851

Beaver

Issue 851 | 08.3.16

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

LSESU Lent Term Elections Unfold

LSESUelects 2016

• Elections kick off with UGM hustings • Strong RON campaign afoot • Gen Sec candidate raises concerns about mental health implications of negative campaigns

Mali Williams Comment Editor THE 2016 LSESU LENT term elections campaigns took off on Thursday 3 March. The next few days will see the student body electing its LSESU Executive Committee for the next academic year, including four new Sabbatical Officers.

Despite the loss of Houghton Street as a vibrant campaign centre, this year’s elections are unlikely to pale in comparison with past years’.

The contentious issues that have arisen on campus this year – exam timetables, free speech, student welfare, to name but a few – leave plenty to be discussed. Given the number of events held by the SU over the election period, there are many opportunities to challenge and debate with candidates. In addition to a vast number of individual societies’ hustings, this also includes LSESU Elections Question Time debates held yesterday and today, offering students the chance to question their Sabb candidates.

Although student attendance to a handful of these events have left some disappointed, a third year student told The Beaver, “A surprising number of students choose to study at the LSE because of its political activity. The whole buzz surrounding the Lent term elections, how passionate students feel about it and how united it can make us, demonstrate precisely what the LSE student experience is all about.”

In the UGM hustings held last week, it emerged that the two sole candidates for the position of General Secretary are Rayhan Uddin and Harry Maxwell. This compares to a field of seven candidates running for the same position last year. The lack of nominations seems to be a trend across many elected

positions this year, for Sabbs as well as a number of PTO positions. A second year Government student said, “It’s a shame that there aren’t as many candidates running for elected positions this year, particularly in the PTO races. Perhaps this is just a reflection of LSESU’s withering democracy.”

However, in the General Secretary race, it appears that as a result of the emptier field a Re-Open Nominations campaign has gained strength on social media. Using the face of Ron Weasley from the Harry Potter film franchise, the RON campaign claims to offer an alternative to what it sees as ‘two useless candidates making election policies that can’t be fulfilled’. What this alternative choice would lead to in real terms is, however, uncertain.

The face of Ron Weasley has not been the sole controversy of this year’s elections. Allegations of negative campaigning have been made by one of the candidates for General Secretary. On his Facebook profile, Harry Maxwell raised concerns about the mental health implications of negative campaigning and personal attacks. He wrote, ‘I’m near-exhausted by the amount of spiteful ‘banter’ I have had to deal with from a small – but highly active - group of people hiding behind anonymous accounts. 20% of students in the UK identify as suffering from mental health issues, which can range from depression to anxiety… So we simply cannot have behaviour like this on our campus.

‘The elections should be a positive time for all involved, celebrating the diversity of candidates and ideas on campus. Not for people to spend their free time posting malicious and hurtful ‘jokes’ online about people they have never met before.’

Rayhan Uddin told The Bea-

ver, ‘I would like to echo Harry’s sentiments. Creating fake accounts, abusive Facebook pages or derogatory videos is absolutely not okay. I have been clear from the start that I will be running a positive campaign, based on my own policies and experience, and will not engage in any kind of smearing or negativity. I can assure you the same applies to my campaign team. The person who changed their profile picture to suggest Harry deserves deportation is not someone I know or have ever spoken to, but in any case I have sent them a message telling them it’s completely unacceptable. I have been reporting all fake accounts and abusive pages to Facebook, and I urge everyone else to do the same. I hope the rest of this campaign is carried out in good faith and in good nature.’

Last year, a record-breaking turnout of 3,800 individual voters saw the re-election of current General Secretary, Nona BuckleyIrvine. The large upturn in voter turnout was thought to have been made up of votes by postgraduate and international students, in part because of the considerable proportion of postgraduate and international students running for positions.

Whether this year’s cohort of candidates will garner as much support from the student body remains to be seen.

Voting in LSESU elections will open at 10am on Wednesday 9 March, and closes at 7pm on the following day. Voting will be followed by the Results Night held in the Saw Swee Hock’s Venue at 8pm on Thursday.

The manifestos of all candidates running for elected positions can be found in the LSESUelects 2016 pull-out on pages 15-23 of this edition of the paper.

Why Your Vote Matters

Meet the Candidates

Comment The City Addressing the Kurdish Question A Pot-Benefit Analysis Page 8 Page 37

2016's Big Issues

Pages 15-23

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

editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk

News Editors Greg Sproston Joseph Briers

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 851 - Tuesday 08 March 2016 - issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

TWEETS OF THE WEEK LSE Students’ Union @LSESU Who will you choose to lead LSE students next year? lsesu.com/elections

news@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Comment Editor 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 Editors Alex Hurst Daniel Shears Stefanos Argyros

features@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Nab Editor

nab@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Sport Editor India Steele

sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Online Editor Ellie Peake

online@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Collective Chair Perdita Blinkhorn

collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk

The Collective:

A Doherty, A, Dugan, A Fyfe, A Hurst, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Ryzhonkova, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, B Phillips, B Sreejith, C Cogne, C Holden, C Loughran, C Morgan, C Hu, D Hung, D Lai, D Shears, D Sippel, D Tighe, E Arnold, E Wilkie, E Smith, G Cafiero, G Ferris, G Harrison, G Kist, G Linford-Grayson, G MannersArmstrong, G Saudelli, H Brentnall, H Prabu, H Toms, H Ustabas, I Plunkett, J Briers, J Clark, J Cusack, J Evans, J Foster, J Grabiner, J Heeks, J Momodu, J Ruther, J Wilken-Smith, J Wurr, K Budd, K Owusu, K Parida, K Quinn, K Yeung Goh, 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, M Williams, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Buckley-Irvine, N Stringer, N Webb, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, P Grabosch, R Browne, R J Charnock, R ConnellyWebster, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Argyros, S Chandrashekhar, S Crabbe-Field, S Kunovska, S Povey, S Rahman, S Sebatindira, S Shehadi, S Taneja, 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.

Attribution necessary.

Printed at Mortons Printing

Taryana Odayar writing on the upcoming LSESU Elections from Spain

From the Executive Editor HOLA! GUESS WHO’S IN Spain? That’s right - this weekend I’ve given up beavering to go on a short trip to Madrid, which was planned months before I knew I would be running for the position of Executive Editor. And given the fact that our Managing Editor stepped down a couple of weeks ago in order to run for a Sabb position, as per accordance with the LSE SU Byelaws; for perhaps the first time in Beaver history, both the Executive Editor and Managing Editor are MIA! For those of you wondering if the Beaver is going to magically run itself this week, the answer is a resounding no. Our capable team of Editors will be taking the reigns, with our Comment Editor, Mali Williams, overseeing the paper and mak-

ing sure it is sent to print on time. Therefore, due credit and a big thank you must be given to Mali for putting together this week’s issue, and ensuring that the paper you’re holding is up to, or has exceeded, our usual standards.

Additionally, Ellen Wilkie and the LSE SU Elects team have compiled a comprehensive LSE SU Elections pullout which will feature in this week’s edition, and which gives a detailed breakdown of the different sabbatical positions up for grabs and the manifestos of the candidates who hope to fill them. LSE SU Elects was launched last year and I’m glad to see it being continued this year as well. It plays an important role in educating the LSE student populous on the responsibilities which those

elected are expected to uphold, and also provides focused and detailed election coverage.

Therefore, there is perhaps no better outlet through which to publish it than our student newspaper, which aims to inform, enlighten, and occasionally entertain. I for one cannot wait for the election antics to unfold; from the inevitable campaign “scandals”, the bad puns (which have, sadly, already reared their ugly heads), and the general hysteria of election results night.

Although I am currently in Spain, I am trying my utmost to keep up with all the election drama happening over at LSE, and am already looking forward to compiling next week’s issue of the Beaver. So till next week, enjoy the paper!

From the LSESUelects Editor Ellen Wilkie on the LSESU Elections, campaigning and RON Weasley I’M BACK! IN STANDARD Beaver Editor fashion, I have stepped down from the laborious task of editing the paper every week and taken on the laborious task of co-ordinating the LSESUelects coverage. This edition of the paper has a centre pullout with everything you need to know about the upcoming elections: a timeline of events, a message from the Returning Officer, all of the manifestos for every position (tricky buggers to format into a newspaper) and much more.

The piece de resistance of the pullout, though, has to be our EXCLUSIVE interview with the individual behind the RON Weasley campaign. No, we don’t know who’s running it, but yes, we have been attempting to pull a Sherlock and deduce the culprit through the issues raised in the interview and the manifesto. Sadly, that has so far been completely unsuccessful.

It is impressive, though, for someone to go to such lengths to campaign against the GenSec candidates on offer, and is particu-

larly noteable in a year with such minimal engagement towards the politics of the Students’ Union.

The RON Weasley campaign is not alone either. The Champagne Socialist have announced that they had been planning a RONald Trump campaign that was beaten to the punch by Weasley, I similarly heard murmurs of a RON Burgundy campaign being planned.

Such discontent towards the General Secretary candidates has only been echoed in the two campaigns. On social media and in hustings, the two candidates have seen negative campaigns and personal attacks charged towards them by the opposite camps.

Though the politics and engagement on campus this year has been lacking, it is plausible that LSESU will reminisce over it in years to come. There is a serious divide between the two GenSec candidates, and the student body that lies in the middle seems to be tending towards voting for RON. Two person races are not uncommon at LSESU - look at Nona

vs Sam Barnett and Nona vs Maria Cannatella - but seldom are they as nasty and bitter as this one is turning out to be. I am almost glad (apart from my dire Graduate prospects) to be leaving the SU this year as it will be incredibly difficult for either candidate to foster a cohesive campus community when there has been such a fiercely contested GenSec race.

Neither candidate has the support of the whole student union and both candidates appear to be coming behind a #banterous Facebook page in the eyes of the masses. With such a lack of ability to gather any appeal beyond their pre-existing networks, how will either candidate manage to reinvigorate an already disengaged campus, and not alienate the masses that are so clearly not supportive of them.

This GenSec election is undoubtedly the most interesting from my student experience, but I worry that whichever way the election turns out will leave the Union disunified.

LSESUelects @LSESUelects Netflix just contacted me asking if House of Cards’ next season can involve content from this year’s election, have passed on their enquiry Janis Wong @janiswong_ You know it’s a busy time when I don’t tweet regularly...

Now go follow @LSESUelects !!!

Craig Calhoun @craigjcalhoun The LSE is hiring an artist to paint my portrait. They thought I was joking when I said I want Banksy. #lsenews James Wurr @JamesWurr I found 268 people do not follow me back.

Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine Woke up from a nightmare where the presidential race boiled down to two men yet again #SuperTuesday #ReadyForHillary Liam Hill @liamjhill You’re using Trump as an argument against democracy while mentioning Assad and Mugabe IN THE SAME SENTENCE?!?!?! #bbcqt LSE Women’s Rugby @lseau_wrfc We’re hosting a RUGBY GIRLS GIVE IT A GO session with over 150 girls in Barking & Dagenham. Check out our vid: https://youtu.be/ Nu0x_xbhlLc Jon Allsop @Jon_Allsop .@SouthernRailUK have to say that my ticket being cheaper without a railcard than with one is a new one on me. Congrats.

News | 3

Former LSE Student Detained in DPRK Following Alleged Theft Joseph Briers News Editor

AMERICAN STUDENT, OTTO Warmbier, has been detained by the North Korean authorities after being charged with stealing a propaganda banner from his hotel. The 21 year old, who took an advanced econometrics class at the LSE last year, was in the country on a five day tour organised by the Chinese holiday company ‘Young Pioneer Tours’ when the alleged incident took place.

A student of commerce at the University of Virginia, Warmbier was arrested on the day he was due to fly out of the country and return home, charged with a ‘hostile act’ by the state. During a press conference televised on North Korea’s national broadcaster KCNA, Warmbier confessed to taking the poster, referring to his actions as “the worst mistake of my life”.

He told the assembled journalists that his alleged crime

had been directed by the Friendship United Methodist Church with encouragement from the US Government and the Z Society (a secretive philanthropic society at the University of Virginia). It has not yet been independently verified whether his confession was forced or made voluntarily.

Warmbier said, “On the early morning of January 1, 2016, I committed my crime of taking out the important political slogan from the staff-only area of the Yanggakdo International Hotel, aimed at harming the work ethic and the motivation of the Korean people”. He added that “[I] never should have allowed myself to be lured by the United States administration to commit a crime in this country,”. “The aim of my task was to harm the motivation and work ethic of the Korean people. This was a very foolish aim.”

Footage attained by CNN shows the student bowing his head and openly weeping as he begs the forgiveness of the

North Korean people and government in what, according to the news channel, is his first public appearance. It is alleged that he attempted to take the poster as part of a deal with a member of the Methodist Church in which they would proffer him a used car worth around $10,000 in exchange for the “trophy”. The anonymous church-member is also said to have promised to donate $200,000 to Otto’s mother, Cindy, should he find himself arrested by the North Koreans.

Warmbrier’s parents, obviously and understandably distressed by their son’s capture, spoke of their concern, “Otto has been away from us for many weeks now, and I know he misses us as much as we miss him…our top priority is to get him back home with us as quickly as possible.” Cindy and Fred’s statement also revealed that they have had no contact with their son since his arrest.

John Kirby, spokesperson for the State Department, told the Associated Press that “there

is no greater priority for us than the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens abroad”. Since the United States have no formal diplomatic relationship with North Korea, it is being left to the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang to resolve issues on the ground. Kirby confirmed that a representative of the Swedish diplomatic service had met with Warmbier on March 2. “We are in regular, close coordination with the Swedes. We have no further information to share at this time.”

Warmbier now risks finding himself a pawn in a notoriously intense diplomatic struggle between the DPKK and US. He is just the latest in a long line of foreign citizens who have been detained by the North Korean government on what could be described as rather spurious charges. 2 years ago, fellow Americans Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller were finally released from custody following charges of crimes against the state and espionage respectively.

Lavender Brown Postgraduate Student WELLBEING AND MENTAL health have long been key concerns for stakeholders. In a Town Hall meeting in December of this academic year, School Director Craig Calhoun said that whilst he was proud of the wellbeing and counselling services, he felt that appointments did need to be faster. Despite this, he also defended the school’s failure to expand counselling and disability related services due to ‘budgetary constraints’ - despite £60,000 having been used on business class flights in one year.

LSE’s poor record on student support is visible internally as well as externally. The SU launched ‘Say you’ll be there for our welfare’ in

lent term of this year, challenging what they feel is the entrenched ‘deprioritisation of welfare’ by school management. Externally, student concerns are reflected in University ranking tables. Despite place as the 3rd best institution in the country by the Complete University Guide, the same table ranked LSE 108th of 126 Universities for student satisfaction.

The Guardian rankings, which weight student satisfaction more heavily, saw the LSE drop to 13th in spite of world leading research standards and top employment prospects.

The school’s recent decision to announce £11m in extra funding for the ‘student experience’ does not address the worries many students have. The funding is, of course, extremely welcome; and £4m on new academic posts, £2m on teaching excellence and £5m LSE Life will

have quantifiable positive effects, the only reference to pastoral, nonacademic support is a vague reference to ‘personal development’.

In this broader context, it was surprising to see LSE research, funded

by NHS Confederation Mental Health Network, declare youth mental health failings as a ‘moral scandal’ and enormous mistake. Both the report’s

News

Research on Mental Health Underscores Rank Hypocrisy at LSE

Section Editor: Joseph Briers Greg Sproston Deputy Editors: Alina Ryzhonkova Bhadra Sreejith

findings and recommendations shed stark light on a huge societal problem in the United Kingdom but when the school continues to fail too many of its students, it is vital that they improve services internally; not only for the sake of LSE students, but to show commitment to good practice and strengthen the legitimacy of such research with proactive change.

4

| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

LSESU European Society Brings the Continent to London with Week Long Forum

Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor “TO BREXIT OR TO Bremain?” seems to be the question on everyone’s lips as the referendum nears and debates on the matter heat up. Among the multitude of voices advocating for one side or the other, it is increasingly hard to understand what is scaremongering and what is fact. In an attempt to shed some light on not just the Brexit debate, but all of the EU-related debates, which surround the possibility of Brexit, the LSESU European Society has partnered up with the European Societies at King’s College and UCL in order to organize the inaugural London Europe Forum.

The conference will take place across the campuses of UCL, KCL and LSE from the 9th of March until the 11th and will encourage debate and discussion of the most relevant issues concerning Europe at the moment. With the theme of the forum “Europe: to be continued” and an impressive line up of speakers ranging from Nick Clegg to campaign leaders for Britain leaving or remaining in the EU, the event promises to raise some excellent points and stimulate constructive discussions on the topics among students. In addressing the issues that have dominated headlines for months now, such as the refugee crisis, the future of European econom-

ic integration and, of course, Brexit and the future of UK-EU relations, the London Europe Forum will provide an excellent platform for the discussion of these topics, and will hopefully allow students a chance to develop their own ideas and arguments instead of just listening to high profile speakers. By bringing together a variety of students from across three different universities, the London Europe Forum is guaranteed to bring together a great variety of different views and opinions, ensuring that the discussions at the forum are thought provoking.

The events that make up the forum will be free so as to ensure that everyone can come to the events, however, tickets will need to be reserved in order to guarantee spaces, as they will be limited. High profile speakers and the chance to engage them in discussion is certainly a key draw of the forum, however, discussion is always more interesting and provoking over a pint, so the organizers have made sure to organize some social events, such as a European pub quiz and then a party at the end of the forum.

The London Europe Forum has great potential to stimulate constructive and reasonable debate on the issues which have been in the news spotlight in recent times, as long as they stay away from the generalizations and scaremongering that have dominated these debates so far.

Extraordinary General Meeting Motion on Penal Reform Falls Short of Quoracy Greg Sproston News Editor AN EGM MOTION ADDRESSING the welfare Crisis in English and Welsh prisons, spearheaded by the Penal Reform Society, failed to gain quoracy in a sad indictment of what might be considered empathy fatigue from LSE students. The motion, which would have mandated the General Secretary to attempt to proactively address issues in prison via opening a dialogue

with ministers, was broadly supported by LSE students but nevertheless fell 35 votes short of the 250 needed for quoracy.

Some have accused student activism on campus this year of being tokenistic; the Syria motion in particular drew criticism, given that it did not obligate the SU to any practical actions. In this instance, however, motion proposers Durgesh Hari Prabu and Alice Mosciki articulated a clear plan of action. The motion was proposed via the EGM mechanism, for example,

in the hopes that a decision would be reached ahead of the NUS national conference so that the Union could collectively submit a further motion for debate at the national level. In addition, the motion called for the General Secretary to write to both Justice Secretary Michael Gove and his Labour counterpart Baron Falconer of Thoroton to articulate the grave concerns held over conditions and levels of support in prisons.

The motion’s failure to pass is all the more surprising

given the speed with which the LSESU Penal Reform Society has grown, having only been founded in Lent Term of this academic year. The motion was additionally strongly supported by members of the Democracy Committee and LSESU Labour Society. It is all the more disappointing that the motion did not carry after the proposers had collected over 300 signatures in less than a day to ensure that it could be debated to begin with.

Despite the setback, the Penal Reform Society remains

undeterred and have since released a statement, noting that they ‘have been able to open up the conversation on campus around the welfare crisis in prisons, and we will certainly carry on campaigning on the issue’.

The issue on campus is reflective of a wider societal interest in penal reform; the topic has been debated with increasing regularity in the House of Commons and Lords in recent times, and the EGM motion itself attracted interest from the national press.

Germany’s Role in Europe - Schäuble Greg Sproston News Editor

T H E S H E I K H Z AY E D theatre was packed last Thursday in anticipation of a talk, organised by the LSESU Germany Society in cooperation with the LSE European Institute as part of the annual German Symposium, from German Finance Minister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble.

At a glance, it appeared that most of the audience were connected to the LSE, either as staff or students, though the media was well represented with correspondents from as far away as Athens present. The title of the event was ‘Managing Europe - What is Germany’s Responsibility’ and, even if not articulated initially, the two obvious elephants in the room were the Eurozone crisis and the still unfolding refugee crisis.

Schäuble cut a surprisingly conciliatory tone in his opening comments, He stressed the necessity for ‘shared responsibility’ and solidarity in Europe and took no time at all in dismissing the famous Kissinger assessment of Germany as being ‘too big for Europe and too small for the world’. He did, however, recognise the limitations of Germany in Europe by explicitly referencing the country’s ‘dark history’ as the greatest factor for possible hesitation at the supranational level; assomething he backed up with poll data which suggested 60% of Germans would not support military action in support of another NATO state, even if it was attacked - something the Finance Minister described as ‘shameful’. As a politician, Dr. Schäuble is the product of a federal system, played a significant role in German reunification and has long been the most vocal supporter of European integration in Germany; it is no great surprise that his opening comments included repeated references to federalism whilst firmly dismissing hegemony as a ‘failed idea’.

Crowd pleasing as this rhetoric was, it doesn’t necessarily corre-

late with reality.

Euroscepticism on the British Left reached levels not seen in decades in 2015 as people expressed their concern that the democratically elected Greek government were shackled and overruled at the supranational level. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has since admitted he did not ‘believe in’ the bailout deal that was reached and the IMF made their dislike of the agreements public, noting that debt relief would be a condition for any future bailout. Germany, as the biggest holder of Greek debt in Europe, rejected a more conciliatory approach and insisted on a harsh line with former US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stating that Schäuble hoped to engineer a Greek Exit from the EU to ‘scare other countries into line.’

The CDU are, of course, not a one dimensional bogeyman.

Whilst their stance on austerity and tough bailout conditions may have been widely condemned as devastating for Greece, their actions in different areas are the opposite. Already in dire conditions, Greece has been thrown into turmoil by the refugee crisis but there is absolutely doubt that Germany’s decisive action has eased the burden. Schäuble went as far as to claim that without the steps Germany had taken, Greece would be a failed state. Whilst this may be an exaggeration, the CDU’s unilateral decision to take in over a million migrants is, of course, a massive show of solidarity; especially given the domestic political cost to Germany’s ruling party. However, the fact remains that Germany’s decision to take in these migrants was a subversion of the Dublin Regulation, agreed by and applicable to every member state bar Denmark. The Dublin Regulation holds that the member state where an asylum seeker first entered Europe is responsible for assessing their claim for asylum. The regulation has rightly come under severe criticism as both being bad for asylum seekers and having disproportionate effects for member states.

The pros and cons of German action are worth discussion, but it’s likewise important to note that decisive, sometimes unilateral, German action is not compatible with Schäuble’s view of a federalist, non-hegemonic Europe.

Head of the European Institute Professor Kevin Featherstone chaired the event and didn’t pull any punches with the questions he posed. Returning to the Eurozone crisis, he noted Dr. Schäuble’s firm commitment

to austerity policies and asked what evidence he would need to be convinced he was pursuing the wrong policies. The Finance Minister gave something of a stock answer, stating that highgrowth and high-spending were not correlated, that Keynesians forgot about the other ‘50% of the idea - you need to reduce your spending when you have surplus’ and arguing that tight fiscal policy was necessary to control for the huge dimensions of moral hazard in Europe. Unfortunately, Professor Featherstone was too kind to note either that austerity policy had decimated Greece’s economy to the same extent as Post WW1 Germany, or that LSE research last month which showed that countries with high public debt are better at sheltering economic

output and employment in times of crisis and exogenous shock.

Many questions from the audience addressed the refugee crisis, and here Dr. Schäuble was on firmer ground. Asked how solidarity could be improved - or achieved - in Europe, he argued that it already was, even if progress was slow and incremental.

He said that decisions taken to benefit Greece were not just for Greece, but for the whole European community and specifically

stated that ‘the major issue to get more solidarity...is to spend more money addressing the problem’.

He also emphasised the moral dimension of the crisis and a shared Eur opean responsibility to asylum seekers. Whilst conceding that Europe could not accommodate 7 billion people, that this ‘does not mean that you do not save those who you can’.

In the end, Brexit was not a significant part of the debate. As an elected German politician and renowned Europhile, Dr. Schäuble was no doubt reticent to wade into the debate for fear of British Eurosceptics using his words as an example of interventionism.

Nonetheless, he did dismiss the ‘second referendum’ idea floated

by Boris; ‘No, that is not fair. A deal is a deal and out is out!’

News | 5

London Uni Roundup

UCL’s Cut the Rent campaign has been gaining traction as more than 600 people have signed up to support it. According to a press release from Cut the Rent, the extension of the campaign means that over £1,000,000 in rent is now being withheld. The drastic measures are justified in the eyes of the Cut the Rent campaign as the UCL administration has refused to negotiate. Although a similar campaign in the past resulted in a total of £100,000 in compensation being awarded to students of a certain hall of residence, UCL has been unwilling to budge in the latest round of strikes and has threatened participants with evictions and bans.

London Met senior lecturer in Creative Writing Sunny Singh has cofounded a literary prize for British writers of colour. The idea for The Jhalak Prize for Book of the Year by a Writer of Colour was born when Sunny Singh and cofounder Nikesh Shukla noticed that all of the authors whose books were featured in the 2015 World Book Night list were white. The Jhalak Prize will reward and honour literary achievement by authors who are “often ignored, overlooked and erased”. The judging panel, which will consist of authors, journalists and broadcaster of colour, will be released in summer 2016.

The police have arrested two men after they verbally and physically assaulted Muslim students outside of the KCL Strand campus. The students were outside of King’s with stalls as part of Discover Islam Week, organised by KCL Islamic Society, when the men approached the stall and started throwing leaflets at them, before pulling off one of the women’s niqab. Eyewitnesses have criticised King’s security, who allegedly stood by during the incident and discouraged other student from intervening. According to a statement issued by King’s, the security guards kept the situation under control until police arrived, however, eyewitnesses disagree with this account of events.

6

| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

Harvard Law School Scraps Crest Over Slavery Ties

Joseph Briers News Editor HARVARD LAW SCHOOL has decided to remove its current crest after students protested over links to the 18th Century slave owner Isaac Royall Junior. A major donor at the time of its foundation, Royall had his coat of arms adopted by the School in the 1930’s, a move which has more recently been the source of outrage amongst pupils and staff. Following almost five months of protests and sit ins, the prestigious Massachusetts institution has chosen to drop the crest. Students founded a group named ‘Royall must

fall’, echoing similar efforts to remove tributes to Cecil Rhodes in Oxford and Cape Town. Royall is known to have been an especially cruel man, infamous for the burning alive of 77 slaves.

In its report to the Harvard Corporation, the committee tasked with deciding the fate of the crest said, “We believe that if the law school is to have an official symbol, it must more closely represent the values of the law school, which the current shield does not”. The committee was not unanimous in its decision to remove the crest, with two members voting in favour of its retention.

‘Royall Must Fall’ replied,

“This does not represent the final destination, but only an advance in the struggle for racial justice against white supremacy at Harvard Law… ’Royall Must Fall’ will continue to fight ... to ensure that this school becomes the justice school it holds itself out to be.”

The furore surrounding Royall is the most recent of a number of race-related protests at Harvard.

Last November portraits of black professors were found vandalised at Weinstein Hall, also at the Law School, prompting a justifiably concerned response.

The School told press it was treating the act as a hate crime. “I know what it looks like when you’re being told

to get back into your place, and I think that is very much what this looks like,” Rena Karefa-Johnson, a third-year law student and a leader of Students For Inclusion, told the AP. Fellow Massachusetts college Amherst has recently also had to drop its mascot, ‘Lord Jeff ’, who was based on Sevenoaks’ own Lord Jeffrey Amherst. Lord Amherst had the rather unprepossessing idea of infecting local Native American population with smallpox, or, failing that, hunting them with dogs. It is surely only a matter of time before we discover Felix the Beaver’s secret war crimes tribunal.

Mayor Watch Zac Goldsmith Criticises Local Authories on HIV Mayoral hopeful Zac Goldsmith used an interview with Pink News as an opportunity to criticise what he believes is the poor record of local authorities in London on tacking HIV. Whilst acknowledging the pressures councils are under, he stated ‘I don’t think it makes sense for any local authority to cut back...

It just seems incredibly short sighted and very irresponsible.’ London has the highest rates of HIV in the country. As member of parliament for Richmond Park, Goldsmith has consistently voted with the Government to cut social care expenditure, resulting in a £4.6bn reduction in the budget for Councils.

Morrissey Expresses Interest in Mayoral Candidacy Smiths frontman Steven Patrick Morrissey has declared an interest in running for Mayor of London, after the Animal Welfare Party invited him to be their candidate in the upcoming race. Morrissey has stated that he is considering the contest ‘very seriously’, adding that animal rights group need not only to persist, but have a governmental voice against the ‘hellish and archaic social injustice’ meted out to animals in the UK. Morissey finished a gig early in 2009 after smelling barbecued food, ‘I ca smell burning flesh’ he told the crowd, before adding ‘I hope to God it’s human.’

It would not be difficult for a man of Morrissey’s reputation to gain the 330 signatures needed for him to run, but a successful race seems very unlikely.

Generation Rent Debate - A Must Attend 3 campaign groups have joined forces to set up a mayoral hustings event specifically aimed at those who rent in London. The debate, which will take place at Conway Hall in Holborn, will put forward their proposals to protect renters from outrageous market exploitation and will take questions from the audience. Thus far, UKIP candidate Peter Whittle and the Green Party’s Sian Berry have confirmed their attendence, though Generation Rent, Priced Out, and Renter’s Rights London will continue to pressue the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative candidates to accept their invitations. Tickets to the hustings are free and places can be reserved at generationrent.org

News | 7

News In Brief Study shows that most actors are middle class Researchers from the Department of Sociology at LSE and Goldsmith’s College have shown that there are relatively few working class actors and that they earn less than their middle class equivalents because of a ‘class ceiling’. The survey found that 73% of actors responding to the survey came from the middle class and only 27% were working class. In Britain overall, according to Office for National Statistics data, 29% of people are defined as having middle class origins. Working class actors reported household earnings of £11,000 a year less than middle class ones. Researchers said “The British acting profession is heavily skewed towards the privileged.”

‘Vote RON for General Secretary’

Genius is a Matter of Right Time, Right Place Claim Academics from LSE & Harvard University Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor

DARWIN & JOBS WEREN’T as smart as we are often led to believe, says a new joint study by the LSE and Harvard University. We can all take credit for great scientific discoveries and innovations as they arise from the “collective brains” of our societies rather than from the IQs of individuals. Geniuses such as Darwin and Jobs earned their place in history mostly due to luck and being in the right place at the right time, rather than incredible individual, intellectual superiority.

The ‘cultural milieu’ in which

we find ourselves, is one of the most important factors that leads to significant discoveries and innovations – collective brains make each brain within it smarter. So by this logic, we can all claim some credit for the iPhone, after all, we form the society in which it was created.

According to Dr. Michael Muthukrishna, assistant professor at the LSE and lead author of the research, “human brains, in isolation, aren’t actually all that smart”, but through a process of cumulative cultural evolution we all become more successful. This theory helps explain why there has been such a steady rise in IQ scores over time, and why larger so-

cieties, with more opportunities for the exchange of ideas between people have produced more innovations and discoveries. It also explains how some people, such as Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, have made similar discoveries at the same time, but independently of each other – they were simply reading the same materials and operating in the same societies, which directed their ideas down a certain path. Genius, then, is not predetermined and while raw capability does play into it, being social is more important in the long run for innovation. In fact, Dr Muthukrishna points out that exposure to new ideas encourages innovation

and the best thing for creativity is talking to people with different opinions to your own.

Imitation may be the best form of flattery, but if this study is to be believed, it is also the surest way to success, as throughout evolutionary time, individuals who mimicked the more successful members of their society, were then led to success themselves. While Apple probably won’t start paying royalties left and right on the premise that we are all indirectly responsible for the genius of Steve Jobs, this study does give hope to Einstein-wannabes everywhere; even with a low IQ score, we can all still daydream of a Nobel Prize.

Bemoaning that other candidates are ‘a bit shit’, a Facebook page has been created encouraging LSE students to ‘vote RON for General Secretary’; the profile picture is Ron Weasley of Harry Potter. The person behind the page claims to have endorsements from Ellen Wilkie, Nona Buckley-Irvine, Josh Hitchens and Aysha Fekaiki. The parody page encourages LSE students to re-open nominations and not vote for either of the General Secretary candidates. The event page pokes fun at the unattainable policies promoted by both candidates. Around 73 people have said that they are “going” to the event, compared to 147 for another candidate.

We Are All Getting Smarter New research from the LSE and Harvard University argues that, over evolutionary time, individuals who mimicked other successful individuals – eating the foods they ate or hunting with the tools they used, for example – became successful themselves without necessarily understanding why.

The theory helps explain why there have been dramatic increases in IQ test scores over time. Dr Muthukrishna explains: “To be an innovator, it’s better to be social rather than smart.

What predicts the difference between a Steve Jobs and a Joe Bloggs is actually their exposure to new ideas that are wonderful and different.”

|

Tuesday 8 March, 2016

AU for All... Who Can Afford It

The cost of the AU Ball tickets highlights the exclusive nature of the AU Adam Crowther Undergraduate Student

Section Editor: Mali Williams Deputy Editors: Hakan Ustabas Nina Webb Dina Nagapetiants

I WAS RECENTLY SHOCKED to learn that, for this year’s AU Ball, tickets were going to cost £65 for the first 400 and then £80 for the remainder of the tickets. This is completely inaccessible for so many people and I for one know that I cannot afford spending that much on a ticket, especially for a single night. I could probably leave the article here; in my opinion, it’s unacceptable to have the annual awards show at such a price, and it is inherently exclusionary.

In fairness to the organisers, it does look like an awesome event: a three course meal, with half a bottle of wine each, and unlimited drinks in the first hour, as well as entertainment, and travel from Lords (home of England’s cricket) to Zoo Bar. Many that I’ve spoken to are planning on making up this money by getting as many drinks as they can and being smashed for the rest of the evening. But, even with this as the case, this price is still too high. I understand that the organisers want to put on an event that people won’t forget, but maybe this shouldn’t be because of the astounding price, but because everyone can enjoy it. There are plenty of ‘wow’ options in London that don’t cost an arm and a leg to host.

I’m sure many people reading this will be thinking, ‘well, why the

Comment

8

hell do you do it then?’ It’s a fair question. If I can’t afford it then I shouldn’t do it. But sports, especially at such an intensive university as LSE, are super important. Getting light exercise lowers stress, helps reduce anxiety and depression, and makes you healthy, as I’m sure you are all aware. But, more than this, it allows students to break out of the confines of their limited social groups. ‘You do accounting and finance and you went to Carr-Saunders? God, okay... Oh, you enjoy swimming, me too! I know So-andSo, do you?’ Sport works to create rivalry between clubs, bonds within teams, and links between people in ways that not many other society based activities at LSE can do.

And so, this is the sixty-five pound question (or eighty if you weren’t fast enough) - what about those that want this, but can’t afford it?

What about all that LSE talent that doesn’t have the money to attend every week?

This pricing is part of a wider

“The pricing is part of a wider issue within the AU and this is, to some degree, the fault of LSE management.”

issue within the AU, and this is, at least to some degree, the fault of the LSE management; funding for our sports teams should be higher, especially considering it costs a tenner to get to and from Berryland’s every week. Add in kit, which if you could limit your spending to £50 on often mandatory sports tops and hoodies you would be netting yourself a bargain, the cost of membership, where my lacrosse membership at £35 is one of the lowest, and the weekly optional (but kind of not really optional) social events that constitute the AU calendar, such as Carol and this ball, it all tends to add up. Ultimately, the cost of being part of a sports team is quite honestly ridiculous, making it one of the biggest expenditures in my budget. A lot of this stuff is out of the hands of the AU Executive – for instance, LSE should look at subsidising kit, or offering a travel bursary outside of competitive matches.

But, the Ball is an active decision that has been made, and it makes me sad that I can’t go to it.

My team mates, now some of my closest friends and people that I really enjoy spending time with, are talking about how excited they are, how drunk they are going to get (I suppose that’s another aspect we could explore – what about people that don’t drink?), and how fun it’s going to be. Not only does this pricing exclude people from the culmination of the sporting year at LSE,

but these people then also miss out on spending it with people they’ve grown to like and get on with. Indeed, for many of these people, it will be their last AU night at LSE, and one that shouldn’t be missed.

“The Ball is an active decision that has been made, and it makes me sad that I can’t go.”

It’s all well and good to criticise people who’ve done all the organising, but I do understand that it’s stressful, difficult, and often impossible to get prices as low as they should be. But this is where I think smart solutions should be used.

What about instituting BYOB? A deposit scheme so that those that wish can spread the payments across a period of months so that it doesn’t cost so much all at once?

Or maybe removing the ‘entertainment’ part? I know that I would much rather have a great time with all my friends than have a random person in a leotard spin fire around themselves. The AU should be for all, whether that’s as a woman, a member of the LGBT+ community, as a religious or ethnic minority, or as is the case here, someone with little money.

Addressing the Kurdish Question

A new LSESU society dedicated to discussing and debating Kurdish issues Dween Billbas Undergraduate Student

THERE HAVE BEEN FEW success stories in the Middle East as of late. Sectarianism coupled with the flamboyant rise of a radical Islamist State have seemed to dominate the headlines. In light of this threat the Kurds have managed to hold their ground on a 650-km front, that has heavily outstretched its personnel and resources. Iraqi Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region within Iraq, contains about a quarter of the totally dispersed Kurdish population. They hold a pro-Western attitude with largely democratic and secular ideals, enjoying relative peace, stability and economic prosperity. A success story that has attracted international coverage, the Kurdish question is gaining momentum both on the battleground and on the international political scene.

But the Kurdish struggle is not strictly confined to the frontline of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurds are playing a pivotal role in the Middle Eastern political dynamic, influencing movements in two other

countries with sizeable Kurdish minorities: Turkey and Syria. The Kurds critically hold the balance of power in Iraq and Syria, and are now in the midst of an insurrection in a potential move towards a democratic-confedaralist system in Turkey.

“The Kurdish question is gaining momentum both on the battleground and on the international political scene.”

In a turbulent time with uncertain outcomes, many questions will be raised. What happens if such an insurrection proves to be successful, and a new Syrian-Kurdish or KRG-like region arises in Turkey?

If the ISIS threat is not contained in Iraq, and the instability forces the Iraqi state to breakdown, is

an outlook of a fully independent Kurdistan in the North a realistic proposition? What does the success of Iraqi Kurdistan mean for Kurds in the surrounding region? And although the nationalistic sentiments seem to be less pronounced by the Iranian Kurds, will successes in Iraq and, less-so in Turkey trigger a movement in Iran too?

These, of course, are all fascinating issues that will be covered in engaging debates and panel discussions with a wide range of speakers, from both within and external to the LSE. The Kurdish society has created a platform for students who are eager to learn and voice their opinions in the discussion too. With recent support from the Cambridge, Westminster, KCL and SOAS Kurdish societies, LSE marks the latest university to represent and spread the Kurdish question onto another UK campus.

The society, however, provides more than just a political debate.

It also marks the celebration of a diverse and rich culture which has, unfortunately, gone unnoticed.

With Newroz looming, an ancient festivity marking the first day of the Kurdish calendar, fires are lit across

all Kurdish regions to signify their unity, joy, and freedom against oppression, which the Kurds have continued to suffer. The society has plans to host a Newroz celebration, with traditional food and music.

The society will also raise awareness for the more immediate and pressing threats concerning the humanitarian crises and human rights infringements. Today, a crisis continues to exist which has affected Kurds in Sinjar, Turkey and North Syria. Last Sunday, as part of the Kurdish Society’s first event, a UK-wide rally was held against the Turkish government’s indefensible attacks directed at Kurdish civilians in its South-Eastern region.

Amnesty International has recognised this systematic abuse of power as crimes against humanity. The UK student body in response has acted to raise immediate attention with a week of student action aiming to ‘#BREAKTHESILENCE’ on the Kurdish crisis in Turkey.

Be aware of more events like this in the future, and if you would like to participate message anyone on the committee.

On a final note, like the Facebook page and spread the word!

Comment | 9

Brexit and the Students of LSE In response to the critiques made against the Eurosceptic students of LSE

A FEW WEEKS AGO, I WROTE an article in The Beaver arguing that LSE students ought to vote to leave the EU, and last week I was pleased to see a response in these pages from the opposing side of the argument. The response, however, was seriously inadequate.

Rather than engaging fully with my key proposals for why Britain should leave the EU, the authors instead chose to use personal criticisms of both myself and those who advocate a Brexit. In this piece, I hope to demonstrate the flaws in their approach to the EU question and also to widen my argument to take account of the so-called ‘reforms’ which David Cameron has brought back from Brussels.

However, I do feel it worthwhile to first address some of the concerns which the authors have about those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. Claiming that we ‘wouldn’t be Brexiteers if logical arguments appealed to’ us or that we lack ‘real arguments’ exposes a singular failure on their part to recognise that monumental problems exist within the EU framework. Moreover, British Euroscepticism is neither a party political issue, nor a politically extreme position. It is a viewpoint that encompasses a huge range of political ideologies, from Jenny

Credit: Flickr: EU Naval Force

“Moreover, British Euroscepticism is neither a party political issue, nor an extreme position.”

Jones and Kate Hoey on the left, to Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan on the right. Indeed, recent polls have given the Leave side a slight advantage, displaying the breadth of our support within the UK. The Remain camp ought to acknowledge that personal snipes towards those who feel that Britain would benefit away from the shackles of EU membership do nothing to further debate on the topic and may even alienate the undecideds who will be crucial to this referendum.

It is difficult to conceive of the logic behind the major argument expressed in their piece: that Britain leaving the EU would inhibit the ability of both students and professors to come to UK universities and would damage the global reputation of higher educational institutes in the country.

Dealing with the first point, there seems to be a confusion with regards to causation from the proEU side. EU students and professors come to UK universities for the same reason that a large number of American and East Asian students do: the quality of the educational experience here. Of course, in the case of professors, they contribute to this success, yet it is vital to remember the pull factors that attract them here in the first place.

Would this prestige diminish in any way in the event of a Brexit?

Almost certainly not. Don’t just take my word for this, however, listen to the LSE’s own BrexitVote blog. In a recent article, the point about research projects requiring EU collaboration is strongly refuted. For social science institutions like the LSE, research projects are ‘intellectually inclined towards the United States’, with collaboration between fellow European institutions tending to be conducted on a bilateral basis, rather than through our EU membership. Arguing that the

“Indeed, recent polls have given the Leave side a slight advantage, displaying the breadth of support within the EU.” global reputation of prominent UK universities would suffer as a result of a vote to leave the EU is intellectually nonsensical and ignores the very basis for their international stature.

Equally ill-thought-out is the idea that UK universities would suffer from a fall in research funding if we left the EU. From a social science perspective, UK universities make up around 40% of the top institutions within the EU, yet receive 16% of EU research funding. Not only should the UK receive proportionally more than it currently does, but any argument about EU research funding is inherently flawed. It should not be forgotten that the UK taxpayer is a net contributor to the EU budget and thus such funding is already coming out of our pockets. If Britain left the EU, the government would have additional resources which could be spent on improving the quality of university resources.

Moving away from the LSE sphere, I would like to focus on some of the wider issues in this referendum, since the decision we make on June 23 is likely to be shaped more by long-term considerations than our short time as university students. In particular, the claim made by Huller and Morandi that the EU’s political structure is fully democratic requires close scrutiny. In dealing with the European Commission,

I am forced to return to Tony Benn’s understanding of democracy: can the UK population directly get rid of any of the people within the Commission? The answer is an emphatic no. This is crucial because the Commission doesn’t exactly have a great record when it comes to acting responsibly. In 1999, for instance, all 20 members of the Commission resigned as a result of a corruption investigation.

Nor is the situation much better within the EU Parliament, from the UK’s perspective. Britain’s 73 MEPs make up around 9% of the total European Parliament, yet per capita are the second-least represented nation behind France. Between 2009 and 2015, British MEPs were on the losing side of votes in the EU Parliament the most times out of any member state. In many ways, such records indicate how the EU views the UK – much as we might view one of the individual counties within our country – economically significant, yes; but politically just an offshoot of the metropole, rather than its own

“Rather than bringing about meaningful change, David Cameron’s reform package has highlighted the unwillingness of the EU to adapt its structures to its members’ requirements.”

sovereign nation.

It also seems that my examples of the burden of EU regulation were rather brushed under the carpet in their reply. Admittedly, when viewed individually, such regulation can appear comical, yet when taken collectively, in their tens of thousands, they seriously inhibit UK global competitiveness and innovation.

Currently, less than 10% of UK businesses trade with the EU, yet 100% of firms have to follow their punitive overregulation. If we vote to leave, those businesses which engage with the rest of the world can do so far more easily, boosting their capacity to trade internationally and competitively.

David Cameron’s renegotiations do little to ease any of these major problems. His so-called ‘red card’ for EU legislation is unlikely to ever be exercised, since it requires the cooperation of 15 other member states, the majority of whom will have voted in favour of the legislation in the first place.

In fact, there is no reform at all of some of the most frustrating areas of EU policy, namely the democratic deficit and excessive regulation. It is no surprise that one of the national Leave campaigns have, quite aptly, likened the Prime Minister’s ‘reforms’ as tantamount to asking for a “cabin upgrade on the Titanic”, since both are equally futile.

In summary, my argument that a vote to leave the EU would not harm the students of LSE still stands. Rather than bringing about meaningful change, David Cameron’s reform package has highlighted the unwillingness of the EU to adapt its structures to its members’ requirements. A vote to leave, therefore, is a vote against the continued erosion of UK sovereignty in favour of a new, economic rather than political, relationship with our European neighbours.

Credit: Pixabay

Matt Walton Undergraduate Student

10

| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

The GOP and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Donald Trump is on course to win the Republican nomination and the party is to blame Andrew Slinn Undergraduate Student DONALD J. TRUMP HAS JUST won seven more states on Super Tuesday, two more on Super Saturday, and is now poised to win the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. As much as I want to avoid clichés such as he has ‘defied the rules of politics’ and has ‘rewritten the political playbook’, that is exactly what is happening. But is it really such a surprise that he continues to do so when the Republican establishment has completely failed to mitigate it?

Trump has dominated the opinion polls since the summer of 2015; he has not just been the frontrunner, but he has been the frontrunner with a double-digit lead over his nearest opponent. While we all know to be sceptical of opinion polls, it seems the GOP has taken this one step further and buried its head in the sand, refusing to believe that this toupéed, perma-tanned billionaire with no political experience could pose a serious challenge to the Washington political order.

Rather than tackle Trump headon, the establishment has actually inadvertently allowed him to pull ahead of the pack. This is attribut-

able to two reasons.

The first is the divided field. At one point, there were 17 candidates for the Republican nomination, and until the New Hampshire primary there remained four big establishment names in the field: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Chris Christie. Up until this point, establishment money and establishment endorsements had been thrown in many different directions, and these candidates persisted to fight amongst themselves. With establishment support failing to consolidate around one candidate, Trump has continued to capitalise on their divisions.

The second is wishful thinking.

Before the Iowa caucus floated the idea that Trump’s supporters were the type of people who wouldn’t actually bother to show up to vote on polling day, and this phantom support would then lead to a rapid decline in his fortunes as the primaries picked up steam. This has not happened. Bizarrely, the Iowa results did not serve as a wake up call to the establishment that Trump was a serious contender – instead, his secondplace finish somehow vindicated the view that he was not untouchable and his momentum would subsequently stall.

Iowa now seems like a distant memory. Despite his runner-up plac-

ing there, he then went on to win New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada; and he won big. Only now is the establishment waking up to the fact that this man is on course to win the nomination, and the field has started to clear with Marco Rubio emerging as the establishment man. But now with Trump’s Super Tuesday success, it is too little too late.

Trump’s nomination is now all but guaranteed. All the establishment can hope for is a contested convention, where no one candidate has a majority of delegates. This is only possible if Rubio and Ted Cruz remain in the race until the end, and only if they continue to meet the (mostly) 20% threshold for delegates to be allocated proportionally. Rubio is banking on a win in his home state of Florida on 15 March, which is a winner-take-all state, as is Kasich in the case of Ohio. If Trump prevails here, then there really is no hope for the establishment to salvage any consolation. They effectively only have a week to stop him – it all rides on Florida and Ohio and, as it stands, Trump is ahead in both polls.

Even if Kasich suspends his campaign after losing Ohio, leaving Rubio as the sole establishment candidate, it is hard to picture a scenario where Trump can be seriously chal-

lenged. This is because, after a prolonged period of disunity, the party establishment is now on the verge of open civil war.

“All the establishment can hope for is a contested convention, where no one candidate has a majority of delegates.”

Enter Chris Christie – keynote speaker at the 2012 Republican National Convention, former Chairman of the Republican Governors Association – has recently endorsed The Donald. Until now, Trump’s endorsements had been limited to hasbeens on the political fringes (Sarah Palin, anyone?) but now he has secured a big establishment name. Although I expect the announcement’s impact on the polls to be minimal, it is certainly a game changer with respect to the mentality of those at the

top of the party.

It is a classic game of prisoner’s dilemma. If from the outset the establishment had co-operated and been united behind one candidate, then the fight could have been taken directly to Trump and everyone would have enjoyed the benefits if his campaign consequently stalled.

However, the temptation to deviate and defect is now too strong, and the benefits of supporting Trump are clear to those who anticipate he’ll win. Christie’s decision was purely a careerist one – he only has a year left as Governor of New Jersey, and as a professional lawyer he probably has his eye on the Attorney General position in a Trump administration.

Other mainstream party figures have also begun to follow Christie’s lead, with the Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, endorsing Trump later the same day. More will inevitably follow.

With the defectors illustrating how the party is still so clearly divided, the establishment has run out of time to stop Trump. His success on Super Tuesday has only highlighted this fact. The next President of the United States is either going to be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump; and while neither option is preferable to the Republican establishment, it only has itself to blame.

An Introduction to Donald Trump

The real reason why the American public is falling for Trump: ‘political incorrectness’

CONTRARY TO WHAT MOST biased social media-based ‘news agencies’ and liberal ‘media’ sources might portray Donald Trump as, he is a man of extreme calculation and guile. Rubio’s amusing criticism of Barry at the New Hampshire debate can also be applied to Mr. Trump. From the beginning, people continuously undermined Donald Trump’s true ability to outwit and outgun most people in debates and speeches, even if he may have employed absurd means. This was shown when MSNBC, America’s most liberal media network, attempted to stomp the Trump.

However, in the end, the debaters turned on the moderators, and Trump craftily used the obvious target on his back by the left-wing media to rally thousands behind him.

The most recent case of this hubris by the left was when a Secret Service agent serving under Obama, who operates independently of Donald Trump, got into a fistfight with a journalist. The liberals did not even skip a heartbeat to respond to the situation with unfounded celerity, and jumped on the chance to attack Trump with-

out fully comprehending the situation. Again, this level of arrogance by the left to assume their superiority over Trump has shown again and again to the public that first of all Trump does not care, and second, that he can not only bob and weave but also throw out mean left hooks. With his endless political ammunition belt fed by the liberals, Donald Trump has been gunning down one great Republican candidate after another.

“Donald Trump is the slightly orange coloured manifestation of the growing discontent with the PC culture.”

However, in order to discuss the appeal of Trump to the American public, some background must be laid out. If you ask most Trump supporters why they are supporting such a ridiculous TV clown, most will say something to the effect of, “He is self-funding his campaign, so

I know he is not controlled by big donors,” or, “He is a successful businessman who runs a multibillion dollar international corporations,” and so on and so forth. However, the truth is that the American public is falling for Trump for a reason that not many of them want to necessarily admit: he is crushing political correctness in America. Americans are sick and tired of their freedom of speech constantly being trampled on by a small cohort of social justice activists.

Donald Trump is the slightly orange coloured manifestation of the growing discontent with the PC culture in the West. The reality is that Trump’s positions on the right to bear arms, abortion, Planned Parenthood, healthcare, and even immigration are not completely aligned with traditional Republican ideology. Yes, I even said immigration. America does have an immigration issue, but not the one that Buzzfeed wants you to focus on.

America already accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world, despite the fact that high levels of unemployment plague most urban areas. America does not have a shortage of low skill workers, but we do have a tech industry that is bogged down by an antiquated immigration system that does not reflect the needs of the country.

During debates, candidates may be using politically correct terms, but in reality they are talking about ‘illegal’ immigration, and if Donald Trump even remotely follows his plans for ‘legal’ immigration, it will be more comprehensive and fitting to the needs of the American society than the current system.

The truth is that political correctness has come to such prominent importance in America, that the voters on both sides of the political spectrum are disregarding all other issues that the previous Republican and even Democratic establishments theorized were essential to voters. Prior to this election season, Ted Cruz was seen as the most principled and ideologically consistent conservative. In ad-

dition, he was just outside enough of the leadership of the Republican Party to even appeal to the antiestablishment rebels within the party. However, now, the support for other true conservative candidates are fading, and the Republicans is realizing earlier than the left that this election will most likely be not about guns, abortion, or healthcare, but about political correctness, and that Donald Trump is Political Incorrectness. The remaining Republican Primary will be a battle between the traditional conservative ideology of limited government and individual freedom, most likely represented by Ted Cruz, versus the dissatisfied public who are standing up for their freedom of speech.

Credit: Flickr: DonkeyHotey

Kunwoo Kim Postgraduate Student

Wither the Liberal Democrats?

Comment | 11

The extraordinary case of the Liverpool West Derby Constituency: 959 votes Hugo Bromley Undergraduate Student “I, THE RETURNING officer for the Liverpool West Derby Constituency, do hereby give notice…”. Unfortunately, since the seat in question this May was one of the safest Labour seats in the country, no one was giving much notice at all. However, the result was in fact about to reveal something extraordinary. The Liberal Democrats received 959 votes.

Bad, but worse was to follow. The Liberal Party received 2,049 votes.

That is how far the Liberal Democrats fell in the last election; losing to the party left dying in the gutter after the merger with the Social Democrats. However, one man from Westmoreland believes he can change all this. The starting signs are good for Tim Farron. He doesn’t stop talking about a return to Liberal values, and is eager to remind us that his political hero is Jo Grimond (if you don’t know who that is shame on you). He is also, apparently, an energiser, like those rabbits from Duracell. He is going to recover the Party (we are told) with sheer Northern rhetoric alone.

I should now point out the following assertions are entirely baseless in quantitative analysis, and merely the experience of a student.

To me, there is one slight problem with Tim Farron; an energiser is the last thing the Lib Dems need right now. Throughout his career, Tim Farron has been regarded as an intellectual lightweight. A superb constituency MP perhaps, and very good rabble-rouser; but not a deep thinker at a time when the Liberal Democrats are crying out for new ideas and intellectual impetus. They need someone to first identify the fundamental problem the Liberal Democrats face with recovering their party, then systematically tackle it, returning those who abandoned them to the fold.

The problem is, for me at least, this: where is the soul of the Liberal Democrats? Because there has to be one. The Conservatives know where theirs lies: in people called Ken, who would be described as Lower Middle class, in semi-productive labour, older than the national average, and believe in ‘making work pay’. And indeed, the two greatest leaders the Tories have had in recent times have come from this background: Margret Thatcher and John Major (as in fact did Ted Heath, Michael Howard, and Ian Duncan Smith). Labour’s is trickier to define, because there are arguments for two different ‘souls’. The common assumption is that soul of the Labour party lies among the

people of Stoke on Trent etc., who are in, or used to be in, skilled or semi-skilled manual jobs, like football, and (dare I say it) wear cloth caps.

“The problem is, for me at least, this: where is the soul of the Liberal Democrats?”

However, I disagree. I’d say that Labour’s soul lies not in Middlesborough, but in Islington. It lies among students, the NUS, and the academic left. Throughout Labour’s history, this group has been the driver of progress and power within the party. Attlee. Gaitskell.

Michael Foote, Denis Healey, and Tony Benn. Tony Blair. Jeremy Corbyn. They all come from this heartland, and all have, in their own ways, defined the Party. In other words, the Labour Party is the natural home of the student vote.

Tim Farron is not an idiot. He is aware that there is a problem here, and so he has looked at the problem and come up with a solution. And he’s got it wrong, because the thinks the soul of the Liberal

Democrats is in exactly the same place as Labour, among the young and the inner city left. Tim Farron has been an activist in the Liberal Democrats for a very long time, often in utterly hopeless seats; something that he considers a tremendous asset. I consider it a weakness, because it has led to him to think that activists represent the party, and from my experience they really, really don’t. Students don’t either, though you would never know it from the way the party has desperately attempted to court the student vote over the past few years.

The soul of the Liberal Democrats is the soul of the Liberals. It lies in far flung reaches of the country, from Cornwall to Shetland to Ceredigion. It likes a good constituency MP, who will fight for it in Parliament, but above all, it likes to be left alone. Removed from either middle class centres or Islingtonian metropolises, and it is actually quite right wing economically; ‘neoliberalism’ was not called as much for no reason. This is not to say they are austerity-happy. Often, in my experience, it believes that a large state should help people help themselves (though I accept the difference between this and ‘making work pay’ is hard to define). Since it likes to be left alone, it often has serious concerns about the level of immigration in this country, hence

why so many of its representatives voted UKIP at the last election, especially in the South West.

They also, (and I know a lot of people are going to disagree with this particular baseless assertion, but here goes) don’t give a damn about tuition fees. But they do like clarity, and honesty, and decency.

If the Liberal Democrats had had the courage to come out and say that yes, they did break a promise, and they stood by doing it, because that’s how coalitions work, and that actually it was the right thing to do, they would have done far better.

To be honest, this probably goes back to the merger. The Social Democrats were mostly Labour to their core, driven out by civil war to find a new home, rather than choosing to abandon Labour’s ideals. Indeed, it was not to be the first time the Lib Dems embraced Labour exiles; precisely the same thing happened after the Iraq War. This fundamental split has done much more over the years than tuition fees to tear the grandest of the parties of old apart. In other words, the voters of Liverpool West Derby had it right when they chose the Liberals over the Lib Dems, as did the hordes of students who moved to Labour. And those of us who switched our support to the Tories can feel secure in our choice.

The Cold War Occurring in the Middle East

How Saudi-Iranian contestation in a proxy war has contributed to the growth of ISIS The growth of ISIS in Euperformance has also groups through backchannels, an Dween Billbas “The Middle East economic rope, however, is only a symptom not been resilient to global market accusation the Saudis deny.

Undergraduate Student of a wider, historic contest. ISIS, The conflict in Yemen has has an infamous conditions. Increased oil producmost certainly, is a common ention by the Iranians as well as a hosted a fully-blown proxy war, reputation for fall in market confidence have receiving hardly any media covTHE SUDDEN INFILTRA- emy but the actions of the Saudis TION of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and Iranians in a highly competioil prices plunge to less than erage. Saudi Arabia, in coalition hosting proxy seen for many, was an unprecedented tive proxy war has facilitated the $40 a barrel. As a result, officials with the UAE, has actively led event. Many have been baffled group’s progress in the area. have withdrawn up to bombing campaigns against the wars.” in$70Riyadh by their expansion, and with the The Middle East has had an billion from global asset man- Iranian allied Houthi rebels. Iran threat looming closer to home, a setting of unease and distrust has prospered. Paris saw the worst terrorist attack in Europe since the Madrid bombings, sadly claiming 130 lives in November of last year. This attack, according to the EU police chief, is the first of many to come. Rob Wainwright, the head of Europol, said ISIS had ‘developed a new combat-style capability to carry out a campaign of large-scale terrorist attacks on a global stage, with a particular focus in Europe.’

The challenge of ISIS has proven to be very difficult to contain. Following the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, the EU home affairs ministers have aimed to close loopholes in the passportfree Schengen zone’s security arrangements. Whilst measures are being taken, the inability to point the finger at the enemy has created a challenging task for Western governments.

infamous reputation of hosting proxy wars. A proxy war consists of two opposing countries avoiding direct war, and instead supporting combatants that serve their ulterior interests. For instance, the Lebanon Crisis of 1958 has subjected the country to two generations of proxy conflicts. The Iran Crisis of 1946 was one of the first tests of power between the United States and the Soviet Union following the Second World War. The ’54 Algerian and ’62 North-Yemeni Wars, ‘64 Aden Crisis, Basque conflict and Afghan Civil War all had Cold-War undertones.

Of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the longer lasting proxies that has sparked controversy to this day. The list goes on.

The current crisis in the Middle East, however, is an incredibly unique situation that has been rashly oversimplified. The conflict at face-value may look like a heroic, global effort against ISIS but

this is only a myopic misjudgment of the political dynamics. What is staggering is the number of proxies that exist simultaneously, affecting millions of people in the region. What is even more staggering is how they go unnoticed, even by well-informed social scientists at the LSE. The largest proxy is the struggle for regional dominance between Iran and Saudi-Arabia.

The contestation between the two power-houses has spanned all the way back to the end of World War II, with the US-backed Saudis notoriously being leaders of the region.

Recently, however, the Saudis have begun to show real signs of unease in light of Iranian reemergence. Ties with Iran were severed in retaliation to Iranian protestors storming the Saudi embassy in Tehran, following the kingdom’s execution of Shia religious leader Nimr al-Nimr. Saudi Arabia’s

agers to reduce its budget deficit.

Meanwhile, the lifting of sanctions has unlocked Iran’s economic potential. Last Tuesday, Rouhani welcomed the idea of joint ventures with the US companies to diversify its economy away from oil.

Vigorous competition, however, is destroying the region’s chances of stability. Currently, Iran is exerting its influence in Iraq by supporting Shia militias, in areas where the Iraqi army have left a vacuum. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp have been instrumental for this. The Iranians are also trying to keep their alliance with Syria intact through the support of the Syrian regime.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is backing up the Sunni forces throughout the region. There have also been claims against the Kingdom of financially supporting IS and other radical Islamist

more recently accused Saudi Arabia of striking its Yemen embassy. Regarding the Yemeni issue, there are no signs of rapprochement between the two states.

The exploitation of sectarianism has had huge implications in the region, with potentially devastating outcomes if the Saudis and Iranians do not find a diplomatic solution. The Sunni-Shia divide has become even more entrenched on the ground across the region, while ISIS is solidifying its positions. The most worrying outcome, however, is that both countries don’t feel the need to hide their differences. What was once a merely ideological difference has turned into proxy conflicts.

These proxies have now significantly turned into direct, face to face confrontation.

The major question is whether Saudi desperation will provoke direct conflict in the Persian Gulf.

Time will tell.

12| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

Steven Erlanger on Super Tuesday, Taryana Odayar & Alexander Hurst Executive Editor & Features Editor

Interviews

STEVEN ERLANGER IS THE London Bureau Chief for the New York Times, having reported in over 120 countries and been the recipient of numerous awards for journalistic excellence, including the Pulitzer prize for Explanatory Reporting on al Qaeda in 2002.

We were able to speak to him following the LSE US Centre’s panel discussion on, “The Evening After the Night Before: analysing Super Tuesday.”

(AH) I wanted to start by challenging a couple of points about Media orthodoxy during the campaign. The first point is that the media has been really shocked about the rise of Trump, and he’s rather like Berlusconi rolled into the playbook of Marine le Pen in France and the rise of the National Front.

So firstly, why is the media so surprised? Wasn’t this idea of a radical populist party in the US coming our way?

Secondly, Trump’s comments have been perceived as “mistakes”, but are these really mistakes or is he just very astute about who his voter base is and what message will connect with them?

I don’t usually think of the media as a collective, because its very varied. But I think in this case, its true the media generally were surprised. Why? Partly because we are actually fairly conventional thinkers, which is part of the

problem. There is an issue about the same sorts of people in the media. That’s less true now in social media and blogs and so on. But I think it is surprising – I mean, to have someone so vulgar, so noisy, so willing to say whatever comes into his head, to offend all sorts of people; breaks taboos of political rhetoric that I find shocking, and I think many people do too. Its made him popular but I think also people knew there was anger about inequality and jobs.

At the same time, the economy’s not so bad, unemployment’s 5%, but there really is a – if I can characterize it – a white, male anger about the way the world is going and the way the United States seems to be going that Trump has really tapped into.

(AH) You were Paris Bureau Chief before you came to London, and it seems that Trump has assembled the same sort of coalition that the National Front has assembled with voters who used to vote for the French Communist Party, and Trump is tapping into the same antiglobalisation sentiments..

In a way, yes, but of course France really is a very different place and Trump’s father wasn’t running the National Front before him and we don’t have the same problems of identity and integration that the French do. We don’t have licente, we don’t have lots of things. We’re a much more accommodating culture of migrants – that’s our myth. So I’m not sure that’s an exact parallel, but what does work is the anger of people who’ve suffered from globalisation, who’ve suffered because factories have

shut, because output has moved abroad; not just to China, but to Turkey, to Cambodia, to lots of places. People who don’t see their lives getting better, who don’t see their children’s lives getting better, who feel that the United States is not as respected in the world.

All that is parallel to what drives Marine le Pen. I’m not sure these people were left-wing in the same way. In France, the far left and the far right are kissing cousins, in America we don’t really have either one.

(AH) The media has responded to Trump’s candidacy as being vulgar and over the top in ways we haven’t seen before, and we’ve also seen a shift in the way the media has chosen to cover him. The New York Times wrote in an Editorial that he was a shady, bombastic liar which was surprising as it seems that they think that covering him objectively means something completely different than taking a non-partisan stance..

Well the other thing you should remember is we really do keep a division between the Editorial opinion of the paper and our reporting. What you’re citing is an Editorial, by the Editorial writers, and not by reporters. And the reporters are having a very difficult time because they’re trying to be as balanced as they can be, to be analytical, to be cold. I think part of the problem is he’s intimidated so many people. If you look at his rallies, any source of criticism is met with insult and people gather around protestors – these are not journalists who are protesting –

and they yell, “Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump!” and its actually a little terrifying frankly.

We’ve had a hard time. Have we done a perfect job? No. We started covering Hillary Clinton a very long time ago and we’ve only caught up with Trump more recently. But as I said downstairs, I’m not sure Trump himself expected to get this far along in the process, so I think its been a learning experience for everybody!

(AH) One of Trump’s latest lines is about expanding libel law to allow people to go after the press more easily for the things they write. And he’s been quite restrictive with a lot of the press at his events, treating access as a bargaining chip – because he loves bargaining! Is there a conflict of interest where Trump is a click-bait dream but at the same time he’s dangling access to the press?

Well what he’s doing, is he’s running a television campaign.

Everybody’s running a television campaign. If you’re in mainstream print media, its not new that you’re having trouble getting time and attention.

People aren’t interested - I mean, candidates see it as riskier to sit down with someone like me, and a tape recorder, than to go live on TV. So those have been restricted.

He’s actually opened himself up to all kinds of interviews. I mean, the man loves to talk about himself ! But media management has gotten very sophisticated, I have to say. And its hard to break through it. Have we asked always the right questions? Its hard to know.

Photo Credit: www.taftschool.org

Interviews | 13

Trump’s “great adventure” and more..

(TO) Super Tuesday is a tremendously important date in the US political calendar, and it’s the first real test of a presidential candidate’s national electability. So does it worry you that the Republicans have not been able to stop the Trump train, and do you think they’re probably wishing they could time travel back to nine months ago, and stop it in its tracks?

Its not for me to worry one way or another, but I’m surprised!

One thing that interests me is the closeness of the Republican party. I mean, I expected Jeb Bush to do better – not necessarily to win – but to last longer, to have a bigger impact. He turned out to be a very weak candidate. The other disappointment I think for the Republicans, is that they settled on Rubio as the next best candidate and he hasn’t done very well. I mean, he’s come in third or second in most places.

The only state he’s won now is Minnesota. And that was caucuses. There’ll be a big test in two weeks when Florida votes, because Florida is a winner-takeall states. He’s from Florida, so if he loses to Trump there, I think its really over. But it’ll be a fight for the delegates and one of our panellists said quite rightly that some candidates are staying in to try and deny Trump enough votes so that the convention is contested. And in a contested convention, different things can happen.

(AH) To follow up on that, do you think the Republican party will not be able to stitch their party back together, because they imagined that it coalesced around small-government, orthodox conservatism, and now there are separate halves, with sets of beliefs held by people following Trump and the traditional Republicans respectively?

Trump’s not a traditional “anything”, which is the point really. I mean, he ran in a Republican race. He could have run as a Democrat in some ways.

I think if he loses it’ll be a lot like the Goldwater experience; as “extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice” sort of thing was the famous Goldwater line.

And people saw him as very hardright and very conservative, and he lost and the party recouped and moved on. So I think if Trump loses, the party will gather again. If he wins, he will change the party – there’s no question because of the power of the Presidency. And obviously the people running for the Senate and Congress this time really are going to have to gauge how their own fate fits with a Trump

candidacy for President. It’s a lot like the Labour party here and Jeremy Corbyn. I mean, how do the MPs respond, is their best bet to go with Corbyn or to fight Corbyn or to keep their distance from Corbyn? It’s the same problem.

“The odd thing about Hillary is how high her negatives are.

People don’t trust her, and to me one of the most interesting things has been the way young women have broken for Sanders rather than the only female candidate in the race.”

(TO) And if Trump wins, how do you think he will change the GOP and will he change it to the extent that it is no longer recognizable?

Well, I don’t think he’s going to win but I may be wrong! If he does win, he will definitely change it because the party has to rule, and he’ll have a lot of impact in terms of who he chooses for his cabinet and the kind of legislation that he picks. The Republican party has changed a lot anyway; in the history of America its already changed a lot. I don’t think parties stop changing, but my expectation is that if he does get the nomination, he will run a fairly close race and lose, and the Republicans will go, “Oh thank God” and move on to somebody else.

(AH) So maybe we should move on to the Democrats.

Sanders has been completely dominant with the 18-35yrs demographic.

He’s been winning anywhere between 75-85% of the vote. Has there ever been a candidate in the recent past who’s been so crushingly dominant with the youth?

Clinton was pretty popular, I think. It is fascinating, I mean one of the things that strikes me is how old everybody is!

(AH) And the oldest guy is winning the youngest votes!

Well exactly! And what is he really appealing to is the question. He says the system stinks, its unfair, its unequal, its too corporate, there’s not enough social justice; we need to change it. Now these are things that kids, young people, like anyway, and its always been a very strong wing of the Democratic party. It has rarely been a majority wing of the Democratic party and I don’t think it’s a majority wing now.

(AH) Although, it arguably propelled Obama to his victories..

It helps, but also helps Blacks and Hispanics. It changes, but I think what’s driving people now is the sense that “my future doesn’t look very good”, and its because of the system which is stacked against me. And there are also at the same time a lot of older, white guys who feel that the system is stacked against them too in terms of unions and factories closing and too much stuff being made in Asia. You have this conjunction which has made Sanders very popular while Hillary seems truly establishment.

The odd thing about Hillary is how high her negatives are.

People don’t trust her, and to me one of the most interesting things has been the way young women have broken for Sanders rather than the only female candidate in the race. And if that means that young women feel that their path is clearer to a good future in America regardless of gender, that’s great.

But you know, I’m not sure what it means. I think partly it just means they’re attracted to the Sanders ideas and see Hillary as part of the establishment and too corrupted by power and Goldman Sachs.

(AH) And why has Bernie Sanders called himself a Socialist as opposed to a Social Democrat?

Well, he really is a Democratic Socialist. He’s more of a Scandinavian type. He actually grew up quite left-wing. I mean, this kibbutz that he was on in Israel was very close to the Soviet Union. It was years and years and years ago; the ideology of the kibbutz started in the ‘20s and ‘30s. But he’s always been very attracted to social justice, to collectivism, to societies that are built on that degree of fairness and socialism, that’s true. But in his own career, you’d call him on the left wing of the Democratic party. Gore Vidal used to joke saying that we have only one party in America called the property party, and it has a left wing and a right wing. I don’t think that’s true of Bernie Sanders. But I think Gore Vidal

who’s dead would be shocked by the popularity of Bernie Sanders and be very pleased by it.

(TO) Leading on from that, there was an article in the Huffington Post, wherein the writer claimed that, “Hillary has used up most of her ammo and doesn’t even know what kind of trouble she’s in.” What do you think of this; do you think she’s going to start feeling the Bern or do you think she’s in the clear?

She’s very hard to read. I think she’s going to get the nomination and part of what she has to decide is if Trump is running against her, what kind of campaign to run. Does she get down and dirty with Tump or does she try to say, you know, it’s a dignified office and I’m going to be dignified?

I think the numbers tend to favour the Democrats anyway, but her vulnerabilities are real and Sanders is playing out some of them and Trump is going to be quite vicious to try and get under her skin. And its not hard to get under her skin - she gets very defensive. You know, she’s been in public life for so long that there are lots of ways to attack her. And she has changed her position on lots of things. I think if I had to bet now, I’d still bet on a President Clinton, but its early days yet.

(AH) And how do you think she’ll pull in the Sanders supporters who are pledging that its Sanders or bust, and that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton?

Well, what you may have, are people who are fervent on both sides who stay home. Turnout may be low and some of these people may not vote for Clinton but they’re certainly not going to vote for Trump. Its hard to imagine a Sanders voter voting for Trump. Its possible I suppose, and there are a lot of mainstream Republicans who won’t vote for Clinton but won’t vote for Trump either, and will stay home. Both of them are old and who they pick as their Vice Presidential candidates will be really interesting. Professor Trubowitz feels very strongly that Hillary will pick a white man because of the trouble she had with Pennsylvania and white men. It gets very cynical at this stage where people look at where they really need votes and frankly, if she feels Sanders supporters won’t vote for Trump, she might spend a little less time worrying about them.

(TO) In the eventuality we do have a Trump vs Clinton showdown, which strategy do you think will be more successful for Clinton –

playing dirty or taking the “moral high ground”?

Moral high ground and Clinton don’t always go together! I think she’s best off trying to be dignified. I think there are

“To me, almost every politician is a flawed personality, and Trump seems to me...a very interesting psychological study.” other people who will attack Trump but I think there will be very good research into this difficulties, the problems of his business, his contradictions to a lot of fact-testing. Its going to be one-on-one, its going to be very, very, very tough. I mean, she’s just not as good in the trenches as he is. This is a guy who loves picking out what he thinks are people’s vulnerabilities and going after them like a schoolroom bully. And she can be tough, but when she gets angry she tends to be strident and it doesn’t go over very well with people either. So I would expect her to stay a little bit above the dirt - she can’t stay above the fray - but I would expect other people to sling the mud.

(TO) And lastly, if Trump were to come runner-up to Clinton in his bid for the Presidency, do you think he’s going to be happy going back to being a business magnate, or do you think he will try and stay in politics in some shape or form?

I don’t know – you’d have to read into his mind. My guess is that he’ll consider this a great adventure and he’ll go back to managing his business, because he doesn’t have the patience to work at it for another four years waiting for another chance. That’s not the kind of guy he is! To me, almost every politician is a flawed personality, and Trump seems to me – I have to be careful what I say – a very interesting psychological study. My guess is that he’s having a lot of fun, my guess is that in real life he’s a little bit more sensible and balanced, understands what trading is about. But there’s no question he’s an extraordinary narcissist and a bit of a bully.

We’ll see if the American people want that personality as their President.

14 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016

Dr John Collins on Ending the War on Drugs Taryana Odayar Executive Editor

DR. JOHN COLLINS IS Executive Director of the LSE IDEAS International Drug Policy Project. He is also coordinator of the Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy, which released their report, “After the Drug Wars” which was signed and endorsed by 5 Nobel Prize Laureates, the President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos, and esteemed academics from across the globe.

(Q) Dr Collins, the LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy for which you are Coordinator, recently published a new report “After the Drug Wars.” But before the release, the report was presented to the Colombian President, Santos, and his government in Bogota. Why was it important to present the report to the President and what was his feedback?

Well, I think one of the reasons why we produce this report is for countries such as Colombia which are really suffering the negative consequences of the war on drugs. So Colombia has been a country which really has led on this on the international level and taken an active interest. President Santos has been someone who’s been out on front saying, look, we’ve tried all of these repressive war on drugs policies in Colombia for the last three, four or five decades and they haven’t produced the consequences they were supposed to. In fact, they’ve produced a lot of unintended harms and negative outcomes for our societies. So we want to start looking at alternatives, and that’s why it was so important that we presented it in Colombia, because that is a country that is actively looking for alternatives as it moves towards a peace setting.

(Q) The report sets out a framework for replacing prohibitionist policies with a “development first, drug control second” approach.

What are some of the harms that some of these prohibitionist measures have wrought in America and South East Asia?

Sure. Well, the first thing to note is that currently illicit drug markets are not inherently violent. They are often violent because they are illicit. When you create an illicit market, you hand it over to criminal actors. And then when you engage in very repressive, very militarised policies, that actually often drives the markets towards becoming more violent.

So the more police crack down on the market, the more the military move in. That often results in a

response where market actors become more violent, procure more weapons and engage in more corrosive activities than the state. So it is often a case where rolling back from extremely repressive policies can actually dampen some of the problems of these markets, and working in a more comprehensive manner rather than just taking a single, prohibitionist approach that does not deal with the complex socioeconomic issues that determine this issue. And so it’s about moving towards a more complex response to this issue – a development response, a sustainable response.

(Q) And when working towards this sort of outcome, was there unanimous consensus within the Expert Group itself or were there divided opinions on some issues?

I think there is a general – and I use this term lightly – a general consensus that the war on drugs was an excessive and extremely problematic response to a complex social phenomenon, and a singular, un-nunanced response.

I think that broadly, yes, there is a consensus that the war on drugs has failed. Now, when you get into academic discourses, of course there’s going to be specific views and some people are going to have specific interpretations of certain terms. But on the whole, I think there’s a) a consensus that the policies of the past were not optimal and were not the best response to this issue, and that they’re not going to be the policy responses going forward. And with that in mind, we have to do

a better job of designing policies going forward. So the author in our report who looks at the idea of legalising drugs probably takes a far more conservative view on this issue than other authors. But he says that it is an inevitability that something like marijuana is going to be legalised in the United States. So its no longer a question of if this is a good idea, it’s a question of how do we legalise it in a way that is most socially beneficial.

(Q) Speaking of policies moving forward, Number 10 has slammed the door on drug policy reform, so it seems as though the Labour Party holds the key to shifting the discourse from prohibitionist policies towards legalisation and decriminalisation. But how big a push does the Labour Party need?

I think it needs a significant push. I think this is still seen as a traditional law and order issue in the UK in a lot of spheres. Now I think that there is a lot of scope for movement at the local level, where police forces have more or less said, we’re moving away from over-enforcement of cannabis laws because we think that its counter-productive. So you may actually see a shift where a lot of localities effectively say, well we understand that the overarching policy is one of prohibition, but we’re enforcing it at a very minimal level, and take much broader indicators such as public welfare and overall nuisance into account. But also how heavily disproportionate the impact of

cannabis policing has been on poor and minority communities in the UK. We often think about the racialization of drug policy in the US, and there’s no question that Black and Hispanic communities are massively over-policed in drug policy. But if you look at the UK, a drug charity out in East London, “Release”, and actually research here at the LSE has demonstrated how often young black males fall afoul of drug laws in the UK. (Q) What were some of the major breakthroughs that came about during the twoday workshop that was hosted for the LSE Expert Group in February this year?

I think the overall view of this, even in very conservative policy circles, is that clearly we’re moving towards a public health approach to this issue. And for a very long time, a criminal justice and a militarisation approach, dominated for this issue. That its about eradicating supply, that its about cutting off the market, that’s its about deterring consumers.

And there is a recognition that that has not worked and has produced unintended consequences. So I think there is a sense of, there was cohesion around this idea of a public health response – now people disagree about what exactly that would like – but that is the direction of travel. And in the sense of supply-side parties; even if you legalise certain things like cannabis; cocaine and heroin are not going to be legalised in the foreseeable future, and possibly should not be legalised. So then it’s a case of, can we implement smarter supply-side policies? Can

we implement policing policies that have not got possible targets of a “drug-free world”, and instead have more rational targets such as sustainable community development, sustainable welfare, political and economic integration, and then just increasing the general welfare of the populations they police.

(Q) And with the UN General Assembly’s Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs coming up in April, what sort of role do you think the LSE Expert Group will be playing at this conference?

Well, we already advised the meeting that happened a few weeks ago in Vienna, where UN member states are hammering out the outcome document of the UN General Assembly Special Session. We’ve already presented to that group, and some of our ideas may have been incorporated, or probably have been incorporated into that outcome document. And then as we go beyond the General Assembly Special Session, this is going to go more down to member state level. What’s going to determine national policies, is national policy goals. Its no longer going to be a singular, international prohibitionist approach. And that’s where the LSE will be vital in going forward, that we work with national governments, that we provide them with the evidence, that we advise them on what is the best practice internationally, and help them implement and monitor it.

LSESUelects 2016

16 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016

Hello from LSESUelects 2016!

It's an exciting time for LSESU right now! The Student Body are in the process of electing their Executive Committee, which includes Sabbatical and Part Time Officers, who will be in charge of your Union for the whole of next year. They're responsible for organising events, building a social calendar, improving services and governing over the SU, amongst many other responsibilities, so who you choose is pretty important. This pullout will let you know everything from how the STV Voting System works, what will be happening when in the coming week and who is running for these positions.

Make sure you follow us on Twitter @LSESUelects and like our Facebook Page (LSESU elects) to stay updated over the next week; we'll have live coverage of all the results night action!

CHAIR/PULLOUT EDITOR Ellen Wilkie

THE TEAM

Usama Shoaib Josh Hitchens Alex Gray Suyin Haynes Robyn Connelly Webster

Why Your Vote Matters

LSESUelects

The Returning Officer explains his role on DC and the STV voting system

Fraser Bell

Returning Officer

MY NAME’S FRASER BELL and I’m a third year Government and Economics student.

It has been a great experience being a member of the Democracy Committee over the past year.

The role of Returning Officer primarily involves clarifying aspects of the rules to candidates, as well dealing with complaints during the election, and finally, announcing the results on Thursday!

Let’s take a look at the electoral system: the single transferrable vote (STV). On the online ballot paper, voters rank candidates in order of preference. Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference and so-on. To get elected, candidates need to reach a set share of the votes, determined by the number of positions to be filled. In an election with only one winning candidate, such as for General Secretary, the candidate must win over 50% of the total votes cast to be elected. If this does not happen in the first round of voting, the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated, and their second choice votes will be redistributed to the remaining candidates. This process of elimination is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

For positions where there are multiple places available,

FAQs: Election Season

such as for the Democracy Committee and AU Executive, the system is modified to have a lower threshold. Rather than being 50%, the threshold is calculated by dividing the total number of votes by the number of people to be elected plus one. In an elections with 5 candidates being elected, and 1200 votes cast, the threshold would be 1200 divided by 6 — 200 votes. Again, second preferences are taken into account if all 5 positions are not elected on first preferences alone.

There are two main reasons why we use this system at LSE. Firstly, it ensures winning candidates have broad support.

STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike First Past the Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result. Secondly, this means candidates must campaign amongst different groups at LSE. Even if a candidate believes a voter is committed to a specific candidate, it is still worth trying to get their message across. In previous elections, many positions have been won on the basis of second and third place votes, so every vote counts!

This is my second and last election as the Returning Officer, and indeed my final time being part of an election at the LSE. I’ve enjoyed getting involved in the Students’ Union and I’m excited to see what happens during election week.

Contact me during the election at su.returningofficer@lse. ac.uk

1. WHY SHOULD I BOTHER RANKING CANDIDATES? If all of the candidates for whom you express a preference pass the threshold or are eliminated then your vote is ‘exhausted’ and no longer counts, and the threshold is duly reduced to take account of fewer votes having an impact on the eventual winner.

So ranking more of the candidates by your order of preference will make your vote count more. In hard fought campaigns for multiple positions, the difference between winning and not can more often than not be measured in tens of votes rather than hundreds, so every vote counts.

2. WHO IS ‘RON’ AND WHY HE IS STANDING FOR EVERYTHING? Very simply, RON stands for Re-open nominations. So, if you don’t like any or all of the candidates running you can vote ‘RON’ to express your preference for having the election re-run. You can rank RON as any numerical preference: above all the candidates, above some, or above one. If RON wins a majority of votes under the system we explained earlier, then the election must be re-run.

3. WHAT IS ‘COMMUNITY VOTING’?

Community voting means that for certain positions, you can only vote if you ‘selfidentify’ as a member of the community that the officer is mandated to represent. This means, for example, that you can only vote for the Women’s Officer if you self-define as a woman, or only vote for the LGBT+ Students’ Officer if you self-define as LGBT+.

You will be clearly reminded of this when you vote online.

4. HOW DO I VOTE? Voting is conducted online and every registered LSE student is eligible to vote: you do NOT need to register separately to vote. To vote, go to lsesu.com/vote, log-in using your student username and password and vote away.

Voting will open at 10am on Wednesday March 4th and will close at 7pm on Thursday March 5th. The results will be announced on results’ night, which will take place in The Venue (the basement of the student centre) from 7pm on the Thursday. All are welcome, even encouraged, to turn up for what is always a fun and thrilling evening. If you can’t make it, then go to www. lsesuelects.co.uk for live coverage, panel discussions, exclusive interviews and much more.

2016's Big Issues: A Breakdown Suyin Haynes

LSESUelects Team IT’S ARRIVED. THAT TIME of year where you go on Facebook, think you’re popular because you’ve got 30-odd notifications and then realise that they’re all from events pages for elections, titled with some slightly tenuous puns.

We couldn’t be talking about anything other than Sabbatical and Part time Officer elections at LSESU, and as one of the most politicised unions in the country, it’s safe to say that this week sees election competition on campus reach fever pitch.

If you were thinking that election campaigns were based on self-publicity and egocentricity…well, you’d be partly right; but these elections really do matter as candidates are campaigning on and will have the power to address issues that directly impact us as the LSE student body. We’ve come up with a few battleground areas, in no particular order, and what

to look out for amongst all the manifesto jargon coming your way.

EDUCATION The key hotspots to look out for in the current manifestos will be strong lobby actions against the School to rectify the mistakes of the previous year; most notably exam feedback and resits, standardization of reading week, and of course the complete omnishables of the Timetables department.

Look out for strong action on these points, as well as links with the liberation agenda on decolonizing the curriculum and rethinking forms of assessment and retakes.

RENTS AND COST OF LIVING It’s clear that the cost of living is becoming unattainable at London universities, and as a direct factor on students’ welfare, rising hall rents of LSE halls of residences is a familiar topic cropping up time and time again. After a senior official at

UCL just last week said that it was a “fact of life” that some people are simply unable to study in London due to the cost of living, our student body will be looking towards our Community and Welfare Officer and our General Secretary over the coming year not just to take a stand on this challenge for LSE students, but to set the example for other London universities to follow.

LIBERATION, ACTIVISM AND CAMPAIGNS After what has been perhaps the most active year in focussing on liberation issues, a common theme among manifestos this year has been dedication to inclusion of all groups within the diverse LSE community. From the new Disabled and BME Networks to the Black History Month initiative, there is so much room for further development on this issue, which will require collaborative efforts across all officer roles.

LSESUelects 2016 | 17

DEMOCRACY AND UGMS As The Beaver has regularly reported throughout the year, turnout at UGMs has been low, and quoracy to pass motions has unfortunately been even lower. Even more than that, it’s been the subject of much controversy as to whether UGM motions should be relevant specifically to LSE issues (such as the Divest lobby), or speak out on international issues (such as the Syrian intervention motion). It’s not just the role of Democracy Committee to look into how attendance and voter turnout can be improved, but for all officers to keep up the momentum of UGMs to engage the student population and increase the transparency of SU decision-making.

SOCIETY IMPROVEMENT LSESU clubs and societies are huge parts of student life for the community here, both in terms of their activities and as social networks in themselves. It is clear with the room bookings

An Interview With RON Weasley

This year RON has a voice. An anonymously run Facebook page pushing for Nominations to be re-opened in the General Secretary race has gained an impressive following. We spoke to RON to find out more: What motivated you to set up the RON campaign?

In a nutshell, I don’t believe the standard of candidates on show is up to scratch with what we should expect at LSE. Both candidates have completely unachievable policies and created track records. I genuinely believe that my manifesto, even with all its free stuff, is more achievable then both of theirs. Another reason is that there is little diversity within the candidates. To have to no postgraduates nor women running, is a travesty at an institution as prestigious as LSE. I want to rerun the election to encourage a more diverse range of candidates to run. Finally, it’s actually quite fun. Not everyone wants to get involved with the serious side of SU elections so now people can back a campaign which is attempting to joke about the situation.

What is it about the GenSec race that is lacking for you?

Is there anything the candidates could do to give you faith in them?

Both candidates just have completely bland, unachievable manifestos which in re-

ality will never actually come into fruition. Promising a 5% cut in halls rents, departmental consistency in education and freezing international fees just will not happen with the LSE the way it is. The only thing they could do to give me faith is to stop running.

How has the reception been to the campaign so far?

The reception to the campaign has been overwhelmingly positive with over 100 people attending the event on Facebook so far. People have also sent in plenty of Ron Weasley memes with encouraging reactions. I really hope to get quite a few endorsements from societies, especially due to the lack of candidates in the race.

If nominations were reopened as you’re campaigning for, are there any individuals (for want of a better word.

BNOCs) that you would like to see run for gensec? would you consider running yourself?

I’m not quite sure what a BNOC is and we certainly don’t have them at Hogwarts but so long as we don’t have

the current LSE General Secretary for another year, I don’t particularly mind. I would quite like to see the BME Officer, Mahatir Pascha stand as I think he is on point with his events or perhaps a candidate from left of field like Kaman Liang who has done a great job as Economics Society President. I personally won’t run, as the job doesn't particularly pay very well and I think people only want it for the power rather than the right reasons.

It could be argued that the lack of candidates is demonstrative of a lack of engagement with democracy at LSE. Do you have any ideas of how that could be resolved?

100%. If you look at the number of candidates across t h e board, there i s

obviously a lack of engagement with democracy at LSE. To have only two candidates for General Secretary, two for education and a variety of Part-Time Officer roles being uncontested is absolutely abysmal. The blame must lie with the Sabbatical Officers for not promoting a more inclusive Student’s Union but I also feel the lack of a scandal at LSE has helped.

Last year with the chairs and tables incident in the AU sparked a politicisation of most of the student body.

This year there has been nothing and unless there is going to be another scandal then I don’t know what could be done to resolve it. I certainly don’t think onsite polling stations would work…

I am also outraged that RON has not been included as a candidate on the LSESU elections webpage. Other candidates have the opportunity to display their endorsements but RON will not. In the name of fairness, the LSE should include RON as a candidate in all elections but especially for General Secretary.

issues this year that a restoration of faith in the SU’s capacity to help with these practical issues is needed. Keeping up student involvement through Re-fresher’s fair this year, and through the different perspective of The Arts Network were great ways to strengthen enthusiasm for the great variety of societies at LSE; it will be up to the Activities and Development Officer and the General Secretary in particular to continue this progress next year.

AU INTEGRATION The AU’s interaction with the wider student body this year has been great; largely down to the efforts of the AU Engagement Officer, a role that will be entering its second year. Greater celebration of AU achievements and publicity for sporting wins has been a common theme across AU exec manifestos this year, as well as greater cohesion and social interaction between different clubs.

Timeline

Important events over the next week: Tuesday 8th

12pm: Question the Candidates LT Hustings 6th Floor Studio 1pm: GenSec Hustings Old Theatre, Old Building 4:30pm: Arts Society Hustings 3rd Floor Meeting Room, SSH

Wednesday 9th 10am: Voting Opens lsesu.com/vote 9pm: AU Hustings Zoo Bar

Thursday 10th 7pm: Voting closes 8pm: Results Night The Venue

18 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016

General Secretary

Harry Maxwell

Rayhan Uddin

Want Exam Feedback?

Say Hello Harry

***Say Hello to Harry*** • President of two societies • Your Student Representative on senior LSE committees • Creator of The Beaver’s website, attracting a record 100,000 pageviews as Online Editor • Committed campaigner for LSE Divest and affordable halls • AU member ***Say Hello to My Policies*** A democratic union that works for you • Re-launch UGMs with on-campus polling stations, extended voting time and SU app • Lobby for departmental consistency (reading week, ISSA support) and reformed postgrad registration • Push for exam feedback and earlier releases of class/ exam timetables • Increase International Students Officer’s working hours for our 70% international student-body

•

Ray The Force Be With You

Expand liberation networks

Improved community spirit and social calendar • Re-launch Saucy and ReFreshers with LSE-priority and headline acts • Celebrate international festivals through multi-cultural events and decorating Saw-Swee • Launch pop-up cinemas and ‘ThursGay’ parties in The Venue • Open-up Wednesday nights to all students • Increase home-student integration

I’m Rayhan Uddin and I’m running to be YOUR General Secretary!

•

Our students union needs radical change and I’m the candidate with the skills and vision to deliver.

Having been LSESU Anti-Racism Officer, UGM chair, NUS delegate and committee member of three societies, I have the EXPERIENCE and TRACK RECORD to deliver for students.

LIBERATION, LIBERATION, LIBERATION: • Diversify the curriculum • Introduce BME and LGBT+ school advisors as part of Dean system review • Support disabled students: more lecture capture, earlier release of exam locations & adjustable requirements

If elected, here is what I’ll fight for: EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION: • Introduce summer retakes • Exam feedback for all • Continuous assessment options across all departments

New deal for societies, clubs and careers • Support entrepreneurship and host start-up careers fairs • Re-finance the AU and introduce termtime only gym membership • Hire regular, professional support for arts productions • Increase society bank account access • Fix room-bookings More detail: www.voteharry.co.uk

PRIORITISE Welfare and Cost of Living: • 5% reduction in halls rents • Freeze international fees • Oppose the Prevent agenda

More integrated approach to wellbeing, counselling and mental health services

STRENGTHEN Events and Campaigns: • Creation of LSESU Events (our version of LSE Public Events) • LSESU Leadership Programme (training in public speaking, writing, social media) • Campaign nationally to reinstate maintenance grants and post study work visa (and more joint campaigns with NUS and other unions) For all this and much more, vote RAYHAN #1 for General Secretary!

Twitter: @Ray_Uddin

Education Officer Jasmina Bidée

Jazzing up education

I’m Jasmina Bidée, and I’m running to be your new Education Officer.

I’ll re-prioritise what matters to LSE students, and be a strong and productive representative on School committees.

As Anti-Racism Officer this year I’ve proven my ability to reach out to our diverse body of students and make significant changes.

I’ll JAZZ UP YOUR EDUCATION by lobbying to:

Part-Time Officers

CENTRE Student demands: Insufficient time and resources are spent prioritising student

education. I’ll actively campaign for: EARLY exam and class timetables release January Exams for Masters students and half units More Flexibility for class changes SSLC Representatives supported by SU campaigns for real change Ensure HIGH QUALITY Across ALL departments: I’ll lobby each department for: Summer Exam Retakes Exam Feedback Rise in GTA pay for better teaching. Happier GTA’s = happier students!

Janis Wong

ENGAGE women on campus Introduce more informal and academic dialogues on issues such as mental health, gender in class, and sexuality.

Discussions in supportive environments, including women in faith, sex education, intersectionality, and the challenges of BME women.

Encourage Postgraduate and General Course Women’s Network involvement.

SUPPORT for clubs and societies Closer interaction with women’s socie-

ties and clubs by establishing a Women’s Network communication channel.

Implement a visible ‘zero sexual harassment’ Welcome Week campaign.

Produce a concise leaflet for heads of societies and clubs on dealing with harassment and discrimination.

GROW a London-wide women's network Share the LSE women’s community with other universities.

Connect with London’s Women’s Officers to learn how we each tackle issues on campus.

Raise the profile of women’s rights through collective action.

#JazzUpYourEducation and Vote Jasmina Bideé!

Abbie Colwell

Vote for Jan, Yes she can

Hi, I’m Janis Wong and I’m excited to be able to build a stWONGer women’s community with you! My 3 main objectives are to:

Crush BARRIERS to LSE Education: Our education must be accessible and welcoming to all students. We should be able to go to classes, speak up and contribute meaningfully. I’ll work with the other Sabbs to: FREEZE international fees and lobby for more bursaries Close BME attainment gaps Decolonise our curriculum Campaign against PREVENT

Putting the Quality in Gender Equality I want to be your women’s officer because I believe that every woman at LSE should feel safe, accepted and empowered, and I will strive to make that happen.

Motivated to run for this position after being shocked by levels of sexual assault in Saucy, I plan to develop the School’s Zero Tolerance policy, collaborating with sports night venues to re-educate about appropriate behaviour on and off campus.

I also aim to run several Empowerment Weeks that include guest lectures from inspirational women

celebrating women’s achievements, and workshops in building self-esteem and body positivity.

Alongside this, I plan to organise drop-in careers sessions and talks about succeeding in professions that have typically had barriers to access for women.

I am passionate about gender equality and really want to work with you to challenge stereotypes, open up dialogues about relevant issues and represent your views on LSE policy.

Wingchi Yip

Knowing how to improve LSE

Also running for International Students' Officer, AU Exec and AU engagement officer with same manifesto.

I love LSE but there is more to be improved!

LSESUelects 2016 | 19

Valerie Longe

Isobel Clare

LONGE FOR CHANGE? VOTE FOR VAL

CLARE CARES

Create a fun, chilled out, inclusive atmosphere on campus through fun events.

Work with the A&D Officer to integrate the SU and the AU to foster a community that celebrates all of its members and utilises the amazing sport clubs to ensure the welfare of all our students.

Further the work of the SU this year in lobbying on the Cost of Living by looking at Halls Rents, Grants, Hardship funds, and flexible payments to the SU. Lobby for more counselling sessions and integration of the LSESU and LSE advice services.

•

• • • • •

Liberation:

I strongly disagree with the prevent strategy and would ensure our BME students have a strong platform in the SU. I would also continue the Union’s work on the attainment gap and lobby against the 4% rise in fees for international students.

Integrate peer support into liberation groups.

Enabling the expansion of the excellent interfaith work already going on in the SU. Better sexual harassment procedures and training.

Ensure we have proper representation and support for the BT+ elements of the LGBT+ community.

Continue reducing stigma around mental health and the proper implementation of Inclusion Plans.

MY MANIFESTO & AIMS L iving arrangements - help all students in different forms of accommodation whether it be halls, commuting from home or private accommodation.

O vercome issues of low satisfaction and promote self care.

N ew ways of tackling stress - e.g. fill a space in the SU with bean bags and music for people to relax once a month.

G enerate discussions on issues pertaining diversity and wellbeing.

E ncourage a collaborative environment rather than a competitive one at LSE. I am to achieve these by: • Collaborating with societies - this provides students a voice and autonomy.

Those who are not part of societies would be free to discuss ideas and if they generate demand and there is enough funding will be held.

Drop in sessions - students can talk to me (or another SU member) anonymously about any issues in their experience at LSE. Having themed days for students to feel part of a wider community, such as wearing a particular colour to create awareness for wellbeing and providing free resources.

Motivational speakers visits. To encourage students outside of academics and careers.

Constantly communicate with students to create common ground. With a mutual understanding we can generate change together.

•

•

• •

Community and Welfare Officer Hari Prabu

Creating an LSE Community Together Bringing People Together as Part of a Wider LSE Community: • Rebooting LSE’s online housing network so students can share and look for homes on a trustworthy platform and thereby ease their tensions over moving.

• Turning the Tuns and the Venue into lively, communal spaces with: more screenings of live sport, music and the latest films, a wider choice of drinks, the introduction of bar snacks, and replacing all picnic benches in the Tuns with sofas.

• Putting on regular, subsidised LSESU trips to the best events and attractions in London.

Supporting the Welfare of the Individuals Within Our Community: • Persuading LSE to drastically increase the

•

•

•

number of counsellors. Recruiting more peer supporters by training them within LSESU rather than relying on LSE. Simplifying the process of booking counselling appointments.

Challenging cultures of discrimination within LSESU by putting on more workshops on inclusivity and consent, clearly signposting where students can access help, and ensuring the quality of assistance provided.

Encouraging teachers to directly consider any welfare issues hindering their students’ academic progress and what they can do to ease their difficulties.

Building relationships with local cafés, restaurants, and pubs to get discounts for LSE students.

Womens' Officer

Valerie Brese

Valerie B-elieves in YOU

Hey! My name is Valerie Brese and I am a Social Policy with Government student and I’m running to be your Community and Welfare Officer!

Valerie B-elieves in YOU! Wellbeing and Mental Health Issues ‘Lovin’ Me, Myself and I’: Events to raise awareness about self-care, physically and mentally.

Collaborating with Mental Health Societies and Liberation PTO’s: Working together to create a stress free hub on campus and reducing stigma.

Raising Awareness of LSE services: Peersupporters, Counselling Service and Disability and Wellbeing Service.

Collaborating with the Education Officer: Encouraging academic advisors to take a stronger interest in student wellbeing.

Equality and Diversity

Cultural Olympics: Events celebrating the many cultures/heritages of LSE students to cultivate a community spirit and better campus relations.

‘Why is my curriculum so white?’ Campaign: Creating our own reading lists from authors across the globe and lobbying LSE to tackle the Eurocentrism of courses.

Walk-in Sessions: Sessions for liberation groups to discuss issues they face at LSE. Tackling Sexual Harassment: Working with the women’s officer to continue ‘Call it Out’ on campus.

Student Life Diverse Work Opportunities: Wider range of internships globally Ice Breakers: Better help for international and postgraduate students Alternative events to Saucy throughout the year

Riham Mansour

If Anyone Can, It’s Riham

Fathia Begum FATS-tastic, Change has BEGUM

INTERSECTIONALIZE the SU! Inclusivity All events: inclusive of self-defining women including those with complex gender identities (i.e. non-binary/gender queer) and who experience oppression as women Better representation for BME, LGBT+, and disabled students, people of minority faiths, especially focusing on how these intersect Tackle the issue of class Collaboration with SU officers and societies: Work with other liberation officers through the Women’s Network Support societies organizing events on women’s issues

Tackle the Prevent strategy Student Welfare: Eliminating stigma attached to mental health Working closely with the peer support available at LSE to improve women’s physical and mental health Lobby to decrease the cost of living and against the 4% rise in international fees Working with AU: Continuing to work on tackling sexism, homophobia, and transmisogyny in sports Make AU Women in Sports Week an annual event Launching It Stops Here Campaign, improving sexual harassment processes, and promoting I <3 Consent

Hi, I’m Riham Mansour and I’m running for Community and Welfare Officer at the LSESU! I’ve been highly engaged with the SU this year as a postgraduate student. While I’ve had an amazing experience, it’s evident that the SU needs to work harder to have an inclusive community.

I will lobby the school to: BME EMPOWERMENT • Secure funding for resolving the attainment gap and tangibly give BME students resources to empower themselves.

• Separate and recognize the differences between different BME communities at LSE. POSTGRADUATE INVOLVEMENT • Higher attention towards postgraduate/ PhD-only events.

• Lobbying for postgraduates to have

•

Wednesday afternoons off to improve participation in clubs and societies.

Connect postgraduates across departments to build the postgraduate community.

INCLUSIVE AU • More events such as LSE Boxing Club’s ‘Punch Like a Girl’ and the AU’s ‘Tackling Sexism and Homophobia in Rugby’, by providing funding and empowering clubs.

• Provide counselling initiatives towards AU students.

MENTAL HEALTH • Lobby the school for the allocation of more resources towards mental health services on campus.

• Integrate existing mental health services better and allocate more attention towards advertising them.

• Initiatives to remove stigmatization towards mental health.

20 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016

Activities & Development Officer Elin Harding

Alex Dugan

Elin is the new Sabb

AD 4 A+D

I’ve founded a society, captained hockey to success, edited The Beaver, raised £500 on RAG Jailbreak, played in a successful band and sat on Activities Committee. My experiences encompass everything A&D is supposed to be.

An Accessible SU • Reform Society and Club finances • Create society debit card to pay for online purchases • Transparent Funding Processes • Scrap wiping Club budgets at the end of each year • Add give it a go sessions to Freshers Week Schedule • Inclusive ReFreshers including ReFreshers Fair • Improve Arts Network • Postgrad survey to find out what they want from their SU Halls Cup • Inter-Hall competition running through-

•

out the whole year Points for fundraising, sports, arts etc.

Improve Societies • Create Society Alumni Network to keep past members involved and engaged • Fulfil LSESU policy on free printing for societies • Create New Society Startup Kit • SU block book rooms at LSE to ease society burden Stronger Sports • Expand ActiveLifeStylE: include social sports competitions open to all • Bi-termly travel reimbursements • Serious sport: more support for clubs striving for sporting excellence • Inclusive sport: improve AU for All by running more AU Ally events, make sexual harassment training mandatory for club execs • Create varsity programme for the AU

WHY ME? AU exec, Netball exec, Team captain Founder of two societies, Pulse Radio show host RAG committee member, RAG Kilimanjaro Trek Participant Employee of the Three Tuns and the ARC SOCIETIES Direct access to society budgets and accounts Students should not be out of pocket Optional free membership for societies with high revenue ARTS Committee to help the growth and prominence of the ARTS Festival Funded music and dance workshops LSE Fringe Festival Volunteering Network in collaboration with RAG Partnerships for volunteering abroad Projects in the local community

“Society Spotlight” in the Beaver - promotion of events/achievements SPORTS Coaching Academy - local schools, disadvantaged areas etc.

Continue to empower liberation groups in sport Combat the issue of racism in sport Directly pay referees/umpires via the SU Sport scholarships More focus on sport ambassadors SOCIAL Freshers Week More day events to welcome students Better integration of home/intercollegiate halls students Parents scheme helping freshers in their first few weeks Categorized freshers fair across the whole week to avoid chaos Another freshers fair in Lent Term More formals/dinners

Julia Ryland

All You Need Is Jules

Your A&D officer should be experienced, inclusive, approachable and make positive progress.

As President of the AU this year, I’ve shown I can do this.

I can do it again for the SU.

ACCESSIBILITY Room booking reform Lobby the school to have a working system.

Demand compensation for the difficulties this year.

Transparent SU processess Create a simple guide to SU funding; a breakdown of funding avenues, application processes and example applications.

Create a SU contact guide explaining who to

Part-Time Officers

Sarah Foss Make LSE fairer VOTE SARAH EXPERIENCE I have been involved in previous campaigning on racial issues most recently, antifascism and rights for refugees.

DECOLONISING THE CURRICULUM! I want LSE to be a truly global university and make reading lists and departments more diverse!

By working with the university, I aim to reduce the institutional racism that contributes to the attainment gap.

SOLIDARITY NETWORK! I will provide selfcare activities for all people of colour, with special attention to BME women and LG-

BTQ+ students, to discuss experiences of racism and how to overcome them. AND I will facilitate information sessions for white students on how to become better allies against racism.

TALKS, CAMPAIGNS, ACTIVISM! I will invite speakers to discuss the challenges facing people of colour, as well as tips on how to succeed in your career.

Lastly, I’ll coordinate campaigns with other universities that include direct action, to promote race issues.

contact for different issues.

More storage space More efficient use of current space and more lockers.

COMMUNITY AND COMMUNICATION Develop the Arts Network Establish an Arts Network Committee creating a formalised structure.

Make Arts Festival a landmark event with high profile performances.

Varsity Develop connections with a London university to establish a competitive sports day.

Improved communications Society and Club Moodle pages.

Large screen in SU with rolling information.

INCLUSIVE SOCIAL LIFE AUforALL Campaign Campaign encouraging inclusivity, diversity and female empowerment in sport.

Continue the positive progress made this year.

Postgraduate Integration Work closely with the Postgraduate officer.

Lobby for flexible Wednesday afternoons.

Saucy review Receive feedback from LSE students about desired improvements.

Review security.

Extended LSE queue jump.

Anti-Racism Officer Jonathan Lehner

Let's make LSE great again Also running for Environment & Ethics, International Students' Officer, RAG President, Democracy Committee and Trustee Board with the same manifesto Already being your representative in the Student-Staff Liaison Committee, I will make sure that your voice is heard!

In particular I will petition the following: Reason: Ensure that lectures are not too full Introduce drawing numbers at the service center queue Change time slot management at the careers centre – currently “fully booked” events have many empty seats Reduce the red tape in starting student societies

Fairness Give LSE students priority for well-paid jobs (11 pounds per hour) in the LSE and in the SU Make free language courses available for international students as well Freeze accommodation fees of universityowned halls Accountability Introduce office hours for sabbatical officers Make elected officers more accountable I will let you know about proposals and votes on my facebook page, and engage the Students' Union with your concerns, consequently representing your interests.

LSESUelects 2016 | 21

Part-Time Officers

BME Students'

Environment and Ethics Angharad Hopkinson

Dhibla Mahamud

AnghaRADICAL

Dibs on Dhibla

I’m Dhibla, a Government and History student here at The LSE. Challenge the curriculum: I will tackle the BME attainment gap which was found to be 16.4% in 2013/2014. In order to do this, I will among other things tackle the ‘whiteness’ of the curriculum by working with the SU to attempt to diversify the curriculum.

This is to ensure that BME students identify more closely to what they learn increasing engagement and enjoyment of courses.

Careers: I’ll work on reducing the obstacles to BME careers at the LSE starting by addressing the lack of black faculty at the LSE. I will also commit to helping BME student overcome career obstacles by introducing skills workshops and networking events.

Events: I will hold debates and talks on issues affecting the BME community, some more specific than others.

Contact details: https://www.facebook.com/ DibsonDhibla

Hi, I am a second year Environment and Development student.

I have experience in running events and working with the SU through my roles and fundraising officer for the Animal Rights Society and the Treasurer for the LGBT+ Alliance.

As part of ARS I have helped organise the Charity Insight Day that was held in February and Bee Week.

My manifesto points are as follows: • Donate any food waste • Support the #DivesttheRest campaign • Set up an EcoSoc, so everyone can get involved

Disabled Students' Officer Martha Van Bakel

Your Voice for Disability and Wellbeing I aim to create and support opportunities and welfare for disabled students at LSE. I am here to amplify your voices and support your rights at university, professional and national levels.

I’ll campaign for disabled rights and mental health under government austerity and help disabled students understand how they can get the best support available to them.

I’ll run networking events to ensure disabled students have access to careers in top firms across a variety of sectors

I’ll lobby to continue improving student counselling and support.

I’ll work with sports clubs to improve disabled participation in the AU. I’ll run fun, diverse community events to bring disabled and non-disabled students together to create a better, more supportive LSE. Vote Martha #1 for Disabled Students’ Officer and collectively we can continue to make LSE a safe, accessible and above all rewarding place for all disabled students.

Perdi: Pride is in the Name

Sport has gone a long way to becoming more inclusive but there is more to do. I will lobby BUCS to have its own policy on

Increase supply of bike racks Cameras for bike security Bike lock rental service Campaign for more vegetarian and vegan options Soya milk options in cafes Increase the visibility of water fountains, by displaying their locations at the buildings entrances Reduce handouts in classes and put information on Moodle instead Run a paper free campaign Make the role more accountable Blog and office hours

• • • • • •

Muhummed Cassidy Removing the ‘dis’ from dis-ability

I will work to enhance the university experience of students and maximise the opportunity for involvement of all members.

My experiences last year at the hands of LSE management was far from pleasant; I hope to improve things.

student can find comfort. It must have the capacity to accommodate more pupils then the current one does.

• Mentor – establish a mentoring scheme where pupils who self-define as disabled can act as mentors for first years.

Social: • Mental health/stress – ensure an environment where can talk about and discuss • Termly social events for disabled students Career • Personal contact at careers centre • Specific LSE careers events for candidates with disabilities and search/advertise external national ones.

Policies Academic • ISSA – make sure that all are implemented on time and that when successfully appealed the same are upheld for the following academic year • Study Zones – there must be designated areas on campus were any disabled

LGBT+ Students' Officer

Perdita Blinkhorn Re-engage LGBT+ people regardless of politics. Many LGBT+ people, particularly those who identify with right-wing politics, feel isolated and often excluded from liberation discussions. I want to achieve inclusive engagement by holding a large politics event in collaboration with partisan societies at LSE and the Politics and Forum society.

• • • •

transgender sportspeople and continue to work with the AU Executive and clubs to ensure sports grows inclusivity.

Create a supportive environment for coming out through a series of workshops and weekly office hours. Coming out is a hard process, particularly when entering a new environment and if you’re an international student, so supporting open and gentle dialogues around sexuality and gender identity is crucial for student to feel safe and happy.

RAG President David (Liwei) Zhao The Only Way is Liwei

As the current Vice-President Challenges I’ve spent the last two years living RAG. I’ve seen RAG do amazing work and want to take all I’ve learned to make sure that RAG next year only grows in it’s fundraising and engagement abilities with a more diverse range of internal

Brenna Wilson

Come out in support of Brenna Improve mental health and addiction support • Create a group of peer supporters specially trained in LGBT+ issues and make them well publicised and easily accessible.

• Petition for a one-off counselling session independent of usual restrictions for anyone questioning their sexuality or gender.

• Push LSE for better substance addiction related support, as this continues to be an issue in the LGBT+ community.

•

Foster a greater sense of community • Get in contact with other London unis to make bigger and better events for LGBT+ people on campus.

• Foster better links with allies on campus.

Work hard for underrepresented groups in LGBT+ • Have a bi-termly consultation with repre-

challenges and events to get even more people involved and involved more often.

Specifically I want to: • Solidify partner relations with external charities especially in context of international challenges.

• Sustain general volunteering and fundraising in the wider student body through TEAM RAG. • Put a charity officer in every hall.

• Integrate postgrad voices into the com-

sentatives from marginalised groups in the LGBT+ community, such as BME, trans* and disabled students, to find out what more I could do to help those needing it the most.

I vow to always be open to any complaints, questions or suggestions always.

• • •

mittee with the addition of a postgrad officer.

Provide more comprehensive support for charity fundraising by societies through promotion and logistics.

Widen the knowledge of fundraising opportunities to new and current students throughout the year.

Build on the success of challenges, creating a new Amazing-Race style internal challenge

22 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016

International Students Officer Meg Mohanka Meg A Difference

Secretary of the Animal Rights and International Security societies, while being PR Manager for the Amnesty International Society, International Rep of the Women's Network and a Peer Supporter.

Create an International Students' Network • Train volunteers to provide support through information hours and a 24/7 LSE Helpline • Elect a committee to co-organise socials and weekend wellbeing nights • Liaise with national societies, departments and halls Question the global stigma against mental health • Increase diversity in LSE counselling

• •

Increase access and awareness of the wellbeing service Share experiences through discussion groups

Provide representation opportunities • Public speaking workshops for international/ BME women • Lobby the school to improve bursaries and freeze fees • Lobby for reform of the post-study work visa Feel free to email meghnamohanka@gmail. com with questions!!

Together we can work to make LSE a wonderful experience for all Together we can #MegADifference

Feel at Home with Zoe

Coming from Singapore, I understand the concerns that international students face.

Holding various committee positions, I have the experience and passion to make a change for international students at the LSE. GREATER VALUE: • Every year, the tuition that international students pay increases.

• We need greater transparency on how this increase is calculated. We need to create greater value for international students through Squid loyalty and other rebates.

INTEGRATING THE STUDENT BODY: • Cultural barriers often exist between

Hima Abed

In Bed With My Policies Education and Careers • Campaign, lobby and provide assistance for international students to deal with changes in UK legal system.

• International Students Careers Fair to facilitate diverse post-student pathways.

• Lobby SU for more scholarships and SU

•

‘Culture Fund’ Combat bias in Academic Curriculum

Made by Students for Students Arrival • Create online ‘Studentroom’ platform to create LSE-culture transparency • Improve technological/social media perception for offer-holders and freshers.

• Re-focus attention on Internationality through exchange programmes.

Inclusivity & Diversity • As BME, promote and represent • World Food Day • Celebrate cultural events • Recognise home-stay students as integration audience.

Looking for more occasions to embrace and discover new cultures? Looking to expand your global experience out of LSE walls?

As a first year student and representative of the Statistics department, I am ready to face the challenge!

Having lived in diverse countries, I know how important it is to create a strong international community where all 140 nationalities are equally represented.

My role as student representative on the academic and student affairs committee has allowed me to understand the complex functioning of LSE, thereby giving me a

Member of the Trustee Board Dagmar Myslinska Tayfun Terzi

Jonathan Freeman

Student on Don't be a Demon, Dagmar, the Mindful Experienced Vote4Freeman BOARD Trustee 28 years. PhD in Statistics 3rd year Four generations of my family have

As a lawyer, I had formed and guided companies and will ensure that the SU remains in good long-term financial and legal standing.

At the LSE, I have been teaching yoga/mindfulness, working as a GTA and a senior subwarden, and organizing postgraduate potlucks (coming soon) I will seek to improve student experience through: Teaching - better teacher responsiveness to students from other cultures; more standardized feedback; online lecture-capture for all courses.

Welfare – increased access of welfare, student, and peer supporters; more health and wellness activities on and off campus.

Services - more affordable, varied, healthful meals, available throughout the day and evening; more locker spaces; more plug sockets Meeting the needs of PhD students - as teachers, workers, parents, researchers, and community members.

My passion, experience, integrity, and willingness to think outside the box and to speak my mind will get you the results you seek! d.myslinska@lase.ac.uk http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/subjects/phd_students/dagmar-myslinska. htm

student and psychologist.

We need young students' representation within top position of the SU. However, we also should make sure that our representatives have diverse background, act inclusive with regards to minority groups, and facilitate equality.

I offer 5 years of experience as elected student representative (partly LSESU) for several positions to carry your voice and your opinion to where it matters the most.

Constantin Thierry

VoteTrusteeVoteThierry

I run because I believe that I can truly bring an added value to the Trustee Board.

I am the Government Department Rep and the Undergraduate Rep for the Academic and Student affairs Committee. This experience made me understand how the University and the SU are run, who to contact to get things done and what to change or keep. Basically, I have been doing with the University exactly what I would be doing with the SU! I am currently creating a student panel to discuss LSE LIFE (launched next September), working with the SU on a new feedback system, and discussing a new course proposal that could help LSE meet its goals in terms of widening participation.

My main goals for the SU: Greater emphasis on creating a community at LSE Better feedback system to address what really matters for student

lost elections with this slogan.

On a serious note, I think the position on the Trustee Board for a PhD student is incredibly important. PhD students have remarkable complex lives with additional and many times, non-traditional responsibilities. I would like to make certain that those groups are represented and supported.

Alexander Lye

Bank-on-me, and I'll treasure your vote

Hi, my name is Alexander Lye studying BSc Accounting & Finance, and I am running to be your Treasurer!

I am passionate about giving ALL students at the LSE what they deserve, that being the most “VALUE FOR MONEY” university education imaginable.

As a current Student Staff Liaison Committee member & former Singapore Special Forces Commando Leader, I believe I possess the relevant experiences, work ethic, and enthusiasm needed to discharge the duties of an effective Treasurer.

Here are a few of my goals: Culture of Accountability: I will build a culture of transparency and accountability between the SU and the student population, so as to ensure Strategic and Financial plans are ACCOMPLISHED. Optimized Budgeting: I will ensure that the funds of the society are managed efficiently, cutting away redundancies and diverting surpluses to grow areas where students care MOST. P.S. Re-lex, no parra-lex with A-lex

•

foreign and local students.

I will work to create greater cohesion between the two groups so that everyone can have an international experience.

HOME AWAY FROM HOME: • Living away from home can be lonely and challenging.

• I will create international student networks and hold drop-in sessions to give you the support you need when living away from home.

VOTE ZOE TAN #1 FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS OFFICER TO PUT THE INTER IN INTERNATIONAL!!

Josephine Nordin

In bed with Abed

In Bed With Abed • Schooled in 5 different systems.

• Organiser of numerous SU/AU events, volunteer programmes in Brazil, Austria, Indonesia • LSE Football, Committee member of MENA and F-Soc. • Protestor in the Egyptian revolution • Founder of retail start-up Fitsole

Zoe Tan

positive foretaste of the responsibilities of International Officer.

I am keen on voicing your opinions, taking into consideration both your cultural and student identity.

Organizing a ball for internationals, raising awareness on the difficulties of being an international student and bridging relationships with other international universities are some of my goals. I hope you will give me the chance to achieve them!

Julia Lawson-Johns

Waleed Malik

Zulum Elumogo

the interest of its members at all times Safeguard the needs of the whole student body when reviewing the Students’ Union’s annual budget Serve as a dedicated, pro-active and enthusiastic member of the trustee board, committed to ensuring its financial responsibility Meet up for a tea/coffee/bev/snack with anyone interested in discussing the Student Union’s pledge to represent members I am suited because I: Understand the needs of the LSE Student Body having served as Student representative, Vice-President of Raising and Giving (RAG) and Rowing Treasurer and am well placed to uphold SU’s commitment to support the educational, societal and club needs of its members.

Possess a good understanding of how the Student Union operates and am keen to build on this knowledge Have a fun-loving attitude and would look forward to liven up meetings Offer exciting opportunities to try new sports with Active Lifestyle, as well as inter-club games e.g. dodgeball, and a Varsity event.

I am Waleed Malik, a Management student running to be a member of the Trustee Board.

Through my background of constantly being surrounded by diversity, I’ve developed a sense of empathy that allows me to understand the needs and circumstances of students.

This will aid me in effectively representing the student population.

RESPONSIBILITY I will promote greater accountability of those at the top for the welfare of LSE students, pushing such people to directly act upon the needs of students.

This will entail a greater consideration of student feedback when implementing future policies.

COLLABORATION I will make the Student Union more accessible for us, enabling students to voice both praise and criticism with greater ease CONNECT I will encourage the SU to maintain a better relationship with societies throughout the year as opposed to limiting interactions to certain periods, offering constant help and support on more practical topics.

YOUR BOARD The SU is a powerful body that impacts us all. I will make sure that it directly represents your interests and ALWAYS works to put your concerns first.

YOUR VOICE As President of Carr-Saunders Hall, I have experience in working closely with students by listening to their concerns and ensuring their voice is heard. I will certainly apply this to my work on the Board.

MONEY MATTERS On the Board, I will work to ensure that the SU’s resources are correctly distributed and accountability upheld. My role at Carr-Saunders has given me experience in handling large budgets and making tough financial decisions on the behalf of students.

FAIRNESS All societies must be treated fairly. I will fight for more proportional and efficient allocation of SU finances amongst its societies.

Vote JL-J to have your say TO SUCCEED, YOU I pledge too: NEED WALEED Ensure the LSE Students’ Union acts in

Bartosz Kubiak

TRUSTee BARTOSZ. Always above BOARD

ZULUM FIGHTS FOR YOU

BARTOSZ KUBIAK – the Member of the Student Union’s Trustee Board.

Should I be elected, I will endeavour to achieve: More students employed at the SU facilities, higher wages and more disabled and LGBT+ students in the SU workforce A larger allowance from the Annual Fund to provide catering at events organised by the SU Societies A wider variety of healthy foods and lower prices in the SU catering outlets An extended deadline for the SU Societies to apply for funds from the Annual Fund Clear regulations on appointments of the management teams of the SU Societies, including a notice period and a hand-over to the successor when resigning or stepping down from a position Expansion of LSE sport, music and performance facilities More resources for SSLC Reps campaigns, including ‘Your Hall, Your Call’, ‘Space for students at LSE’, ‘Save our Nursery’, ‘Cost of living’, ‘Freeze Hall Rent’, ‘Fix international Fees’

LSESUelects 2016 | 23

Democracy Committee Benjamin Thomas

Valerie Kozlova

Being an SSLC course rep and an active member of LSE community, I realised how many of us are not fully engaged with SU democratic opportunities, such as UGMs. Many first-years just like myself were not thoroughly introduced to all the ways we have to MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. So this is what I want to change to make LSE more student-friendly. And I need your support.

BIGGER DEMOCRACY Raise awareness of SU Democracy to ensure all students are aware of elections, UGMs, and their elected officers Improve the communication about forthcoming motions, resolution results, and current laws BROADER DEMOCRACY Engage with groups of students traditionally marginalised to include all and encourage participation in UGMs and elections Raise awareness of submitted questions for students unable to attend UGMs BETTER DEMOCRACY Ensure all elected officers report to UGMs in person or via emailed reports Work with the media group to publish accounts of UGMs and allow all students to monitor motions, officers, and the SU Pledge not to propose, oppose, or second motions at UGM to prevent perceptions of bias

www.facebook.com/Valemmy @Valemmy5 @ValerieKozlova V.Kozlova@lse.ac.uk

As a regular participant in UGMs, I know LSE deserves better than the current state of LSESU democracy.

Without effective stewardship and new ideas, it will continue to be ridiculed and disregarded.

Sally Kershaw

Don't be unsure - vote Kershaw

What’s wrong with SU Democracy?

Rock-bottom UGM attendance/voter turnout Repetitive, boring, tokenistic motions Most students don’t feel represented What am I going to do?

Lobby for a timetable gap for all students, with the same lecture theatre at the same time every week Relentlessly publicise UGMs Actively seek motions from ALL societies, Beaver contributors, BNOCs UGMs can certainly be run more effectively, but fundamental reform may be necessary to tackle the lack of engagement. I want next year’s Democracy Committee to propose possible reforms, consult on them, and report to students.

There are plenty of debates to have at LSE. Let’s make sure we can have them at UGMs.

Mahatir Pasha

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR, VOTE MAHATIR

My name is Mahatir Pasha and I am running to be your representative on the Democracy Committee. SU democracy has been a major part of my experience at LSE so far and I want to continue to see it flourish.

Engagement In order to ensure we can get more of the LSE community to participate, I will actively encourage different societies and groups on campus to propose UGM motions on a

I would discuss changes with the members of the Democracy Committee that would aim to tackle the increasingly common problem of lack of awareness and low turnout at UGMs: At a university with approximately 10,000 students, the Democracy Committee Facebook page has only 190 likes. I would re-brand and re-launch the Facebook page in order to increase maximum awareness of the UGM timetable, and continue the practice of making regular updates publicising all UGMs. I would set up a Twitter account run by the Democracy Committee, making it easier for union members to receive updates about which UGMs are happening when and where, without them having to actively search for this information.

UGMs should be engaging – I would encourage fierce and fun debate and socialising at UGMs as part of this practice.

Support the strong democratic principles that our union is founded upon. Don’t be unsure – vote Kershaw!

regular basis and diversify the kind of turnout we have.

UGM Reform At the moment UGMs could do a lot better at attracting more students. I will work to transform UGMs into a more appealing series of events.

Turnout I really want to see our turnout in SU elections improve substantially. Last year we broke a record by securing 34 per cent turnout. Whilst this is fantastic, I believe we can, and want us to do better. @mahatir_pasha

AU Engagement Officer Zoe Oakley

As an active member of three very different AU Clubs, I endeavour to continue improving the AU next year through the following policies.

•

• •

with the safe space they need to play well.

Collaborate with the SU and part-time officers (LGBT+, E+E, Anti-racism, BME) to organize workshops for all committees to continue developing their team skills.

Continue to celebrate and increase female participation in sport.

Offer exciting opportunities to try new sports with Active Lifestyle, as well as inter-club games e.g. dodgeball, and a Varsity event.

Strive to achieve a more AU-led approach to AU Charity of the Year.

Give greater support for new clubs.

Campaign to change the postgrad timetable and give them the option to compete in university sports on Wednesdays.

FUNDING Change the AU Budget submission process to include a voluntary explanation of the numbers and more detailed feedback with regard to allocation of funds.

Provide more support from the AU Exec team for sponsorship.

SPORT Reform the AU Travel Pot reimbursement system.

Facilitate better communication between clubs, particularly with regard to Give it a Go sessions, trials, and equipment sharing.

Please take a look at my full manifesto on my Facebook campaign page.

INCLUSIVITY Expand the Au For All training programme to include all Liberation groups.

AU Executive (x4) Jivan Navi

Man of People. Man of Sport.

Die hard sports fan LSE Fives Club Captain & LSE Squash Legend President of Investment Society Greater social interaction between clubs prior

to Zoo bar More AU themed nights Attract more people to join AU Creation of LSE Olympiad Event

Joe Donaghey

Sport Increase LSE sport’s media exposure Create an improved LSEAU YouTube channel to improve LSE’s sporting image Encourage use of the SU’s GoPros Liaise with the Sports Communication Assistant to ensure every club and major project has coverage Profiles of the Sports Ambassadors in the Beaver Promote new clubs through the AU Facebook account Ensure extra funding information is distributed to club's execs e.g. from the Annual Fund Encourage more Give-it-a-Go sessions in Michaelmas Term

Not just your average Joe Social Seeking sponsorship for major events to lower the ticket prices Exciting themes for Wednesday nights More joint socials between clubs

Support Improve the reimbursements system Make it feasible for captains to get cash for refs before games Allow reimbursements during term-time if above a threshold Charity More fundraising for RAG such as intra-club matches

Charlie Bullock

Vote CHARLIEno.1 for a Deece AU’ Vote for Charlie & YOU Will Get the Following:

AU POLICIES Liaise, co-ordinate and organise friendly matches between AU teams and London firms, drawing on experience playing for EY in the London City League.

Increase diversity within AU Socials by coordinating MIXED social events between the

larger and smaller clubs in the AU. Work with the exec to set up VARSITY matches with other London AU universities for teams which don’t currently have one.

Lobbying the Sabbatical Officers into being MORE TRANSPARENT with policies and procedures and releasing TIMELY statements when important changes are made to the AU. Organise PROFESSSIONAL photographers for important sports games to highlight

Lauren Godfrey

Vote lAUren #1 for AU Exec, member of netball 4th team and snowsports!

Zoe: For an AU beyond Zoo I would love to use my experience as club captain to help future committees make the AU a welcoming place for all LSE students to have fun and play their sport!

• Welcome all LSE students into the AU by supporting numerous give-it-a-go sessions, as well as ‘taster’ activities at a sporty fresher's fair in Lincoln's Inn Fields.

• Provide a clearer role for outreach officers by meeting with them regularly and help them create inclusive team ‘codes of conduct’ that provide all AU members

Long LIV the AU

Democracy at LSE can always improve and in an era of declining participation and amid perceptions of a cliquey SU, I will work to create a more participatory and inclusive democracy.

As a member of the DEMOCRACY BOARD I would: Make UGMs widely PUBLICISED through campaigns outside SSH, social media and Freshers’ week Secure a ‘SAFE’ TIME for UGMs, so that everyone gets a chance to participate without missing classes or lectures Secure a room for UGMs on a regular basis Increase AWARENESS of major SU campaigns Boost ENGAGEMENT of Post-graduate and General course students

ReLY ON PETER for DC

Livi Vaughan

Bigger, Broader, Better Democracy

V for Voting. V for Valerie.

Peter Lyon

AU President

Money: Earlier reimbursement for costs over £50 and easier access to club budgets Transparent club budget explanations AU exec to aid in club sponsorship More Sport: Increase training opportunities for teams and give better support to captains in arranging this Better coordination for booking spaces between clubs Create stronger ties with ULU to help promote sports not on offer at LSE and increase

Let lAUren Star in your AU promotion of their successes involving LSE athletes Expand the success of active lifestyle to more sports and people

Celebrating Sport: Greater publication of sporting success and frequent trips to important LSE matches Bigger and better Wednesday nights for stringer attendance with continued commitment to non-alcoholic events Wider Participation: Compulsory AU Ally sessions for club execs and stronger communication with liberation officers for better inclusivity

As a point of clarification, The Beaver did not suffer another Wong-gate censorship scandal this election period.

NAB just thought it would resurrect this image because it’s fucking hilarious. It is hackness encapsulated. The morose black backdrop. The adhesive tape that reads ‘HANDLE WITH CARE’. The ‘somewhere-deepinside-there-is-a-shrill-voicewarning-me-that-this-is-a-badidea-but-then-again-maybenot-because-it-will-probablylead-to-me-becoming-a-zeroeditions-executive-editor-fora-few-weeks’ expression on his face. Picture perfect.

Is the Gen Sec two-horse race about to become a Tri-wizard Tournament?

The Cedric of the three will be revealed on Thursday evening... (Ouch. Too Soon?)

Ed: It’s been 16 years.

26 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016

PARTB

14

WHAT’S ON

THE GLYNDEBOURNE TOUR ART COMPETITION Vikki Hui GLYNDEBOURNE HAS LAUNCHED ITS annual international art competition, inviting young artists to design a cover for its 2016 Tour Programme. The sister publication of the Glyndebourne Festival Programme, a collector’s item well-known for its contemporary front covers, Glyndebourne Tour Programme is definitely an opportunity to be seized by aspiring young artists!

--------------------COMPETITION DETAILS This year, artists are asked to submit designs inspired by Madama Butterfly, one of the three productions to tour the country from October to December 2016. Madama Butterfly is the 6th most performed opera in the world and will make its debut on Glyndebourne’s Tour 2016.

Artists must be aged between 16-30 years old. Submissions can be: paintings, drawings, original prints, mixed media, photography and digital pieces for the competition (no video or sculpture). Submissions must work on two levels, as printed artwork on the front cover and as the exhibition piece.

The winning piece will be featured on the cover of 10,000 copies of the Glyndebourne Tour Programme and will be exhibited at Glyndebourne this autumn.

Submitted artwork must be original work designed exclusively for Glyndebourne’s 2016 Tour Art Competition. Entrants must also agree to the full list of terms and conditions.

The closing date is 1 July 2016, and the winner will be decided by a panel of specially convened judges.

---------------------

“Visual arts has always been anintegral part of Glyndebourne on and off the stage and this competition continues our aspirations to engage with young visual artists.”

- Gus Christie, Executive Chairman of Glyndebourne Glyndebourne’s Tour seeks to broaden the reach of opera, bringing it to new audiences every autumn with three productions. With its art competition, it strives to provide a platform for aspiring artists to gain international recognition and have their work displayed at Glyndebourne. This year’s tour will run from 14 October to 8 December 2016, and will set off from Glyndebourne before visiting Woking, Canterbury, Norwich, Milton Keynes and Plymouth.

part

B

2015 Winner: “Struggles of Vanity” by Tung Yin Ching

To participate, please visit: glyndebourne.com/tourart

editorial team PartB

Flo Edwards Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui

fashion Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva music Rob Funnell Will Locke

film

food & lifestyle

literature

Sarah Ku Alexander Lye Camila Arias Tom Sayner Caroline Schurman-Grenier Buritica Sean Tan technology theatre visual arts Edward Tan

Noah D’Aeth

Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin

FILM

27

REVIEW

MACBETH (2015) Tom Sayner ADAPTING ANY SHAKESPEARE play for the big screen is a tough task let alone one as well-known as Macbeth.

Australian director Justin Kurzel does an admirable job of taking the Scottish play and making it a cinematic experience.

The lead performances of Michael Fassbender as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as his wife are perhaps the strongest features of the film. Yet in his desire to create a visually stunning adaptation some of the subtlety of the original play is lost. The film is good but fails to attain the greatness of some of the more cerebral stage plays.

For those not familiar with the plot this Shakespearean tragedy is set in the dark, forbidding Scottish moors. Macbeth is made the Thane of Cawdor after a bloody battle and is told by three witches that he will become king. This prophecy gnaws at him and encouraged by his mercilessly ambitious wife he proceeds to kill the king and claim the throne for himself. Yet this victory does nothing to satisfy him and both husband and wife are racked by guilt. Paranoia similarly emerges in their minds leading to the killing of friends and foe alike.

Kurzel makes some interesting textual decisions, opening the film with Macbeth and his wife grieving for their dead daughter. This narrative decision colours the rest of the film feeding into themes of motherhood and masculinity. But is in its visual style that the film seeks to make its mark. Cinematographer Adam Arkapaw, who also worked on True Detective, gives the film a rich colour scheme with blacks and greys dominating. The tonal visuals work on two levels, both reflecting the moral blackness and uncertainty of the characters and also enhancing the already bleak landscapes. The principal filming locations were Northumberland and the Isle of Skye and these wild places contribute to the physicality of the Fassbender’s performance.

Indeed this is one the most raw and visceral of Shakespearean adaptations. The first act of the film is dominated by a battle scene that is almost reminiscent of Zack Snyder’s ‘300’ in its liberal use of slow motion and gory blood spatters. The constant switches in angles, distances and speed actually become slightly incoherent and while I see what Kurzel was attempting to do in putting a more muscular twist on the classic play it does seem slightly unnecessary in the broader context of the film.

Fassbender brings a powerful masculinity to the role with the sexual tension that underpins the machinations of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth clearly perceptible.

Marion Cotillard’s highly accomplished performance manages to convey both the ruthlessness and strength you expect from Lady Macbeth while also showing the fragility of a grieving mother. The chemistry between the two is magnetic with a highly charged sex scene preceding the brutal murder of Duncan. This sequence is perhaps the most notable of the film containing arresting visuals, brilliant acting and an examination of the themes of desire and insecurity that are weaved into the film.

28 | Tuesday 8 March, 2016 14

CONCERT REVIEW

MUSIC

ENTER SHIKARI , ALEXANDRA PALACE

Rob Funnell

“THIS IS A HOBBY THAT HAS GOTTEN WAY OUT OF HAND,”

thems invigorated the crowd into mass chanting of their catchy and relatable choruses that defied misconceptions that a pop-punk band were not appropriate to support a heavier, more hardcore sounding one.

Before Enter Shikari started with aplomb with their opening anthem Solidarity, one knew it was going to be an incredible night as virtually all nine thousand people chanted the band’s tagline ‘and still we will be here, standing like statues’ as the members emerged amongst a wall of light from their stage, complimented by the wall of sound from the audience.

While their appearance may have been relatively mundane - the band are all from a relatively privileged background of St Albans, and didn’t wear any flashy or controversial clothing - their performance was anything but, as they went through an extensive back catalogue of their songs from every album in front of a 360 halo of light blasting in all directions from above and an electronic screen behind going from the hilariously tasteless of David Cameron and his notorious encounter with a pig to epic planetary backdrops that went a long way in giving a visual stimulus to compliment the ostentatious sound. The highlight must have been when lead singer Rou

Photo credits: Rocksound.tv, Ben Gibson

remarked Rou Reynolds, the frontman of Enter Shikari, to over nine thousand vibrant and vivacious fans on the climax of their UK arena tour at Alexandra Palace. The weight of expectation certainly was high - the band are renowned for their extravagant and eccentric live performances, and such a prestigious venue brought with it a necessitation to raise the bar further and produce something truly magical and memorable for their ever devoted (and ever growing) fanbase. Unsurprising to anyone who has ever had the privilege to see Enter Shikari at work, they did not disappoint. The term ‘hobby’ is particularly apt - perhaps not in scale, the passion and energy each member puts into both the live musical performance and the lighting, videos and stage setup beforehand suggests a band not only comfortable with their art but entirely immersed within it, and as a result created a night that will stay in the memory of fans for a long time.

The support acts must also be commended however, as they went

some way to creating the sense of atmosphere and excitement that made the headline set go off with such a bang. Arcane Roots were first up, and while starting way too early and therefore without the crowd size they truly deserve, they cemented why they are the most exciting British rock band to emerge in some time. Playing explosive, electric and epic songs - especially from their 2015 EP Heaven & Earth which was in many best of the year lists - with such technical ability and a phenomenal stage presence won over the crowd and likely gained them numerous new fans as a result, hopefully accelerating their ascension to the top of the scene. The King Blues followed next, and while they had a large number of extremely committed fans (their revolutionary political stance and dictate for the Tories coincides somewhat with Enter Shikari and may have been a reason why they were on the tour) and a few unconventional genre mashups with ska, reggae and punk that were at the least interesting, much of their material and performance was either too cringeworthy or too (ironically) conservative in pop punk, and so they did not live up to their billing. The Wonder Years made up for it though, as their exciting and personal pop punk an-

disappeared suddenly after a song to emerge at a piano in the middle of the crowd. He then proceeded to play Dear Future Historians on the instrument, a ballad that proved a welcome break from the, in his own words, ‘rowdy’ part of the set, and then took his hands off the keys, grabbed a guitar and climbed on top of the piano to conclude the grandiose climax of the song. If that wasn’t enough, he then was given a trumpet and finished off the song with virtuosic ability into the microphone. Such spectacle with concert innovations such as two speakers at the back to give true quadrophonic stereo sound so everyone in the venue could hear the music equally well only go to reaffirm how Enter Shikari made a night that was truly by

the fans, for the fans.

This may be a hobby that has gotten out of hand, but it’s one that will propel them to even greater musical heights and one that hopefully will continue for many more years to come.

part

B

PARTB

29

WINNER

LSESU LITERARY FESTIVAL 2016

First place winner of £100 - ‘gate sealing’ by Marion Servet Under the theme of UTOPIAS

14

30

FOOD

| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

REVIEW

THE HAPPENSTANCE Caroline Shurman-Grenier YOU KNOW THOSE EVENINGS WHERE YOU CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO GO HOME AND COOK and wish there was a place close to university where you could go and enjoy a nice meal that won’t break the bank?

Well, I’ve found that place and it’s called the Happenstance.

It’s only a 15-minute walk from LSE, right next to Saint Paul’s Cathedral. It’s filled with city workers who need a drink after a stressful day at work. Dressed impeccably, they clearly know the coolest places to go in Central London after 5 pm. The lounge/bar area is at the front, but if you walk to back of the venue, you discover a huge dining room with subdued lighting and modern décor. Google calls it “industrial-chic”, which I think describes it very well. Well done, Google. It’s very trendy indeed with an open kitchen, long tables and hardwood floors. During the week, it’s easy to get a table in the dining area as people prefer to eat out on weekends. That’s too mainstream for me though; restaurant dining on a Tuesday is much more fun and spontaneous.

Here’s the best part. You can go to the bar in the middle of the room and make your own gin and tonic. There’s even a barman ready to recommend which tonics and gins go well together based on your personal tastes. If that’s not worth the visit, I don’t know what is. It was hands down the best G&T I have ever tasted. I was tempted to try every gin but refrained because, well, moderation is better than falling on the floor before ordering dinner.

Speaking of dinner, it was just as delicious as the drinks. The menu is quite varied, which at first made me skeptical because big menus can mean that the quality of the food is not quite there, but I was wrong - I was so wrong. Every dish was absolutely delightful filled with flavor and beautifully presented. Sea bass with a sweet chili mango salad, chicken with spinach in a creamy tarragon sauce, goat cheese and lentil starter… convinced yet?

For dessert, they have everything from chocolate sundaes to a warm winter crumble. The dishes take simplicity with a twist, adding an ingredient you would not have thought of. My kind of place.

If you think an evening at the Happenstance will financially ruin you, think again. Mains don’t go higher than 14 pounds a dish, so you can easily be in and out with a two-course meal in your belly for less than 20 pounds. I don’t have that kind of self-control and would probably order a drink and pudding, but hey, it’s nice to know I could have spent less than 20 pounds.

I highly recommend the Happenstance. It has a low-key vibe, it looks cool and it tastes amazing! You worked all day at the library; I think you deserve a treat for dinner, don’t you?

THE HAPPENSTANCE 1 LUDGATE HILL, LONDON EC4M 7AA Check out my blog for more London updates and recipes: http://mademoiselleaventure.com

31

FOOD

REVIEW

FOLEY’S TASTING KITCHEN

Caroline Shurman-Grenier LONDON IS FULL OF POP UPS - pop up markets, burger joints and even pop up restaurants! I’ve discovered the coolest new pop up in West London and you need to try it. It’s called Foley’s Tasting Kitchen and it’s only open until March 20th! That’s right, a short but sweet length of time, right during term time so you can indulge when you have no desire to cook or eat a meal deal.

Let me tell you more about this place. Located at Shepherd’s Bush Market, the outside is absolutely adorable, filled with decorative fairy lights. There is an outside and an inside area. We sat inside, but it looked as though the outside tent was well heated so don’t worry about freezing to death while you eat. The venue is trendy and simple - plain colors, a cool bar, and fabulous food.

The concept is simple; small plates to share. The menu is quite small, but there’s just enough to choose from. The choices are really interesting; pork Belly with a yogurt sauce on the side, Latin American pork crackling called “chicharron”, barbeque chicken wings with an Asian twist of flavors…the list goes on, and it’s all tasty. I personally love tasting a flavor I wasn’t expecting that I ended up loving! It’s original, something Londoners tend to adore. It feels like the kind of place you’d need when you want a night out, but want something quiet. It has good food, friendly staff and a cute venue.

This is what London is famous for! Up and coming chefs show off their talent for a limited amount of time and then disappear until their next project! They’re thinking of opening a restaurant in Fitzrovia, which would be ideal for LSE students. Walking distance… we like

that. It’s also very reasonably priced, no more than 25 pounds per person, less than 20 if you’re not that hungry.

I highly recommend giving Foley’s Kitchen a try before it closes March 20th.

SHEPHERDS BUSH YARD GOLDHAWK ROAD, LONDON W12 8HA Check out my blog for more London updates and recipes: http://mademoiselleaventure.com

32| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

The Voice of Austerity Speaks Wolfgang Shauble presented his vision for Europe last week at LSE Paula Grabosch Undergraduate Student “PREVIOUS NIGHTS WERE either sleepless or dreams of Mr. Schäuble cancelling last minute”.

With those words a representative of the German society opened what is sure to have marked the highlight of the German Symposium 2016: A talk with Germany’s Federal Minister of Finance on Germany’s responsibility in managing Europe. It is not hard to imagine “Germany’s second most powerful person after Chancellor Merkel”, as named by the Wall Street Journal, cancelling last minute. Even more remarkable the fact that he did in fact make an appearance in the Sheikh Zayed Theatre on Thursday evening.

“In terms of responsibility in Europe, Germany has taken on the most in regards to the refugee crisis.

Why has Germany done this?”

Over the past year, Schäuble has been one of the only politicians to (more or less) continuously support Merkel in her approach to the refugee crisis. Despite growing opposition within the ranks of Merkel’s own party, the Minister has not distanced himself from her policies. In 2015

“These events are dividing Europe and its people in times of crisis.

As if that were not enough, the other potential crisis awaiting Europe is the looming threat of Brexit.” on America either”. Overall, Europeans have to do more, Schäuble argued. Whilst it is clear that Germany will not take lead in security measures as the United States do, the Finance Minister stated that on the economic side Germany should do more.

One way of doing so is by engaging more efficiently in stabilising the situation in the countries of origin, as well as their neighbouring countries. The Minister said that by financing these neighbouring regions, for example refugee camps in Jordan, “not too many people” will be “obliged to try to come to Europe” in the first place. As obvious as it may sound, Schäuble made the important point that we cannot save all seven billion people on this planet. We can and should however save those we can.

The Minister went on to saying that Europe is not an isolated continent, rather it is part of a bigger world. Of this bigger world, Europe is the rich part. Being so it

has a duty to help the poorer part of the world. Looking at recent developments, it seems like many people have forgotten this. By now there is one burning refugee accommodation on average every three days in Germany and the anti-Islam movement PEGIDA is rapidly attracting thousands of more followers.

These events are dividing Europe and its people in times of crisis. As if that were not enough, the other potential crisis awaiting Europe is the looming threat of the Brexit. “I hope you will take the right decision”, is what Schäuble had to say about it. By right, he means for Britain to remain in the European Union. Even though there is constant talk of trade agreements should the UK decide to leave the EU, Schäuble explains that replacing the single market programme is not an easy task. Currently, the EU has trade agreements with sixty other nation states. For the UK to regain access to these, they would all have to be negotiated individually. The sarcastic “Good luck” wishes from the German Finance Minister suggest just how complicated this would be. Moreover, when asked about the effects of a Brexit on Germany and Britain’s relationship, Schäuble replied by saying that Germany will do whatever it can to keep relations “as friendly as possible”, but that it will be difficult.

A further breakdown of interstate relations is the last thing the European Union needs right now.

Cooperation and solidarity are urgently needed in order to deal with these crises. Overall, in spite of evidence to the contrary, the German Finance Minster seemed confident that a united Europe will emerge out of the crises it is currently facing. All we can do for now, is hope that this is true.

Photo credit: European University Institute/Flickr

Features

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

alone, over one million refugees have registered in Germany, the number of unregistered refugees certainly being far above this. In terms of responsibility in Europe, Germany therefore appears to have taken on some of the most responsibility in the refugee crisis.

Why is Germany doing this, when nobody else is?

A point which Dr. Schäuble made very clear is that Germany’s welcoming policy towards refugees is not driven by a desire to make up for its history; “We simply have the duty to help, not because of our history, but because of the hardships these people are experiencing”.

Further, Schäuble went on to argue that Germany’s responsibility in Europe and this crisis is not different from that of other European countries, it is a shared responsibility. The EU is made up of 28 member states with equal rights and hence equal responsibility, he went on. Just because no one is acting on their responsibility, does not mean it is not there. Being the largest member state of the EU, Germany is often accused of making decisions alone and overruling the other members of the Union. However, as Schäuble emphasised, this is not Germany’s intention. “Hegemony does not work in Europe” and Germany’s dealing with the refugee crisis is equally not an attempt at “moral hegemony”, it is simply the right thing to do. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that Germany does have a management role in Europe, whether it wants to or not.

In that sense the Minister moved on to talk about possible solutions to the refugee crisis.

Doing so, he made it clear that the problems in Syria cannot be solved by air strikes. At the same time, Europe “cannot put it all

Features | 33

The Nightmarish Dangers of Technology On artificial intelligence and the bleak future of inequality Fraser Dunn Undergraduate student I COULD TELL YOU THAT technology is constantly evolving, but duh, you know that-none of you are working your fields with a yoke and oxen, and then counting up your harvested ears of corn on your trusty abacus. But as mind-blowingly, fabulously, unbelievably AWESOME as technology has been, it’s ultimately going to drive us to a bleak and barren, nightmarishly dystopic society of extreme inequality, where an augmented cyber-humanity will rule over a permanent, de-evolved underclass, right? Ok, that’s possibly (hopefully) an overblown vision of the future. What is true, though, is that technology is gradually replacing labour in the production of goods and services. Our world is entering a paradigm shift, where increasing economic growth goes hand in hand with growing inequality. And that, my future-cyborg friends, is something that we will really have to grapple with.

In pre-industrial times, goods were made by a craftsman (or team of) by hand, and fitted together by this same individual (or group) until it worked. This was an incredibly inefficient but labour-heavy means of production. A much more efficient means of production was on the horizon however; what Adam Smith coined the “division of labour”, which eventually transformed into the production line.

This means of production was a far more efficient innovation in management practice; however, it is of utmost significance as it facilitated the mechanical age that ensued. The Industrial Revolution and all the techno-

logical advancement that characterised it provided us with a source of growth never before seen in world history. Arguably Britain had already begun to escape the Malthusian Trap, yet in the centuries since the Industrial Revolution it has cast it aside in dramatic fashion.

“Our world is entering a paradigm shift, where increasing economic growth goes hand in hand with growing inequality. And that, my futurecyborg friends, is something that we will really have to grapple with.”

This movement into a modern age has brought with it great benefits. GDP per capita growth in Britain has risen over 2000%, a fact largely attributable to technological advancement. However, in our now, arguably, postmodern age, lots of jobs once completed by humans have become mechanised and digitised. The amount of labour utilised to make a car is now a mere fraction of what it once was as robotics have become continually more sophisticated.

Postal services have become increasingly unnecessary with the development of the telephone, fax and, later, email. As capital becomes increasingly productive in comparison to labour, jobs are being lost and the own-

ers of capital have become increasingly rich at the expense of the poor. According to Oxfam, the wealth of the richest 62 individuals has increased by nearly $500 billion in the last 5 years, where the wealth of the poorest half has fallen by nearly $1 trillion. Despite technological advancements facilitating economic growth, modern products, and our cushy way of life, it also facilitates statistics like these, and it’s only going to get worse as we progress through time deeper into the postmodern period.

We have seen deindustrialisation in the West in recent years fuelled by the improvement of technology. As technology has improved, the costs of producing, and thus prices of, manufactured goods has decreased, leading to a movement into the services sector of our economy.

A sector that humans excel in due to its necessity to make decisions and use complex cognitive abilities of pattern recognition and logic. Where the production of a washing machine can be entirely mechanised, surely the jobs of a lawyer or an investment banker cannot? Right?

Wrong. Recent developments in artificial intelligence have facilitated products such as voice recognition on phones and targeted advertising, however, its possibilities stretch far beyond our wildest imagination. Ray Kurzweil, an esteemed futurologist and director of engineering at Google estimates that the hardware to emulate a human brain artificially will be in existence by 2020 — by the time I’m buying an iPhone 11. The software to match will take slightly longer, becoming pronounced by 2029. This means that by the time I am 33, computers will ex-

ist that are as intelligent: creatively, artistically and logically as myself, yet will have a much more organised, vast and easily accessible memory. Add to this that robotics are advancing near-equally as fast as computational ability and you begin to fathom the dilemma that faces mankind.

It is widely hypothesised that by the turn of the next century, a single computer will possess as much computing power as the whole human race. How can we possibly hope to compete in terms of jobs with these machines in any economic sector?

Even in the most sophisticated jobs, such as being a lawyer, computers will far surpass our own abilities. They would be more creative than us, more logical than us and able to ‘memorise’ and instantly access every law in every country since time began.

“When the owner of a business is looking to invest in his business, which will he choose? A fleshy, weak, relatively stupid human, or a super-intelligent and impervious to pain robot that can work 24 hours a day 365 days of the year? The answer is obvious.”

Now, I must stress, these machines can be programmed not

to have the same inclination towards violence or characteristics of greed and jealousy that we possess. I am not stating that they will ‘take over’ of their own accord in an iRobot-esque fashion, yet, when the owner of a business is looking to invest in his business, which will he choose? A fleshy, weak, relatively stupid human, or a super-intelligent and impervious to pain robot that can work 24 hours a day 365 days of the year? The answer is obvious.

With the advance of these machines then, our future seems grey. Clearly, economic growth will continue to increase at an exponential rate, yet, it equally seems likely that the fruits of this will be distributed ever-increasingly to the owners of capital, the 0.1%, and ever-decreasingly to the rest of us.

Is this how our future will be characterised then? A future of rampant inequality and staggering poverty? Possibly even a future where the poor are left to die? Food won’t need to be produced to feed the new workforce and so what would be the economic incentive to provide enough for the poor?

If we consider a time when computing power surpasses human intelligence and robotics surpass human skill, there really is no necessity to provide jobs or even sustenance to the poor.

These new beings will design themselves, create themselves and repair themselves; all better and faster than we possibly could. What will happen to us then, is hard to discern; however, what is certain, is that under our current economic and political model the future of “the rest” is becoming increasingly dark.

Photo credit: Pabs D, Flickr.com

34

| Tuesday 8 March, 2016

The Dark Effects of Big Money on Public Policy In the 1970s, corporate America started pushing its interests. We’re still reeling from the effects.

Andrew Collins Undergraduate student WITH THE RECENT PARIS Climate Summit being widely condemned as a failure and an insufficient series of unenforceable solutions by critical voices across the Left, it is more important than ever to understand the natural, technological, and sociopolitical obstacles that stand between us and a society committed to divestment from fossil fuels. With 97% of environmental scientists in agreement that we have an urgent environmental crisis exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change, proof of corporate efforts to cover up the crisis, mountains of data to support the reality of global warming, and a public that is more and more likely to accept the scientific consensus (71% of Americans now do), why are there still so many socio-political obstacles standing in our way?

One answer is the role of powerful corporations in creating a false debate about climate change. Specifically, how they have been able to interact with American foundations, think-tanks, and wealthy donors to form what sociologist WIlliam Domhoff calls a “policy planning network.”

American foundations have their origins in the early industrial era, with philanthrocapitalists like Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie. But to understand the emergence of the true power of the modern foundation, Geographer David Harvey suggests we should look back to the early 1970s, to a document now known as the Powell Manifesto. In 1971, two months prior to his nomination to the U.S Supreme Court, Lewis Powell, a corporate lawyer involved with the tobacco industry member of eleven different corporate boards, wrote a confidential memorandum to his friend, the Director of the U.S Chamber of Commerce. Powell’s memo called for corporate America to play a more active role in shaping politics, law, and public opinion in the United States.

Paranoid that America was falling into the grips of a “communistic” agenda, Powell advocated for the monitoring of media, from textbooks to television programs, and suggests that they be purged of “biased” and “unfair” liberal elements. The intellectuals, the media, and the public were leaning to the left, profit margins were suffering, and the business community perceived a growing

threat to the free market.

“Business must learn the lesson,” wrote Powell, “that political power is necessary; that political power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination.”

He stressed that the crucial component for success was organization--that strength lies in planning, consistency, and unified long-term financial and political efforts.

“At some point in the 1970s, something caused corporate America to come together in a class conscious way.”

Journalist and political commentator Bill Moyers calls this “a call to arms for class war, waged from the top down,” and it’s not hard to see why. Powell’s memo was essentially an attempt to organize the corporate community into a class conscious group with specific institutions dedicated to influencing public opinion, and corporate America seems to have heeded his call to arms. In the early 1970s, shortly after the Powell memo was circulated, there was a tremendous expansion in the number of ultraconservative think tanks, including Joseph Coors’ Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute, funded by the Koch brothers.

Powell’s letter was not leaked to the public until after he was appointed to the Supreme Court. The leaking of the document, however, did not seem to deter the impact it had on the corporate community.

“Within two years,” Moyers writes, “the US Chamber of Commerce had formed a task force of 40 business executives... to coordinate the crusade, put Powell’s recommendations into effect and push the corporate agenda.”

These business representatives came from a diverse range of booming industries: US Steel, GE, GM, Phillips Petroleum, and notably, two media companies as well: CBS and ABC. After the task force was established, a landslide of corporate activity began: the National Association of Manufacturers moved its capital for the first time to Washington DC, America’s political epicenter; the amount of firms with registered lobbyists

in DC increased from 175 to over 2500 between Powell’s authorship of the memorandum and 1982; the amount of corporate PACs had quadrupled by the mid 80’s. A quiet revolution was underway, but it was a revolution of corporate leaders, not a revolution of the common workers.

While we might not be able to draw a direct causal link between Powell’s authorship of the memo and the explosion of activity that came after, it at least seems clear that at some point in the 1970s something caused corporate America to come together in a highly class conscious way. This class consciousness explains not only why Big Oil and companies with stakes in oil have been so successful in creating a false debate about climate change, but also why they enjoy the support of corporate leaders and politicians with lesser stakes in divestment initiatives.

Powell recognized that corporations, when organized, could be at least as potent as unionized workers. More importantly, he recognized that economic clout could be transformed into political clout.

His suggestion that Corporate America come together to pursue its interests through “joint financing” was a plea for business to use its immense financial capital to influence government, public opinion, and, essentially, to undermine democracy in favor of an elite few.

“Gradually, the policies and ideas of the corporate elite rose to the forefront of American society.”

According to Domhoff, there are three types of organizations that comprise a policy planning network: foundations, think tanks, and policy discussion groups. Foundations provide money to fund research and policy discussion, and thus can choose to allocate funds to scholars and academics that produce research that legitimates their interests or aligns with their ideologies.

These scholars and academics are tacitly pressured to produce research that appeals to foundations in order to get grants for their research. Think tanks use this research to suggest policies to tackle problems in society and government,

often relying on the support of foundations, corporations, and wealthy donors, who tend to allocate their money to organizations with which they are ideologically aligned.

This explains the explosion of ultraconservative think tanks immediately following the circulation of Lewis Powell’s manifesto. Ideas and proposals generated by the expert researchers in think tanks are distributed throughout the country through various forms of mass media, and are drawn upon by both policymakers and the public as sources of objective, nonpartisan knowledge. But they are also spread through the experts’ participations in policy discussion organizations.

Domhoff describes policy discussion organizations as “the hub of the policy planning network,” bringing together wealthy individuals, corporate leaders, experts, and government officials.

Essentially, this policy planning network synthesizes the raw economic power of corporations with expertise on social and political issues, granting America’s economic elite a new dimension of sociolegal power. Gradually, the policies and ideas of interest to the corporate elite rise to forefront of American society.

This might sound a bit conspiratorial, but it pans out.

In another analysis, Domhoff examined the upperclass and corporate representation on the boards of directors of the 12 largest foundations in America, and found that ten of twelve of these foundations have at least one, but often multiple, connections to the 201 largest corporations in America. Domhoff calls these connections “interlocks.” These interlocking directors provide a degree of cohesion among the largest corporations in America by sitting on a variety of different corporate boards.

Furthermore, Robert J. Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University, recently released a study focusing on how a corporate policy planning network ties into the climate change counter movement (CCCM). Brulle defines the CCCM as a “deliberate and organized effort to misdirect public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate change.” Analyzing the CCM’s sources of funding led Brulle to conclude that foundations “unquestionably” play a role in its creation and maintenance. The interlocking directorate coupled with the massive amounts of money flowing between corporate

donors, their foundations, and the ultra conservative think tanks they fund ultimately means a very wealthy few have enormous impact to shape the policies and ideas that reach the public and the desks of legislators.

These effects were recently highlighted by a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which reviewed 20 years of data from 1993 to show that climate change denying groups who received money from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers began to unify their messages in 2007, polluting public discourse with messages inspiring uncertainty and skepticism over anthropogenic climate change. The researchers found that corporate funding influenced the rhetoric of these contrarian groups into a unified message distinct from other counter climate change groups, strongly suggesting a conscious effort on the part of the Kochs and ExxonMobil to influence climate change dialogue.

The important takeaway here is that big business is not only class conscious, but that the corporate community has strategically and intelligently organized its financial resources in a way that has not only saturated government, but also public opinion, and thus the very fabric of democracy.

This policy planning network is not limited to polluting the discourse on climate change; it extends to other policy areas as well, including education policy.

When the rich pour their money into foundations that support their personal causes and agendas, they deprive public coffers of tax revenues that could be spent on welfare policies or social programs that the broader public has some degree of a say over through their right to vote.

The influence of corporations and wealthy individuals on public policy is deleterious, regardless of leftwing or right-wing ideological motivation. At the end of the day, what we have is a small group of economic elite using their financial capital to exert a level of influence over public policy, media, and ideology that advantages them over the common American in a wholly undemocratic way. By attempting to monopolize the production of ideas and policy solutions to contemporary socio- political issues, this “corporate community” has essentially hijacked the freedom of the people to determine the development of their own societies, further disenfranchised the working class, and stymied natural social development.

Features | 35

Cracks in the Road: Surviving the Nepal Earthquake The shattering end to Frank Morley’s gap year spent on the roof of the world Frank Morley Undergraduate Student

ON APRIL 25, 2015, THE ground roared, awake and alive, shattering the division between Saturday and Sunday.

A cupboard spasmed in the corner, and my eyes shot straight up to the ceiling fan, now swinging wildly around a few feet above my head. I imagined it crashing down, its spinning blades putting a premature end to the blog post I had just begun.

And then the screaming started. Ear-piercing, deafening, soul destroying cacophony.

For the next minutes, it was the closest I will—hopefully— ever get to feeling like a strung-out war vet, shouting, “You weren’t there, man!”

It’s amazing how much you can experience in a year of travel—or maybe, how little it makes you feel like you experienced in all of the years that you weren’t traveling.

Rainforests, tropical islands, communes, ashrams, people, lives, music, culture, they all change you in a tangibly intangible way.

In our normal lives we’re always changing, but travel speeds it up. At least, that’s how Nepal felt to me—a decade’s worth of growing up compressed into a year, and then the lessons of that year condensed into the harrowed days following the earthquake that would scar the face of the place that had become home.

A few weeks earlier, I had started hiking the Annapurna trail. Every day I walked six hours on a path that was folded into an icy wilderness of pine forests, snow-capped peaks, and villages scattered across an immense abyss. In my imagination, they took on the futuristic form of spacecolonies dotting the desolate surface of Mars. I would walk, rest, and keep walking, never taking a step back. The intense solitude was healing.

I was alone, but never lonely,

“In a ravaged country, with homes, livelihoods, and families suddenly and horrendously gone, what firmly, deeply, remained was sincerity and goodness.”

keeping company with myself.

I diverted from one of the trails and found myself at the feet of a small village near the summit of a viewpoint. I climbed through the village, glancing at the oxen in the fields, noticing the lack of electricity, struck by how simply people lived, but knowing that underneath what seemed simple lay layers of complexity that even a year could in no way completely reveal. I stopped here and ate Dhal Bhat—the national dish of Nepal—attempting poorly to communicate with the woman who cooked it for me.

When we had exhausted their elementary English and my rudimentary Nepalese, she just smiled, and watched me eat.

Belly full of lentils, I climbed the rest of the way to the viewpoint and looked out at the intersection of two valleys nestled between epic peaks.

Some sacred in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, they awed me and made me feel small. And then in stunning detail, I saw the kings of these mountains, the Himalayan Griffon, four or five of them with their gigantic wingspans floating on air currents maybe twenty meters above me.

Halfway through the train there is a village called Pisang.

It’s home to a collection of dark houses cradled in a mountainside and a postcard worthy monastery that has panoramic views on the valley below and towards Annapurna 1, the tenth highest peak in the world.

I spent a few days meditating in the monastery, and made friends with a monk. We would drink lemon tea together and talk about all things from our viewpoint near the top of the world. It may have been the thin air, but being that high does give you a kind of perspective.

The monk was only 19; we had been on the earth for the same number of years, but our background and lives couldn’t have been more different.

Nevertheless somehow our paths had managed to converge at the top of this mountain in this ancient monastery. Maybe I should have asked him for some advice on his perspective of life, but we just talked about our lives, and he seemed happy enough; I reckoned it was the mountain air.

After a few more days, and a few tens of thousands of steps, I made it back to Kathmandu.

On the way back I had run out of cash and negotiated a loan from a hostel, met a hippie yoga teacher who claimed to be enlightened, taken my first hot shower in months, and driven down an icy, treacherous road that is often blocked by avalanches. It was exhilarating.

“It takes more than an earthquake to bring down mountains.”

Twenty-four hours later, that very road was ground zero-the earthquake’s epicenter.

I snapped out of bed and away from the scythe-like spinning blades of the ceiling fan and hurried downstairs to a world in chaos. Mopeds and people were rushing in every

direction. I got on one with a friend I had just made and we drove through the shambles and confusion, weaving in and out of people, dazed, crying, confused. We finally reached the moped rental place, but it was deserted. They had my fucking passport. A country was crashing down around me, but all I could think was that here I was, in the biggest disaster in Nepal’s modern history without a way out.

I went back to the hotel, which was fairly clearly no longer safe to sleep in. A worker suggested, “We’ll just sleep in the hallway, so that if it starts to collapse we can run out in time.” I decided not to take my chances. Not there or in the narrow streets of the city’s Thamel district, where the buildings hung ominously around me, deathtraps waiting to be sprung by the arrival of another aftershock.

Paranoid and passport-less, I imagined myself being crushed to death in falling rubble. I went to a park, thinking that the open space would be less risky than any crowded, urban area. It was like a refugee camp, packed with throngs of people who had come to the same conclusion. They sat around fires in the open, tourists and Nepalese together. In the center of the park, there was a large gazebo lined with blankets and filled with dozens of sleeping people, mainly Nepalese. I was helpless and probably looked it. Someone beckoned me over, inviting me to lie down.

Being loved and cared for by strangers is a humbling, restoreyour-faith-in-humanity kind of thing. But more than that, when people’s lives are utterly destroyed, when they are left with nothing to lose, everything else is stripped away and their true nature is crystal clear. And here, in a ravaged country, with homes, livelihoods, and families suddenly, horrendously gone, what firmly, deeply remained was sincerity and goodness. I didn’t feel like a tourist or a foreigner,

just another human being, deserving of compassion and aid for no other reason but that.

I eventually managed to reach the British Embassy along with a Scottish couple I had met in the park. We stayed there for a few days, calling family, filling out paperwork, laid out like sardines on the Embassy floor during the night, about 200 of us packed into a small hall. Finally, with a replacement passport in hand, I was able to leave on one of the many evacuation convoys that departed in the earthquake’s aftermath.

“The monk had dedicated his life to lifting the fog; the same fog that world had to literally shake away from me.”

The 19-year-old monk in Pisang had decided to dedicate his life to meditating his way out of our human fog and into consciousness. The world had to literally shake some of the fog away from me. It took months to recover from most of the trauma—a rude awakening from the pampered, fun-filled life I had lived before. An introduction into a darker side of the world. But in darkness there’s always a choice; mine is to let it be a reminder that there is something else to look for, called light.

By all measure, I came out far better than most of the others touched. I didn’t lose my home, or my friends, or my family. But Nepal will rebuild.

It will take unimaginable work and effort, maybe decades’ worth. But at the end of the day, they will. After all, it’s a land of mountains. It takes more than an earthquake to bring down mountains.

Credit: Wikipedia Commons

36 | Tuesday 8 March 2016

University: What is Fee-sible?

Tuition fees should be increased - but so should support for students

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray Deputy Editors: Henry Mitchell

Ramone Bedi LSE Undergraduate OXFORD UNIVERSITY’S former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Andrew Hamilton, believes that the cap on tuition fees for domestic students should be increased to reflect the true cost of an undergraduate degree, which he says is £16,000 per year for Oxford. The majority of students think that the threshold is too high, and that higher education should be free, but I believe not only that university should not be free, but that fees should actually be increased. Having said that, no one should be excluded from university on a financial basis, so everyone should be entitled to a student loan that covers all expenses.

I will start by tackling the main argument of those supporting free education. Proponents of free higher education state that everyone has a right to free higher education. But where

“Why does the Government have a right to take money away from you, in the form of taxes, so that you can pay for the higher education of others?” does this right come from? Let’s consider an analogy: imagine your unemployed neighbour comes up to you and asks you

to pay for his child’s education.

Your answer would be “No”. Imagine he responds by saying that you have a big house and two cars while he is poor and that his child has a “right” to education.

Would this make you change your mind? No, it wouldn’t. Now he pulls a gun out on you and orders you to pay for his child’s education.

Does he have a right to put a gun to your head and force you to hand over money for his child’s education? Once again, the answer is no. So why does the Government have a right to take money away from you, in the form of taxes, so that you can pay for the higher education of others?

Now I’ll move on to the argument about why the university fees threshold should be increased. Higher university fees will act as a deterrent. Too many people go to university, leaving many graduates overqualified for the jobs they get after graduation. The common stereotype is the physics PhD graduate who works in Sports Direct. The physics graduate is not using his degree in any way, thus there was no point in him studying it. During those years, he could have been working, providing, and producing goods for society.

Further, his university utilised some of their resources on him; resources that are now wasted.

This inefficient allocation of resources needs addressing. The problem is exacerbated when you realise that the physics graduate is probably not going to pay back all of his student loan to the Government. The wasted resources could be used elsewhere

in society, to the benefit of everyone. Increasing university fees will deter some students from going to university.

The students most likely to be deterred are those who lack ambition. Many students go to university to “party” and because “there’s nothing else to do”. These are the very students who end up not earning enough to pay off their loans, so by deterring these students, the allocation of resources will be

“Higher university fees will act as a deterrent. Too many people go to university, leaving many graduates overqualified for the jobs they get after graduation.” improved more than if an average student was deterred. The higher education system would thrive if the ambitious students continued to study and the “party-animals” left the system.

Further, the quality of education would increase as departments would have more money to spend on improving their services. UK universities have a fantastic reputation, but in reality, they do not live up to that reputation. Additional funding will enable them to improve, and keep up with US universities.

Having said that, everyone deserves a chance to succeed

in life should they have the desired ambition and be willing to work hard enough. Therefore, although the tuition fees should be increased, a system should be created by which no individual cannot afford to go to university.

Everyone should be able to take out a loan which covers tuition, accommodation, and living expenses in full. The loan should be available to everyone. The current system assumes that if your parents earn more money, you need a smaller loan because your parents will assist you financially, but in many circumstances, this is not the case. However, the loan should vary based on your geographical location of study, so that London students can get more money for accommodation and living expenses than students in the North.

There is no reason why your loan should require you to earn over £21,000 to be paid back (as the current rules require) and be written off after 30 years. One can survive on significantly less than £21,000, and the priority should be for you to pay off your loan. You took the risk of borrowing money so you should bear the consequences, unless it is unreasonable to do so. It is for this reason that your loan should never be written off. If you are earning more than the minimum amount needed to survive after 30 years and you still have not

“University fees should be increased so that there will be a better allocation of resources and the standard of higher education can improve” paid your student loan off, then now is your chance. A time period should not release you from your obligation to pay back a debt.

In conclusion, university fees should be increased so that there will be a better allocation of resources and the standard of higher education can improve. Although the fees should be increased, no one should be excluded from university on a financial basis should they wish to study further, so everyone should be entitled to a student loan. This loan should be given with a requirement: that you pay it back over time when you earn over the minimum amount to survive until it is paid off in full.

Flickr, Ivan Hernandez

The City |37

Osborne’s Not Budging on the Budget Attempting to see what the Chancellor will be delivering in his next, all important, budget Rory Coutts LSE Undergraduate

THERE IS A LOT RIDING ON the budget, set to be announced on the 16th of March, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had better be sure he’s got it right, as 2016 is set to be a bumpy ride.

George Osbourne’s plan for the year is likely to set a harder tone to the jubilation in November, when the Office for Budget Responsibility granted Osborne £27 billion in extra spending room by 2020, and there was optimism about the prospects for

the British economy. With recent market turmoil, falls in tax income and slower than expected growth the times have changed.

Mr. Osborne will likely have to admit failure in cutting costs for the government, in the wake of greater uncertainty in global markets and a shortfall in government saving. This is certainly a blow to what many see as the aspiring successor to David Cameron. It is expected that this will herald a deeper turn towards austerity to fill the gaps, and keep track to fulfil the ‘fiscal charter’ of last year. The charter, passed in October, commits the govern-

Flickr, mrgarethm

ment to reach a budget surplus by 2019-20.

So what to expect in the upcoming budget in March.

The only real hint given so far is pensions. The raid is well and

“Mr Osborne will likely have to admit failure in cutting costs for the government” truly under way with plans to introduce a flat rate tax relief on pension contributions, to replace the progressive one before. Due to be set at around 20-30pc, this does favour lower income groups who so far see less contributed by the government. But this is not a move as a party of the people, the estimated £6 billion saved by the Treasury is too hard to resist.

Critics warn, and as seen but the reaction from some Conservative backbenchers, it will likely cause a backlash amongst Conservatives middle class voters who are set to lose out.

This does little to move away from the ‘pensions time bomb’ in the UK, warned about by the IMF in 2012, and some have

highlighted how this disproportionately hits younger workers.

Those recently or soon to enter the work force, will see their returns on retirement drop by up to £161,263, whilst older savers are largely left untouched. This raid on the young comes at a time when their finances are already fraught with debts. Student debt, mortgages and the cost of a family are priorities above saving for a pension at that age, and there is little prospect of making significant contributions.

Other key parts Other important components, and key to how the UK fares in the world economy, will be fiscal spending and how this will affect the growth of the economy. Infrastructure spending on the Northern Powerhouse project and HS2 rail link connecting London to the North will be main players here. Alongside this, defence spending will determine the foreign policy options in the future.

The continued drive for austerity is a push which will still raise questions about its effectiveness. Whilst the UK’s debt burden has in fact risen, relative to other European nations, it is faring well, with the same for growth rates. Groups and organi-

sations clamouring about the rise in the difference between rich and poor reflect a range of voters. In 2014 the OECD warned of the effects of austerity on the UK, with Oxfam in 2013 arguing that austerity would entrench inequality and raise the number in poverty, a trend which has largely happened.

What makes life difficult?

A frustration for the UK is that it might be vulnerable, but not through fault of its own. The international climate is far from ideal, the potential Brexit, potential recession in the US and slowdown in China all throwing spanners in the proverbial works of Britain’s outlook. As a result, growth forecasts for the UK are down on their pre-Christmas levels and the prospects further forward do not look set to fair much better.

This year’s budget faces challenges which are far from under the control of the government, and as such will be a balancing act between what is foreseeable and what is not. Perhaps the biggest question facing the UK at the moment is where interest rates will go and Mr. Osbourne’s plan will need to be up for the job.

A Pot-Benefit Analysis The effect that legalisation of marijuana has had, and will have, on the environment Gil Caldwell-Dunn LSE Undergraduate CURRENTLY MEDICALLY legal in 23 states, marijuana has been at the epicentre of the lengthy debate on the War on Drugs for several decades now.

The US marijuana industry is booming; with the existence of countless studies demonstrating it’s numerous health benefits, as well as recognition of the sizeable potential tax revenue from the controversial plant, it is all too easy to forget the possible negative economic consequences of such an idiosyncratic industry.

Twenty-four hour lighting as intense as that found in an operating room, carefully calibrating heating equipment and extensive ventilation and air-conditioning systems all contribute to the cannabis industry’s substantial ecological footprint. A study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that legal indoor-grown marijuana contributes to 1% of the US total annual electricity use, totalling a remarkable $6bn per year in costs and 15m tons of CO2 emissions - the electricity consump-

tion equivalent of 1.7 million US households. Possibly even more shocking, is that according to a study conducted by Evan Mills, the average joint (a cannabis cigarette) “represents electricity equal to running a 100-watt light bulb for 75 hours with average U.S. electricity”. To further put this into perspective, the Office of National Drug Control Policy argues 5.4 million users smoke marijuana almost daily (about 300 times a year) in the US - you do the maths.

The potential revenue associated with each crop cycle means that growers are hesitant to take

Flickr, Dr. Brainfish

risks with a new technology or process. Though with the potential for industry reputations turning sour, it is clearly in the grower’s best interest to start looking at more energy efficient methods of producing the drug.

The Florida-based Lighting Science Group is exploring the use of LED lighting as an alternative to the traditional energy-intense lamps used. LEDs are known for having much lower temperatures, which, aside from reducing energy usage of lighting, also helps to eliminate some of sizeable costs associated with heating and ventilation. Energy providers are already looking to offer incentives for indoor-growers to reduce their energy consumption, as cannabis production alone has reportedly overloaded their systems multiple times.

The Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) offers monetary and technical incentives to cannabis growers keen on reducing energy consumption and cutting costs.

Likewise, in Seattle, public energy provider Seattle City Light has negotiated individual rebate deals with cannabis growers on the agreement they use certain numbers of LED lights in their

growing processes. However, there still appears to be room for state-wide energy regulation aimed solely at marijuana manufacturers.

Lighting industries themselves have taken advantage of this energy-consumption dilemma through spotting new, secondary markets in terms of marijuana growing lights. With firms such as ‘Boulderlamp’ offering special energy-efficient lighting to grow marijuana plants, there is arguably a competitive market space in who can offer the most energy-efficient, yet high yielding growing equipment to help reduce ecological footprint of growers whilst improving their brand reputation. However, technology may still need time to develop and evolve in addressing the tradeoff between yield and energy-consumption. For example, different forms of lighting are needed at subsequent stages of plant growth; each type having a singular effect on flowering and vegetative phases, and as the Vice President of a Washingtonbased marijuana growing firm suggests in an interview with The Guardian: “we don’t believe that the LED technology is necessar-

ily there yet for the flowering side”.

One of the industry’s principal problems is its initial development structure. Prohibition has restricted the growth of budding energy efficient technologies. This is a phenomenon that has persisted even after legalisation. In Colorado, which legalised back in November of 2012, ‘new grow’ operations by and large resemble underground operations. Investors have been unsurprisingly sluggish funding new projects.

The energy-guzzling marijuana market appears to still be finding its feet in terms of legally producing medical cannabis in a low cost but environmentallyfriendly way. The complex process of growing the plant means that choosing the right technology is something of an exact science, where throwing energysaving into the mix makes things a lot more difficult. However, with the rise of growing equipment markets and technology developments, there may come a time in the near future where marijuana products can be sold in an environmentally responsible way.

38

|Tuesday 8 March, 2016

Dance Show 2016: A Surge To Success

Natasha Maria Rodrigues LSE Dance Club Captain IF EVER THERE WAS A community more nurturing and uplifting than the LSE Dance Club, it is a community I have yet to discover. Dedicated, gifted and inspirational - dancing alongside such kind souls has truly been a privilege and blessing. At LSE, all of the pettiness and exclusivity that so many dance clubs fall into is bypassed. Dance is neither about appearances nor achieving perfection. Here, we dance because it is our language of love, passion and self-expression.

Where words fail, dance is our unwavering answer.

In this academic year, the LSE Dance Club has grown in unimaginable ways thanks to the indispensible support of both the AU and SU. We have been able to create new opportunities for our dancers to express themselves artistically, push themselves physically and grow emotionally within this safe and supportive community.

This amazing ethic and zeal have been channelled into creating one very exciting display of

talent.

Surge 2016, this year’s Annual Dance Show, is the culmination of six months of sweating it out – both in the rehearsal room and behind the scenes. An immense amount of hard work has gone into conceptualising, choreographing and crafting this brainchild and we are thrilled to share it with all of you.

Surge is a celebration of Emotion, Passion and Energy.

It is a showcase of incredible teamwork and pure, unfettered dancing, which we believe will both move and inspire you. On Monday 14th March at 7.00pm the Peacock Theatre is going to come alive with the electricity of a community fuelled by a burning love for our craft. We certainly hope you will save the date and join us for this incredible night!

Tickets for Surge 2016 are available from the SU website at £5 each ( h t t p : / / w w w. l s e s u . c o m / events/7736/4653), or can be purchased directly from Dance Club members.

Basketball Women’s 1s vs. Essex 1s lost 108-44 Men’s 1s vs. Buckingham New 1s lost 87-77

Hockey Women’s 1s vs Brighton 1s won 4-2 Mixed 1s vs UCL 1s won 9-0 Men’s 1s vs. Kent 1s drew 4-4

Rugby Men’s 1s vs. Surrey 1s lost 26-20 Women’s 1s vs. Surrey 1s lost 29-10

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

WITH BLOOD, sweat and adrenalin still coating the walls of London’s answer to Madison Square Gardens (to clarify: the Venue, -2 level, Saw Swee Hock) due to the previous week’s fighting, portions of the AU decided their night would be better kicked off at Brick Lane, leaving the Tuns at the clemency of non-AU types, none of whom I believe I have ever met, but who do apparently exist, I’m not sure though, it seems odd to imagine a life outside of the AU, but that might just be me. (?)

Further East, by extension,

Brick Lane was left to the various methods of chaos exacted by the Men’s Football Club, leaving the whole region Peppered with disturbance, on a Knife edge in terms of its internal security. The Spectacle produced at one restaurant, where frequenters were seemingly blind to what behaviour is expected of university students, was so perilous that had it not been for a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer being a Bottle-job, things may well have deteriorated into the Daily Mail.

Arrival at Zoo Bar, shockingly, actually seemed to instil a higher sense of civility, almost invariably. Whether this highlights a more extreme depravity pre-Zoo Bar or decreased levels of savagery within it remains unknown.

One of the earlier exits was from a man who Greeted his mate within

no fewer, the cameras have shown, than 8 British seconds of his arrival, on account of the lady-friend’s intense desire to cure his animalistic instincts by employment of her dexterity as a Vet. Shortly thereafter, a friend of his followed suit and departed, this time due to his obligation to cure the devastation of his lady-friend, who, it is said, cried more than did Italian dictator and allround scumbag Benito MuCelini, when he was dragged up the streets of northern Italy and kicked to literal death.

Later, respective daughter and niece of the celebrated Oasis frontmen couldn’t resist the temptation to ask a footballer to Sliiiioede Away with her, and after deciding that She’s Electric, and that there was a distinct possibility of Morning Glory, he refuted the Importance of Being Idle and they shagged.

A pair of old friends reacquainted, who, having previously bonded over their love of films, this time opted to Substitute movie-watching for other activities, the details of which are too outraGeous even for this sordid piece of claptrap. Elsewhere, a Jammy Scot crossed borders after looking deep into the brilliant blue Irishes of an Ellegant friend, and realising that she could offer the help he needed to navigate the Sees of life.

The final stretch awaits us, then, it must be confessed. With but a hattrick of Zoo Bars left, feelings of sorrow, regret and downright destitution will be pervading the previously high spirits of the Holborn Hellraisers. But to resent the absence of a future, or regret the mistakes of the past, does, I think, reduce us. Tap violently, drink regularly, and be the best drunk you can be.

Sport | 39

Women’s Rugby Pumped For Next Year Rochelle Silva LSE Women’s Rugby ON WEDNESDAY 2nd March LSE Women’s Rugby First XV faced our most formidable challenge yet, as we battled against Surrey in the semi finals of the Cup. With our opposition being second in the league above our own, we knew we weren’t in for an easy ride. Our determination to win was nevertheless apparent during the first half of the game, with a powerful driving maul gaining us valuable territory and enabling Julia Zhu to smash the ball over the line. Following a beautifully executed penalty kick over the

posts by Caitlin, we then found ourselves two points ahead at half time and hungry to preserve our lead. Sadly this was not to be the case, and despite continued effort, optimism and above all intelligent rugby playing, the second half ended 29-10 to Surrey. With many of our girls leaving LSE this year, it would be an understatement to say this was an emotional outcome. A silver lining can however be found when considering how far we’ve come as a team, with every single player on that pitch giving 110% throughout. Making it to the semi final of the cup despite

three quarters of our First XV having first picked up a rugby ball just six months ago is a credible achievement in itself, and is testament to the quality of our coaching and development. With the opportunity to secure second place in our league resting on the outcome of our upcoming fixture with UCL, we must now dust ourselves off and focus on ending our season on a high.

As well as progression on the pitch, LSEWRFC has demonstrated a real commitment to sharing our love for the sport with the wider community.

Through our ‘Rugby Girls;

give-it-a-go day’ jointly hosted with Barking RFC, LSE Women’s Rugby will be working with girls across Barking and Dagenham, coaching them through a variety of skills workshops and Q&A sessions.

Rugby is a sport rarely played by girls prior to university, with this depriving many of a valuable means of improving their self-confidence and experiencing the benefits of such an exciting team sport. Through development days such as this we hope to bring about a wider change, and encourage greater participation at an earlier stage.

I cannot think of a group better placed to offer such an introduction than the ladies of LSE Women’s Rugby. Having been a member for nearly two years now, I speak from the heart when I say I have never felt more inspired and grateful to have made such supportive and encouraging friends. Although it will be sad to see so many of them leave this year, I am confident that the club’s values will continue to flourish into the next year. Above all, we finish this season stronger not only as a team, but stronger as a family.

A Boxing Perspective On LSE AU Fight Night Kamran Miah LSE Boxing Club Captain The road to Fight Night was a long one. Between the AU Execs and the Boxing Club, we spent months ensuring that the event would run smoothly and that the fighters would be prepared for the challenge. There was an unprecedented level of interest in the event and everyone involved was determined to make this the best Fight Night in LSE history.

Every fighter that entered the ring deserves a great deal of respect. Preparing for a boxing match is an extremely challenging and stressful experience. More than the physical challenge of trading punches for months, it can be psychologically difficult to turn another person into a target.

After months of intense train-

ing, the 14 athletes were ready to enter the ring and fight in the presence of a sell-out crowd. Before each fighter entered the ring, their promo video and entrance music were played, further building the anticipation and atmosphere.

Louis Georgiou vs Taeuk Kim: this fight established solid boxing technique and saw back and forth action. Both fighters remained composed and fought toeto-toe every round. Taeuk showed great control in putting together clean boxing combinations, but Louis was able to fight at a higher pace and edged out a convincing victory.

Mona Prayag vs Zara Ash: it was immediately obvious to the crowd that these two are close friends. They did their own secret handshake, before touching gloves and starting the fight. Mona transitioned between throwing head

and body shots pretty well, but Zara was able to consistently land her right hand. Despite a strong show of perseverance from Mona, Zara ended the fight with a TKO win.

Arj Sehgal vs Varun Bhatt: in my opinion, no one trained harder than these two in the build up to fight night. This was evident in their match, as neither fighter stepped away or hesitated in letting their hands fly. Arj had a good start and controlled the pace, but Varun fought back, winning the second round. It was a close fight, but Arj emerged victorious.

Tiana Gordon vs Perdita Blinkhorn: the fight had a fairly erratic start, with punches being thrown from every direction, but Tiana soon settled into her rhythm and consistently landed powerful blows. Perdita showed great heart in coming back with her own

combination punches, but Tiana walked away with a TKO victory.

Michael Needham vs Josh Pm: this was one of the most anticipated fights of the night. Michael had the superior height and reach, and he utilized this by trying to keep Josh at a distance and throwing long, sharp punches. Josh overcame this obstacle by ducking underneath, then alternating between vicious body shots and swings to the head, resulting in the third TKO win for the night.

Alexandra Kaars vs Manola Zblza: the entrance of the night was definitely won by Manola – the crowd loved her before the fight even started. Alex made good use of her jab and hooks, while Manola remained composed and stepped forward with well-timed shots to the head and body. Both fighters showed good ring craftsmanship and demonstrated clean

boxing technique, with Manola deservingly being given the win.

Mikhail Neganov vs Stephen Vera Cruz: in the 3 AU Fight Night events that I’ve been involved with, this was the most dramatic match I’ve witnessed.

Stephen entered the ring with a great deal of focus, determination and an incredible physique. In the eyes of many, this was only going to end one way. Neganov, however, had other plans. Both fighters traded wild shots early on and it looked set to be an entertaining match, but Neganov forced Stephen onto the ropes and let loose with a flurry of hooks, one of which connected with Stephen’s chin and knocked him temporarily unconscious. The fight was over in the first round, with a KO victory for Neganov.

VISIT US AT BEAVERONLINE.CO.UK OR TWEET @BEAVERONLINE

LSE Basketball Steal Victory Over KCL Moritz Schwarz LSE Volleyball President

Sport

Section Editor: India Steele Deputy Editor: Vacant

THE LSE MEN’S VOLLEYBALL team scored a hardfought victory against its archrival, King’s College London, in the South-Eastern Conference Cup semi-finals on Wednesday in what proved to be a pointfor-point thriller. LSE had previously beaten an injury-ridden King’s team three sets to none earlier in the year, which had broken their unbeaten record.

It was clear that King’s was out for revenge as they had made clear that LSE would regret the game before it had started. The chance for revenge was soundly denied when LSE won in the fifth set, 22-20.

The pre-game warm up (more aptly described as a glorified intimidation session) was electric as both teams were anticipating a pitched battle on the court. The King’s team, with their two key players returned, bore a confident edge. They seemed like a well-oiled machine. This illusion was quickly dispelled as LSE cruised through the first set with a sizeable 25-18 victory. In what was an exhibition of the team in its top form, LSE dominated with well-placed powerful serves, blistering attacks, and tough defence and felt like a continuation of where they had left off. LSE’s setter, Patrick Andison, capitalised on the depth of talent in the team’s roster by running a variety of attacks at the net.

After the first set had finished, it felt like it could be a repeat of LSE’s sweep earlier in the year.

However, King’s came roaring back in the second set and took advantage of an LSE team that was complacent from its success in the first set. King’s maximised the use of their extremely talented outside hitter and quickly put themselves into a healthy 5 point lead. LSE was unable to recover for most of the set. A string of good plays almost saw LSE regain control, but this opportunity was crushed by a series of bad service

and reception problems. Kings took the second set 25-23, tying the match at a set apiece. These mistakes persisted in the third set as frustration amongst the LSE team mounted, allowing a determined King’s squad to continue their run and take the third set 25 - 19. Instead of cruising to an easy sweep, LSE was now fighting for its life, down two sets to one.

With everything going wrong for the LSE squad, it took a surge in energy to change the tide of the match. In the fourth set, LSE’s front-row middle and opposite, Ryan Mitton and Matthew Farrell, took control of the net by delivering a massive block on the King’s star attacker and continuing to deny the him opportunities to put the ball away. This complete shutdown of their all-star attacking option forced Kings into a difficult position. Following their lead our outside hitters Manuel

Hepfer and Eduardo Maguina led the team with relentless and masterful hits that tore the Kings defence apart. The exciting turn of events was helped by a rousing LSE girls team that roared with every block, spike or saved ball.

With everything in place LSE decidedly won out the fourth set 2516. This set up a tie-breaking 5th set, in which is 15 points instead of the standard 25.

The set started well for LSE. The defensive efforts of the whole team were spot-on in the last set.

This was matched with a growing finishing instinct from our MVP, Manuel, who couldn’t seem to hit a ball without scoring a point. We were soon up 8 - 1. However, errors slowly began to creep back into the LSE side’s play. The 7 point advantage was reduced to a 14 - 14 deuce. A two-point lead is required to win, and with no one wanting to risk throwing the game

away, the balance of the match swung like a pendulum from team to team. Both sides had moments to finish the game in their favour.

But it was only when the score was 21 - 20 for LSE that Eduardo Maguina stepped up and put a powerful spike into oppositions menacing triple-block. The ball deflected off the top of the block to score the decisive point. As the ball landed out of bounds, supporters rushed the court in a mad dash, wrapping arms around each other, celebrating in a Céilidhlike dance to the wild cheers of ‘LSE! LSE!’.

The team won’t soon forget this win and the Men’s team looks forward to a strong finish in the regular season with a final league game also against Kings. The South Eastern Conference Cup final is next week, where LSE will face-off against Kingston College.