New-York based skating brand’s subversive take on a plethora of topics and aesthetics ranging from the lurid to the urbane, have scintillated the initiated since 1994 (never mind the fact that I wasn’t born then).

The lines (read: hordes) of people descending upon Supremes’ Soho store is deceptive. Whilst among the crowd are certainly individuals looking to purchase the shoe for themselves, the majority are either providing proxy services (buying the shoe for someone else but at an inflated price) or buying the shoe to resell. This resell market has its origins with the overwhelming desire for such products and the limited nature of them. In some ways, reselling is a har mless mechanism for an individu-

al for make a few extra quid (few reselling ventures garner much profit), but it also per manently enshrines the idea within streetwear, that the economic gravitation of products is only towards the top. Whilst the brand, and even the individual consumer, might revel in the limited nature of such stock and the elitist mentality that brings with it, such a system belies the economic disenfranchisement that it automatically entails. It also casts doubt and suspicion regarding the camp that surrounds Soho, week in week out, during the season – these might not be die-hard fans, but instead entrepreneurial individuals willing to sacrifice a night in the cold to make a 20% profit. One can’t help but feel that the culture one has bought into has been devalued somewhat when many are purely interested in it to make money – it rather devalues the interest as an artistic exercise.

The resell market and our own need for a sense of needless affectation derived from scarcity, drives us down carefully corralled paths of interest, instead of allowing us, as individuals, to express that which is inimitable to fashion and in particular streetwear – the desire and the ability to dress and comport and curate one’s appearance in whatever way suits one’s individual

FASHION WEEK BREAKDOWN

personality and deportment, in order to truly express oneself. But such a central mission of streetwear is somewhat diluted by the market-driven ability to sell a shoe that looks like toast for £800. But maybe I’m interested in the wrong subculture.

AND DESIGNER CREATED WOMAN

Maria Maleeva

THE FASHION WEEKS HAVE COME TO AN END BUT ONE CAN STILL ASK what should we wear during spring/summer. In my humble opinion, the variety of collections don’t give us girls a great choice. I don’t know how the best people of the fashion world see real women, but in my view, there is quite an interesting pattern.

An acrobat Some designers like Mark Jacobs or Stella Jean have decided that we need more colour. Their collections are so lively that I’m seriously thinking of quitting the university and joining a circus. Mass market alternatives: River Island, New Look, Apricot.

An academic queen of the LSE Don’t think I’m biased, but these collections are just perfect. Calvin Klein, DKNY, Dondup, Boss and Anya Hindmarch are the gods of monochrome. I like the way they make the “nerdyness” look so sexy. Mass market alternatives: Miss Selfridge, Zara.

Miss “it’s complicated” Vivetta, Alexander McQueen, MM6 Mason Margiela, Natasha Zinko and Victoria Beckham make me think about adding layers into my life. Everything looks so elaborate that one should spend a couple of hours to imitate it. However, I think the struggle worth it. Mass market alternatives: Desigual, Miss Sixty, Bershka.

Voguesters I think, that only the professionals from Vogue, Elle or Harpers Bazaar will be able to fully appreciate the collections from Burberry Prorsum, Mary Katrantzou and Emilio Pucci. These collections are so posh that I can hardly imagine anyone in the tube wearing then. Mass market alternatives: Monsoon, Mango (Urban Legend collection), Cos. I have to admit, that this season’s fashion weeks didn’t give us a broad choice. In my opinion, there were not many groundbreaking ideas

p a r t 19

FILM

B A REVIEW OF THE LOBSTER IS COUPLEDOM REALLY THAT ABSURD?

Farid Hamka

THIS CANNES FILM FESTIVAL JURY PRIZE winning sci-fi drama directed by Yorgos Lanthimos is a delightful watch. It is funny, romantic, while keeping a surreal element dragged on from the start until the end. Its setting, a dystopian near future, provides a nice exaggerated treatment of the theme of relationship where finding it is a matter of life and death. The atmospheric music also aids the claustrophobic air that persists.

David (Collin Farell), a recent divorcee, had to enter the hotel, a place where all single people are gathered as the city has a rule that forbids being without a partner. During their stay in the hotel, the guests have 45 days to find a partner there or be tur ned to an animal of their choice at the end. The stay in the hotel includes a daily indoctrination session of the merits of coupledom, which was portrayed in a farcical way. In the woods outside the hotel, there is a group of cultists who are led by an opinionated and cruel woman (Lea Seydoux). This cult upholds celibacy and goes against everything the hotel embodies, which they raid every now and then to prove a point. The core story is David’s jour ney through the two differing societies and in doing so, explores the attitudes that build a romantic relationship.

There is a considerable amount of satire employed in the movie as it unpacks the processes of building a relationship with somebody. Among the first things done at the beginning is the

handcuffing of one hand to one’s belt to show how having a pair of things is better than one.

This is what the hotel was constructed for: to glorify the idea that coupledom somehow is a solution to everything. There might also be a few parallel to what we personally face when we date someone: a man slams his face on the wall in order to emulate a nosebleed which he uses to find a common interest with a girl with a pervasive nosebleed. For me, this shows the extent of a person losing their identity when they start dating someone. Things are not better at the other side of the fence, though. In the cult, ideas of personal independence are stressed to borderline brutal means. Their existence is a challenge to the idea of relationships. From their actions, it is deducible that they feel that affection is a weakness.

The events in the second half pits this ideal as David found companionship with a shortsighted member of the cult (Rachel Weisz). I have ostensibly left out a lot of detail, as I know spoilers are not for reviews, but the point is that the movie invites comparison to our ideas of relationship and think through its absurdity.

At the end of the day, we as the audience are posed with the question ourselves: Does romantic love only persist with compatibility? What has built our relationships so far? Ultimately, is coupledom the only valid way to conduct a relationship? These questions are worth asking in a world saturated with dating algorithms pervading our social space.

THE DEBUT FILM FROM CARLOS MARQUES-MARCET

A REVIEW OF 10,000KM Sarah Ku

“10.000 KM” OPENS WITH A 26 MINUTES long shot, which features the couple starting off the day with mor ning sex, talking about baby names and making breakfast. The film shows the long-distance relationship between Alex (Natalia Tena) and Sergio (David Verdaguer), as referenced by the title of the film. Originally planning to start a family in Spain, Alex gains a place on a photography project lasting for a year in Los Angeles. After initially being excited for her success, Sergio becomes passive aggressive and confrontational as he realises the consequences of her going on the project. Eventually, he feels guilty and encourages her to take up the offer.

This is a debut film from the director Carlos Marques-Marcet, which scooped a wide range of awards from various film festivals around the world.

The film incor porates moder n technology with innovative cinematic techniques. For instance, Alex’s new neighbourhood and flat in Los Angeles are introduced to the audience through Sergio’s point-ofview, as the audience is shown the video chat screen on Sergio’s computer with all the lagging, pauses and low resolution that are often experienced by users, as well as the Google Map when Alex tries to show Sergio different places in her neighbourhood. Their relationship feels very genuine and realistic, because the film depicts day-to-day events in their lives, such as cooking and having a meal, as well as using common communication tools that we all utilise on a daily basis.

The director splits the film into small

chronological episodes, with each titled as the number of days since their separation, which is very similar to the technique used in “500 Days of Summer”.

As the film goes on, while Alex and Sergio try to maintain their relationship by constantly video chatting with each other, the couple’s doubt and frustration start to creep in. One example is when Alex and Sergio are having a video chat, but she covers the chat window with the photo-editing software as she would rather focus on her work. Also, the episodes start to feature only one of them, as they begin to drift apart from each other and focus on their own lives.

In “10.000 km”, Alex and Sergio try to maintain their relationship with the help of technology.

In the moder n world of the 21st century, they start their long-distance relationship with hope and faith, but the myriad of communication methods, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Skype, offer an illusory sense of closeness and intimacy as the couple struggle to connect.

After a fight, the couple try to reconcile and Sergio makes a sur prise visit to Los Angeles. The director shows Sergio’s view out of his car window on the left side of the screen as he drives to Alex’s flat, and places the Google Map street photos on the right.

The film ends with the couple trying to rebuild their intimacy with visible awkwardness, which contrasts with the opening scene. While their relationship has obviously changed, the director leaves us with an ambiguous open ending. The film is heartbreakingly real, but it is the realness that truly connects and resonates with the audience.

20

| Tuesday 20 October, 2015

FOOD&LIFESTYLE

Caroline Schurman-Grenier AS IF WE DIDN’T HAVE enough to worry about. Essays, exams, societies, fixing the lightbulb in the flat, taking out the trash, planning a night out, relaxing, going to lectures...Now we have to be healthy in university? No thank you. I’m not interested... Is the wrong way to approach the problem.

University is a stressful time. Trust me, this I know.

Personally, what is helping me going through it is staying healthy. What EXACTLY do I mean by healthy? I’m so glad you asked. Being healthy is not only about eating well, and it’s not only about exercising.

It’s about having a balance. Yes, it’s important to eat fruits and vegetables and complex carbohydrate, and it’s important to go to the gym or play a sport, but it’s also important to eat a doughnut and drink some alcohol and oversleep and not move for an entire day because you simply can’t be bothered.

During the week, I tend to get up very early, workout, then head to school, go to lectures and classes, have lunch, try and do some reading, come home, have dinner, relax, go to bed and do it all over again on Tuesday.

And you know what? It’s exhausting sometimes and I sometimes I can’t wait until Saturday when I don’t have to do anything at all.

We need the balance. Eat out, have a drink, sleep... do it all.

I read something that said we should take care of ourselves because we’re our longest commitment. And I believe

it. Be that as it may, here are some tips to keep you healthy and fit during the year.

Eat your vegetables Yes Mom, I promise. But it’s so true. It’s so easy to forget to eat them but they’re so important for your overall wellbeing. You can take example from my lovely mason jar salads, or you can simply take some carrots and hummus, or a bag of cherry tomatoes.

Have salad with your dinner, less carbs and you’ll be happier. Your body will thank you in the long run.

Take the stairs Not sure how to get a workout in for the day? Take the stairs to your fifth floor class instead of waiting endlessly for the lift. Little steps like these will keep your body awake and moving. We sit down for so many hours in the day, it can feel good to move a little more when we can.

Walk to Uni This seems impossible, but I guarantee that for 95% of you, it’s doable. If you live really really really far from uni, you could still walk to a further tube station, or a further bus stop. Walking is very therapeutic. It allows you to forget the day’s stress and do some low impact exercise. They say that people who walk 30 minutes a day reduce their risk of dementia later on. Think about that for a second. Is it really that hard to walk 30 minutes a day?

Join a Sport’s Team There are so many group sports you could take part in. Rugby, basketball, rowing... there are so many op-

WHEN HEALTHY MET TASTY

COCONUT BANANA BREAD Caroline Schurman-Grenier THERE’S NOT MUCH THAT I like better than a fresh loaf of banana bread on my kitchen counter.

The smell is absolutely bewitching.

If you disagree, I’m sorry because you will hate this recipe.

A few weeks ago, I really wanted banana bread. And so, I made banana bread. I brought a few cookbooks from home and prayed that one of them had a recipe for banana bread. EUREKA. The children’s cookbook I used when I was younger had one. Children’s cookbook? Well, yes. Why? Be-

cause they are the best cookbooks.

The recipes are easy, danger free and for some reason, so delicious.

I tweaked a few ingredients from the original recipe, making it a little healthier but just as good. I recommend it with peanut butter on top, or with some Greek yogurt and jam. Depends on your mood.

It’s also really good on its own.

Basically, it’s really good banana bread. Take it as a study snack, have it for breakfast, or dessert. Anything works!

Baking really is not that scary, it’s actually quite fun. You get to experiment with new ingredients for old recipes and maybe make a masterpiece. If you’re too scared to “be creative”, have no fear there

STAYING HEALTHY

AT UNIVERSITY

tions. It’s also a really great way to meet people and make friends. I personally don’t, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s a bad idea. Au contraire, I probably would have made more friends had I joined a team. That’s not the point.

The point is that with a sports team you kill two birds with one stone. Friends and fitness.

Enough said.

Healthy Study Snacks I know that crisps and candy are delicious, but it would be a good idea to try a healthier option to snack on when you’re studying. A bag of grapes, an apple, a granola bar (how Canadian of me, I know), a piece of dark chocolate, yogurt, cheese and grapes, almonds... the options are endless. I know this sounds boring, but trust me it isn’t. Snacks are important. A lot of people say that snacking is bad, but that might just be because they think that snacks are always unhealthy.

But they aren’t.

Check Out the Gym Whether it’s at uni or in your neighborhood, there are loads of student discounts for gym memberships. Some special studios have discounts as well.

Gyms are fun because you have options. Classes, treadmill, weights, you can decided what you prefer and not do it every single day. Varying it up is key. Some gyms even offer free consultations with personal trainers if you’re into that!

Get Up Earlier Please don’t hate me for saying that when earlier I told you it was OK to sleep in. It’s OK to sleep in sometimes, but is a recipe here just waiting for you to try it.

You will need: 1 cup spelt flour 2/3 cup all-purpose flour 1/2 teaspoon salt 1/4 teaspoon baking soda 3 bananas, ripe and peeled 2/3 cup cane sugar 1/3 cup coconut oil 2 eggs 1 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract 1. Preheat the oven to 350 F or 180 C. 2. Grease your loaf pan with a little coconut oil.

3. In a bowl, stir the flour, baking powder, baking soda and alt together.

4. In another bowl, mash the bananas. Add sugar, oil, eggs, and vanilla and stir until they are well

not all the time. Personally, mor ning workouts make my day go better. It relieves stress and gets me ready to tackle the day. I know that for some of you, this will never happen and it sounds like hell. That’s fine, we’re all different. You still need to get up earlier.

You’ll get more done in the day if you see the light of day before noon. You could avoid some serious cramming sessions later on by setting your alar m an hour or two earlier.

Beware of Too Much Booze I really love alliterations that’s the only reason I gave that title. I don’t want you to stop drinking if you don’t want to.

But do you really need to get completely smashed twice a week? This may be the reason why you can’t get up earlier.

Actually, it’s probably 100% the reason why you can’t get up earlier. Alcohol is fun for the night, but going overboard is never a good idea.

I’m just saying you should watch your alcohol consumption. Don’t necessarily stick to the daily recommendations because...well...that’s no fun, but try and see if you really need those extra 3 beers or shots.

Cook You don’t need to cook as

much as I do, but you need to lear n the basics. It could save you a lot of money and you could healthier foods. Eggs, toast, salad, tomato sauce, porridge, chicken...there are a few basics you need to know how to make. You don’t want to end up buying a frozen meal because you’re out of money do you? No, instead you could make some rice and scramble some eggs. Yes, it can be as simple as that.

Water Crucial! Make sure you stay hydrated in the day. This is something EVERYONE forgets to do but it’s so important. If you’re not hydrated, you’ll be hungrier, more tired, and, if you’re like me, grumpier. Make sure you have a good water bottle that you can refill at least twice in the day. Then have water when you get home and before you leave in the mor ning. Two liters, I know you can do it.

With theses tips, your year will go a lot better.

But remember, it’s ok to not do this all the time. Don’t beat yourself up if you miss a workout or buy a sausage roll for lunch. The important thing is that 80% you’re good, and 20% of the time you can do whatever you want.

“ Somedays you eat salads and go to the gym, somedays you eat cupcakes and refuse to put on pants.

It’s called ‘balance’. ” blended.

5. Add the flour mixture to the banana mixture and stir.

6. Put your batter in a pan and bake for 45 minutes.

7. You’ll know when it’s ready

when you stick a toothpick in it and it comes out clean.

8. Let cool.

9. Cut a slice, get some tea or coffee to enjoy it, and voila!

p a r t 21

FOOD

B

REVIEW

BRASSERIE CHAVOT Alexander Lye

THE EPONYMOUS BRASserie Chavot is helmed by experienced Chef Patron and Owner, Eric Chavot. Chavot is a chef spurred on by an unbridled passion for French cuisine and an almost oldfashioned love of hospitality. Both of which have remained undimmed by nearly twenty years in the spotlight – as Head Chef at Interlude de Chavot and then Chavot at the back end of the 1990s and throughout a ten-year spell at The Capital Hotel - where he held two Michelin stars before giving it all up for a spell consulting in F lorida. Renewed and reinvigorated by his sojour n to the Sunshine State, Chavot retur ned to London in 2013 and opened up Brasserie Chavot in a Mayfair space owned by The Westbury Hotel, quickly (and deservedly) ear ning the coveted 1 Michelin star status after opening its doors for barely a few months.

The classic interiors of the restaurant are chic and elegant without feeling dated. There’s red leather, dark wood, stately structural columns, eye-catching chandeliers and an open kitchen with upscale connotations that still remains war m, elegant and romantic, even.

Equally adept at constructing a dish worthy of two Michelin stars as he is knocking up a rustic stew, what unites Chavot’s cuisine is a

sensual understanding of tradition. The menu features regional favourites from Eric’s hometown in Bordeaux such as Daube de beouef provencale, Cassoulet de canard et Cochon & Veal blanquette & riz pillaf- unpretentious rustic food, elevated with a Michelin touch. The food is accompanied by a comprehensive drinks selection of fine wines, knowledgeably paired by the in-house sommelier.

We started off with the ‘Escargots en persillade’ (Escargots in parsley) that were deshelled and served in a rich, buttery almost froth-like sauce. Savoury, sticky moreish, I knew we were in for a treat tonight.

The ‘Deepfried Softshell crab with whipped aioli’ next was simply prepared in a crispy light batter that went superbly well with the homemade whipped garlic aioli, powdered atop with chilli for a hint of spice and a dash of lime for that acidity to balance the rich flavours.

The homemade bread basket quickly became a source of tension as basket after basket of bread was used to ‘mop up’ the remaining sauces from the escargots dish. Next was the ‘Bavette de Cheval et sel gris’ (horse steak with French sea salt), special of the day that needed no embellishment bar a rich béar naise. The steak was brilliantly paired with an amazingly crisp, fresh baby gem lettuce that was dressed

in a tangy light mayonnaise dressing- a perfect counterpoint and palette cleanser for every bite of juicy, succulent game.

The star of the night was clearly the ‘Cassoulet de canard et cochon’ (Cassoulet with duck and pig). Historically, this dish has been a peasant family recipe, made of beans and leftover meats in the pantry. Here, Chavot has left its historical roots untainted and added in his own Michelin touch with the result- an orgasmic amalgamation of a selection of pork and duck cuts (mainly fatty), all reduced slowly but ever so gently for hours in its own juices and finally served in a traditional cast-iron skillet for added depth of flavour, just the way I like it.

Hit after hit of hearty countryside classics such as the ‘Canette rotie forestiere’ (chargrilled duck), ‘Cote de porc’ (pork chop) arrived at the table only to be devoured in mere moments. Rustic dishes that were perfectly executed with skill and finesse (not to mention the portions were bang for your buck even for someone with a massive appetite). By the end of the evening I was so buoyantly happy I didn’t notice I had tipped a little bit too much for my liking, or maybe it was the works of the ever-so generous sommelier.

All in all, it was a wonderful dinner. Brasserie Chavot breaks the preconceived no-

tion that Michelin stars are ear ned only by ‘haute-cuisine’ restaurants, characterised by its exorbitantly priced meals, menial sized portions and stuffy service. This restaurant represents a changing trend within the Michelin circle that these days Michelin dining opportunities are not only reserved for the rich and famous. It is part of a growing group of new-age restaurants that are looking to redefine and make Michelin cuisine more accessible and more affordable; while not compromising the integrity of the Michelin status.

For diners out there who don’t nor mally patronize Michelin establishments, the restaurant (together with a host of other Michelin establishments) offers a value for money 3 course set lunch for under 30 pounds on weekdays, serving only seasonal ingredients- as any proper restaurant should. with the opening scene. While their relationship has obviously changed, the director leaves us with an ambiguous open ending. The film is heartbreakingly real, but it is the realness that truly connects and resonates with the audience.

PARTB OPPORTUNITIES If you’re interested in joining the partB team, we’re recruiting for the following roles:

Technology Deputy Editor Theatre Deputy Editor Please email partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk with a short paragraph about why you’re suitable for the role.

We look forward to hearing from you!

22 |

Tuesday October 20, 2015

The recent trend in “radical economics” is bound to result in the failed piecemeal solutions that we have seen before Jamil Kowcun LSESU Marxist Society Secretary THERE HAS BEEN A RECENT wave of swashbuckling media defined anti-establishment economics, be it Paul Mason’s new conceptual phenomenon “postcapitalism”, the Jeremy Corbyn red scare that has even the most ardent anarchists running swiftly for cover or the “powerhouse” Picketty’s argument for vast redistribution. The tide, even amongst much of the orthodoxy is firmly flowing against the previous tide of thought that was laissez-faire.

The premise of the individuals above that there is a social obligation to help the less disadvantaged, and that redistribution or regulation in certain regards won’t damage the economy, growth, property or all manner of other yardstick buzzwords. Yet the “social cost” to use the bland mechanistic and dehumanised terms of the modern economists’ toolkit, of our current mode of production couldn’t be higher. There is the unnecessary death of 38 000 children every day from illnesses that could be vaccinated (by the 67 richest people on their own if you accept UNICEF’s statistics), more than a billion people live on less than one dollar a day, oh

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Vacant

The Current System Must Be Dismantled

Photo Credit: JohnArmagh

and we are heading for the total and cataclysmic destruction of the entire planet and everything even remotely anthropocentric on it before the end of the century.

And in the spirit of philanthropic Victorian factory owners, the poor must be still totally reliant on those above, on the wealth creators, these philosopher kings who rule not with wisdom but with psychopathic ruthlessness. The chance aspect of the marketplace forgotten, humanity swept aside, get ahead playing monopoly and the board is yours.

There is a complete omittance in consideration of what the purpose of the economy is. David Cameron’s PMQs responses this week were centred around jobs, jobs and more jobs. The answer to Jeremy Corbyn email respondee Kelly’s complete lack of hope and even basic material comfort was that 2 million more people were now in work. Or was it that steel production is up 2000 %? Or that we are now at war with Oceania? I can’t quite recall from the plethora of generic soundbites I am still digesting. Even Len McCluskey suggested that Unite would not be opposing trident because there are jobs in an apocalyptic time ending nuclear war apparently. Jobs jobs, nuclear war jobs. What are those jobs for? Houses? But we have 11 million empty in Europe..? Food?

But we are suffering from overproduction for the first time in recorded human history..? Arts, education, health..? Don’t be silly.

Society is broken but with a few turns of the spanner and maybe one or two teething problems we can make it all better. It is beyond the economic mainstay to conceive of a world in which people actually want to look out for another, or not bomb foreign

“As long as there is profit to be had in the destruction of the planet, and of people, then there will be those who will exploit that” countries or destroy the world, but hey maybe all that time hanging out with bankers and academics isn’t so harmless.

Can of worms hypocrisy will always exist for as long as we fail to address the fundamentally flawed premises of our economy. Imperialism at the heart of economic interests for instance will mean that Palestinians will continue to scratch their head at the call to boycott Israel whilst the UK supplies the IDF with weapons, or the head-chopping Saudi Arabian tyranny with UN support etc. etc.

Or take the TTIP agreement that will enshrine the rights of existing corporations and hinder innovation from now until the end of time, but that’s the innovation of the free market!

The economy is treated as a coherent entity, something that all of us benefit from and all of us are responsible for. And yet, the current distribution of resources is so abysmally ridiculous that it is impossible for all but the board of Goldman Sachs to argue that there is any morality in a system in which borders are justified in allowing migrant children to drown in the sea but not to stop the outflow of capital from impoverished regions of the world into the arms of their post-colonial rulers.

As long as there is profit to be had in the destruction of the planet, and of people, then there are those who will exploit that opportunity. With money having the authority it does, and remaining something that is arbitrarily created, the slimmest gaps will always become great chasms. Not only is the status quo ever defended by entrenched and international law

but money continues to buy influence and most fundamentally more wealth. The economy will always serve the interests of the economic elite however money, for now at least, can’t totally buy minds. That is why it should not be down to benevolent redistribution but the exercise of rights that we allegedly already have, the right to protest, to participate democratically and our more deeply engrained human characteristics of movement, self-betterment and compassion.

Though the economy is still viewed in a constructivist and deeply patriarchal way, advocates of the free market are opposed to any form of state intervention regardless of the democratic mandate but seem perfectly content with the concentration of immeasurably significant power in the white hands of a tiny tiny number of men, there is a definite cracking in its glass casing. When questions of wider democratisation are raised, they are beaten down brutally. What about using some of this technology to reduce the working week? What about using some of our resources to improve the arts? Oh will you please be quiet, we have wars to win and unaffordable houses to build.

However people are making a difference, the awareness of consumers is beginning to undermine many of the worst offenders, what is needed now is an awareness that they are consumers. The failure of Syriza and the media assassination of Corbyn are both topical examples of the hegemonic authority of the liberal marketplace but, the popular movements behind both are evidence of social empowerment, a current that has been simmering for generations now, the tip of a radical iceberg.

Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti may actually be sentenced in the near future for fixing Libor rates but such retribution is rare, the police are too busy racially profiling black teenagers and blacklisting workers. Key to the leftist approach is targeting the international interconnectedness of global capitalism. It is a well-established fact, for those of us who want a radically different world- and indeed if the latest UN report on climate change is to be believed any world at all- that the world order is not a balanced and opportunity creating blank slate but the last fracturing remnants of a neo-feudal hegemony. Challenging that might take more than fiscal micro-management, challenging that might require a shred of humanity.

The City |23

The Fiscal Fallacy

Osborne’s political ploy isn’t just vacuous - it will actively risk the UK’s recovery Henry Mitchell LSE Undergraduate THIS WEEK, PARLIAMENT saw a vote on the Fiscal Charter proposed by George Osborne.

The charter enshrines in law a ban on any future Government from having a budget deficit after 2019 and thereafter in ‘normal times’.

The charter was passed in the Commons on Wednesday by a 62vote majority.

The vagueness of this charter doesn’t inspire confidence as what is really meant by normal times?

We live in an unprecedented economic period where interest rates are at their lowest levels in history but have been at that level for more than 6 years. So as you can see ‘normality’ is rather difficult to define. For example, the charter states that if annual real GDP growth is less than 1% then this is considered to be a significant negative shock and as a result the fiscal targets will then be suspended, the job of judging whether there has/will be a negative shock has been left to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

To put the charter into perspective the UK Government has only managed to run a budget surplus for five of the last forty years and four of these were achieved in what the OBR call an above sustainable period of economic growth in the UK. So the charter set out by George Osborne is a challenging one for sure - and as a result begs the question, what is the motivation for this charter as a whole?

If we look at the economic grounds for the charter, there seems to be very little salience to it, whether you agree with the need for a budget surplus or not. To limit fiscal policy to such an extent could be detrimental to the growth potential of the UK economy - as it is such a key tool for the Government. To essentially limit public spending through the fiscal charter in future years is dangerous for our public services, as it will restrict the already dwindling public sector investment, and act as a disincentive for future Governments to invest in the NHS, education and so on. This actually poses a real threat to UK growth, as the public sector has been crying out

for investment in services such as telecommunications and transport – areas that make the UK a more efficient and productive economy, enabling domestic firms to compete more on the international stage. To complement this

“the Fiscal Charter is purely a political stunt to promote the facade of a Tory created ‘budget crisis’” the cost of borrowing in the current financial climate is extremely low for the Government, so these investment projects could easily be financed now, something that will not be guaranteed in the future.

Moreover the reasons for a sustained budget surplus are trivial at best. Whilst running a budget deficit for an extended period can be seen to have its negatives, this doesn’t mean that a sustained budget surplus is the solution either. UK Government debt has been rising for the past 6 years under the Tories and Coalition, as

it was for many years previously and this will not change until we see a budget surplus, so the case for the surplus is clear. However Osborne and Cameron portray it to the public as if this was household finance, that Britain cannot live beyond its means and so just as you and I have to pay back our credit card bills (and student loans!), the Government must pay its debts. Whilst this is partially true it does not tell the whole story, notably that it is much easier for the Government to borrow than a household and as a result they can pyramid borrow (borrow money from one place to pay another).

This is due to the security that holding UK Government debt has - the UK economy has been growing consistently for many years and has great ability to pay back its debts if needed. Similarly it is widely accepted in many countries around the world that running a small deficit is no real issue – especially if there is a domestic central bank. So the problem does not lie with the UK Government not being able to borrow or pay back debt, although I would agree that addressing public debt over the

long term is a good idea but this does not mean to say that it should be the priority or indeed required of a Government. Instead perhaps addressing the stagnation of the past 7 years and the chronic lack of investment in our economy should be top of the list - and without autonomous fiscal policy such issues will be evermore difficult to address.

With this in mind it becomes abundantly clear that the Fiscal Charter is purely a political stunt to promote the facade of the Tory-created ‘budget crisis’ in the public eye and more importantly damn Labour as the party of the fiscally irresponsible - after all a vote against the charter is seen as a disregard for public finances and debt, yet a vote for the charter means laying yourself open to agreeing with all the future cuts imposed by the Conservatives.

The sad reality is that this is yet another example of short-sighted policy that only serves to hinder future growth and productivity at the expense of our futures. So whilst the Fiscal Charter is full of political nous, it is fundamentally an economic fallacy.

The Fiscal Non Starter

We must hope the politician of our time isn’t foolish enough to believe his own rhetoric Aristeidis Grivokostopoulos LSE Undergraduate

NO MATTER WHERE YOU stand politically or economically, who you vote for or support or how do you define morality, you must admit something. Osborne is a genius of our generation.

When as a politician you are able to split your opposition in such a remarkable way and force its leaders to make one mistake after the other, you are a political genius.

The Chancellor is a 21st century Machiavellian character come alive. This version of the “Prince” is even more cunning than the previous. This updated version of a cynical leader is politically divisive, economically responsible and socially sensitive. From a particular view, Osborne and his budget created Corbyn and his populism. The Old Pauline redefined the Labour party, his only opposition left after the demolishment of the Liberal Democrats, into a leftist unelectable movement. The paradox continues, as the most Thatcherite finance minister since Howe passed a higher and rising minimum wage, stealing the policy from Labour’s manifesto. Finally, the Prince of modern Britain is about to pass a bill that forces governments into Keynesian counter-cyclical fiscal policy. May I remind you, “fiscal

responsibility” won his party the election, kept him in office and formed his mandate for the next five years. The latest of Osborne’s tactics is the most cunning of them all, yet the question remains if it is also the most helpful for his

“the Fiscal Charter is purely a political stunt to promote the facade of a Tory created ‘budget crisis’” country.

Scenario 1: The fiscal charter is merely one of the countless fiscal rules imposed for future governments, whose leniency will be tested to its limits until broken.

Although this is a pessimistic scenario and a cynical point of view in the opinion of Tory voters - the majority of British voters - prominent macroeconomists around the Western world hope for it. Simon Wren-Lewis, who teaches at Osborne’s alma mater, and his media-macro theory can help us explain this absurd “fiscal irresponsibility” dictated by the scientific community, not populist politicians. In Wren-Lewis’s view of the media and how it interacts with the political sphere, journalists, and the establishment in gen-

eral, have convinced the populace that “fiscal consolidation” is the only road to recovery from the crisis. The dominant narrative is mainly in fault in this case, as the story of “profligate welfare spending” and “unsustainable debt accumulation” of centre-left governments has both harmed the social-democrats across the continent and aided in the emergence of germanic ordoliberalism. The latter’s dictats have become the new norm. Coming back to the British case, “austerity” is now seen as acceptable by the majority of policy-makers and policyinfluencers. Worst of all is the fact that this policy mix and its narrative are portrayed as rational macroeconomic policy and analysis respectively. Best of all is the fact that “media-macro” has an expiration date, not an 100-year leasing contract. Fortunately it will soon end from Osborne himself, yet unfortunately this may happen due to a negative turn in the UK (or even) in the wider UK economy.

Scenario 2: Though very improbable, this scenario includes the application of the fiscal charter (or maybe not) by its creators.

In Osborne’s rhetoric, this could eventually become a legacy to be left for generations to follow, with the UK “living within its means”.

He quotes the Scandinavians as example and the Greeks as coun-

terexample. Not so surprisingly, macroeconomists do not share his rhetoric (even more dangerous if he actually believes that this is the way forward). Genuine or not, this “long-term” strategy, can only serve short-term political purposes. Divestment in the provision of education and healthcare and low borrowing at a historically low rate deprive the country of a chance to close the productivity growth gap. Everybody agrees the fiscal space is small and deficit spending can stir up self-fulfilling market reactions, ala Greece.

Surely, it is rational to smooth the cycle with a smaller deficit. Nevertheless, if that is achieved through

the means of weaker investment in capital and tax decreases which harm wealth and income equality, this is not “a long-term plan for the economy”. History, Osborne’s expertise, tells us that insufficient infrastructure spending and human capital investment in the late 1800s resulted in missing out on the second Industrial Revolution.

A labour productivity growth gap which persisted between the US and the UK for many decades can be attributed to the interventionist policies of the former and the absence of the equivalent for the latter. Of all people, the “Prince” must know that history repeats itself.

NUS EXTRA: THE ESSENTIAL STUDENT DISCOUNT CARD Available to buy from the LSESU Shop and online: www.nus.org.uk/en/nus-extra

AND MUCH MORE

Gen Sec Takes So Much Pride In Being Painted As Authoritarian That She Hung Up Her First Propaganda Poster By Her Desk , Furthering Rumours That She Actually Is Authoritarian

“UGNigma of the year” - Hari’s Prabubly Pissed Off “Who?” - VicTorya Murphy, Iron Lady “What a Bitchens” - Nona Buckley-Irvine (ed: think she’s still pissed about his PTO Pay Comment piece) Posh Hitchens (iTorybot, I Am Bellend, Men in Hack) stars as Ditch in this action packed blockbuster.

In the early days Ditch was Hitch, a low key BNOC following his fresher presidency of the Tories, but soon his inability to write a UGM motion caused a commotion. Two weeks running Democracy Committee Snitched that Hitch had Ditched his commitments at UGM. Guaranteed to make you Twitchens at his lack of reliability.

Catch it in the First Floor Cafe, once he actually manages to write it in the correct format.

Posh Hitchens is

D

How To Be Remembered On The Apprentice

By Harry Maxwell, the man who made such an impact on Young Apprentice that the Wikipedia page that he wrote about himself has been taken down 1. Make a dramatic boardroom exit. It’s the last screen time you’ll get so cling on and give it your best. I want to see water thrown and a point made that you are not going to thank Lord Sugar ‘for the opportunity’ 2. Wear something unusual. Whether it be braces, berets, leopard print suits or a Gstring, it’s not just through behaviour that you can make yourself known 3. Have naked photos *leaked*. It’s imperative this happens while the series is still on air and you are in the process. Whether you do it via Twitter or The Beaver, you may as well embrace the fact you are prostituting yourself for the entertainment of others.

4. Use words that do not exist. You need to evoke emotions in the viewers to be remembered... and anger is a good way to go. Talk about glamourification or sell-itivity and you’ll certainly get people thinking and talking.

5. Use cringey metaphors on a regular basis. How many ponies in the field do you have exactly?

6. Flirt with Karren and Claude on a regular basis. Yes, I mean both. I want to see you physically stroke them and pat Claude on the head. Ask them if they’ve lost weight while the cameras are rolling, of course - and if their hair has always curled so nicely.

7. Answer the phone every day. Push the other candidates down the stairs if you have to, but make sure it’s YOU answering that pre-recorded message from the boardroom receptionist. Those extra seconds of screen time will add up.

8. Have an intimate relationship with a contestant and make sure the others know about it and bring it up in the boardroom. This links to point number six and you starting the second Apprentice love triangle (I started the first, ha!)

9. Lie on your application form. Again, guaranteed screen time when you get picked up on it in the semi-final. Tell them that you’re already on the Sunday Times Rich List and have Kim K on speed dial, make it easy for producers to see through your deception.

10. Refer to yourself as an Apprentice Legend in Week 1. The more you repeat it, the more chance you have of someone believing it.

11. Pay membership to LSESU Champagne Society. It all helps.

26 |

Tuesday October 20, 2015

Hyeonseo Lee: The Story Of

Taryana Odayar Features Editor

THE FIRST TIME I MET Hyeonseo Lee, I was struck by what a small and diminutive figure she cut. Dressed all in black, with her soft voice and calm, almost serene composure, she looked the part of a doe-eyed ingénue. I wondered how someone who looked as though a gust of wind might blow her away could, at the age of 17, traverse 2,000 miles across China to South Korea, escape an arranged marriage, enslavement in a brothel, kidnapping by a gang of criminals, and then 14 years later, do the unthinkable by doing it all over again as she travelled back to the North Korean border to save her family.

Almost as if to answer my unspoken question, Hyeonseo turns around and looks at me, and with a steely glint in her eyes and an even-toned voice, says, “I may not be smart in Maths or Science, but I am tough and know how to survive.” Hyeonseo’s story is one of a daring and harrowing escape, set in motion by an act of simple teenage inquisitivity, as she crossed the frozen Yalu river bordering China and her hometown Hyesan one Winter day just to see what life was like on the other side of the river. Her brave and inspiring account of escape from the hellishly brutal clutches of the Kim regime, is detailed in her recently published memoir, “The Girl With 7 Names”.

Features

Section Editors: Taryana Odayar Alexander Hurst Deputy Editors: Stefanos Argyros Daniel Shears Sebastian Shehadi

When you were very young, you had been told that your country was “the best on the planet”. When did you realise that this was a rose-tinted version of the ‘Hermit Kingdom’?

Until the moment I escaped the country and crossed the border, I didn’t know. I didn’t know we were suffering under the Dictatorship, or that we’re one of the most horrible countries in the world. I still believed it was a paradise; the best country.

But the reason I crossed the border is because I found out that maybe my country is not the best. But I still didn’t know we were brainwashed.

I watched Chinese TV secretly at home because I was living right next to the border, while other North Korean people didn’t have a way to see it. So from Chinese TV, China should have looked worse than North Korea, because we were told we were the best. But you can’t compare – we looked worse than China and I thought, Wow, what is this? Is it propaganda TV for us or is it real?

But I felt somehow that it was real and not fake. That’s why I wanted to see the real truths with my own eyes.

You’ve said that Kim Il-Sung, the Great Leader, was considered to be like Santa Claus - could you explain that comparison?

From when we were 5, from when we were very young in Kindergar-

ten, the propaganda started. They told us a whole lot of bullshit. Right now I’m just shocked that I believed everything, but living in North Korea, which is so cut off from the outside world; what you hear, what you see, everyday, are the same ridiculous things. So you do believe that it is real in the end, because there’s no comparison. We didn’t know that there was another life which existed in this world. That’s why still not only North Korean kids, but also adults, are brainwashed – that’s the reason. They said that Dear Leader killed enemies when he was 5 or 6, and that he was shooting guns and riding horses. Kim Il-sung was riding horses, Kim Jong-il knew how to drive when he was 5. Then with Kim Jong-un, the current dictator, they started the propaganda again, saying he started driving when he was 3. Its even crazier right now. He killed all Japanese enemies when he was 5, our Dear Leader. And then he just crossed the rainbow and killed the enemies. So I thought the rainbow was a bridge when I was young, and that I could also cross. And in the end I found out as I was getting older, that its not an actual bridge, and I realised, he (Dear Leader) must be God. He can do many supernatural things that a human being can’t do.

Are North Koreans brainwashed by the regime’s propaganda or have they realised what’s going on inside and outside the country?

This time I was on a book tour through European countries for many months, and what I found when I met those people in European countries was that they said they knew we suffered under the Dictatorship starting from 1940s or 50s. They said they knew that the regime was trying to brainwash us and it was all propaganda – they knew about that. But the difference is with us, we don’t know that its propaganda - we don’t know what brainwashing even is. And the reason we don’t know is because we can’t go outside the country, we don’t see the world. And then we are not allowed to have passports, we don’t have TV. I mean, we only have one channel. Only one channel. That’s why when I went to China I was so shocked that there were even local TV channels. I thought, How is this possible? We only had one channel, and not only were we not allowed to move outside the country, but even domestically we are not freely allowed to leave because we have to have travel certificates. So not only do we not know what is happening in the outside world, but we also don’t know what’s happening in the next cities or provinces. So we are completely ignorant. So what we do in our daily lives, everything we do, we think of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. On the TV channel, they are on from 5 to 11 or 12pm. And all the news talks about is about Dear

Leader. In all the citizens’ interviews they talk about how they want to be loyal to Dear Leader. That’s all. So everyday what I heard from the TV was Dear Leader’s name a thousand times. I thought that was the news.

And then when I skipped the country and when I was living in South Korea, I was shocked that news was all about the outside world and what’s happened. Mostly not really great things, but things that really mattered, and each night they were talking on the news, about things including murders. So I felt, Wow, this is exactly news – I didn’t know this was news. All this time I thought this old phrasing “Dear Leader” was the news.

No one in North Korea has passports?

Believe me, more than 99 per cent of North Koreans, they haven’t even seen what a passport looks like. They certainly don’t know what a Visa is.

You saw your first public execution at the age of 7. Do you remember why the man was executed?

The first one I saw was a hanging.

I don’t remember what the crime was because I was so young. Usually for public executions there’s a trial first, and the government people are there, and they tell us what the crime is. All I remember was seeing the man in front of me dying - he was hanging by his neck, his whole body crumpled. It was really shocking. I didn’t know at the time what a public execution even was. All I remember at the time was that there were so many people watching, but nobody said a word. It was really silent. The criminal - well victim; at that time we believed he was a criminal, can’t say a word because their mouth is stuffed with some material. All I remember is everybody not talking, and all their faces looked dark. I was so small and I was so scared that I looked around at the others to see their reactions. They were all stone-faced. Later when I went back home I found out from my mom that it was a public execution. I saw other public executions - there were tons of public executions. That doesn’t mean we go to every public execution, but one time I went for a public execution during the famine. It was a man I knew, who was really popular. He was killed with several other people together, but the reason he was killed was because he was a smuggler. Its true he was a smuggler, because living there then, my family smuggled too. But thats why he was killed. And there was a human trafficker - maybe he helped some girls skip the country, so he was killed because of that. In North Korea it is considered very serious because the regime doesn’t want people to leave the country.

People like me are spreading the truth, and damaging the regime’s image. Sometimes when they kill people, the bullet doesn’t go in the

right direction towards the head, so the brains and blood are spread on the street, on the ground. Especially if its Winter, we have snow, which is disgusting because the white snow makes it more visible. We just grew up with that kind of violence. And all the time we even practice killing somebody, killing Americans - that was our first goal; how to kill Americans. So we practiced how to kill them. All the hateful and violent things were what we learned.

You narrowly escaped arranged marriage, were almost enslaved in a brothel, and you were kidnapped by a gang of criminals. Could you just talk about these experiences and how you managed to cope?

I don’t have trauma from the experiences I had, because I didn’t suffer for years or months. Once I found out something was wrong, I just did my best to escape from the situation.

So the prostitution story, I have allowed my mind to forget it for many years, because it is not a happy memory. If I think about those in my daily life, I can’t continue normal life. So what I learnt from Doctors was that the human mind tends to forget those memories. I erased them, especially the sexual slavery and prostitution memories. So even though I can’t erase the gangster story because it happened when I was meeting my brother after many years, the prostitution I have completely erased from my memory.

Right now, I think that it’s a tragedy and that a normal human being can’t have that kind of experience.

But I’ve always lived my life with a positive mind. Because although its a tragedy, by trying to overcome those situations I learnt how to survive.

Maybe I’m not smart, or I’m not a genius in Maths or studying, but I am a master in how to survive life.

Your book is called “The Girl With 7 Names” - could you explain why you had to change your name so many times?

Everybody has one name – that’s a fact. But actually when I was in North Korea I had two different names already. So in the past I didn’t think that it was strange. But right now I think that I had so many different names and all my life it was like a roller coaster. From the moment I changed my name twice in North Korea, maybe my life and my fate changed, and not in a good direction. I’ve always had that kind of feeling. Because of my family background I changed my name twice, and then again after I escaped to China. In China it was a brilliant and new world. I just can’t compare it with North Korea. I thought China was paradise at the time, because China was the only other country I had seen in my life. And I thought this brilliant new world was for me – they were ready for me. But soon I found out it was for everybody in this world, but not for defectors.

If Not Now, When? Twenty Years On, Israel Needs A New Rabin

Israeli society can’t sustain itself in a state of unresolved conflict; peace through a two state solution is the only way forward.

Kevin Sachs Postgraduate Student

The Pocket Philosopher

Edmund Smith Undergraduate Student

Hebrew signs read “Peace Now,” the pro-negotiated peace slogan that has remained unchanged in twenty years.

Photo reprinted under the Wikipedia Creative Commons license.

cation of the right, that there was no partner on the Palestinian side. He took the road of peace with the Palestinians, not because he possessed great affection for them or their leaders, but because he discerned wisely that Israeli society would not be able to sustain itself endlessly in a state of unresolved conflict. Rabin realized long before many others that life in a climate of violence, occupation, terror, anxiety and hopelessness, would extract a price Israel could not afford.

With this month’s outbreak of violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, this is even more relevant today than it was twenty years ago.

In the last decade Israel has experienced numerous violent attacks on its civilian population, and Palestinians have lived through massive military operations in the West Bank, the often-violent suppression of legitimate protest, discriminatory police brutality and societal racism both in and outside the 1967 borders. Not to mention the four horrific wars of the past decade waged in Gaza.

The escalating tensions that have dominated international news this month are not new. For years the conflict has been simmering, albeit on a lower flame and with less frequent outbursts. Xenophobia and hate for the “other” are as high as they have been in recent memory. Optimism for a peaceful resolution of the conflict that will soon enter its fiftieth year is nowhere to be found.

On the contrary: Only last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed that if necessary, Israel will “live by the sword” for-

ever. It was a brazen display of true colours by a man who usually vows that he is committed to a peaceful resolution. But in fact his governments have done little to nothing to advance peace.

“Yitzak Rabin would thunder at Israelis and Palestinians alike if he still could today, ‘Enough of blood and tears.

Enough!’ ” Transferring millions of dollars from the state’s budget to the settlements in the West Bank every year does not advance peace. Standing idly by and doing nothing to outlaw and stop extremists who chant “death to Arabs” in the street does not advance peace. And continuing to develop the sophisticated mechanisms that enable Israel to sustain the occupation over the Palestinian people does not advance peace.

Rather, these things are conserving the status quo of a discriminatory regime for 1.6 million Palestinians living as citizens in Israel, a military occupation regime for 2.6 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and life under siege for 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza.

Unlike Rabin, the current administration has yet to understand that there is not going to be a military solution for a problem that is political in nature, and that continuing rule over the Palestinian people will only further bankrupt Israel morally.

Last Saturday, an estimated 100,000 people came out to Rabin Square to attend the yearly peace rally marking the anniversary of his assassination. But the feeling in the square has changed in the last 20 years. The organizers have turned the Rabin memorial from a celebration of Israel’s peace camp into a far more amorphous “unity” event - one where politics are no longer on the agenda - in an effort to draw maximum attendance and a politically diverse crowd.

In front of that crowd, former President of the United States, Bill Clinton reminded the attendees that his close friend Yitzhak Rabin gave his life so that the citizens of Israel might enjoy a better future, and that taking a risk for the sake of peace was less severe than the risk of walking away from peace altogether. He laid before the crowd and before Israel the ultimate responsibility to once again engage in negotiations, and to put the two-state solution back on the table.

Unfortunately no politically astute leader in Israel is going to start advocating the two-state solution, or building a joint future with the Palestinians in this perpetual limbo of insecurity and mistrust.

But a real leader would do just that. Rabin would do just that.

Rabin did just that. And the words he uttered during the signing ceremony of the Oslo Accords are the words that he would thunder at Israelis and Palestinians alike if he still could today: Enough of blood and tears. Enough!

S U P P O S E T H AT I A M having a conversation with someone (A) who is making the very strong claim that if society was rid of the concept of gender then it would be better for everyone.

Now suppose that I point out that according to the ONS I can see that the greatest proportion of suicides under 50 are by those who identified as male. So I argue that the concept of gender is useful insofar as it allows us to mark a subset of the population that is of particular concern and see what properties that subset has that could be causally linked to the disproportionately high suicide rate. Now ‘A’ backtracks and instead claims that they are only arguing that the genders should have equal social and political liberties. But just as soon as I leave, ‘A’ returns to their initial claim.

This is what’s called a ‘Motte and Bailey’ strategy. While the counterargument is being given, ‘A’ uses the rhetoric of only claiming something much milder than they actually do, but as soon as the pressure is lifted, they return to making the much stronger claim. This is a dangerous piece of rhetoric, and well worth watching out for.

Photo Credit: www.businessinsider.com

ON THE 4TH OF NOVEMBER 1995, almost half a million Israelis attended a rally for peace on the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv. It was a protest of the silent majority. A majority that for the biggest part of the two years leading up to that night had stood idly by while radical elements in Israeli society had tirelessly incited against Prime Minister Rabin and the Oslo Accords that laid a framework for Palestinian statehood. They had depicted Rabin in SS-uniforms, called him a collaborator, murderer and traitor.

But on that 4th of November, the feeling of the attendees was that everything was going to change. It was the biggest political protest in the history of the then 47-year-old country. The atmosphere was uplifting, a collective feeling of standing up to the bully that had been hijacking the political arena and tormenting supporters of the peace process for far too long. That night Yitzhak Rabin spoke about giving peace a chance and how he, a decorated general in the Israeli army, was much prouder of his achievements advancing peace than any successes in times of war.

It felt like a celebration. It felt like everything was going to change. And everything did.

Two decades have passed since that Saturday night, the 4th of November 1995, when Yitzhak Rabin was shot in the back after a peace rally in the square that today bears his name. Among the public, his violent and symbolic death continues to stir powerful feelings of grief and the sense of missed opportunities. Similar to the attack on the World Trade Centre on 9/11, every Israeli knows exactly where he or she was on the night Rabin was assassinated. Many of them have since lost their belief in the peace process, because they have been fed the lie, that there was no partner on the Palestinian side.

One of the big proponents of that lie stood on a balcony above Jerusalem’s Zion Square 20 years ago and inflamed a crowd that was calling Rabin a Nazi and wished for his death. The man on the balcony did not protest, halt or condemn the angry crowd. That man was then-leader of the opposition and the current Prime Minister of Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course Netanyahu did not want Yitzhak Rabin to be murdered.

He never dreamed that this is how his incitement would end. As it often happens though, the incitement does not follow the inciter’s plan. It develops a life of its own and has ways to bring the hand to the knife or the finger to the trigger.

Rabin refused to accept the fabri-

Features |27

Interested in writing for Features? Email us : features@ thebeaveronline.co.uk

Send your own philosophical musings to: features@ thebeaveronline.co.uk

28

|

Tuesday October 20, 2015

The Pocket Philosopher Edmund Smith Undergraduate Student HOW CAN ONE REASON about how one is going to reason? After all, we can all bring to mind different ways of deciding upon an answer to a given problem, and not all of these ways will give the same answers. For example, the results of those reasoning with Bayesian probability theory [assigning a probability to a hypothesis] will sometime diverge from the results of those using a frequentist probability theory [testing a hypothesis without first assigning it a probability]. In such a situation, how can we choose which of the two results to take?

We cannot simply use another system of reasoning for settling the question, because that system of reasoning may itself be in question. And to my knowledge there is no system of formal reasoning that everybody agrees upon as basic. This is the problem that Hegel faces at the beginning of the Science of Logic. In every other mode of inquiry, the means one uses for conducting the inquiry are distinct from the content of the inquiry. In logic, however, we must use the same systems of reasoning as we are analysing in order to select the ones that are useful. How to do this without vicious circularity is still very much an open question, and one of the perennial topics of philosophical

Treating cannabis like alcohol would raise revenue and send fewer young people to prison.

Griff Ferris Postgraduate Student EARLIER THIS WEEK, leaked government documents indicated what many perhaps already knew and believed: that a significant amount of the population smokes cannabis, and that legalisation would not only benefit these currently ‘criminal’ users, but would also enormously benefit the government and the wider population financially.

The leaked Treasury report noted widespread use of cannabis, and the potential for over a billion pounds worth of savings if the government wereas to legalise cannabis. Soon after, an online petition to ‘Make the production, sale and use of cannabis legal’ reached over 223,000 signatures. Therefore, MPs were obliged to give the concept at least some consideration in Parliament. Unfortunately for the petitioners, and cannabis smokers across the UK, they reached an all too predictable conclusion after several hours of debate -that legalisation would pose a health risk, ignoring the huge potential financial windfall.

Despite the outcome of the debate, the issue of legaliszation has again been brought to the fore.

In rejecting the petition, the government reverted to its stock anti-drug response: ‘Substantial scientific evidence shows cannabis is a harmful drug that can damage human health’. There is a considerable body of repu-

table scientific evidence that heavy marijuana use – especially during teenage years - can have a detrimental effect on IQ levels, and is strongly linked to exacerbating existing mental illnesses such as paranoia, schizophrenia and depression. However in 2009 the government’ss’ top scientific advisor on drugs, Professor David Nutt, claimed that marijuana (among other drugs) was less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol, and called into question the ‘artificial’ division between them.

Professor Nutt was promptly sacked.

The potential health detriments of widespread marijuana use cannot be ignored, yet countless studies have also rated the health risks of tobacco and alcohol as far exceeding those of cannabis. A 2015 study published in Scientific Reports noting that cannabis use was 114 times less deadly than alcohol, yet there is no question of alcohol use being made illegal.

Considering the issue of cannabis legalisation on Newsnight, Niamh Eastwood, the Executive Director of the drug-expert charity Release, queried ‘What causes more harm - the drug or the policy?’. Whilst the government clearly considers the drug more harmful than the policy, there are a number of factors suggesting the policy behind cannabis’s continued prohibition appears now to be either misguided, or the practical utility of its proscription is rapidly diminishing.

Ministry of Justice figures in 2010 noted that 24,000 young

people were criminalised for drug possession, mostly cannabis, while there is little or no evidence that the risk of potential criminalisation has any deterrent effect on people’s use of the drug. Criminalising cannabis users, especially young people, merely prevents them from fulfilling an active and productive role in society. A criminal record will have a serious effect on educational ambitions, employment potential, and often drives people to further crime and even more serious drug use. Moreover police forces themselves are turning their backs on what they know to be a losing battle, as the police commissioners of both Durham and Derbyshire have recently announced that they will no longer be targeting those who possess and even grow cannabis for their own personal use.

The recent figures from the Treasury’s analysis also appear to support legalisation. The report confirmed the extensive use of cannabis throughout the population, with 216 tonnes smoked last year by 2.2 millionm people between the ages of 16 and 59.

Drawing on research by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, the Treasury estimated that regulating the sale of cannabis could reduce the UK deficit yearly by up to £1.25 billion, taking into account taxes raised, and including savings in police and court costs of £200 million, not to mention the jobs created by the new industry. Legalisation would also introduce an important measure of control into an industry – and it is a multi-million pound industry

even in its current black-market form - where there is none.

Meanwhile legalisation naysayers as yet cannot point to any failures in the flagship measures taking place in the US. The legalisation of cannabis by a number of states has not resulted in the disasters that the prohibition lobby predicted. Colorado has reported neither the predicted spike in cannabis users nor in road fatalities, while the criminal market has shrunk and there is a predicted tax windfall of over $100 million in 2015.

The two sides to the argument remain: whether the best solution is our current approach of prohibition, despite the fact that illegal substances such as cannabis are easily accessible on the black market, or an approach where such a substance is legal, and its quality, sale, and availability are (in theory) carefully regulated, with purity and age controls. It is considered that the latter approach works well enough for tobacco and alcohol; why, many are asking, is it not good enough for cannabis?

The fact of the matter is that this is an old debate, which has been played over and over for many decades. Yet due to the positive results of legalisation in the US and decriminalisation measures taken in a number of other countries, and the release of these recent and highly significant Treasury figures, the debate has been re-invigorated.

There has perhaps never been a stronger case for the legalisation and commercial regulation of cannabis in the UK.

Photocredit: speedpropertybuyers.co.uk/

If you are interested in writing Features for next week’s edition, please email features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Doping The Treasury With Cannabis Legislation

Hillary Stands Strong, Sanders ‘Berns’ Bright

Features | 29

On both domestic and foreign policy, the Democrats’ two front runners dominate the first debate.

Andrew Collins General Course Student ON OCTOBER 13, CNN hosted the first of the democratic presidential debates. The two big names of the night were Bernie Sanders, who was polling around 25%, and Hillary Clinton, who has declined rapidly from her peak in the polls a few months ago but still maintained a strong 20 point lead.

Webb, Chaffee, and O’Malley came into the debate polling humorously low around 1%.

Broadly speaking, I doubt the debate will shake the polls much.

Webb, Chaffee, and O’Malley came onto the scene with nothing to lose, but O’Malley is the only one that was able to keep up with Clinton and Sanders. O’Malley came across as surprisingly fluent in policy issues ranging from foreign to domestic, but ultimately only stood out as “the best of the other three” and failed to make any strong case for his presidency, mostly appearing to be an Obama clone.

Chaffee and Webb were embarrassing. Webb at times seemed more interested in talking about some guy who threw a grenade at him in Vietnam than he was in anything else (hHe mightay poll better in the current GOP.). Chaffee, when asked about his vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, a depressionera law that blocked commercial banks from engaging in investment banking, offered that he shouldn’t really be held accountable for that because he was new in office and his father had recently died.

Maybe we will see more of O’Malley, but the Chaffee and Webb campaigns have probably died before ever really leaving the ground.

As expected, the real debate was between Sanders and Clinton. Sanders brought his famous populist energy to the debate and made an excellent case for his presidency by communicating very clearly that he means to be a people’s president. He unrelentingly criticized the Citizens United ruling that permitted unlimited political spending by unions and corporations, a law he insists allows the corporate com-

munity to buy its way into office. He came down hard on the “rigged economy” of America that is channeling most of the country’s new wealth to the top 1%, viciously attacked the big banks, and also focused on America’s grotesque incarceration rate. Both Sanders and Hillary advocated for paid maternity leave, but Sanders also pushed for free tuition at public universities (paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation) and socialized healthcare, and basically advocated the nordic model. Sanders played a strong game overall, but probably not strong enough to eclipse Hillary.

This is because he mishandled a number of points. Very early on in the debate, he was given the opportunity to explain what he means when he calls himself a “democratic socialist” and what he meant when he said earlier that week that he was “not a capitalist.”

He was probably trying to preserve his far-left image at all costs, perhaps out of a fear of coming across as too moderate to the idealistic young people at the heart of his campaign that are disillusioned with capitalism and the status quo. It is also

possible that he wants to be as radical as possible in an effort to continue pressuring Hillary to the left. Either way, he came across looking like more of a left-wing extremist than he really is, and probably alienated many potential supporters with his anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Though he was the strongest candidate when it came to debating domestic issues, Sanders seemed somewhat uncomfortable when it came to foreign policy, especially when confronted with how he would deal with Putin’s moves in the Middle East. Furthermore, Sanders hardly drew attention to one of the most significant differences between him and the others-he does not have a super PAC and his campaign is financed by individual donations averaging $30 a piece, rather than huge corporate donations.

It is highly unlikely that Hillary will lose any of her most ardent supporters after the debate. She came under attack on a number of points that had the potential to seriously damage her campaign, and managed all of them quite well. Anderson Cooper, the moderator, pressed her on her tendency to quickly and frequently change her

opinion on important policy issues. This could have been particularly bad for her, especially given that her rival Sanders has been famously consistent in his views for decades. Hillary has been known to flip-flop on everything from the Trans-Pacific Partnership to gay marriage.

Yet when Cooper asked her if she “would say anything to get elected,” she took it in stride, justifying her indecision as response to new information.

“Like most human beings,” said Clinton, “I do absorb new information, I do look at what’s happening in the world…”

Regarding Syria, Clinton insisted that the United States should take a leadership role in the region in order to stand up to Putin’s “bullying,” whereas Sanders repeatedly stressed that any American involvement in the Middle East should be somewhat limited and executed as part of a coalition with other powers in the region. Clinton was best at debating foreign policy and Sanders’s deficits in this area, though not immense, allowed her to shine.

Overall, Clinton came out on top, if only because her fellow candidates were extremely kind to her--Sanders, at one

point, even defended her by saying that the American people were “sick and tired of hearing about [Hillary’s] damn emails” when Cooper brought up the fact that Hillary is currently under investigation for illegally using a non-secure private email server while conducting official business as Secretary of State. Sanders made it clear that he has no intentions of attacking Hillary, probably because he suspects she will most likely win the Democratic nomination, and he plans to endorse her if she defeats him (after all, better her than anyone from the current Republican lineup). The next debate is on November 14, so it’s still anyone’s game, but until then, Sanders will continue to have an arduous fight ahead of him, Clinton will continue to lead, and Webb, O’Malley, and Chaffee will be kicking to keep their heads above the water.

Disagree with any of our writers’ analyses?

Send in your own to features@thebeaveronline.co.uk or submit online!

30| Tuesday October 20, 2015

The Beaver’s Team Of The Week Men’s Hockey 1st XI Alex Dugan Sports Editor STARTING THE SEASON with a trophy is not something that happens for every year, but that’s just what LSE Men’s Hockey have done. The rest of London fell at their feet in the Lee Valley London Universities Cup last weekend, marking a clear improvement in the team’s fortunes.

Two years ago the team barely had six people regularly training and were relegated from BUCS South Eastern Conference 2B. What happened next was nothing short of extraordinary. With a turn of new leadership in the club, the focus of the team shifted from socials to playing and this new approach reaped benefits on the pitch.

The team went unbeaten in the league scoring a record sixty six goals and conceding a mere ten.

The Men’s Hockey 1st XI pioneered the sporting performance focus that is now spreading across the “major” sports teams at LSE. The top sports

teams at LSE should always be performance focused.

Their innovative approach to LSE sport did not stop there, the team (along with the Women’s 1st XI) organised a Hockey Development Tour to Amsterdam with the support of the LSE Annual Fund. This trip provided an opportunity for the teams to have a full on hockey experience that most would have never thought possible. They trained or played matches for close to eighteen hours over the three days, with more staying behind during lunch hours for extra coaching. The trip didn’t just bring everyone closer together, but also improved the hockey playing ability of every single member of the 16 strong squad.

The benefits of the tour are already being felt at the start of this season. The Lee Valley London Universities Cup is a competition that LSE have traditionally come second in, often losing out on goal difference.

This year the team rallied and overcame an early draw against RUMS to beat Barts and Queen Mary convincingly.

Hockey Men’s 2s vs Men’s 3s won 5-0 Women’s 2s vs Imperial College 4s won 4-1 Football Women’s 1s vs King’s College 2s won 1-0 Men’ 1s vs UCL 3s drew 3-3 Volleyball Men’s 1s vs Kent 1s won 3-2

What’s also encouraging for the team is that they have taken in a strong crop of Freshers. The club as a whole had over thirty new players come to trials, providing a solid basis for all teams to improve. The club has also hired a new coach (yes the bald

guy in the photo), who is sure to bring the 1st XI to new heights.

All in all it seems like the Men’s Hockey 1st XI are in a very good position to push on a challenge for the top of the league this season. Their push for performance and a willing-

Netball Women’s 3s vs City University won 26-25 Women’s 5s vs King’s College 5s won 28-22 Golf Mixed 1s vs Essex won 6-0 Rugby Men’s vs UCL 3s won 55-5

ness to innovate and improve is why they are this week’s Beaver Team of the Week.

For the chance to get your team to feature as The Beaver’s Team of the Week, email sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Badminton Women’s 1s vs Portsmouth won 7-1 Men’s 2s vs Queen Mary drew 4-4 Table Tennis Men’s 1s vs Hertfordshire won 11-6 Women’s 1s vs Surrey won 3-1 Tennis Women’s 1s vs UCL won 8-4

Win, Lose or Draw, send your results to sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

THIS WEEK, THE LSE’S Union of Athletes, a motley crew of some of the most committed sportsmen and women of their generation, honers of craft, specimens of elite human conditioning, Men of Ithaca, chiselled carriers of the Torch of Olympus, a sample set of the finest humanity that ever had been thrown up, threw up. Everywhere.

At some point not too late in the evening, it seems that some decided the Venue would look, smell, feel and taste (and sound, too, given the utter dross that was emanating from the oesophagi

of Men’s Rugby, who seem not only to embrace tone deafness but to have made it a pre-requisite for selection for the karaoke mic) better if shrouded in a bitty combination of bile and what appeared to be a well-intentioned mélange of tikka masala and lemon drizzle sponge cake.

Having tiptoed through the remnants of dinners to the well-staffed (we live and we learn) bar back and forth severally, onto our old haunt went the survivors. Prior to departure and en route however did see some notable incidents, including but not limited to the Bupaman’s defeat at the hands of the FC’s Lex Luthor, a man as Cold and collected as they come. Lucky for that private health insurance, he better packet in or God nose he’s gonna need it more than ever.

The night started badly for a certain someone who couldn’t get a wurr-d in

with a member of the WRFC. After picking up more than just a bruised ego, he managed to recover his night by flynning off back home. Despite Dale&Co’s™ best efforts to curb our inner animalia by introducing a no-jumping-about-like-cretins on the sofas rule, once again an innate ability to overcome management-driven obstacles (see Week 2) in order to maximise output of fun (and sick) prevailed. A footballer swapped his shooting boots for some blue Suede shoes and was subsequently Bekoned down a path towards repeat behaviour. Elsewhere, the Wizard of Hench (tenuous, think about it) made inroads into the executive branch, pressing hard for his Ryghtful place as First Gentlemen of the AU. In yet another corner of the Jungle, a one-time fighter, half-part Tolkien invention and full-time Hockey lieutenant seized LeMoment, holding out his hand

before being Tayken on a trip to Rohan. A member of The corner’s Money Team decided that he hadn’t had enough of the jungle so treated a special someone to Six chapters of the Jungle Book. The affection (testosterone) was seemingly contagious, spreading like wildfire, with a certain post-sinbinned footballing party-planner asking one Netballer how she managed to Doo[so] little but be so Macnificent. “But look at her! She’scott these big old iiiize, Boyl I’m smitten!”

Another week, another batch of chunder-flavoured tongues spitting blood and love at one another. With a majority of the clubs in the Union using next week for the bi-annual Club Dinners, almost invariably taking place at curry houses on Brick Lane, we can look forward to an extra of helping of spice to add to the mix next week. Until then, xoxo

Sport | 31

Women’s Football in Debut Victory Women’s Football begin their BUCS career with a convincing 1-0 win over King’s College Jenny Johanson AU Outreach Officer I T WA S A R AT H E R chilly day in mid-October, and the LSE’s Women’s Football Club was as usual on their way on the train to Berrylands. As always, they had their boots, footballs and shin guards with them, but this time, they were not going to Berrylands for their weekly training session.

A bag of purple shirts, socks and shorts accompanied them for the first time on a Wednesday, and the atmosphere was slightly more tense.

Their game mode was on, as they were on their way to their first ever BUCS league game against King’s College London’s 2nd team.

The girls were confident after a great start to their season in LUSL on the previous Sunday, which resulted in a 3-0 win against Royal Holloway.

After a thorough warm-up, the referee finally arrived, and it was time to show King’s what WFC is all about - winning.

The two teams seemed rather even in the beginning of the first half, but the LSE ladies quickly picked up their game and controlled most of

the first half. Epo was causing trouble for the King’s defenders, Laura and Leigh annoyed their strikers and Lucia and Lori made beautiful runs on the wings. It was just a matter of time until LSE would get their goal, and after a rebound from the King’s goalkeeper, Yasmin was there first to put the ball in the goal.

After half time, the LSE ladies were up 1-0.

In the second half, Stephanie, our exceptional goalkeeper, was kept rather busy.

The King’s ladies used their substitutes wisely, and the fresh legs added some action to their game. However, Leo and Eva made sure to keep their wingers away as well as Zoe, Jenny and Vera worked hard on the midfield. King’s, therefore, didn’t stand a chance against the purple warriors. Kristia, the injured first team captain and coach of the day, announced Leigh and Jenny as the Women of the Game, but the ladies all agreed that everyone had fought really hard to ensure the 1-0 win over King’s.

The girls could therefore go back to central London more cheerfully, happier and ready to celebrate their great victory in Zoo bar…

Beaver To mark the end of Black History Month, the next edition of The Beaver, coming out 27th October will be a Blackout edition.

If you identify as politically black we need you to contribute, to make the first ever Blackout Beaver a success! We are looking for politically black reporters and writers for all our sections, so pick one (or more) and submit an article!

If you are interested in getting involved, want to submit an article or have any questions, don’t hesitate to email editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport | 32

Rugby’s Triumphant Return Ben Towler Men’s Rugby 1st Team

LSE MEN’S RUGBY returned to competitive action in their first match as a newly reinstated team with an emphatic 55-5 win against UCL. Fielding a strong side, LSE dominated from start to finish and from an early stage the result looked to be in little doubt.

Special mentions go to Mikhail Negenov, who put in an outstanding individual performance with five tries, and Harri Williams, who also bagged a hat trick.

LSE started brightly, and after some early initial pressure forced the first scoring opportunity with a penalty that skipper Owen McDermott duly converted. UCL responded well with a period of pressure in the LSE twenty-two, but this was short lived as LSE regained the ball to break up the pitch for the opening, and arguably the best, try of the match.

Centre Raife Copp-Barton took

half, and there were encouraging signs with regards to the squad’s strength in depth, as the full squad gave a good account of themselves.

By this point UCL were completely decimated, and were able to offer little response to an LSE side that were quite clearly a class above.

Credit must also go to the So-

cial IV’s, who produced a strong turnout on the touchline to support the boys with some flair attire and appropriate touchline sustenance.

The final result was the perfect return for the LSE men’s rugby, and if performances continue to be put in at this standard it promises to be a strong season for men’s rugby.

LSE Snow Bigger Than Ever Katie Flynn Snowsports Media & Design Officer

Sport

Section Editor: Alex Dugan

the ball and broke through a number of tackles, before finding the support of fellow centre Max Lakey, who produced a neat switch with Doug Loynes, who then gave it to Mikhail Negenov for his first try.

LSE sustained the pressure on UCL, and this paid off with two more tries for Negenov for a first half hat trick, and a lead that was already formidable.

UCL did respond with a wellworked try, a strong crash ball breaking through the LSE defence to provide them with what was to be their only score of the game.

They were to have few other moments of joy, with LSE continuing to maintain the pressure into the second half, with the tries continuing to come.

Negenov added to his first half tries, and Dougie Loynes and Harri Williams both finished off good team moves with scores in the corners.

Numerous changes were made throughout the second

LAST MONDAY SAW THE launch of the biggest trip on campus, with LSESNOW taking over XOYO. Think confetti canons, music for all ears and people from all over LSE having fun getting pumped for skiing in December... We kicked off at 8pm at tuns, selling over 100 places in the first 3 hours, and headed over to XOYO where our very own ski pres was on the decks getting us snow ready.

XOYO was packed with mountain lovers past and present all pumped to get going as soon as term ends. There was a massive mix of freshers, second and third years involved so if you’re

worried about not knowing anyone whose going so far, fear not.

You’ll make friends before even hitting Dover, including people you probably never would have crossed paths with before! We also do loads more nights out like this/social events before the trip kicks off, so chances are come December you’ll be already sorted.

The excitement on Monday wasn’t unfounded. This year we genuinely do expect our trip to be bigger and better than ever before. LSESNOW are going in for round two with Wasteland’s RISE festival to finish what we started in Le Deux Alps last year. The package is a week long ski holiday PLUS festival ticket from the same people who bring you Ibiza rocks. The festival last year was in it’s infancy, with the line up qual-

ity but still warming up. However after the massive success of last year, RISE have seriously upped their game and have at the time of print already secured SIGMA, Dynamite MC, Blonde, Jackmaster, Eton Messy to name but a few.

Expect big things, this year is going to be literally off the scale and LSESNOW can’t wait to be back.

Like snow? Like mates?

LOVE fun? You have to book onto LSESNOW’s trip ASAP before we sell out! It’s a week packed with skiing/snowboarding, après, and most importantly the mountains. The level of skiing you’re at really is irrelevant, every year we take absolute beginners, some of whom want to ski, others who don’t at all. It’s 100% all about the experience and having a laugh with your mates, so

whether you’ve never skied before or you’ve been off piste more times than our committee have said fun, this trip is the perfect way to get involved in the sport.

Beginners lessons at Hemel are subsidised for you too, so we’ve got you covered. (We’ve said fun a lot).

So here’s the crucial bit- how do you book on?! The link is https://booking.wastelandski. com/ Use booking code: WL16LSE. This will take you onto our LSE booking page, where you can secure your place for a £100 deposit. The cost of the trip is £369, which includes 6 day lift pass, festival ticket, full accommodation, transport and FUN. Dates 11th19th December... Did we mention it’s going to be fun?