853

Beaver

Issue 853 | 22.3.16

the

Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union

Former LSE Student Accuses School of Criminal Wrongdoing Greg Sproston News Editor NEW INFORMATION HAS emerged which would appear to suggest that the issue of segregation at LSE is not only more entrenched than first assumed, but that the school itself has systematically and repeatedly failed to protect its vulnerable students.

A PhD student, who has since graduated, made a formal complaint whilst still a student over gender segregation as early as January 2015 to the school, but it appears as though no definitive action has been taken. The complaint was initially made to the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion office but the matter was later taken up specifically by Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning, Paul Kelly.

A series of email exchanges obtained by The Beaver show that student Chris Moos wrote to the EDI office on 13 January 2015 to officially complain over what he felt was repeated instances of gender segregation.

After no reply was received, Chris sent a follow up email on 20 January 2015 and was informed by the EDI office two

days later that the matter was being ‘investigated’ by Paul Kelly and Robin Hoggard. Writing directly to Paul Kelly on 22 January 2015, Chris Moos asked for a number of assurances, most notably that an inquiry be set up to establish the prevalence of gender segregation at LSE, that steps be taken to ensure further segregation did not occur, and that future society events were monitored in case of further segregation.

In his emails to senior school management, Chris Moos’ allegations of gender segregation were based on six Facebook events which he says explicitly referenced segregation. Given the amount of time that has elapsed, these events are no longer visible on Facebook and it is impossible to ascertain the veracity of these claims. However, two flyers for Islamic Society events which predated Chris’ complaint - A Snowdon Charity Climb in October 2014 and Freshers’ Fair 2014 - explicitly refer to segregation.

More troubling still, it would seem extremely difficult to argue that these events could be exempted under EHRC guidance either for religious or voluntary

reasons. In the case of segregation for religious worship, the guidance notes that ‘Once such events or meetings go beyond religious worship or practice, equality law applies and the courts are likely to consider any gender segregation taking place to be unlawful’, which would imply significant difficulty in justifying the entirety of a mountain climb to be segregated - a similar criticism could be applied to ISOC’s recent annual dinner.

Secondly, the guidance advises that any segregation ‘wholly and demonstrably voluntary, both at the booking stage and during the event’. It would likewise be extremely difficult to prove that this was the case for Freshers events, where many would-be attendees are only just arriving at the school and had no input into the organisation of such events.

In his response, Paul Kelly tacitly acknowledged there was a problem by noting that ‘... when the School learned of the events [which Chris complained about]…. officers of the School discussed the events with the organisers and drew their attention to the risk that the way the events were advertised may

have contravened the guidance.’

However, Mr. Kelly did not specifically acknowledge the investigation that was mentioned by the EDI office, nor did he mention any further action that was either taken, or planned in the event of further instances where the EHRC guidance may have perceived to have been breached.

It may be reasonably assumed that the school’s decision to open a dialogue with ISOC over the nature of the way events were advertised was indicative of concern on School management’s part. Further, it could be reasonably assumed that this was a first, relatively uncontroversial step in ensuring that the School, SU, and students were complying with legal guidance. In any event, it appears that the School’s concern over any contravention of legislation quickly dissipated, as did its desire to escalate its attempts to ensure legislation would be followed. Since the complaints made by Chris Moos, in which LSE senior management took a first step in opening a dialogue with ISOC, there have been a number of occasions in which the advertisement of so-

Comment The Union

ciety events appear to clash with EHRC guidance. This is not to say that the events definitively did contravene legislation, but there certainly was a perception that this could’ve been the case; something which the School should have taken more seriously. Nevertheless, it is not clear to see whether the School saw fit to extend the action it took regarding Chris Moos’ complaints, or even to proactively address such issues at all.

In an email to its members on 15 February 2015, ISOC advertised a segregated event that was specifically social in nature, the ‘Mid Term Sister’s Social’.

Whilst this event followed collective religious observance, which is legitimately segregated, the event itself was explicitly nonreligious, consisting of a trip of to popular American diner Tinsel Town. During Freshers Week 2015, the administration and organisation of events largely mirrored the previous year in relation to segregation, which in 2014 was the subject of a specific complaint.

Continued on page 3 beaveronline.co.uk & LSE Students Union Facebook page

When SU Politics Came of Age Race to the Top: Meet the Gen Sec candidates!

Page 8 Page 16

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

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

Beaver

the

the

Beaver

Established in 1949 Issue No. 853 - Tuesday 22 March 2016 - issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline

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

LSE Students’ Union @LSESU Thats it! Nominations are closed and the new General Secretary is among them.

Probably. #LSESUelects

From the Executive Editor Taryana Odayar on lessons learnt this election season

city@thebeaveronline.co.uk

Features Editors Alex Hurst Daniel Shears Stefanos Argyros

TWEETS OF THE WEEK

AND SO, AT LONG LAST, we have arrived at the Beaver’s final print edition for the academic year 2015/16.

Having fulfilled our duty to publish 21 editions annually, we now consign ourselves to the daunting prospect of a beaver-less Easter holiday and Summer Ter m. But before we put down our pens, there is one more thing to be said in ter ms of lessons learnt from this unpredictable and turbulent LSE SU election season 2016.

We have learnt that, “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner” (James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty). This past election is a prime example of the LSE student populous absolving themselves by choosing to vote responsibly and strategically to ensure that the system works in their best interests.

We have learnt that some of the requisite conditions for a successful RON vote; the first RON victory in a Gen Sec race in any British University, extend beyond dissatisfaction with the candidates running, and include displeasure with the status quo, and a burning desire for real, positive change.

We have learnt that the democratic process within the LSE SU is thriving, with approximately 3,410 voters expressing their candidate preferences in the first Gen Sec race, and hopefully more in the upcoming one. With 13 candidates running, plus the option of RON, voters can now better participate in the democratic process by way of having more choices from which they can articulate their true preferences.

We have learnt that although our interests as students may vary, diversely opinionated as we are, each

Aysha AF @AyshaFekaiki Student wellbeing will continue of us is much more than just to be a priority despite not having a cog in the machine, with the a #director at #lse in the interim capacity to collectively bring @lsesu about a right royal upheaval of the status quo within the George Burton SU body politic. @George_Burton And we have learnt that, #isitok I am wondering if ATOS more often than not, “the will find Iain Duncan Smith fit ballot is stronger than the for work next week? #IDSresigns bullet” (Abraham Lincoln).

Ironically, Uncle Abe did say this just before getting shot, LSESUelects but that’s another topic for @LSESUelects @Beyonce any advice on how another day.

On a lighter note, we to keep audiences for @lsesu hope you’ve enjoyed reading election night entertained during the paper this past year! Our intervals?

Editorial Board have worked tirelessly throughout the Jon Allsop year to give you 32 pages of @Jon_Allsop (hopefully) interesting and I mean I’ve heard of squeezing engaging news, comment and the rich til the PIPs squeak but analysis, and I thank them this is getting ridicuolous #IDS wholeheartedly for their unswerving commitment. #Budget2016 We have many more exciting things lined up for the rest of Jon Allsop year, so be sure to check out @Jon_Allsop our website and social media Oh for goodness sake noone pages! needed a new #IndianaJones film Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine What a nice hashtag #InternationalDayOfHappiness Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine Your future Gen Sec awaits - get involved at lsesu.com/elections #MayDemocracyPrevail #LSESUelects Nona Buckley-Irvine @nonajasmine Facebook’s community standards are so arbitrary, systematically fails to tackle misogynistic abuse that gets reported.

Liam Hill @liamjhill BOOM.

Continued from Cover LSE Students Union Facebook page

The Beaver wrote to school management requesting information as to whether subsequent events were investigated or acted upon to which the press office responded with a statement which ignored this request. Whilst the LSE statement does refer to, ‘a number of occasions’ on which they have been in contact with the SU and/or societies, it is peculiar that they would refuse to definitively respond to a request for information in regards to specific events.

It is not clear why senior figures at the school deemed some society events to be worthy of attention, whilst other events which appear to be almost identical in advertisement and organisation seem to have been apparently deliberately overlooked.

The School’s statement in full notes that, ‘LSESU and its societies are legally separate to the School and, as such, are responsible for following relevant policies and legal requirements.

The EHRC guidance on gender segregation is generally regarded in the higher education sector as an authoritative statement of the relevant legislation.

Since the creation of the EHRC policy in 2014, LSE staff have been in contact with the SU and

societies on a number of occasions to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities under the law.’

The EHRC guidance which the LSE refers to as an ‘authoritative statement’ includes a passage which notes that ‘Universities have a duty to publish and keep up to date a Code of Practice which addresses the conduct of events at its premises and at those used by students’ unions and their societies’. At the time of printing, LSE’s code of practice which refers explicitly to gender segregation appears to consist of a 4 line document found on the LSE website which merely reinforces the point that the LSE has agreed to adopt EHRC guidance.

Whilst there is no dispute that LSESU and its societies are a legally independent entity to School, and as such are responsible for society events and the conduct of students, the EHRC guidance also specifically states that ‘Equality law applies to meetings or events on the premises of the university’ which should raise serious questions of the School to summarily absolve itself of all responsibility given that some events - most notably the promotion of Freshers Fairs, if not the activities themselves, take place exclusively and solely

on LSE premises.

The LSE statement reiterates the position Paul Kelly took in his mail to Chris Moos, in which he advised the PhD candidate to contact the SU with his complaint as it was, in the school’s view, specifically the the SU’s remit. Whilst Chris Moos never followed up with a complaint to the SU; General Secretary Nona Buckley-Irvine has stated that as far as she was aware, the school never made her or the SU aware of Chris Moos complaint. Given that the school initially appeared to take Mr. Moos’ complaint seriously by investigating matters, and given that the EHRC guidance states that a University ‘remains legally obliged to take any available alternative reasonably practicable steps that would prevent the discrimination continuing.’, the school’s failure to communicate with the SU on such a serious issue does not seem justifiable.

Lastly, the EHRC guidance states in equivocal terms that ‘If the university only learnt of the compulsory gender segregation after the event, then it would need to take steps to ensure that it did not re-occur in the future, in order to avoid infringement of the Act’. In the first instance - following Chris Moos’ complaint - the School

did not ascertain whether any gender segregation that took place was justifiable under the legitimate exemptions listed in EHRC guidance. Secondly, it is not clear whether the school repeated its first ‘step’ - communicating with specific societies - in specific instances in the future. Thirdly, given that communicating with specific societies appears not to have been sufficient in preventing segregation, it is not clear whether the School has taken any additional steps.

In this context, the most generous assessment that can be made of the School’s action - or lack of it - on segregated events is that it has been ineffectual.

There has been a clear lack of transparency in the way that the school has handled complaints and investigated issues, and in particular the attempt to absolve itself of any blame by seemingly exporting all responsibility to the SU is questionable. It is for this reason that Chris Moos considers the school to be ‘in clear violation of the law’ as a result of the manner in which it has responded to his complaint. At this time, it is not clear if he intends to follow up on this claim with any additional action.

News | 3

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

News Analysis:LSESU Struggles to Stay Afloat in Acronym Soup Greg Sproston News Editor

to it not only at the attendance stage, but likewise at the booking stage - given that the EHRC guidance specifically remarks upon the ‘impracticability of attaining in this regard a level of certainty which would be likely to satisfy a court’, it is again sur prising that the SU statement should be so equivocal in its confidence that it had satisfied legal requirements.

In events that consist of religious observance in addition other social dimensions, the EHRC guidance concedes that the ‘law in this area has yet to be clarified‘, but also advises that ‘universities and students’ unions protect themselves from liability for discrimination by prohibiting gender seg regation at all meetings which go beyond acts of religious worship or practice, including meetings which follow on from acts of religious observance…’. It does not appear as though this has been the case in either for this year’s ISOC annual dinner, or in previous events which have led to of ficial complaints.

Neither the SU’s nor ISOC’s statement appears to have appeased a number of students and the debate continues to rumble on, as evi-

denced by robust exchanges on social media. Given the continuing national interest in the story and the fact that this situation is complex, sensitive and anything but clear cut, it would surely be beneficial for all involved and for the wider student body for the SU to review its practices and ensure procedures are more open in the future; as the current logic and justifications are not readily apparent.

News

AMID THE FALLOUT OF THE Islamic Society Annual dinner row, an SU statement signed by all of the Sabbatical Officers confidently declared that the seg regation at ISOC’s dinner was not a breach of the law.

Embarrassingly, they seemed apparently unaware of which law critics were claiming the event was in breach of. An initial statement, made on 16 March just two hours after an ISOC statement claimed that the LSE had failed them, referred to the event has having confor med to the guidance set out by the ‘European Commission on Human Rights’.

The European Commission on Human Rights is a now defunct tribunal which was dissolved in 1998 when individuals gained the legal right to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. In the context of the legality or otherwise of ISOC’s annual dinner, this is completely irrelevant. It is likely that the statement intended to refer to the European Convention on Human Rights - an inter national

treaty established to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms .

Distinction between convention/commission aside, the more important and worrying mistake was conf lating the ECHR with the EHRC, the Equality and Human Rights Commission - a nondepartmental public body charged with the promotion and enforcement of explicitly UK legislation on discrimination and equality. Despite the eventual correction, it is alar ming that the SU would be so quick to dismiss the allegations of illegality given they initially based this assessment on adhering to ECHR guidance, which has no relevance to specific legislation on discrimination in the UK, notably the Equality Act 2010 Both the SU and ISOC statements rightfully condemned the dangerous and divisive rhetoric found in national coverage of the dinner, and sought to reinforce the legitimacy of the event, arguing that not only was seg regation voluntar y, but necessary for collective religious observance. However, for seg regation to be considered wholly voluntary, every single attendee must consent

4

| Tuesday 22 March, 2016

LSE Dance Club Annual Show ‘Surge 2016’ Stuns a Packed Peacock Theatre Bhadra Sreejith Deputy News Editor

THE PEACOCK THEATRE was packed to the brim on the evening of the 14th of March—not because of a lecture, but because of the LSE Dance Club’s annual dance show, Surge 2016. The seldom-used dress circle was opened also, and there was not a single empty seat to be found in the theatre, so hotly anticipated was the event.

There were one thousand tickets sold in total.

Surge 2016, made possible by the LSE annual fund and described as being “a powerful showcase of what it means to be fully alive through the

medium of Dance”, began at 7pm and from beginning till end was fast-paced; there was hardly any time for the audience to catch its breath between perfor mances. Each of the eighteen perfor mances was lovingly choreographed and obviously very well-rehearsed, with no awkward movements or visible mishaps.

The audience applauded every perfor mance, but was forced to quiet down very quickly, as the transitions were very fast.

It seemed impossible that the Peacock Theatre could be the same place that 9 am lectures were held, so thrilling and exciting was the atmosphere.

Each perfor mance was preceded by a short introduction by the choreographers, who

detailed why they loved dance and what their perfor mance aimed to convey. All the different for ms of dance were represented, from hip-hop to jazz, ballet and modern dance.

While all the perfor mances were of the highest quality—it is important to emphasise just how good the dances were, even though these were students at the LSE and not professional dancers—HipF lop and Block Party, which were both extremely energetic and rhythmic, really stood out in ter ms of the choreography and enthusiasm of the dancers.

Sumati Semavoine, who co-choreographed “Smother” with Natasha Rodrigues, a dance which explored the

complexity of a manipulative relationship, said “Before the show, the atmosphere was filled with immeasurable excitement, passion, joy, exhaustion and stress. We were all so close to each other and ready to embark on one of the greatest nights of our life. After the show, most people were in tears of joy for what we had achieved but also in tears of sadness for the ones leaving our dance family and for the end of such an amazing journey. We all had so much energy despite the end of the most intense and exhausting week of the year. It was probably the best night of my life.”

An audience member who had watched the show last year said, “It was good last year, but

the dress circle seats weren’t even available. It’s nothing compared to this year…the atmosphere was amazing.”

Sumati agreed, saying “The audience was responding to the dances exactly the way we wanted them to.” When Alexander Lim, the director of Surge 2016, went up on stage to speak, the audience gave him a standing ovation—a testament to how much the audience enjoyed the show and appreciated his work.

Although the show was two hours long in its entirety, its fast-paced nature meant that it felt like much less time. It was well-planned, well-paced, and filled with passion: a definite contender for the best Society event of the year.

General Secretary Bye-Election: Everything you Need to Know Michael Wazowki Undergraduate Student

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE history of British student politics, union members have opted to reopen nominations for the General Secretary, triggering a by-election to be held before the end of lent term.

Nominations have closed and campaigning has already begun, there will only be one hustings event for the position, which will be held Tuesday 22 March 6:30-7:30pm in the first floor cafe in the Saw Swee Hock Student Centre. The hustings will doubtless be a hectic affair, where the Democracy Committee will be charged with the extremely unenviable task of somehow

cramming contributions from a staggering 13 candidates into just 60 minutes.

Campaigning will continue until 10am on Wednesday at which point voting opens. As with the last election, students can cast their ballots online and voting will remain open until 7pm on Thursday 24 March. Election results, with live twitter coverage from The Beaver, will be held in The Three Tuns from 7:30pm. Although there is just one result to announce, versus the raft of positions announced on the original results night, the process will no doubt take considerable time as Returning Officer Fraser Bell whittles the field of candidates down from a baker’s dozen to the eventual winner.

The results will no doubt throw up some unexpected surprises as the multitude of candidates will complicate the distribution of second preference votes et cetera.

The SU will be hoping that the unchartered territory of a second election will energise students to vote in even greater numbers than the initial election, though there is a fear that campaign lethargy, end of term fatigue and the faint shadow of approaching exams may combine to deliver a disappointing turnout.

The successful candidate will join the newly elected Sabb team comprising of Education Officer Jasmina Bidé, Activities & Development Officer Julia Ryland and Community & Welfare Officer Riham Mansour.

The Search For a New Craig Begins With Open Town Hall Meeting Alina Ryzhonkova Deputy News Editor WITH CRAIG CALHOUN having announced his early departure from LSE just a few weeks ago, the search to replace him is already in full swing. Even at this early stage of the process, some key differences are emerging to the last time LSE embarked on a search for a new director. Consultations and town hall meetings, such as the one held on Friday, demonstrate the more inclusive nature of this new search and the eagerness of the Directorship Selection Panel to get as much input from various groups at LSE as possible in order to ensure that the new director is the best possible fit.

Dr. Susan Liautaud took the lead at the Town Hall on Friday, stressing the importance of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in informing the search for a new director, as well as the centrality of students in all decisions. A variety of questions were posed to the panel, some quite technical and logistical, others more ideological, but almost all questions led back to the issue of whether the new director should be a beacon of academic excellence, or an outstanding manager.

Although Dr. Liautaud was quick to assure that there were no “sinister” circumstances surrounding Lord Myners’ recent departure, questions regarding his criticism of the LSE bureaucracy did arise and steer the

conversation towards emphasizing the importance of a director with a strong managerial background.

While there was a certain hesitance to place managerial skills well above academic achievements on the list of priorities for the new director, the desire for someone who is able to effectively navigate and reform the existing LSE bureaucracy was obvious.

The issue of remuneration came up, with students questioning the apparent emerging trend at LSE to double the pay of new directors.

Again, the panel was quick to reassure everyone that the process of determining pay will be transparent and rigorous, with myriad factors going into determining the pay package a new director gets. While the new director will have to be reasonably compensated based on his or her experience and other qualities, LSE is “not sitting here with a blank check”. The panel dissipated some student concerns in the meeting and made a clear effort to put student anxieties to rest, outlining plans for future consultations and extensive student involvement. It was not a wholly one-sided process though, with Dr. Liautaud promising to take a proposal to make the new director’s bonus at least partially contingent on student satisfaction to the Remunerations Committee. The Town Hall provided a welcome glimpse into the director recruitment process and gave students a chance to contribute to shaping the process.

SYLVIA ANDERSON, LSE Alumna and co-creator of TV classic Thunderbirds, has died aged 88 after a short illness. She was most famous for voicing the character Lady Penelope but enjoyed a impactful career in ‘supermarionation’ producing other cult TV hits such as Captain Scarlet and Stingray.

Anderson and her late husband, Gerry, whom she married over a lunch break before going back to work, were seen as pioneers in television when they created the massively successful Thunderbirds in 1965. Her Daughter, Dee Anderson, has described the producer as “a mother and a legend”. “Her intelligence was phenomenal but her creativity and tenacity unchallenged. She was a force in every way,”.

The pair even inspired their own fan club - Fanderson. Talking to BBC Breakfast, chairman of the group, Nick Williams, called her influence on the industry “huge”.

“She was one of the first really prominent women in the film and

TV industry…[she leaves behind] an amazing legacy of fantastic television, really groundbreaking entertainment”.

Anderson studied sociology and political science at LSE where she was president of the Drama Society. She subsequently moved to the USA where she would begin work as a journalist. After several years in America, she returned to Britain where she met her husband, Gerry, and the two went on to inspire something of a minor revolution in animated broadcasting. The Anderson’s created a novel technique for puppetry on television whereby voices were pre-recorded and linked up to the puppets via electronic sensors.

The iconic Lady Penelope, based on her creator’s appearance, was initially created to sell the show to American audiences. Anderson, who herself provided the aristocratic agent’s husky, cut-glass voice, later referred to Lady Penelope as ‘the arch feminist’ during an interview on Women’s Hour. “In my mind she was the feminine Scarlet Pimpernel… With Lady Penelope I was able to be responsible for a feminine character who was actu-

London Uni Roundup

The latest development of the rent and censorship controversies at UCL was a strike, which began in the quad with red flares being released from the top of the Portico. The crowd of students, singing songs like “Bitch Better Have My Money”, made their way to Euston Road where an effigy of Rex Knight, the Vice Provost who has spearheaded rent hikes and the censorship of UCL student media, was set alight. The protest began and ended with speeches condemning the actions of UCL in relation to hall rents, as well as toward Rebecca Pinnington, the head of Pi Media who was threatened with expulsion for publishing UCL’s plans to increase profits from halls over the coming years.

Sylvia Anderson, Creator and Voice of ‘Pop Feminist’ Lady Penelope, Dies aged 88 Joseph Briers News Editor

News | 5

ally doing something. Before that they were all characters that were three or four paces behind the hero.”

Anderson herself was something of a trailblazer in being one

of the only female execs in 60’s television. “It was very unusual in those days for a woman to have an important job, or to be able to voice what they felt”.

The number of students seeking counseling services at Imperial College has increased by 38% over the last three years, while the total number of students has only increased by 5%. A recent mental health survey revealed that three out of four Imperial College students had either been diagnosed with a mental health issue or suffered from stress.

While the university has been expanding its counseling services, Deputy President (Welfare) has spoken out, saying that universities need to address the underlying causes leading to such high rates of mental health issues among students, rather than allowing them to fall into crisis before treating them.

Students and tutors at the Business School have been exchanging accusations and complaints after the average mark awarded in one second year course was much lower than anticipated. Tutors have reported being abused by students through a variety of mediums, including social media and in person, and students have criticised the academics and the course management. Reviews of the course range from “despicable” to “totally irrelevant”, arguing that teachers could not be bothered to teach or provide feedback. Tutors, in turn, have defended their position saying that the course has been plagued with IT issues, but alternate options were made available to students. With both teaching staff and students furious, the University and SU have refrained from commenting.

6

| Tuesday 22 March, 2016

US Backs Bremain as New LSE Study Calculates Cost of Brexit

Joseph Briers News Editor

BORIS’ DITHERING, BREXIT, Bremain. Dear reader, you are undoubtedly now slightly brired, nay brexhausted, by the wall to wall referendum coverage. Yet, once again we must soldier on as we are met with undeniably important new infor mation, most likely worthy of attention and discussion.

The latest research from the LSE’s Centre for Economic Perfor mance (CEP) has revealed that the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union could represent a cost to the average household of a minimum of £850 each year. Further more, this has been deemed the ‘optimistic’ scenario by Professor John Van Reenen and his colleagues at the CEP. The lower figure assumes a relatively limited hit to trade and competition in the UK. The research assumes a post-Brexit Britain with a similar arrangement to Norway, with the nation experiencing no tariffs on EU trade, but still

having to comply with the majority of EU regulations. The study supposes that Britain would still face a number of non-tariff trade barriers that add up to the equivalent of a 2% tariff on exports to European Union member states.

The study predicts a fall in GDP of between 1.3% and 2.6%. Professor Van Reenen said, “Our work leaves little doubt that there is a serious cost for real wages and pensions from leaving the EU… Even ignoring any chilling effect on foreign investment and productivity from Brexit, the income losses from lower trade are clear. Regulatory overhauls are unlikely to offset these losses to any great extent. The issue facing voters is whether they feel that the social and political benefits of Brexit outweigh the evidence that we will be poorer”.

Naturally, Brexiteers have been unrelenting in their outrage at the results of the study.

“These ridiculous claims lack credibility as they come from the same economic sages who said we would better off scrapping the pound” spluttered

Matthew Elliot, Chief Executive of Vote Leave. Elliot refers to a 2000 Paper authored by for mer CEP contributor Willem Buiter, for mer Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member calling for the UK to adopt the euro as its currency. According to Vote Leave, the study is “EUfunded, highly selective and not credible”.

In other referendum news, there has been a spike in transatlantic intervention in the campaign over recent weeks, as both President Obama and Sen. John McCain have waged in on the debate. The President is to travel to London next month as part of final international tour and is expected to campaign to urge Britain’s voting public to remain in the European Union. AntiEU campaigners have urged the outgoing commanderin-chief to keep out of what they claim is an issue of solely domestic concern. In a letter to the Telegraph, prominent Brexiters, including London MP Kate Hoey, “respectfully request he recognises matters of sovereignty are best left to

the citizens directly affected”.

“While it is understandable that a sitting US president feels the obligation to speak in the interest of the United States, it must be advised that even a passive diplomatic recommendation in the matter of our national decision will receive the opposite of the intended effect” the letter reads.

Meanwhile, for mer Republican Presidential nominee and chair of the Senate Defence Committee, John McCain, has described Britain’s membership of the EU as “vital for Western Security”. Senator McCain claims that “The need for a strong and united Europe is greater than ever. The United States has long benefitted from British leadership in NATO and the EU – for instance, leading sanctions against Russia, providing vital support to Afghanistan and Ukraine, and grappling with the refugee crisis fuelled by Vladimir Putin”. The PM tweeted his approval of McCain’s statement, describing it as “an important intervention”.

Southampton Professors Take on University in Landmark Case Michelle Oliver Postgraduate Student TWO SOUTHAMPTON University professors have initiated legal proceedings ag ainst the University in what is being seen as a broad challenge to censorship and limitations to freedom of speech.

Israeli bor n Oren BenDor of the philosophy department and Gaza-raised Suleiman Sharkh who teaches engineering had planned a conference at the University entitled ‘Inter national Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’, which was approved before senior management asked the two academics to pay a stunning £24,000 to hold the the event.

It is the second time a conference questioning the legitimacy of the Israeli state has been planned at Southampton University, as in 2015 per mission was initially given and then revoked over fears the sensitive subject could have sparked mass protests. The per mission given this year is conditional upon the two professors paying the

exorbitant £24,000 for security and the univer sity has noted that this may increase in the event that more than 600 protesters picket the event.

A judicial review challenge against the University, which the event organisers have been able to undertake partially through crowdfunding, will make a ruling on both this year’s proposed event and last year’s cancellation. This year’s event has been postponed until that decision is made.

The professors said that the wholly unusually decision to impose the costs of an academic event on the organisers was an imposition on their academic freedom, and noted that there had been no threats of violence in regards to the event. Further, they said that the precedent of making academics pay for security compromised the fundamental right to open debate, as any discussion could be silenced simply by the threat of protest and picket Critics, including then Community Secretar y Eric Pickles MP and local MP

Caroline Noakes, dismissed the 2015 conference as partisan. One of the goals of this year’s conference is to specifically educate Palestinian lawyer s on how to most effectively utilise inter national

law to make new arguments.

The case is being seen as the first of its kind and The Guardian have described it as a ‘test case over academic freedom’.

Mayor Watch Goldsmith Forced to Quit Disabled Charity in Cuts Row Conservative candidate for Mayor Zac Goldsmith has been pressured to step down as the patron of a Disabled Charity after he voted in favour of cuts to Employment and Support Allowance; a key benefit for disabled people who find it difficult or impossible to work. Goldsmith still sits as MP for Richmond in the House of Commons, where then Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith floated the plan to limit the benefit. Incredibly, Duncan Smith has since resigned his ministerial position citing Osborne’s ‘deeply unfair’ budget which he felt had a negative effect on the most vulnerable in society

Khan Pledges to be the Mayor ‘For All LGBT Londoners’ Two weeks after rival Zac Goldsmith’s interview with Pink News in which he slipped up on the meaning of pansexual, Labour mayoral candidate has said he is the best candidate for LGBT Londoners.

Khan considers protecting London’s vibrant alternative scene and long history of LGBT culture and activism as crucial, and also mentioned plans to tackle the HIV rates in the country by breaking down stigma, as well as signalling what would be his zero tolerance approach on homophobia and hate speech. His announcements, which came before a Mayoral hustings hosted by Pride, ultimately contained little in the way of definitive policy proposals.

Official Election Campaign is Underway!

The official election campaign period, which is designated by the Electoal Commission, began yesterday as the city prepares for an unending barrage of campaigning not only around City Hall but the future of Britain’s relationship with Europe. The latest poll has Labour candidate Sadiq Khan, who has recently reigniteed the debate over extremism by saying he would back London Met Police who employed shoot-to-kill tactics to combat terrorism, as ahead by 6 points in the race. Most political observers are gearing up for a negative race with no punches pulled between the two main contenders

LSE Alumnus Senator Becomes First Republican to back Garland for SCOTUS Nomination Sheila Subbiah Undergraduate Student IN AN ACT OF FAIR-MINDEDNESS surely inspired by his time at the LSE, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois has become the first Republican Senator to agree that the Senate should, at the very least, hold a vote for the confirmation of Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Despite claims from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and various other senior figures in the GOP leadership that Kirk and his Colleagues should refuse to even meet the nominee of a lame-duck president so far into an election year, the LSE alumnus has called for Senate Republicans to “just man up and cast a vote”.

Speaking to a Chicago radio show, Kirk said, “The tough thing about these senatorial jobs is you get yes or no votes…[we] should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out”. However, he was doubtful that the minds of those such as McConnell would be changed anytime soon. “I think given Mitch’s view, I don’t see his view changing too much…Eventually we will have an election, and we will have a new president, and the new president will come forward with a nomination” the Senator told the ‘Big John Howell Show’. Kirk is also a member of the handful of fellow Republicans including Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, that have agreed to meet with Garland personally and hear him out.

Garland, Chief Justice of the

DC Court of Appeals (often referred to as the second highest court in the land), was chosen as a moderate candidate that might hold cross-aisle appeal; Garland is no Scalia, but he has been described by Fox News as “the most conservative nominee from a Dem. in the modern era”. Yet, it will come as little surprise to the administration that the GOP are fighting the nomination with such fervour.

Before Merrick Garland was even nominated, Republicans were pointing to the so-called ‘Biden Rule’ as justification for refusing Obama’s pick a hearing before 2017 when the next occupant of the Oval is in place.

A more cynical observer might even suggest that the supposed reasonableness of Kirk and the likes of Kelly Ayotte are tied to short-term electoral in-

terests rather than a newfound sense of constitutional righteousness. Kirk faces one of the toughest reelection contests in the country this autumn in a state that has not elected a Republican presidential nominee since Bush the elder in 1988.

His democrat rival, Tammy Duckworth is already employing what is becoming a popular technique for Democrats vying for Republican-held seats in bringing the inaction of the GOP to the attention of a largely disapproving populace. The tying of moderate Republicans to the refusal to acknowledge the nomination is also getting traction in the state of Kelly Ayotte where she has been the victim of a series of attack ads slamming the junior Senator for ‘not doing her job’.

NUS HQ Picketed by Progessive Activists Over Greg Sproston News Editor

PROMINENT GAY RIGHTS campaigner Peter Tatchell organised and attended a protest at the front door of the London headquarters of the National Union of Students last week over its controversial ‘noplatfor ming’ policy. The official stance holds that proscribed individuals or organisations should not be given a platfor m to speak, nor should Union officers share a stage with such individuals.

Though historically applied to overtly racist or fascist groups, the usage of the no-platfor m policy is being increasingly utilised in more creative ways by the current NUS leadership.

In February of this year, the elected LGBT officer for NUS Fran Cowling stated that she would not appear at an event at Canterbury Christ Church if Peter Tatchell attended, on the basis that he was both racist and transphobic. Whilst this did not specifically constitute an organisation wide ‘no-platfor m’, as the decision was made by Fran Cowling alone, it reflected a wider debate on censorship at Universities and Student Unions.

The protest, which along with Tatchell had backing from the likes of Professor AC Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Kenan Malik and Suzanne Moore, additionally had support from a wide range of pressure and interest groups including the Index on Censorship, British Muslims for Secular

Democracy, Feminism in London and the International Humanist & Ethical Union.

Taking place on the evening of St. Patrick’s Day at a time when what felt like 90% of the LSE population was crammed into the Tuns, a hardy group of around 60 students and activists picketed the NUS HQ with a two pronged approach; those present saw freedom of speech and assembly is an inalienable human right which should never be curtailed, but also rallied against hate speech and bigotry, arguing that the best way to defeat them is with open debate.

Peter Tatchell has a prominent record of campaigning for minority rights. Though he is most notable for his action on gay rights, he has campaigned for the right to self deter mination of, amongst others, South Africans, Zimbabweans, Palestinians and Kurds and has twice sustained injuries in attempts to make a citizen’s’ arrest of dictator Robert Mugabe, having to withdraw from running for office as a Green Party candidate over fears of brain damage.

Perceived censorship on campuses has played a significant role at LSE this year, with the for mation and subsequent motion to ban the LSESU Speakeasy society having grabbed the interest of the student body.

The most recent debate specifically on no platfor ming at LSE came in 2013, where the student body rejected the NUS’s policy by a majority of over 250 votes.

News | 7

News In Brief Governments look the other way on migration National governments may have deliberately allowed migrants and refugees to slip through the net and ‘permeate borders’ in an effort to boost faltering economies and garner political support, new LSE research has claimed. Dr Leonidas Cheliotis of the Social Policy department focussed his research on Greece but holds that his results have wider implications for the European community. He argues that undocumented migrants have come to form a crucial part of the labour market in a country where a staggering 24% of GDP is attributed to the shadow economy. Roughly a tenth of the Greek population is foreign born, and a further one third of these migrants are thought to be undocumented

‘Engineers of Jihad’ throws light on extremism The finding that Islamist radicals born and educated in Muslim countries are 17 times more likely to have an engineering qualification than the general population in these countries is published this week in a new book being launched at the LSE, called Engineers of Jihad. The book challenges a widely-held view that many terrorists are “poor, ignorant and have nothing to lose,” according to its authors, LSE academic Dr Steffen Hertog and European University Institute Professor Diego Gambetta. The authors claim that the strong presence of graduates among Islamist radicals is due to economic development failures in core Muslim countries.

Migrants are Economically Crucial says LSE Research Research by academics based at LSE Cities highlights the important role played by migrant entrepreneurs in socially and economically deprived parts of UK cities. It finds that migrant proprietors on multi-ethnic streets across Birmingham, Bristol, Leicester and Manchester play a vital role in generating local employment, as well as contributing to social exchange. Dr Suzanne Hall, Project Lead for Super-diverse Streets, said: “This research identifies the significance of migrant micro-economies in providing vital economic and social assets in deprived urban areas, which have often suffered from longterm underinvestment from the public and private sectors.

|

Tuesday 22 March, 2016

When SU Politics Came of Age

The election upset demonstrated the very best and the worst of SU politics

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

THE EVENTS OF THE past few weeks concerning elections at the LSESU are nothing short of the best entertainment that the LSE has had in recent years. It highlights both the best and the worst of student politics. However, before we judge the entire affair as petty, consign it to the history books and chalk it up to a case of typically overserious student electioneering, we should remember that this is really a case of the ‘real world’ imitating the ‘student’ world’ ‘This place is run like a North Korean military dictatorship’. Studying my masters at the LSE last year, the words that marked my first experience with student politics at the LSE are seared into the recesses of my mind. As a political outcast from my undergraduate days, I had revelled in the role of the serious student, and had no time for the aspirants mandarins of student politics. As a student of ‘real’ politics, I loved to focus on the titans that rocked the world stage; ‘high politics’ was a phrase often used and I adopted a ‘holier than thou’ stoicism in my self-imposed ovidian exile from the SU. Scandal, election upsets,

“This place is run like North Korean military dictatorship.”

and candidates using underhand tactics are nothing new - a fact reinforced by the ever present spectre of American primaries over the last several months. Neither is it particularly surprising in SU politics.

They are, after all, hyperbolic microcosms of the political reality we find ourselves in. However, that statements is not true anymore if we’re really honest with ourselves.

“Although, I was hearing the phrase ‘Make LSE Great Again’ an awful lot that night, albeit in an ironic fashion.”

As a recent graduate, and having worked on world news this past year, several key issues have been dominant: one of them the aforementioned American primaries. Given this, it becomes apparent that in many ways LSESU is doing better than ‘real’ politics. No one has done anything with livestock, for one thing, and no one has proposed building a wall to fend of KCL students from accessing the Virginia Woolf building precariously located on LSE turf. Although, I was hearing the phrase ‘Make LSE Great Again’ an awful lot that night, albeit in an ironic fashion.

So when I decided to visit friends, only to be convinced

to turn up to election night at the SU, I was in the peculiar situation of being both an LSE alumnus and an avowed opponent of the student polity. However, this inside-out perspective meant I did make a few observations: The spectacle of RON (reopen nominations) prevailing is a far cry from the system failing. In fact, it’s a sure sign the system worked. Two candidates were found wanting and, hence, a re-run is the most democratic and sensible option. Our American cousins in the Republican Party may soon be wanting such an option.

Another standout moment was the way in which this publication handled itself during the whole affair. From my experience in journalism, reporting stories based on incomplete information can have disastrous consequences. It can ruin the lives of people in the media glare with the Rolling Stone university campus rape story coming to my mind. It can also make a news source a laughing stock, as was the case when a reporter from CNN erroneously reported an ISIS flag at a gay pride parade in London last year. Publications are built on a

“I was in the peculiar situation of being both an LSE alumnus and an avowed opponent of the student polity.”

“Two candidates were found wanting and, hence, a re-run is the most democratic and sensible option.” foundation of trust with their readership and the decision not to publish articles based on screen grabs from facebook is a commendable and very hard one to make. When sacrificing a potential scoop and marquee article for integrity, you always walk a fine line between what is an acceptable risk. As it turns out, the alleged Facebook comments were indeed written by one of the candidates, however, the most reputable news organisations often go for hours, if not days before publishing certain material and putting their name to it unless they have several sources confirming authenticity, again speaking from experience.

When the apoplectic red mist of broken studen dreams that invariably accompanies election season lifts, LSESU has a lot to be proud about this election season despite the actions of a few. The student newspaper acted with integrity and the election procedure worked as two very flawed candidates were found unworthy and left trampled under foot by the relentless march of RON supporters.

Credit: LSESU

Nadeem Shad LSE Alumnus

Comment

8

Comment | 9

The Problem With Voting Blocs

How society and club endorsements partly led to the Gen Sec election crisis Hari Prabu society and club committees to use of anti-semitic language, and then Facebook message “The SU should ing Undergraduate Student put out a singular opinion in the and while this should be strongly my friends who are the last two name of all of their members condemned, I believe we should not be allowing LGBT+ Officers and ask them as to which candidate or set of also focus on the way in which to put a good word in for me to society and club the society’s online endorsement AS I WALKED OUT OF THE policies is best for them. This ap- certain members of LSESU Isold Beaver office in my first year, proach leads to a disintegration lamic Society decided on which While of course committees questionnaire?

I asked another campaigner who of the electoral debate to sim- candidate to back. The screenthere were many more commitwas among the twenty or so peo- ply focus on the concerns of the shots of the Facebook messages members who I didn’t have to put out a tee ple who had gathered secretively individuals within committees, that were leaked clearly revealed a personal connection with, to Back Barnett and had even who can often be detached from that a meeting had taken place singular opinion and I am of course very grateinsisted on a code word to get the mainstream opinion within many months before campaignful for the assistance given to me in the name of all by these friends and their beentry into the room. He replied their clubs and societies. After ing had opened to decide who succinctly but rather ominously, all, just by being on a committee the society would support and in me, it is surely this kind of their members lief “They’re hacks.” From that point means that you are different by these messages showed that the of practice that puts people off onwards, I gradually became a putting far more priority on ex- reasoning behind such a meeting as to which from running by thinking from cynic with regards to Students’ tra-curricular activities than the was to ensure that the so-called the outset that they don’t have a candidate is best chance to win. I am not the only Union politics and in the years majority of students. I of course disaster to Muslims and prosince have often hypocritically commend those who put their Palestinians of Harry Maxwell with these kinds of connecfor them.” one cursed the combination of vot- efforts into broadening our so- as General Secretary could be tions and I daresay that mine ing blocs and personality politics in deciding elections. I never thought though that I would see the day when this more hidden side of elections came to the forefront in such a candid and perverse way.

Many will disagree with me, but I believe group solidarity has the capacity to lead to bad outcomes. When a group thinks of itself as having its own distinct interests that are detached from the interests of the individuals that comprise it, then this is a recipe for both the alienation of those who think differently within the group and the establishment of an elite who are able to dictate what is in the best interests of the group. The endorsement mechanism of our elections exacerbates this problem.

The SU should not be allowing

cial and intellectual life, but we must acknowledge that we are not representative of the average student who cares more about issues like: the cost of food, exam feedback and the timely release of timetables than they do about difficult to define concepts like liberation and contentious issues like boycotts, strikes, and protests. To truly represent LSE opinion, we must either abolish club and society endorsements or, equally effective, have endorsement meetings in which every member of that club or society has an equal vote.

I believe the failure to properly support the voices of individuals within our Union is partly what led to the crisis that accompanied the last days of this year’s General Secretary election. A lot of attention has focused on the

avoided. I think it is incredibly problematic to describe another candidate’s views as having such absolutist consequences and I think creating such a climate of fear prevents people from expressing their honest views and putting forward their own candidacy. If people are being told hyperbolically that their individual identity is under threat by another candidate, then of course they will feel pushed into not doing anything that might split the vote and let that candidate in. It seems that people really overestimate the influence of our Union executive, and the need for themselves to have a position of power on it, and I think it is truly deplorable when this leads to great potential candidates such as James Wurr and Samiha Begum feeling unable to run.

So now that I have made completely sure with that paragraph that I will never again win an LSESU election, let me move on to the factor which compounds the problem of voting blocs (something that I am very guilty of) that of calling on personal connections within the Students’ Union’s clubs and societies. There is nothing wrong with knowing people from all over the Students’ Union but when we have an electoral culture where popularity is everything, the well-connected have far too much privilege and influence. Let me give you an example. Is it fair that the night before the LGBT+ endorsement meeting I was able to Facebook message three committee members who are friends asking them to put my case forward at the meet-

are far less extensive than others but we must change what it takes to win election to the major LSESU positions if we are to create a truly inclusive culture.

We need to focus our elections on policies and not personality and so the Union should work with the School during election time to give wide coverage of candidates’ policies to all students in the same way as we do with teacher feedback forms. We need to get more than a third of LSE voting and we need to have thirteen students running for General Secretary before we eliminate the big names and are forced to hold a by-election. For now though, all I can say is I am sorry for my part in this culture that creates an inner core of student politicians and has excluded many of you.

An Electric Victory for Democracy A portrayal of the results night for those who were home watching House of Cards Bobby Gard-Storry Undergraduate Student IT STARTED WITH A LONE voice from the back of the hall, cutting through the hubbub: “Ron! Ron! Ron!” Within seconds it had spread, and the chant reverberated through the Venue: “RON! RON! RON!” The rallying cry of democracy was in full force, and the moment was electric.

Anybody who stayed home to finish watching the new season of House Of Cards, instead of attending Results Night on that Thursday evening, ought to be kicking themselves this week, because if there was one thing that couldn’t be denied by everybody filing out of the Tuns on Thursday night, it was that student politics could be entertaining. Largely irrelevant, perhaps.

Often petty, absolutely. But on this occasion, damned entertaining!

The stage was set: SU regalia decked out the Venue, balloons

“RON! RON! RON! The rallying cry of democracy was in full force, and the moment was electric.” and all. The two Gen Sec candidates’ tribes claimed a front row table each, shooting acrimonious looks across the divide. The early ballots were announced, and the shouting and drinking advanced with each round.

Upsets were upset, vacancies were filled, scalps were taken.

The atmosphere was palpable, and brought to mind a rowdy crowd of ancient Athenians at the Pynx.

Then came the big moment.

The first results came in - RON in first position, ahead of Maxwell and Uddin - and the crowd went wild. From my perch on

the mezzanine, I had a perfect view of all the heads at the two front tables swivel to stare at the entire remainder of the packed hall as we cheered gleefully.

“RON! RON! RON!” The chant may as well have been ‘The people will be heard’. The people were heard. And the people, unfortunately for the two candidates sitting amongst their teams, were pretty pissed off.

Then, of course, RON actually won after the second round.

Momentum is a funny thing, and any post hoc analysis of the ways in which both candidates’ Mo-trains were brutally derailed, just as they were about to pull into the station, wouldn’t seem to do justice to the scattergun of micro-scandals and machinations that pervaded both campaigns. Protestations of innocence and half-hearted apologies were met with scepticism by a justly irreverent student body, as hearsay and rumour undoubtedly added fuel to the fires that both candidates had started in the weeks before

election day.

Public opinion takes no prisoners, and Mssrs. Maxwell and Uddin learnt that the hard way.

Voters voted, and the result stood.

The whole hall erupted in a bonanza of gleeful shock and confusion, with BNOCs, “running around like headless chickens,” to quote a friend. Before even 5 minutes had elapsed, I’d already lost count of the number of freshly inspired candidates who’d emerged as potential new

“Protestations of innocence and half-hearted apologies were met with scepticism by a justly irreverent student body.”

nominees. Some had originally considered a win too unlikely to run, but had a fresh twinkle in their eye over the prospect of a second race; one now blown wide open. Others considered bringing forward their runs by a year, instead of biding their time for ‘their chance’ in 2017.

At least one who ‘also ran’ for one of the other major positions looked determined to now pivot his campaign towards the top prize.

The floodgates opened, and this week we all have front row seats to watch, as all those would-be candidates who didn’t enter the first time around rush through. This hack predicts electoral carnage.

Exiting on Thursday night, I passed two students standing outside the Tuns, beers in hand.

“I can’t believe nobody won!” said one.

“DEMOCRACY won!” replied the other.

And - for better or for worse - you’d better believe it.

10

| Tuesday 22 March, 2016

Gender Segregation: Is Consent Enough?

Why ‘consent’ does not justify the gender segregation at LSESU’s ISOC Annual Dinner My first argument is one of im- ture of the reasons for this specific not the culture of everyone in atMolly Farrow “There is no position.

Regardless of consent, the segregation would not have made tendance, it was of some, and it was Undergraduate Student curtain was an imposed form of this viable in practice…for the a mark of respect to segregate with ‘separate but segregation. It was a physical bar- ‘cultural’ reasons). The problem a curtain since it was hardly a coBEFORE I BEGIN, THIS PIECE rier, which aimed to separate gen- is that the ISOC committee who lossal thing for the others in attendequal’.” is not in favour of banning ISOC nor of ISOC having any disciplinary repercussions for their recent event. Nor is it necessarily one on the ins and outs of the specific motivations of (some) Muslims for gender-based segregation. It does not condone the portrayal of the event by media such as the Daily Mail. This piece discusses whether consent is enough to justify segregation at all and why segregation is wrong, regardless of motivation.

Debates with friends of mine over the past couple of days, in addition to comments from other peers at the Maryam Namazie talk and online, have often cited ‘consent’ to justify the gender segregation at ISOC’s recent annual dinner. However, I think I would struggle to accept the curtain used at the event even if I could categorically verify the consent of everyone involved. I’ll try my best to articulate why.

Putting aside for the moment whether there was consent, whether it was explicit or tacit, whether everyone consented or just a majority. I want to ask (and hopefully begin to answer) whether consent is enough. If everyone who had anything to do with the dinner explicitly consented, would that make the gender-based segregation justified?

I don’t think so.

ders. Segregation in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. One can see it in London. There are clusters of cultures everywhere to name Edgware Road and Elephant and Castle among many. There is nothing wrong with this. But there isn’t anything wrong with this because segregation is ‘okay’ in weaker forms but not stronger forms. It’s okay because it is a natural segregation that has come about through free association.

This means that had ISOC attended the event and happened, on their volition, to sit on girls-only tables and boys-only tables, I would not be writing this article right now (note: I understand that the na-

“If the same event were run and black people had to sit on one side of the curtain and white people on the other, there would be outcry, and no doubt several arrests.”

organised the event took an executive decision to have the curtain in place and have different numbers for brothers and sisters to call to get their tickets. Even if there was consent, which is hard to investigate, the point is that they imposed this decision under the assumption that there was consent.

My second argument is that in segregating and claiming it to be cultural is a mistake. It is not cultural for all Muslims. Some oppose it outright, some do not, some are not sure. To appeal to the ‘culture’ argument is to mistake attendants of ISOC’s annual dinner as a homogenous group. This is a mistake on principle in my view, and not just one of the Muslim community. In fact, just recently for being an atheist I was accused of being an ‘imperialist’. A big problem, as Maryam Namazie pointed out, is that when we fall down the rabbit hole of identity politics, we make all sorts of category mistakes. That is, we say ‘this is “their” culture’ without realising that “they” are many different people: individuals with different cultural practices and different opinions og those cultural practices. So no, the ‘culture’ argument just won’t cut it.

For those still clinging to this argument from cultural relativism, they might argue that even if it is

ance to have to deal with.

This is true. And this feeds back to an earlier point I made in passing that there is ‘weak’ segregation, which is just cursory or symbolic, and then there is ‘strong’ segregation that imposes it through violence and intimidation. So it is correct that the analogy Maryam Namazie made to Apartheid is not directly proportional or relatable to a curtain at ISOC’s dinner.

But I don’t think this was the point Namazie was getting at when she used this analogy. Of course, a curtain and physical violence and intimidation are not on par. It is intellectually dishonest to make such a strawman of what Namazie meant by the analogy.

Instead, Namazie’s comparison to Apartheid was that segregation based on race was despicable. The practical manifestations of that were not at the crux of the analogy. In the same way segregation based on race is widely accepted as wrong, so is segregation based on gender. Let me reformulate the analogy so that it won’t provoke a reaction based on a misunderstanding.

If the same event were run and black people had to sit on one side of the curtain and white people on the other, there would be an outcry, and no doubt several arrests. Yet,

this sort of segregation was carried out by ISOC’s committee when organising the event. Why is race different from gender?

I’ve been wracking my brain all day trying to find a way to answer that question without having to appeal to culture or religion—or better specified, a denomination of the religion since not all members practice the same teachings.

I can’t find one.

Okay, but, ‘there was no harm done, it was just a curtain (weak segregation) and everyone consented.’

The analogy to race captures the inherent wrongness of the principle at stake here, not the practical manifestations of it. It is for this reason that I oppose to their being banned and their portrayal in the media. It is a disproportional reaction.

However, from a moral perspective I disagree on principle and I sincerely hope that this current controversy will make all of us reflect on the cultural norms we often perpetuate in our own actions and how these help or hinder equality.

We all need to be more reflexive.

That includes ISOC members, Nona, the Daily Mail, Maryam Namazie and myself. There is no ‘separate but equal.’

The Problem With Personality Politics Personality, progressivism, and the potential problems for the US Democratic Party Benjamin Thomas Undergraduate Student IT’S NOT A FRESH STORY anymore to reference the exceptional rise of Bernie Sanders in the US Democratic primaries. This older former-independent Senator has managed to galvanise support, particularly among young students and has pushed progressivism into the spotlight during the Democratic debates and campaigns. None of this was expected a year ago when his campaign began, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was considered the de facto heir-apparent for the nomination; she still seems certain to win the nomination, but she has been challenged.

One of the more fascinating aspects of Sanders’s campaign has been the cult of personality adopted by some of his supporters. These ‘young progressives’ have deified their candidate, seeing him as the true voice for the left. They see him as distinct from a Democratic party that they present as captured by financial service elites and the median voter to

the point of ignoring unions, social provision, and honest politics.

To this end, they have consistently expressed their support to Bernie in opposition to Clinton where she is portrayed as a flip-flopper without ethics who is beholden to big money and Goldman Sachs.

Bernie is the paragon of virtue who must be rallied about while other candidates, Democrat or Republican are evil and antagonistic to progressivism.

This belief has been challenged by other Democrats as naïve, sexist, or racialised; perspectives that have their own supporters and detractors, but perspectives I will not go into. What I think is important to consider is the practical effect on the general election. Some in this camp have signed a ‘Bernie or Bust Pledge’ to only vote for Bernie as President and not an alternative Democratic nominee.

Seeing as Clinton is likely to win the nomination this could lead to a clash. If significant segments of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party choose not to vote Democratic, the election may in fact swing in favour of the Repub-

“One of the more fascinating aspects of Sanders’s campaign has been the cult of personality adopted by some of his supporters.” lican, as a split vote with multiple left candidates is in-optimal in FPTP. Furthermore, the demonization of Clinton may convince prospective voters who would otherwise consider voting for Clinton to rule her out as a bad candidate, again improving the relative position of the Republicans. This would also be relevant in Congressional and local elections where hostility towards otherwise acceptable Democratic candidates

regarding their lack of ‘Progressivism’ could give positions instead to anti-progressive candidates. As an aside, it is worth considering theoretically which actions would count as expressive voting here. Is a vote informed by likely outcomes rather than position necessarily strategic, or is an ideological decision between ‘major candidates’ still expressive?

In the interest of balance, it is worth noting that this ‘Bernie or Bust’ approach is not endorsed by the Bernie Sanders campaign.

The campaign and the Senator have consistently called for a political movement that works within the structures of the existing party to privilege progressive values, but nonetheless return a Congress and President that can achieve them.

The explicit campaign tends to refrain from the overtly personalist populism and leaves it to the activist branch. The problem and its outcome will have to be continually reassessed as time elapses and we see if in fact Sanders loses the nomination to Clinton, and then what rhetoric and activism is used in the run up to the general elec-

tion.

Moving beyond a purely American context, we can consider the relevance to more local issues for LSE students. Consider the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, who likewise has been celebrated by his supporters for challenging the establishment policies and politicians of the Labour Party. Going forwards, it will be interesting to see whether those who supported him for leader will support his New Labour colleagues in General and local elections or whether they will leave for minor parties and in doing so help Lib Dem, Tories, UKIP, and the like win seats. Whether this requires reselection of those not considered supportive to the cause will continue to be a cause for concern for more centrist Labour MPs. In the upcoming LSE by-election it will be interesting if those voters who were particularly keen on Harry or Rayhan will be as excited to vote in the by-election or if they will become part of the wider LSE public who do not vote and are less represented in the outcome. Time will tell.

Comment | 11

Brexit: A Response to a Response

A response to Leo Wilkinson’s criticisms in the 25 February edition of The Beaver

IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH of his main body, Leo Wilkinson attempts to justify the extraordinary cost of EU membership to the UK. He claims that ‘The UK is one of the four largest EU economies and yet since 1985 has contributed less than Germany, France or Italy’.

This claim is strictly correct, although it is deceitful. Wilkinson failed to inform the reader that the four largest EU economies are Germany, the UK, France and Italy. So basically, the largest four economies are the four greatest contributors to the EU; the UK is not given a great advantage. Wilkinson also states that ‘Proportionally to the UK’s GNI, it is the country which contributes the least to the EU budget compared to any other EU member state’. While this may well be true, it does not render irrelevant the fact that the UK still contributes over £11 billion.

In an earlier paragraph, Wilkinson accuses me of mentioning his ‘favourite fallacy’, which is that ‘the UK can continue to influence EU legislation without being an EU member state, and also cherry-pick which rules we keep’. However, nowhere in my article did I argue this. In fact, on the con-

“In fact, I recognised that the UK would not be able to influence EU legislation. My argument was that the UK does not significantly influence EU regulation at the moment...”

trary, I recognised that the UK would not be able to influence EU legislation. My argument was that the UK does not significantly influence EU regulation at the moment anyway so there would be little change. I am perplexed as to how a postgraduate student at the LSE cannot read simple English. (I was going to recommend that Wilkinson take up his own advice and spend more time in the library reading up on this topic, but if he cannot even read in the first place, I do not think that be of much help.) Ironically, in his opening paragraph Wilkinson accuses fellow LSE students, with an implicit reference to me, of misquoting evidence.

In the same paragraph, he says that I portray ‘EU-Norway relations as ideal’, yet only one sentence consisting of 21 words was used to discuss these relations, while the total word count of the article is 1,234 words. It is beyond desperate to draw the inference that I portrayed these relations as ideal when the discussion of these relations consisted of less than 2% of the article.

Additionally, the sentence also mentioned Switzerland’s relations. There was no discussion on which nation has the better relations, thus I could not possibly portray ‘EU-Norway relations as ideal’. Further, I donated the space of an entire paragraph to explaining that it would not be disastrous if the UK could not reach an agreement with the EU post-separation, making it an even more preposterous inference to make.

Now on to the most important point for the majority of Eurosceptics: immigration.

Wilkinson starts by complaining that I provided no sources for the quoted statistics. However, it is not common in The Beaver to provide sources. In fact, I was even told by an editor of The Beaver to remove the sources I initially supplied for my statistics because providing sources ‘disrupts the flow of the argument’. Upon this advice, I decided to remove the sources for the statistics that are commonly used and widely accept-

“Now on to the most important point for the majority of Eurosceptics: immigration.” ed (although I decided to keep the sources for the less commonly used statistics). I would have thought that someone who reads about the EU’s weaknesses ‘most days and nights’ would have been aware that the statistics I did not quote are commonly used and accepted in debates related to the UK’s membership of the EU. He then accuses me of failing to mention that, as a whole, EU migrants pay more in taxes than they claim in benefits. However, I did mention this point before rebutting it when I stated that ‘EU proponents argue against this point [that a problem with immigrants is that some immigrants come to the UK just to claim benefits] because there is overwhelming evidence that immigrants, as a whole, are net contributors. However, it would be beneficial to the UK to accept the migrants that contribute to the system and refuse to accept the migrants who seek benefits’. Once again, Wilkinson’s reading ability comes into question.

At the beginning of the main body of his article Wilkinson makes the all too common

“Currently, employers are so worried about discrimination lawsuits that they employ foreigners purely to increase the diversity of their workplace.”

mistake of failing to understand the logic behind UKIP’s policy to ‘allow British business[es] to choose to employ British citizens first’. Currently, employers are so worried about discrimination lawsuits that they employ foreigners purely to increase the diversity of their workforces. UKIP’s policy would exterminate this pressure entirely as businesses would be free to employ whomever they want. Businesses would start to employ workers based solely on capability, which is the most efficient and fair employment system. In truth, it is hard to blame Wilkinson for making this mistake; after all, the British media led him to make it. (It seems that Wilkinson’s listening ability is superior to his reading ability.)

Wilkinson then mentions that many of UKIP’s MEPs have been guilty of multiple atrocities. While this is true, dirt can be found on MEPs from every single party. Further, this is a good time to mention that I did not say that I agree with every single one of UKIP’s policies. Nor did I advocate that I am a loyal UKIP supporter. My argument is that the UK should leave the EU. Finally, Wilkinson claims that the EU been a success because it has resulted in ‘over 50 years of peace, the largest single market in the world, cheaper and passport-free travel, stronger consumer protection, cheaper telephone calls, the right to retire in a different EU country, improved air and water quality, internet freedom, the Erasmus programme, [and] ending discrimination on the basis of nationality across 28 countries’.

This paragraph may well be an easy read but the substance does not hold up. The fact that the EU is the largest single market in the world is not an advantage in itself, merely it could lead to advantages. However, it has had catastrophic consequences, such as contributing to the bankruptcy of Greece. Further, the EU has not ended discrimination in all 28 countries.

As a British resident of Cyprus, I have first-hand experience of

national discrimination within the EU. Moreover, Wilkinson provides ‘passport-free travel’ as evidence that the EU has been a success. Is Wilkinson seriously claiming that the EU has been a success because you can now travel with a piece of card instead of a book? Furthermore, having the right to retire in a different EU country is not a successful aspect of the EU. This right has adverse effects on overpopulated countries as they become more overpopulated, exacerbating the effects of overpopulation. In cases where retiring in another country benefits that country, it would still be possible to do this without the EU as you could just apply for permission to retire in that country. The rest of Wilkinson’s examples (over 50 years of peace, stronger consumer protection, cheaper telephone calls, internet freedom and the Erasmus programme) are not solely down to the EU and would still have occurred if the UK was not in the EU.

“As a British resident of Cyprus, I have first-hand experience of national discrimination, within the EU.” In conclusion, Wilkinson made a wholly unsuccessful attempt to rebut a few of the arguments I made in favour of the UK leaving the EU. Many arguments I made, including the most important arguments, were not even discussed by Wilkinson in his article. It can be implied from this that he accepts them as valid. Therefore, I leave you with the same conclusion as I did in ‘The EU: Time to Leave’, notably, that it is beneficial for the UK to leave the EU.

Credit: Flickr: Thijs ter Haar

Ramone Bedi Undergraduate Student

12| Tuesday 22 March, 2016

A “Major” Crisis for the Tory Party Iain Duncan Smith shocks Downing Street with sudden resignation Daniel Shears Features Editor I T ’ S A F L A SH B AC K T O the 1990s, when John Major was into his second term with a slim majority in the Commons and the Maastricht Rebels were creating discord, disunity and disarray within the Tory backbenches. Luckily for him, Major was able to pull it out of the bag and sign the infamous treaty which established the political entity around which so much controversy now revolves: the European Union.

Fast-forwarding to 2016, and with an even smaller governing majority, David Cameron is facing similar divisions within his party as the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU draws closer and closer. The question is, will he be able to cling on to his dream of European reform and modernisation, or will the Eurosceptics dominate the f ield and pull ahead to victory?

And what does this mean for the future cohesion (or lack of ) within the Conservative Party?

While Boris Johnson used his public declaration of Brexit support to forward his personal political ambitions, Iain Duncan Smith, in a dramatic turn of events, sacrif iced his Cabinet position (under the guise of f iscal political disagreement), to undermine the Prime Minister and his pro-EU pals. Despite his pathetic attempt on the Andrew Marr Show last week to convince us that he had suddenly grown a moral compass, it is clear, by both the timing of his announcement and his previous political/ ideological record regarding welfare policy, that his resignation was about Europe.

It is offensive that IDS would try and justify his decision citing cuts to disability benef its and PIP payments that he himself has been

“It is offensive that IDS would try and justify his decision citing cuts to disability benefits and PIP payments that he himself has been engineering over the last few years” budget is simply a continuation of this policy. The ideology and the logic behind such a plan has remained consistent, and so for IDS to suddenly attack his own government is utter hypocrisy, if not downright lunacy.

I am in two minds as to what to make of the whole situation.

On one hand, IDS’s criticisms are spot on; his speculation about the ideological motivation behind the budget, as well as its bias towards high earners, has been a common lefty critique of Osborne’s budgets through the years (and

thus music to my ears), and a public Tory resignation adds weight to Corbyn’s accusations

“They say any publicity is good publicity. I dont agree; this is rarely the case in politics, and is certainly not the case here ” about the unfairness of the spending proposals. It will also drive a deeper wedge between Eurosceptics and Europhiles within the party, something which a Labour supporter can hardly complain about.

However, it is the insincerity of these accusations which outweigh their political validity. As much as I admire the content, I cannot ignore the source. Senior Conservative f igures have been quick to denounce IDS’s resignation in the same way I am now am; Amber Rudd (energy secretary) claimed she resented Smith’s “high moral tone”, while Ros Altmann explicitly argued the move was motivated by the issue of Europe, reporting that IDS “appeared to spend much of the last few months plotting over Europe and against the leadership of the party”. In fact, in the Prime Minister’s off icial letter of response to IDS’s departure, even he mentions how they are “on different sides in the vital debate about the future of Britain’s relations with Europe”. It seems even the party leadership know what’s going on, even if they won’t openly confront Duncan-Smith about it.

It was indeed accurate of the Guardian to describe the Conservative party as being in a state of “civil war”. However, it’s a war that was going on long before IDS decided to step down, and has now been

exacerbated by his actions: the war over Europe. 129 Tory MPs declare they want to leave the EU, while 155 wish to stay (as of February 2016).

Compare this to Labour’s 215 MPs who support continued British membership versus their 7 members who wish to leave and you can see what a state the Tories are really in.

What makes it particularly remarkable is that fact that half a dozen of these MPs hold Cabinet positions. Given that the Cabinet is supposedly the consentient core of government, made up of the Prime Minister’s most valued political allies, this isn’t great for the party’s public image.

They say any publicity is good publicity. I don’t agree; this is rarely the case in politics, and is certainly not the case here.

Although I deplore IDS because of his past actions as Secretary for the Department of Work and Pensions, I must admit that, whatever his reasons, his decision has made the plight of the Conservative Party much worse. While I feel it has not added much to the Brexit campaign (owing oddly enough to IDS’s own denial that he resigned over Europe), and thus not signif icantly wounded the Bremain campaign, it has added fuel to the internal f ire which is burning the Tories from the inside out. Will they recover? It depends on the outcome of the referendum.

In the event we vote to remain in the EU, faith in the Conservative party leadership will be somewhat restored, along with their legitimacy.

If, however, the Nigel Farages of the world get their way, then the future is bleak for the Tories. Cameron’s leadership will likely be contested. The party’s legitimacy will be in question. Everything will be up in the air. At that point, (although I hope we don’t vote to leave), it will be Labour’s time to strike.

Photo credit: pixabay.com

Features

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

engineering over the past few years as the part of the Tory’s austerity agenda. His supposed opposition to “arbitrary cuts” would be laughable had it not been his own rigid and unrelenting welfare policies which have made the lives of the poor and vulnerable absolutely miserable over the last six years. In 2013 it was reported that the cuts to welfare payments would cost disabled people £28 billion over 5 years, with the Department for Work and Pensions trying to justify the decision by arguing the reforms would simply ensure spending was more eff iciently targeted, meaning only those who needed it most would be eligible. Osborne’s latest

Photo credit: simple.wikipedia.org

Slim Shady: The Literary Genius Will the Real Poet Please Stand Up?: Eminem, Rap and ‘Literary Value’ Muaad Abukar Undergraduate student

“Eminem’s lyrical capabilties seem severely shrouded and unfairly dismissed due to the rapper being victim to moral and aesthetic condemnations” violence. Similarly, the narrator in Porphyria’s Lover, like Em’s Stan, is nothing short of a psychopath, his love intertwined with loves dark, bitter cousin - obsession. The first-person narrator goes on to reveal how much Porphyria loved him - so much that for

them to remain together: ‘her hair / In one long yellow string I wound / Three times her little throat around, / And strangled her’. Browning’s excessively violent image and the sadistic

“Although the genre has rapdily evolved over the years, its claim to artistic status has been drowned” portrayal of male domination has evidently been excused on poetic grounds - the distinction between Browning and his speaker having been accordingly made. Surely, Eminem and other rappers deserve the same level of courtesy?

In any case, it is not like Eminem lacks skill. In Loose Yourself Mathers exemplifies his tactful use of language – the heavy use of figurative language, (‘lose yourself in the music’); simile (‘I’m like a snail…’, ‘Imma change what you call rage / Tear this motherfucking roof off like 2 dogs caged’); caesura (‘He’s nervous but on the surface he looks calm and ready to drop bombs’); onomatopoeia (‘bloah!’); hyperbole (‘The world is mine for the taking); pun (‘He’s grown farther from home, he’s no father’); chremamorphism (‘he’s cold product now’); plosive alliteration (‘paying the pied piper’); as well as the many instances of internal (‘He’s choking how, everybody’s joking now’) and end rhymes: (‘It doesn’t matter he’s dope / He know’s that, but he’s broke’). Mathers also uses the omne trium perfectum, or rule of three for specific literary effect; ‘His palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy / There’s vomit on his sweater already, mom’s spaghetti’.

Best of all, much of Mather’s lyrics are at a length of 10-15 syllables each, the wordplay therefore loosely fitting into the iambic pentameter form.

Within the poets Lose Yourself, in particular; the rhythmic feature is rife: ‘His PALMS are SWEATy, KNEES weak, ARMS are HEAVy / He’s NERVous, but ON the SURFace he LOOKS calm and READy / To DROP BOMBS, but HE keeps ON forGETtin’ / What HE wrote DOWN, the WHOLE crowd GOES so LOUD / He OPens his MOUTH, BUT the WORDS won’t come OUT / He’s CHOKin, how EVeryBODy’s JOKIN NOW

/ The CLOCK’S run OUT, TIME’S up OVer, BLOah!’.

Thus, although Lose Yourself is not wholly in iambic pentameter form, there are parts that do fit this rhythmic criteria.

Furthermore, in his usual confrontational tone, Eminem’s Renegade demonstrates his skillful grasp of the English language: ‘Now who’s the king of these rude ludicrous lucrative lyrics / Who could inherit the title, put the youth in hysterics / Using his music to steer it, sharing his views and his merits / But there’s a huge interference - they’re saying you shouldn’t hear it’. Here, rhyme is almost missing altogether, replaced instead by the concordance of sound. In addition, the songs governing structure relies on assonance. No fewer than thirty-seven instances of it the ‘u’ sound predominating and accordingly creating an almost spitting effect. Also, the ‘u’ sound extenuates the poet’s confrontational contempt, adding also a somewhat unmistakable languid quality In this light, Mather’s

“Stan seemingly fits into the very epistle tradition of which the dramatic monologue had stemmed” language has not only been found to be ‘elegant, witty, patterned and controlled’ but also having had ‘taken care in…his choice’. Moreover, the poet’s structure is ardently ‘complex in ways which repay close attention’. As follows, Montgomery et al. in Ways of Reading (2000) states that the ‘complex interweaving of elements of language, structure, plot, ideas and so on, can be seen to constitute the aesthetic unity of the text’. Thus if all of a literary work’s ‘elements contribute to the same overall structure’ it is ‘thereby likely to consider the poem to have achieved value, or even greatness’. Thus, Eminem’s complex interweaving of ‘language, structure…ideas and so on’ can all account for a sense of ‘aesthetic unity’. Thereby, in terms of Montgomery’s definition, Eminem’s lyrical craft is certainly valuable, or perhaps even constitutes lyrical ‘greatness’.

So why, therefore, is Eminem exempt of literary status?

The Pocket Philosopher Musings on the relevance of literature in philosophy Edmund Smith Undergraduate Student ONE QUESTION THAT doesn’t receive much philosophical attention is whether literature is capable of conveying any meaning or knowledge that could not be otherwise gained. It is generally agreed that literature can be helpful from a pedagogical or rhetorical standpoint. The dialogue is at least an accepted kind of writing in philosophy, but most agree that some of Dostoevsky’s writings seem to have not only literary merit, but also act as a reasonably robust defence of a philosophical position. In these cases, we agree that the terse argumentation is made both more palatable and more emotionally compelling because of its presentation.

Likewise, we generally agree that complex ideas can be made simpler and more concrete when embedded in a narrative, even when that narrative is convoluted and unclear. A fine example of this might be David Forster Wallace’s presentation of the game of Eschaton in the novel infinite Jest, a section of the novel which seems to level several objections against the conceptual tool we call the Map and the Territory. But all these things could be conveyed in other ways. Certainly it might be more difficult or less interesting to do so, or it might be harder to convince and interlocutor of them without the literary medium, but we could still do so.

So I ask again, is there a domain of truth or knowledge reserved exclusively for literature or the arts in general? If so, can it be explained, or its limits circumscribed? If not, then perhaps other fields should invoke literary methods with clear knowledge of their limitations.

Photo Credit: www.businessinsider.com

WRITTEN ADVOCACY FOR sexual liberation was not only purely confined to the works of the ‘bohemian hedonists’ of American post-war literature such as that of Ginsberg, Kerouac and Burroughs.

Rather, the exuberant and unexpurgated literary message existed - albeit in a less severe form - within the stringent confinement of Victorian Britain. Oscar Wilde’s mawkish Faustian novel The Picture of Dorian Gray was condemned for its homosexual undertones and Wilde was later publicly maligned and imprisoned for his own sexual orientation. Near enough to a century after Wilde, rap music faces similar levels of harsh criticism, as although the genre is lauded by some it receives a generally negative reception in the public domain.

Thus, although Wilde and Eminem are perhaps surprising bedfellows, both writers have been unjust ‘victims’ of their time, societal objection to their work clouding their artistic achievements and the distinction between the ‘art’ and the ‘artisan’ having clearly not been made by their respective moralistic societies.

Thus, Wilde’s homoerotic undertones rather than the author’s artistic prowess was at large the focal point of 19th century criticism of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Similarly, Eminem’s lyrical capabilities seem severely shrouded and unfairly dismissed due to the rapper (or rather, poet) being victim to moral and aesthetic condemnations, but also censorships and arrests - dividing people who show an active interest in him and those who simply regard his lyrical interplay as distasteful malice. Thus, critics of the persuasion that Eminem - real name Marshall Bruce Mathers - be condemned due to his quote-on-quote ‘abusive’ lyrical content have, in essence, failed to make a distinction between the product and the producer.

As underneath the sometimes misogynistic lyrics and violent interplay of distasteful language, below the lyrical idealisation of brutal sadomasochistic wants and, above all, when one disposes of the repetitive and highly offensive use of ‘faggots’ ‘bitches’ and ‘hoes’, a clear profundity and sense of literary value in Eminem’s lyrics begins to duly emerge.

Rap music today remains to lurk in the underworld of aesthetic respectability as although the genre has rapidly

evolved over the years, its claim to artistic status has been drowned under a flood of volatile critical reception.

However, a brief examination of Eminem’s Stan reveals itself to have all the depth and canonicity of the greatest examples of English literature.

Canonical writings such as Porphyria’s Lover and My Last Duchess – lauded for Browning’s presentation of sensuality, violence and aggression – draw stark similarities with the equally poignant Stan. Through the dramatic monologue form and the avid use of letters, Stan seemingly fits into the verse epistle tradition of which the dramatic monologue had stemmed. Furthermore, Browning’s My Last Duchess and Eminem’s Stan both offer powerful first-person narratives that illustrate the speaker’s descent into madness through the gradual unfolding of psychotic and brutal events. In their poetic guise, Eminem and Browning often use the first person narrative voice. Usually, this first person narrative voice has often been intentionally exaggerated to the point in which the poet’s almost inhabit the role of their speakers. As ‘Slim Shady’, Mathers is able to exploit his subject-matters - whether that be through the medium of Brownarian violence or otherwise. Eminem’s first-person narrative voice as the psychotic Slim Shady takes on an adenoidal tone, the flow becomes rapturous, euphoric and pedantic, all while the narrator descends into sporadic and irrational

Features | 13

Interested in writing for Features?

Email us at: features@ thebeaveronline.co.uk

14

| Tuesday 22 March, 2016

The EU, the UK, and the Refugee Crisis

On how the UK is squandering an opportunity to show leadership and mettle on the global stage Stefanos Argyros Features Editor

Credit: ytimg.com

MORE THAN 650 000 refugees and asylum seekers have undertaken the perilous journey to Europe, hoping for a better future: one of security and dignity where they will be able to live unfettered from the oppression of an authoritarian regime and the spectre of war.

As the seemingly intractable conflicts in Syria and beyond wear on, the influx on refugees and asylum seekers will not subside. The EU’s institutional architecture has struggled to cope, beset by resurgent nationalistic rhetoric and mistrust between its member states.

The optimism that followed the UN resettlement scheme agreed upon in September 2015 has given way to cynicism and despair as it becomes clear that countries have not abided by their commitments. According to the European Commission, only 82 migrants were removed from Greece under the scheme

by January 2016, and only 272 were resettled overall. Angela Merkel’s “Wir Schaffen das” (we will manage) has given way to a crude reality of bitter division and apprehension.

Consensus building amongst European nations has been conspicuously absent. Can the EU overcome these difficulties?

The most recent developments are far from encouraging The EU’s deal with Turkey, if implemented effectively, might close off one smuggling route but it cannot provide a

“The optimism that followed the UN resettlement scheme agreed upon in September 2015 has given way to cynicism and despair” holistic solution to the crisis.

The concessions given to Turkey are troubling and new routes will eventually emerge even if the scheme succeeds. Far from solving the problem, the EU-Turkey deal is a testament to the EU’s inability to devise a common and equitable strategy to address the crisis. The EU’s institutional architecture and the Dublin mechanisms have crumbled. Yet it is convenient to forget that the member states themselves are also to blame individually. The EU’s

institutions do not exist in a vacuum: their inability to act is often attributable to the failure of member states to overcome their differences to solve a crisis collectively.

The UK in particular has not provided the necessary leadership and vision to

“The UK’s actions, both at the international and national level have been beset by a dearth of mettle and commitment to the values it espouses. This has worrying repercussions that transcend the UK’s borders” prompt an effective response to the crisis. Prime minister David Cameron urges the British people to remain in the EU, arguing that the UK can wield its influence to reform and ameliorate the Union.

And yet when it comes to the refugee crisis, the UK’s actions have been timid and parochial at best.

Despite being one of the richest and most well equipped nations to welcome refugees, the UK only committed to accepting 25 000 refugees and asylum seekers under its Vulnerable Person Relocation Scheme.

The scheme only works if local councils sign up to it. This has been particularly difficult to achieve because councils are hampered by a lack of available public housing to welcome refugees. NGO’s such as Citizen’s UK having been working around the clock to find housing solutions and compel councils to sign up to the scheme. The government however has seldom shown the kind of tenacity needed to support the scheme and the efforts of certain councils to implement it.

Moreover, the rhetoric used to describe those fleeing conflict has also been alarming.

They have been described by David Cameron as being a “bunch of migrants” who come in” swathes”. This rhetoric only strengthens the prejudice and negative connotations that have been so often been

associated with migrants.

The UK government has consistently shifted the focus towards the perceived negatives of migration to the detriment of the moral imperative to provide them with a safe haven and the many benefits that migrants can bring.

Perhaps more alarmingly, the UK’s response has not only been inadequate on the European and International spheres, but domestically as well. The Border Agency, responsible for handling and processing refugee and asylum seeker applications has been harsh in its application of EU and UK immigration law.

The UK more often than not substantiates its international and European commitments through statutory instruments and regulations. These are often complex and obscure and go through little legislative scrutiny. A migrant coming into the UK cannot understand the immigration rules without support. The consequences of delaying an asylum application can be severe: migrants are expected to file their case as soon as possible after entering the UK. Failing to do so can result in refusals to grant welfare support and accommodation.

The UK Border Agency is under tremendous pressure

“Having access to legal representation is crucial. Without it, asylum seekers cannot meaningfully assert their rights” to review the claims strictly and efficiently. This often results in procedural or substantive mistakes usually to the detriment of applicants.

Navigating the legislation to assert one’s rights is a difficult prospect for any citizen, and even more so for refugees who have experienced severe stress and trauma and do not speak English.

In such a context having access to legal representation is crucial. Without it, asylum seekers cannot meaningfully assert their rights. In the UK, the possibility of getting legal advice has been curtailed by the significant cuts in legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment

of Offenders Act. The Act restricts the availability of legal aid in order to save more than £350million pounds a year.

This has had a disproportionate impact on asylum seekers who seldom have the means to pay for their legal representation.

Migrants are often compelled to represent themselves or in the best-case scenario by a family member or contact already in the UK. This status quo reflects poorly on the UK’s commitment to the Rule of Law and compounds the daunting challenges already faced by refugees during the application process.

Some local NGO’S have provided invaluable help to refugees and migrants under these strenuous conditions.

Such an NGO is the Islington Centre for Refugees and Migrants that provides refugees and asylum seekers with invaluable administrative support. It helps them get much needed access to hospital appointments, naviguate London’s transport system and conducts literary and artistic activities. Crucially, the centre is one of the few in London that provides free English classes to refugees. Learning English allows them to use their skills to structure their daily life and look for work. Centres such as this are invaluable in signposting authorities and resources to migrants as well as giving them a sense of belonging in the UK. They greatly facilitate the coveted ideal of effective integration.

Yet the UK government has made it difficult for these centres to continue doing their work. Most are funded mainly through local colleges whose financing from the government has been severely cut back is the last few years.

There is a growing feeling of despondency amongst NGO workers and legal aid lawyers.

They are conjuring all of their efforts to support and integrate refugees and yet governmental decisions continue to raise an ever increasing amount of barriers they must face.

The UK government often talks of its commitment to human rights and of its willingness to help solve the migrant crisis. Yet its actions, both at the international and national level have been beset by a dearth of mettle and commitment to the values it espouses. This has worrying repercussions that transcend the UK’s borders: if one of Europe’s most prosperous an democratic nations is unwilling to meaningfully engage with attempts to solve the crisis,

what signals does this send to less fortunate nations?

The encouraging fact is that there are alternatives to the status quo in the UK and

“There is a growing feeling of despondency amongst NGO workers and legal aid lawyers. They are conjuring all of their efforts to support and integrate refugees and yet governmental decisions continue to raise an ever increasing amount of barriers they must face” the EU more broadly. The UN’s Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights of migrants (Francois Crepeau) stated, “instead of fighting migration, lets organise it”. Concretely, this would mean Global North countries agreeing to adopting a series of measures under which refugees would be given the to go to places like Istanbul, Amman and Beirut (as opposed to attempt crossing into the EU) in order to be relocated. The number of refugees resettled in a particular country would depend both on its population and its GDP. Even for a wealthy country like the UK, this might mean welcoming as little as 14 000 refugees a year over 5 years if the other countries abide by their commitments as well. If refugees do cross into Europe they must be registered upon arrival to avoid the chaos that has currently ensured.

The current generation must not squander the opportunity to regulate migration. As the future of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers hangs in the balance, the UK government should reflect on its policies and be bolder and more farsighted in its decisions. History will judge the UK harshly if it does not work assiduously to contribute in solving a humanitarian disaster of such a scale.

Trident: To Be Or Not To Be?

Features | 15

Why we should consider the motivation behind Trident before deciding on its renewal Daniel Shears Features Editor WITH THE ELECTION OF Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, there has been renewed political fervour vis-à-vis Trident. Protests took place in Trafalgar Square at the end of February, demanding the Trident programme’s swift death. The CND argues that, during a time of cuts to public services, it’s utter fiscal madness to be spending in excess of £100 billion on WMDs. It seems much of the public agree, and have taken to the streets multiple times since the 1950s to shout about it. However, supporters of Trident’s renewal cite the MAD argument in defence of retaining our nuclear deterrent. It is likely that the government will renew the programme because, firstly, there is not enough domestic opposition, and secondly, because of the international situation (in particular our “special relationship” with America and their views on the importance of defence spending/ maintenance). But which side of the debate should we fall on?

Firstly, while people are quick to dismiss the economic argument,

it is a significant element in shaping people’s perceptions about the necessity for the Trident programme. Greenpeace commissioned IpsosMORI in

“As the CND campaign observes, there are more socially useful projects which public funds could be directed towards.

Housing in London is a catastrophe.

Homelessness is rising. Inequality is deepening. The NHS is in crisis.”

2005 to conduct a poll regarding public opinion on Trident.

When asked about whether the UK should replace its missile system, 46% said no (a significant

minority in itself). However, when asked the same question knowing the cost of Trident, opposition to renewal rose 8%. This has been highlighted by the anti-nuclear campaigns in a bid to rouse public outrage, because they understand that when a huge amount of taxes are spent on anything, questions are asked. Moreover, when these funds are spent on something as controversial as Trident, its likely that anger will materialise.

So the economic argument holds validity; as the CND campaign observes, there are more socially useful projects which public funds could be directed towards.

Housing in London is a catastrophe.

Homelessness is rising. Inequality is deepening. The NHS is in crisis. But the argument against Britain harbouring expensive, functioning underwater WMDs goes deeper (no pun intended).

While support for nuclear weapons was high during the Cold War (understandably), reaching 31% in 1982, what I find bizarre is that, despite the threat of global nuclear war having dissipated after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, support for retaining our weapons actually

increased. It’s an absurdity that this statistic hasn’t decreased in 20 years, despite the fact the world has become, overall, relatively safer (on average).

“Fundamentally, MAD depends on us knowing who our attacker is...our nuclear submarines are useless if we don’t know who to use them against ” The idea of MAD is also a flawed defence of keeping Britain a nuclear power. Fundamentally, MAD depends on us knowing who our attacker is. If the whole government of Britain was taken out by, let’s say, a hypothetical nuclear suitcase bomb detonated in the capital, MAD breaks down. Our nuclear submarines are useless if we don’t know who to use them against. A second objection I would make is that MAD conceptualises nuclear war on the same level as conventional warfare. This is

a fallacy; nuclear war requires different strategising. If Russia was prepared to launch a nuclear offensive, it doesn’t care about the conventional military powers of the world, it is only concerned with taking out all the potential nuclear threats that could leap to the aid of its primary target.

Therefore, owning nuclear weapons puts us on the nuclear map, making us MORE of a target (potentially) than if we only invested in conventional military instruments.

Even taking a strict MAD viewpoint, and accepting the idea that the existence of MAD means nuclear war is never initiated in the first place, getting rid of Trident still wouldn’t make us less secure, because of our fellow nuclear allies. Under MAD logic, and because of the “nuclear umbrella” provided by the USA (and NATO), if Britain was the target of a nuclear attack, the attacker would surely recognise the nuclear retaliatory power of our Western allies. Because of the internationalisation of security following the two great European wars, we are safer than ever. Our security does not exist in isolation, and it’s time we accepted that.

IS gaining power in the Maghreb

After the recent Tunisian attacks, should we be worried about the stability in North Africa?

Capucine Cogné Undergraduate student TWO WEEKS AGO THIS Monday, 54 people were killed in an attack by Islamic State in the Tunisian border town of Ben Guerdane. One of the first people targeted and killed by the militant group was the chief of security of the region, and in the raid IS seized an army barrack, a police post and the city’s national guard post. Thus, it seems, as the Tunisian Prime

“Despite IS having been largely unsuccessful in these attacks, IS has substantial power in the region and clearly seems to be wanting more”

involved. However, Tunisia is in a vulnerable position.

There has been no foreign intervention in Libya against IS, mainly because of the political issues within this country. Since the beginning of the Civil War in 2011, there have been two “governments” in Libya, one based in Tripoli, and the other based in the Eastern city of Tobruk. Even though the UN has been attempting to broker an agreement between the two governments, a clear solution does not seem near.

This therefore means that there is no legitimate government recognised internationally that would be able to accept foreign intervention within Libya.

It is understandable that the Tunisian governments is feeling anxious about its neighbour’s present state. However, on top of this, current circumstances within Tunisia itself are volatile and insecure. Poverty and unemployment within the country are widespread, and have been worsened by the significant decrease in tourism that was especially accentuated after the attacks last year.

Indeed, the tourism sector accounted for above 14.5% of the country’s GDP in 2014, with 400,000 people working in the industry, even after the Arab

Spring. It is thought that tourism will decrease by a minimum of 25%, although some estimates say it will by 75%.

Having been the starting point of the Arab Spring in 2011, Tunisia is also symbolic in the eyes of IS and the world.

Moreover, the Arab Spring clearly portrayed the fragility of Tunisia’s democratic government, which suggests that pressure from Islamic State could easily affect the country’s stability. Indeed, Tunisia is one of the countries from which the most people have joined IS, relative to its population size.

The West has fought Islamic

State hard within Syria, and although the end is not in sight even in the Middle East, we must not let the group increase its hold in the Maghreb. Not only is this region closer to us, historically and physically and its destabilisation would also affect us more, but also it would lead the efforts to combat IS in the Middle East to go to waste. With the West already intervening in so many countries, maybe this time we should intervene sooner rather than later- whilst being cautious to not cause even more instability, and help the Tunisians fight IS on their borders.

Photo credit: www.jihadwatch.org

Minister, Habib Essid, said, that IS’ key goal in the raid was to destabilise the region’s security.

Indeed, this is what the Islamic group has already previously been doing in Libya with great affect. Suffering setbacks in Syria, IS is increasingly relying

on its Libyan bases, especially those bringing them petrol.

Although, with so many armed groups in Libya, it is unclear how much power the group actually wields in this country, it seems that IS has a significant presence, particularly after various attacks by them within Libya last year. This has led the Tunisian government to worry.

In the recent attacks in Ben Guerdane, which is on the Libyan border, IS appears to have believed the citizens would support them in their attack, which demonstrates the fragile situation in the area.

However, the Tunisian security reaction was strong, with only seven citizens being killed, and thirty-six jihadists, with the rest of the victims being part of the Tunisian security. Tunisia has since announced the closure of its border crossings and strengthening patrols on the country’s Libyan border.

Despite IS having been largely unsuccessful in these attacks, IS has substantial power in the region and clearly seems to be wanting more. Should we be worried? Yes. There were barely any reports on these most recent attacks in the British press, perhaps because IS were, in this case “unsuccessful”, or because this time no foreigners were

16 | Tuesday 22 March, 2016

Race to the Top: the General Secretary By-Election 2016

Well it looks like RON has quite a lot of competition this week! With 14 candidates (including RON) vying for the coveted role of General Secretary of the LSE Students’ Union, this coming week promises to be anything but boring. As the primary representative of LSE students to the School, the media, and the outside world, the General Secretary will negotiate and set the agenda between the School and the LSE SU, and chair the Board of Trustees.

Meet the Candidates!

Alex Dugan: DO GOOD VOTE DUGAN

The Union

Manifesto:

GOOD FOR YOU: - Improve mental health provision - Reduce wait times - Campaign against national legislation affecting students such as PREVENT - Mandatory Staff and Committee training to address sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying - Reduce the cost of living - Lobby for Hall Rent freeze - Clearer signposting and greater provision of financial support - Greater variety of cheap food on campus - InterHall Cup to create community from day one

- Establish an International Student Network GOOD FOR EDUCATION: - Introduce Summer exam resits - Lobby departments for Exam Feedback - More continuous assessment opportunities - Tackle the BME attainment gap GOOD FOR INCLUSIVITY: - Liberate the curriculum - Increase minority representation on Hall, SU and School Committees - Run SU Campaigns year round, not a week at a time - Widen Postgraduate & PhD student participation - Tailored events programme - Flexible Wednesday afternoons - Improve International Student experience - Lobby to freeze international fees

GOOD FOR ACCOUNTABILITY - Regular PTO and Sabb reports online and in The Beaver - Transparent SU finances - Lobby to reinstate protected timetable slot for UGM GOOD FOR CLUBS AND SOCIETIES: - Enhance the AU - Non-committal sport throughout the week - More varied/non-alcoholic socials - Reform SU finances - Society debit card - Scrap end of year budget wipe for clubs - Consolidate the Arts Union

Anna Koolstra: KEEP IT KOOL Manifesto:

We face two challenges. Our Union is divided; the atmosphere is tense, and the school is not standing up for our well-being. To tackle this, we need to acknowledge our diversity and simultaneously work together to defend our common interests in the School. We need someone who listens but puts forward a strong voice on boards and has a fresh perspective on the SU. I can be that person, here’s some things I will focus on:

Education: - Further prioritise teaching standards - Increase GTA pay - Introduce early-in-the-year class teacher feedback - Push for exam feedback across departments - Lobby for optional Statistics training Inclusion and well-being: - Increase funding to mental health services - Enforce pastoral role of academic advisors - Decrease cost of events such as AU Ball, LSE SU AIC, etc.

- Oppose Prevent - Support liberation campaigns

Break down Barriers in daily student life: - Decrease cost of food on campus - Scrap application fee for PhDProgrammes - Increase bursaries and hardship funds Broaden the LSE experience and our impact beyond: - More options in foreign exchanges for students - Improve outreach programmes - Support grassroot campaigns, improve coordination across societies For this and more.

Atsuro Zhai: REPRESENTING THE UNDERREPRESENTED

Manifesto:

Hey, I’m Atsu, a third year student, and being brutally honest, I’m the last person you would associate with the position of General Secretary.

I am the student that struggles with the 9am, the student that submits essays last-minute, the student that appreciates people who aim when they use the toilets. I am the student that is very average, if not below that.

Having said that, even someone like me wishes to see changes at the LSE. Becoming General Secretary is not a priority for me, but bringing light to overlooked issues are. Many things I stand for are unorthodox, but I believe these changes will benefit the LSE community, including those who normally have little interest in LSE’s politics - people like me.

Goals: - Greater transparency and diversity in funding for ALL societies - Publishing exam timetables earlier

- Reform room-booking rights - Scrap/revamp the chairs with attached desks - Revamp toilets / Disposable toilet seat covers - Scrap LSE100 - Print credit for all departments - Core textbooks online - Lecture recordings for ALL courses - Affordable Halls - Tackling International/Non-International student divide - Better allocation of space in Garrick/4th Floor - Default Google Chrome

The Union | 17

Busayo Twins:

Daniel Mackay: NO

Manifesto:

Manifesto:

LIMITS DANIEL

TWINS FOR THE WIN

no problem standing up for those unable/ill-placed to do so themselves.

I represent LSE’s new school of thought. We are the frustrated majority and we can see past the society and club tailored promises. I’m standing for LSE students, not for my own career prospects.

YOUR GENERAL SECRETARY I speak up. I want to be your advocate and I have no vested interests. I stay true to the cause in question and have

PRINCIPLES OVER POLITICS I stand for something. Past candidates’ policies have been repeated and re-spun so much that it suggests that the issue lies, not in the ideas, but their ability to execute. I can deliver and I will.

EDUCATION I am not satisfied. LSE has

provided a sub-standard education for too long. I’m running because LSE has failed to listen to our frustrations and I question the commitment being made to our demands. I want to be in the room to make sure our education is diverse, innovative and challenging.

If we really want progress, it’s not just the players we endorse that have to change, but the game itself needs to be shaken. Let me shake it.

LSESU is failing. Fewer than a third of students consider themselves involved with the SU and satisfaction with this union is well below average.

I will pursue three policies to change this: - The SU has become complacent, not doing enough to ensure that membership is worthwhile for students.

By changing membership of LSESU from automatic

Manifesto:

Manifesto: society.

- Look to uncover scandals within the organisation and bring them to the attention of the greater public.

- Lobby to stop mandatory attendance of classes and lectures.

- Creation of online forums that are anonymous and not accessible to the censorship of the SU.

I decided to run because I believe that student democracy can work. I believe that we can bring the Union back to its roots in 1897, to forge an esprit de corps.

However, I need everybody’s help in making the LSE the amazing place that it ought to be.

Putting School back in the LSE - On our Campus: - Focusing on the university as a space for learning and personal growth

You need someone you can relate to and I am one of the many disenfranchised.

The paucity of mental health services needs to be

Uniting this Union - On our Union: - Celebrate our diversity by ensuring that all opinions and ideas are allowed to flourish within the Union - Strengthening our Union by reforms and increasing participation in student democracy - the more voices heard, the better - Continue to provide support for minorities and liberation groups

Manifesto:

Manifesto:

I’m an individual completely unaffiliated with LSE’s shady politics, this is an opportunity for a different kind of change: a person-centred approach.

“The Essential Art of Self-Expression” - On our Education: - Will work to make the LSE’s administration worldclass to smoothen out the classroom experience - Ensuring there will be examination feedback - Advocates equitable pay

for GTAs. Reduce reliance on GTAs

- STILL A GOOD CALL

ME BE YOUR DARK HORSE

MORE WATER FOUNTAINSsSsS!!!!!!!

- Putting student spaces back in students’ hands – commitment to build a more dynamic and vibrant LSE where everyone can belong - Education should be affordable - knowledge should not have a price

Jon Foster: VOTE FOSTER

Elisha El-ahwal: LET addressed immediately: - Improved visibility for mental health – destigmatising and publicising services - Increased counselling provisions for ALL students - The setting up of peer-support group drop in sessions - To forge a foundation of solidarity for alienated LGBTQ+ and BME students, with particular regard to where these intersect Arts, University “Culture” and Activism: LSE is lagging behind, there needs to be more done and more fun.

- Institute communal spaces to socialise and chill

These are three readily implementable, realistic goals with the ability to address the current dissatisfaction and lack of involvement with the SU.

MAKE THIS WORK

BRAND, SAVE THE SCHOOL

ing of pupils.

- Lobby to increase lower level academic positions for graduating students.

- Organise mass noncompliance with LSE 100 modules. Allow for the establishment of a poker society within the LSE with prize pools topped up by the annual fund as an act of compensation for previously established obstacles on this

LSESU has remained consistently below average for all available years on the SU website, deeper reform than the above may be needed.

I will consult with students and The School on whether LSESU’s responsibilities/ focus should be adjusted to better reflect the Union students want.

Edward Tan: LETS

Dinesh Anthony Perera: DESTROY THE - Shed light on ostentatious spending by the LSE on buildings and acquisitions.

- Look to independently assess if the admissions system is meritocratic.

- Portray the life of an LSE student in a more honest light so as to give prospective students a fair image.

- Set due process or greatly limit the role of the SU in its otherwise selective disciplin-

to opt-in, the Union will be forced to make itself more attractive and beneficial to students in order to gain members.

- Our Sabbatical Officers are the highest paid in the country: it’s only right that they should be committed to the students whom they represent. To guarantee this commitment, and ensure they are always available when students need them, I would put an end to Officers taking annual leave during term time.

- Given that satisfaction with

- What we study & produce needs to be more integrated into our school environment e.g. exhibits from our disciplines etc.

- More wellbeing events - Utilise the student body for more applied compassion I want the application of benevolent intent, it’s not enough to just engage with societies, I want to utilise the student body through volunteering and extra-curricular activities promoting compassion and applied good. Let’s ride this home together xx

We need to unite to take action on behalf of students.

As Education Officer I’ve engaged with students; contributed to LSE’s first education strategy; secured £11 million direct investment.

My Priorities: Stronger SU: - Halls Committees: Greater integration, improved processes, regular events.

- Course Reps: Enhanced training; facilitate student campaigns; deliver departmental change.

- Rejuvenate Democracy: Better UGM’s - evening sessions, Guest Speaker Series.

Our Offer: - Expanded Opportunities: Increase training (Coding, Accredited First Aid); expanded SU lecture series.

- Society support: Streamlined processes, recognising societies specific needs.

- Inclusive events: Improve alternative freshers; tailored events/support for Postgrad, PhD, International students.

- AU: Ensure AU accessibility; secure longterm funding; introduce Varsity.

The School: - New LSE Director: Student interests come first - prioritising EDI and Education.

- Mental Health: Secure increased investment; Recognise the intrinsic link to education.

- Liberation: Address the

Attainment Gap, Examiner Bias and the Curriculum.

Ensure support mechanisms (Deans) prioritise liberation.

- Cost of Living: Increase bursaries; Address International fees; longterm halls funding.

- Education Strategy: The school must deliver on: Varied Assessment, Academic Advisors, Study Abroad.

Nationally: - Prevent: Oppose Prevent legislation nationally and locally.

- NUS: Contribute to national debates on TEF, Funding and post-study work visa.

- London: Increased collaboration with London SU’s on London specific issues.

18 | Tuesday 22 March, 2016

Manny Singh Narula: PUTTING U

Julia Cole: Manifesto:

BACK IN THE SU Manifesto:

Liam Fedden: NO

MORE PUNS IN STUDENT POLITICS Manifesto: First and foremost, we aim to ban all puns in student politics, all other policies are secondary to this.

Secondly we aim to always refer to ourselves as we in an attempt to create a false impression of collective action.

Thirdly we aim, from my position of privilege as a straight white male, to mock things that we could have no

experience of.

The general aim in all this is to bring the LSESU elections and LSESU in general into disrepute for no real reason other than I think it might be a bit funny.

My policy for liberation is that I have a red, black and green jumpsuit for just the proper occasion. I will improve Saucy by renaming it something darker and

strictly booking progressive techno acts, this will sort the queues out as no one will want to go.

We will rename LSESU, LSE Talk UK/EU to make it more relevant and increase its appeal to a younger generation. Finally, fedestrianisation: all of LSE will be pedestrianized starting with Houghton Street and including Aldwych.

TRANSPARENT | STRAIGHTFORWARD | AVAILABLE Last week, our SU spoke as one to bring about real and actionable change. We need to harness this spirit and build upon it to ensure there isn’t a disconnect between us and the SU. I want to make sure every member of the student population has a chance to have their voice heard. I’m here to put you... back in the SU! Engagement: Informal open door meetings every week to discuss what can be done for you

world leading institutions Diversity: - Promote our diverse community by supporting interfaith and cultural collaborations that makes us one student body Education: - Strive to achieve the highest standards of teaching at the LSE for all courses by ensuring a rigorous training and selection program for Graduate Teaching Assistants - Increasing engagement between students and academic advisors - Creating more opportunities to study abroad at other

Technology: - Putting the SU in your hand through an all-inclusive app that allows you to keep updated, connect and take control - Pushing for one fully functional, up-to-date and straightforward information system for the whole of LSE Society: - Streamline access to society accounts to give back control over societies and minimise the burden of upfront payments

Maurice Banerjee Palmer: A VOICE FOR EVERY STUDENT Manifesto:

About me Practical: LSE Cycling Club, a Michelinstarred restaurant and a café.

Non-ideological: Improvement and reform to represent LSE students.

Listening: Online feedback platform, attend five society events a week.

Accountable: Twice-termly hearings, more Beaver independence.

Student experience: - Pricing: Justification for food, drink, and

halls rent prices.

- Saucy and the Tuns: New bouncers, Tuns seating and live events.

- Wellbeing: Mental health meetings and childcare guarantee.

- Rent guarantor: Extend to non-UL properties.

- Media subscriptions: Add to FT and NYT. Education: - Aims: Clarity and student input on what the LSE education delivers.

- Mentorship: School-wide scheme.

- Culture: Less sink-or-swim; value teaching more.

- Academic Advisors and PhD Supervisors:

Restructured with performance review.

- Library: More human environment.

Careers: - Breadth: Encourage crossing disciplines and less popular options.

- Transparency: Review LSE Careers’ efficacy and funding structure.

- Sell LSE: Review employer perceptions.

- Advice: Less fragmented, in writing, focused, comprehensive and detailed.

The School: - Facilities: Disabled access and power sockets - Eclecticism: Showcase arts and literature,

and LSE’s public function.

- Feedback: Accessible, open and anonymous feedback platform.

The SU: - Efficient: Crowdsourced solutions and online platforms.

- Liberation: Guarantee resources and officers’ autonomy.

- Media: Consolidate the media group.

- Coordinate: Cooperation between London societies and clubs.

- Sponsorship: Share best practice and facilitate student discounts.

Photo Credit: LSE Students’ Union Facebook page

LSESU Grad Ball 2016 Monday 11th July The Brewery, EC1Y 4SD Tickets and tables available soon Like our Facebook page for updates: bit.ly/GradBall2016

20 | Tuesday 22 March, 2016

FILM

14

REVIEW

BONE TOMAHAWK Tom Sayner - 4 out of 5 stars 2015 SAW A RESURGENCE IN THE WESTERN genre with The Hateful Eight and The Revenant dominating the box office and awards shows. Though Bone Tomahawk flew under the radar, the horror-western became a cult hit and received critical praise. The film is refreshingly simple and well composed, and contains one of the most brutal death scenes I can remember.

The plot is that of a conventional western - the wife of Dwyer, the town doctor, and a deputy sheriff are kidnapped and a search party is assembled for the rescue. Dwyer and Sheriff Hunt are informed by a Native American man that the kidnappers are a tribe of troglodyte cannibals who reside in the remote Valley of the starving man. Dwyer, struggling with a broken leg, and Hunt are joined on their mission by the geriatric Chicory and the cocky ladies’ man Brooder. The film’s middle act follows their gruelling journey among the parched deserts of the American west. But this is all build-up for the final, cathartic meeting between the rescuers and the troglodytes. The creatures have bizarre and disturbing cries that resonate throughout the valley and a lair buried in the mountainside. The men begin their rescue and instantly take casualties and fatalities. Dwyer and Hunt are then kidnapped as well and are forced to witness the deputy sheriff being cut in half and eaten. With some cunning and brutal planning our heroes manage to overcome their primordial captors but at a high loss of life.

The very title of the film has a certain B movie quality and it embraces this sense of being slightly pulpy. It does this with a sense of assured direction from debutant Craig Zahler. Some of the dialogue is reminiscent of Tarantino in its maze like logic and sense of impending danger. Yet Bone Tomahawk certainly has its own distinctive and disturbing style. The opening shot of a knife against a throat lets the viewer know instantly that this film will pull no punches. Though the film is a slow boiler it is certainly worth it. Indeed, the two genres the film spans, horror and the western, both rely heavily on atmosphere and climactic tension.

Bone Tomahawk certainly delivers on both accounts in a glorious visual style. The scenes of carnage and violence at the end of the film had many in the cinema covering their eyes or laughing in glee at the creativity of the killings.

A key part of the film’s fun, cinematically frontier feeling relies on the quality of the acting. Kurt Russell is excellent as Sheriff Hunt in his second western of the year after the Hateful Eight. Patrick Wilson and Matthew Fox are also solid as Dwyer and Brooder. Richard Jenkins puts in a memorable performance as the talkative, dim Chicory with some great dialogue while trapped in the troglodyte lair. These performances give the film emotional heft and ensure the film’s build-up isn’t dull and the climax has enough impact.

part

B

PartB

Flo Edwards Kemi Akinboyewa Vikki Hui

editorial team fashion Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva

film

food & lifestyle

literature

Sarah Ku Caroline Schurman-Grenier Camila Arias Tom Sayner Buritica

music

technology

theatre

visual arts

Rob Funnell Will Locke

Vacant

Noah D’Aeth

Yo-en Chin

FILM

21

REVIEW

HIGH-RISE

Benjamin Thomas GREAT FILMS ARE REMEMBERED for bringing something special to the table, an aspect that leaves a powerful impression of the viewer and makes the film more than its constituent parts. The various film awards, the BAFTAs, Academy Awards, Independent Spirits and their type, seek to honour great films by noting their area of excellence. Films are often praised for acting, direction, set design, music, and all around excellence, but I feel that High-Rise may be brilliant for a different reason. Although it performs wonderfully in many of these areas, its memorable aspect is difficult to encapsulate, it is a film that focuses on setting, where the location seems the centre of the film and the technical aspects seem to focus on supplementing this aspect.

“A towering triumph.”

As its title suggests, High-Rise is set in a tower block, a new development jutting prominently into the sky of 1970s London. Both the edifice itself and its location in time are fundamental to appreciating the film. The character of the building and the question of its personality, whether it manifests a character, are central to the plot and the themes. Characters have their agency mediated by the structure they live in; their choices, perceptions, and decisions shaped by the world they live in. The building is both a broad manifes-

tation of wider society and a narrow society in itself. The architect of the development (Jeremy Irons) is presented as a powerful elite, literally at the top, of the society attempting to build a microcosm of the world and create a “crucible for change”. The building contains shops, entertainment, housing, and most importantly people in many ways a self-contained world in itself.

The broader culture of the Seventies are also fundamentally in the background and foreground of the story. An era of transformation in society with the internalisation of neo-liberalism and its component individualism, the era encapsulates a sense of being on the cusp of future. For upper middle class people such as the inhabitants of the high rise, the conceptions of progress and development seem pre-eminent. The residents are establishing themselves, proud of the prestige and reputation that comes with their careers and desperate to enjoy the fruits of their success. This indulgent self-interest drives characters they want and they get. The plot is driven forwards once desires are not met and competition over resources start up.

To present this world, there is an importance of design, to visually place the events in a vibrant yet bygone era. The set design and cinematography emphasise colour and movement. The eponymous building harkens to the Barbican centre, a block of concrete with a bold bend at the top. The design

is explained by the architect as the index finger in a project of five developments making a hand, and the building seems to be reaching into the sky. The sharp and bold design is continued inside the building with rather minimalist design but strong and bold shapes very reminiscent of the lairs Ken Adam created for the Bond films of the Sixties and Seventies. The building is a clean palette, with natural tones or crisp black and white, but the furnishings are bold colour, objects for attention. The cinematography matches the sets and the moments, lingering over opulence and sustaining shots of flesh, wealth, and violence. The camera wants to show more than it tells and when things go awry the editing speeds up and evolves with the chaos it depicts.

The sound design is bold and brash matching its world. Noise often punctuates action and violence feels incredibly visceral and unsettling. Sound is crisp in a rather empty backdrop, intensifying each experience. The music by Clint Mansell is brilliant and manages to fuse various genres from classical to electronic to alternative rock in a score that feels modern yet also boldly references the era.

A new cover by Portishead is a chilling treat that reinvents a classic song to feel current yet in touch with the film.

Characters as mentioned before seem to exemplify the excesses of the Seventies celebrating debauchery and power. Men have quick tempers and feud over wom-

en and work. Women wield their sexualities and push the grey areas of individualism and the private spheres. They are intimately in touch with the society of the tower finding identity and power within its structure. Each tries to “slot in” and find their place yet also challenge for influence. Most are interchangeable distinguishable by profession or residence yet find these minor quirks significant. The cars parked in the vast parking lot at the base of tower reflect their owners, subtly different but all packed together in a regimented pattern. Laing (Tom Hiddleston) is the viewers guide to the building, a new occupant. The distance between him and the established society allow both him and viewers to act as observers with a finger on the pulse but separated. The rest of the cast lead by Sienna Miller, Luke Evans, and Elisabeth Moss are embedded within the system and bring humanity to their characters but feel artificial and parts of the system instead of actors in their own right. The wider cast become more and more vague.

The plot is driven by its location yet touches on timely themes.

The building becomes stratified into classes as different groups compete over access to resources and access to facilities. Although they are broadly equal in terms of wealth, they stratify into social classes based on the floor they live in. The story of class war is particularly blatant as the upper floors clash with the ‘lower classes’. Humanity and civility are sloughed

off as the building regresses into a seemingly primordial state of nature. The self-interest and competition celebrated by neo-liberalism build to violent consequences.

This becomes the emergent brilliance of the film. The story is adapted from a novel by J.G. Ballard of the same name from 1975.

However, by virtue of being filmed now it is set in a past that is both disconnected and familiar. This allows a mesh of the classic and the contemporary, the Modern and the modern, and a sense of the continuity of history. Class struggle transcends the era and feels at once timely and ancient. A party with a baroque theme feels both an overt metaphor and a subtler message. The film ends with a poignant political statement that manages to be both relevant to the plot and the modern day.

And that is what makes HighRise such a special film. There are many strong aspects technically but they coalesce to make a package emblematic of the setting.

Design, cinematography, sound design, plot and acting are all deferent to a bigger setting. Just as the high rise looms before the backdrop of its London, the setting is very much the focus of High-Rise.

Director Ben Wheatley and his writer and editing partner Amy Jump have created a powerful follow up to A Field in England.

The film is just short of two hours long and is released in theatres on March 18th.

22 | Tuesday 22 March, 2016 14

THEATRE

PAIRING A PLAY WITH A PALATE Caroline SchurmanGrenier & Noah D’Aeth IF YOU ENJOY A NIGHT at the theatre, chances are you also enjoy good food.

Both represent a special ritual that needs to be cherished. What better way to get the most out of the play you are going to see than to pair it with a particular cuisine?

Here are some ideas to stimulate both your theatrical and culinary tastes.

The Patriotic Traitor Jonathan Lynn, the co-writer of Yes Minister, has plucked out two of France’s great men for his play ‘The Patriotic Traitor’. It follows the relationship between Philippe Petain and Charles De Gaulle, just as Petain is facing the death penalty for his collaboration with the Nazis. The evolution of their father-son like bond is fascinating to watch. De Gaulle’s sense of self assurance contrasts with Petain’s growing weariness to create some touchingly comic moments. Laurence Fox plays De Gaulle with a back as straight as a baguette, while Tom Conti gives his Petain a more melancholic posture, leaning over his table with a croissant like curl.

Here, we have a production with stern, French protagonists. When I think of old French men, I immediately think of full body red wine and meat. The French are particularly good at preparing fantastic red meat dishes. You’ll want to dig into a plate of duck confit, boeuf bourguignon or even just a classic bavette de boeuf with fine cut fries. Don’t forget the red wine; if you do, it’s not a proper French meal.

Julius Caesar Shakespeare’s Roman tragedy tracks the eponymous dictator’s assassination and the moral turpitude that plagues Cassius and Brutus, his assassins. It encompasses themes of power, fate and free will. The LSE Drama society recently staged a successful version of the play and it is a treat to see with friends, Romans and countrymen.

The play is set during the Roman Empire. I know what you’re thinking. Rome, gowns, golden crowns, so obviously all you can eat is wine and grapes. Julius Caesar is worth you indulging in some seriously amazing cheese platters, decorated with walnuts, grapes and gourmet crackers. I would take it a step further and bring in some antipasti elements onto your platter. It is, after all, set in Italy.

Italy means magnificent cold meats like prosciutto, which goes well with melon or fresh figs. Am I getting carried away with this platter? Maybe just set a massive table and turn into a true Roman feast!

& FOOD

23

Uncle Vanya One of Chekhov’s best known and most staged plays, Uncle Vanya is a reflection on wasted lives and unfulfilled dreams. Set in the Russian countryside, it follows the inhabitants of a rural estate, and the confusion caused by the returning landlord. Currently, it is running at the Almeida theatre in Angel, and although the names have been Anglicized (Uncle Vanya becomes Uncle Johnny) and the setting moved to London, it doesn’t lose its characteristic sense of ennui.

Literally the most Russian play you will ever see. I think you should honor the Slavic culture and have a proper Russian meal. It can be fun to discover new cuisines so this is no exception! To do so, find a place that serves pickled herring, sturgeon and borsch, a beet based vegetable soup. Of course, you’ll want to wash it all down with some vodka. Da!

Phantom of the Opera The longest running show on Broadway and a constant hit on the West End, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s spectacular musical is an extravagant treat. It brings romance and a gothic sense of theatricality to a classic love story. Her Majesty’s theatre in the West End has been the shows home for the last 30 years.

This musical makes me want to indulge in oysters and white wine. I don’t really know why because the story is not at all set on the seaside in a luxurious villa.

I suppose it has to do with the fact that it takes place in an opera and therefore makes me want to feel like someone important who enjoys a night at the opera.

Treat yourself with oysters, wine, with some chocolate truffles and espressos for the most divine dessert.

The Importance of Being Earnest This is a personal favorite of mine. If you haven’t seen or read it yet, I highly recommend this wonderful comic play by Oscar Wilde. The play is quintessentially British even though Wilde was actually Irish. Enduringly popular, the dialogue has a citrus like sharpness and eye for lampooning its late Victorian context. The culmination Wilde’s dramatic career, the play is a hit for actors and theatre goers alike, often being restaged every couple of years. Set in the 19th century between London and the countryside, the only food you can think of eating before going to see this is cucumber sandwiches or scones. Or both.

Always go for both. For the utmost British experience, treat yourself to an afternoon tea in a teashop or a hotel, possibly with a glass of champagne (because why not). Dress up and pretend you’re off to meet the Queen, or better yet, Oscar Wilde himself.

14

24

CULTURE TELEVISING YOURSELF EATING.... | Tuesday 22 March, 2016

A NEW TREND? Candy Gan SCROLLING THROUGH MY FACEBOOK NEWSFEED, like what normal students do when they devote the day to essaywriting, I come across a BBC article: “The Koreans Who Televise Themselves Eating Dinner”.

For sceptics who wonder whether this is some obscure ritual taking place in run-down suburbs of a Korean town none of us have heard of - no. The upcoming trend is literally how the title describes it: Broadcasting Jockeys (BJs) stream themselves live, consuming a dinner fit to feed AT LEAST a family of 4! More experienced BJs invest in professional webcams and mics to amplify their chewing and slurping – because table etiquette is just so last year! Their audience comprising of at least a good thousand can interact with them via live chat, asking how spicy the dish is, if they can bring it closer to the camera, etc. It’s part of the job - yes, a profession - and one that pays generously if the BJs satisfy their audience. They’re awarded balloon tokens they can exchange for cash, and the popular BJs can earn $200 per half hour. This trend is known as Muk-bang.

Photo credit: BBC

“More experienced BJs invest in professional webcams and mics to amplify their chewing and slurping.”

It is understandable that some may find Muk-bang overwhelmingly ridiculous - I mean given the trends we’ve seen so far (‘artisan’ food labelling, Facebook’s limitless resource of pointless clips one can spend whole afternoons musing over), I don’t blame you. But hang on - placing this phenomenon within the context of the fetishization of food (aka. ‘foodporn’), the media’s obsession over ‘superfoods’ served ‘raw’ and ‘organic’, plus unrealistic representations of ideal body images - maybe Muk-bang shouldn’t be as shocking as we think.

Instagram: home to foodie photographers. In other words, people who take photos of almost every single meal in a way that

turns the dish into a celebrity.

Comments gather in the form of repeated emojis, friends tagged with “WE MUST TRY THIS”, and exclamations that are more or less comparable to worship. Food regulates our emotions; when we began to afford ‘luxury’ foods such as confectionery and junk food, we attributed them not only with the function of sustenance, but also with comfort. We glorify consumption because we are bombarded with artfully crafted photos that tag a social status to the dish.

On the other side of the spectrum, companies are aware of our increasing sensitivity to the ingredients in our food and how it is prepared, all in relation to its health benefits. I’ve lost count on the number of posters in tube stations advertising “superfood diets”, raw food smoothies, and the magical properties of the newest low-fat, low-carb, low-sodium, low-calorie product (though I’m afraid ice cubes aren’t as new of an invention as they think). This is all under the glorious mantra of “you deserve to look and feel good” - or in plain English, “buy this so you think you’re closer to the body type only 1% of the population has”. Companies are selling us false secrets under nonsense

labels of special ‘diets’, to quench our fruitless quest for the ideal body type - again, a standard that society tells us we should strive for.

“Companies are selling us false secrets under nonsense labels of special ‘diets’, to quench our fruitless quest for the ideal body type.”

I like to see this unusual fascination with ‘cyber dining’, then, as the unwanted love-child of a) the thunder of ‘healthy eating’ consciousness, and b) the lightning of foodporn. Together, they produce the storm of Mukbang - the product of cognitive dissonance. What does one do when you’re told to fangirl over the artisanal dessert you’ve just ordered, yet invest so much ef-

fort in eating ‘clean’ to achieve the body image the media deems ‘beautiful’? You gather a lot of suppressed food cravings throughout the day, and they won’t leave you alone until you satisfy them, because the more you ignore a desire, the stronger it becomes.

Considering how tech’d up Korea is, I can’t imagine the number of contradicting ads that young working adults are exposed to. Muk-bang, therefore, is an outlet through which they can release their pent-up frustration resulting from suppressed cravings. BJs eat the unhealthy food for them and validate wrong table etiquette, so that they don’t have to. It is the result of a society that discourages the release of frustration generated from contradictory advertising.

And we haven’t even discussed the dangers BJs face for copious eating.

I’m not deploring the BJs - the advertising world’s at fault, here.

This trend should open our eyes to the need for more truth in the nutritional education of the public in all countries. Don’t get me wrong I applaud Muk-bang’s rise, if only to highlight society’s dangerous health advertising contradictions.

25

PARTB

From the Editors Vikki Hui THANK YOU FOR READING OUR FINAL EDITION OF THE YEAR! PartB has taken up a new look this year and I hope you’ve liked it! Apart from being this year’s final edition, this is also my last edition, ever. PartB has been part of my LSE life right from the beginning, I can’t believe it’s really the end. I have gained so much from this experience and I wouldn’t trade it for anything!

Working on PartB is a lot more than copy and pasting content on an InDesign file. We have tried really hard to make

PartB an interesting section to read, though most of the credit really goes to our dedicated editors. It has been a lot of fun working with Kemi and Flo and our editors and if you are ever thinking of writing a short article or sending in your original work please do! I cannot stress enough that PartB is first and foremost about arts and culture at LSE, and we are here to showcase your talent!

I know PartB will continue to be awesome next year and I cannot wait to see how it will continue to improve. Thanks for the memories PartB!

Kemi Akinboyewa BEFORE I STARTED UNIVERSITY, one thing I knew I absolutely wanted to do was get involved in the student newspaper, regardless of what university I ended up at. Coming into my third year at LSE, I finally decided to stop being lazy, and applied for a role as a partB editor.

Working on partB this year, and comitting my Sundays to evenings spent in the media office, has really been a great experience. Not only have I gotten familiar with indesign (3+ hours spent editing has over the year been cut down to

Flo Edwards WHERE HAS THE TIME GONE? It’s hard to believe the final Beaver of the year is here already.

The decision to run for PartB editor was one of the best I made this year. Editing hasn’t been without its challenges but has always been fun and I certainly don’t regret the Sunday evenings spent in the media office. Most of all, it’s been brilliant working with Vikki, Kemi, and such a committed team of editors and contributors.

Over the past few months we’ve tried

to diversify the section and keep PartB fresh and interesting to read. This has to continue next year. PartB should be about more than just reviews; there is so much creative talent at LSE and we have to make the most of our six pages every week to display this. I hope that over the next year we can collaborate with societies to engage more and more students.

Thank you for reading our final edition, I hope you’ve enjoyed PartB as much as I have!

a less stressful 1 hour), I’ve also learned more about the ins and the outs of the world of journalism.

It’s been great developing partB this year into something a lot bigger than a list of reviews, and I hope that over the next year partB continues to be a section where students can express their creativity. More than anything, it’s been great working with Flo and Vikki, things honestly could not have gone any smoother.

I’m excited to see how partB changes and develops once I graduate - thank you everyone that has contributed and supported both the paper and this section thisyear!

Season 2 live on Thurs 24th at 8pm

Gen Sec S2

The Beaver would like to apologise to Jasmine BidÊ for last week’s issue of the NAB. The NAB is intended to be a satirical and humorous section, and it was not our intention to portray her as misunderstanding anti-Semitism.

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

AND MUCH MORE

28 | Tuesday 15 March 2016

The Bill We’re All Paying For The housing bill will have disastrous effects on an already dire situation Ella Baggaley Simpson LSE Undergraduate

The City

Section Editor: Alex Gray IT IS THE BILL THAT IS Deputy Editors: supposed to “transform generaHenry Mitchell tion rent into generation buy” and

go some way to correcting our polarised housing market. Currently, any would-be homebuyer earning the national average of £26,500 will find 91% of England and Wales out of their reach. The system is badly broken; with those unable to buy, paying exorbitant rents to those who can stump up the cash needed for a deposit. It is worth noting that 27 per cent of Tory MPs class themselves as landlords on The Register of Member’s Financial Interests.

Enter the Housing Bill. The supposed saviour of our dire living situation. The bill in front of MPs is meant to free up social housing for those most in need, as well as making land and funds available for the construction sector to build more private homes.

In reality, it will make private homes even more unaffordable, while cutting further the stock of homes currently available at rents below market.

The bill includes measures to extend right to buy to housing association tenants, introduce a ‘pay to stay’ charge for council houses residents earning more than £30,000 per household a year, or £40,000 in the capital and the compulsory sale of ‘high value’ council properties as they become vacant.

The Housing and Planning Bill is contradictory in effect; promoting right to buy while removing the security of tenure. The government intends to remove

Flickr, Alan Stanton

the system of permanent council tenancies and replace it with arrangements that will be ‘reviewed every two to five years’. The implication for new tenants being that council housing will no longer represent anything remotely safe or dependable. The sense of security on which council housing has always rested is being decimated by a Tory government hell-bent on destroying the public sector. It is a solid future made only for those who can afford it.

“Enter the Housing Bill. The supposed saviour of our dire living situation.”

A couple living in a council home who earn a total of £30,000 a year (£40,000 within London), a sum which is only just above minimum wage, will be moved up to market rents. Tenants on the income boundary are presented with a choice; to move out, or be charged rents ‘at market or near market levels’, which in some areas will constitute nearly a four-fold increase. Another option would be to work fewer hours; a bizarre move by a government that wants to make work pay. On top of this, household income assessments of council tenants will be based on the previous year’s earnings; meaning that families who have faced redundancy, illness or bereavement in the last year could be forced to pay exorbitant rents.

The government who aims to ensure that hard work is rewarded are making it cost more for council tenants.

At a national level, the Treasury will force local authorities to sell ‘high value’ homes once a resident leaves. This means that every time a council flat empties, instead of that home going to the next person in line, it will be sold on the private market. Current estimates suggest that there are nearly 1.4 million households on social housing waiting lists. This policy equates to an end for council housing in central London, where specialists estimate that 60% of Camden’s housing stock and 70% of Islington’s would qualify as ‘high value’.

The intention seems pretty clear; this is an attack on council housing and its tenants. The sector will become not just less secure, but accessible to an ever-smaller share of the population. This wave of regressive measures is putting an end to social housing. Associations are forced to sell their social housing stock while councils are doing the same with high-value properties.

And yet, there is no guarantee of genuine replacements. The government has complemented the bill with a pledge to replace every home that was sold, one to one. But past evidence suggests that homes lost to the affordable sector are never replaced. At the last count, for every nine houses sold, only one was built. This is all as Britain’s housing crisis is at its most acute.

The government’s solution to the housing shortage is to create a new category of housing; “starter homes”. To facilitate this, Cameron is donating public land and nearly £20bn of taxpayer funds in grants and loans.

But how attainable are these starter homes? Developers building houses at up to £450,000 in London and £250,000 in the rest of England will be able to claim them as “affordable” under the Conservative’s rules. To buy a starter home in the capital by 2020 you will need an annual income of £77,000 and a deposit of £98,000. Cameron’s donations will hand tens of billions in taxpayers’ money to big developers.

“At the last count, for every nine houses sold, only one was built. This is all as Britain’s housing crisis is at its most acute.”

This government’s obsession with home ownership will mean that it will be giving a tax-free windfall of up to £112,000 to those people lucky enough to buy one of the starter homes in London. That is how much buyers could walk away with after five years. All this to build ‘affordable’ housing that is out of reach for the majority of Britons.

This windfall is at the expense of the wider population in greater housing need; the Housing Bill will ultimately make life worse for hundreds of thousands of people on low incomes. It appears to be yet another thinly veiled attempt by the Tories to transfer income and opportunities from poor to rich.

The City |29

The Emporer’s New Car(s) A focused look at the dangers a new class of asset backed securities pose to the economy Cameron Dawbarn LSE Undergraduate IF YOU’D ASKED FINANCIAL regulators in 2008 what single financial instrument they’d wished had never been created, they would probably angrily suggest the dreaded MBS [Mortgage Backed Securities]. But yet, once again, it appears they’re coming back to haunt markets. This time, in the reincarnation of Automobile Loan Backed Securities. Put on your seatbelts, the end is coming.

To set the scene, some clarification is needed. MBS are one species of a broader family of products known as Asset Backed Securities. These securities are a type of bond, simply backed by a ‘physical’ asset, and hence safe, right? However as is known, the complex process of securitization, tranching, bundling, separating, re-tranching, and rebundling can lead to owners foolishly forgetting what this underlying asset is and its risks.

Thanks to LSE100’s really-stimulating-and-enjoyable introduction to the financial crisis we all know too well the damage MBS eventually caused. For a refresher, I’d highly recommend Margot Robbie’s introduction to MBS in The Big Short. There’s a wealth of literature on the process and mistakes made, but basically, MBS triggered the financial collapse, leading to the historic bailouts of banks and a global economic recession. Since then, MBS have been treated with disdain, as you’d expect.

So what’s the issue?

Unfortunately, the MBS is back, but this time in the form of Automobile Loan Backed Securities. These ALBS are the natural next stage down from

Flickr, Michael Gil

mortgages in asset-backed securities i.e. securitizing a consumer’s next largest debt, their car loan. These securities offer great ‘safe’ returns just like MBS, as most consumers will slowly but surely pay off their leases. Thus, they provide a fantastic investment vehicle for large firms to ‘guarantee’ a ‘low risk’ return to investors. To a certain extent this is true, assuming the borrowers are creditworthy and will pay back. This has lead to a boom in car loans and car lease securitization. For example, the global automobile market is at record highs, particularly in the US, driven by a huge increase in auto-lease sales. This is in synchrony with a massive global increase in the securitization of automobile loans. Hence, we’re seeing the active proliferation throughout financial institutions of this ‘new’ product, which shares very similar characteristics to its better-known and disliked sibling the MBS. But wait, this must be different right? Regulators and investors wouldn’t touch something that went so wrong less than ten years ago?

Wrong. This time it’s arguably even worse. As mentioned, these securities are booming but are no longer being made and sold by financial institutions.

Instead, the car manufacturers themselves are selling them. In 2015, the largest single issuer of ALBS was Volkswagen. Volkswagen, a company currently embroiled in a scandal over its foolish decision to program its cars to cheat emissions tests.

Yes, you read correctly, currently the world’s largest provider of a product almost identical to one that triggered a global financial crisis, is firstly a car com-

pany, not a financial institution, and secondly is a car company being targeted by regulators globally for its lies. And it does even end there. CNBC reported that post-crisis, one in four new auto loans went to ‘subprime’ [i.e. ‘shit’ as Margot Robbie helpfully points out] borrowers.

So more and more of these products are of lower and lower quality. Likewise, CNBC reports the production and demand and for ALBS is ‘ballooning’. So more ALBS are being sold, with more bad debts within them.

Moreover, these ‘subprime’ ratings are given off the back of credit checks, which one would assume would be thorough.

Wrong. US credit providers such as Equifax, are currently offering auto credit on the basis that a customer has regularly paid their cable bill. Meanwhile, surprisingly auto-loan ‘losses’ and ‘delinquencies’ are growing, just like the poorly checked mortgages did in 2006/2007. CNN Money reported that in February this year, US delinquencies were at a rate higher than during the ‘Great Recession’. I mean that sounds healthy right? They then however go on to justify the safety of ALBS, using the flawed assumptions, but effectively this further sheds light on the developing issue at hand. This increasing default rate in ALBS is similar to what triggered the domino effect, leading to the collapse in MBS. So effectively it, we again have this bad thing, getting more popular, being sold by the wrong people, whilst becoming fundamentally more bad, and starting to collapse. Excellent!

But as long as we know these risks, investors would be careful right? Industry bodies and credit agencies would highlight these

risks surely?

Wrong, again. Credit rating agencies are gleefully neglecting to pay attention and act on this issue. The fantastic and ever reliable Standard & Poor recently gave General Motors ALBS an AAA rating, their highest possible, and such ratings are common for the majority of ALBS. Interestingly, back in 2008 credit rating agencies like Standard & Poor also gave MBS similarly high ratings, because they did not truly understand the assets within them, or the damage they could do. Simultaneously, the providers of these securities are hiring ‘economists’ to invent arguments about why a consumer is more likely to default on their home’s mortgage, where they live and exist, than their car, which they drive for 1-2 hours a day, to show investors why they’re safer than MBS. Therefore, those involved in providing the information on the legitimacy and quality of this product, appear again, to be getting it wrong.

But wait, what about regulators? Surely they’d step in?

Wrong! Again! According to The Economist, central banks and regulators alike are zealously promoting securitization whilst watering down the relevant regulation. The reason for this is a broader issue in the macro economy, which central banks have been struggling with postcrash. Simply, credit still is not adequately flowing through the economy, and thus is strangling investment and growth. However, securitization allows banks to move these loans from their books, onto outside investors like asset managers. This improves their equity-capital ratio, allowing them to lend again, stimulating investment and growth.

Therefore large central banks and regulators alike have the incentive to allow, if not increase securitization, as to stimulate finance and the broader economy.

However, in reality, this is again just the proliferation of an under-appreciated risk through financial institutions. But the one difference is that the current buyers are not banks, but large asset managers and institutions alike.

These large investors are then often backed by pension funds.

Thus, these dangerous products are being allowed to flow into the pension funds of millions of people.

Simultaneously pension funds are under growing pressure to provide for an increasingly elderly population, and thus are looking for products that will guarantee the adequate returns to do this. Thus the demand for riskier products, such as assetbacked securities will continue to grow, as pension funds search for higher and higher returns. This is worsened further as quantitative easing has thrown markets into chaos, removing more traditional avenues for returns.

Now thanks to Super Mario Draghi, QE in Europe is set to continue for longer with more money behind it, hurrah! Hence one again, regulators and credit agencies seem to be missing the bigger picture, and again accidentally aiding the development of what could be a serious financial crisis. This time, however, they’re allowing it to enter into something more important than an investment banks book; pension funds!

Therefore, it appears these assets are bad, becoming worse, and becoming more popular in the worst place possible, with regulators doing nothing to stop this. Sound familiar? DID THEY NOT GO TO LSE100!?

But don’t panic, this is just one take on the growing ALBS market. All of this is the opinion of a foolish undergrad that got bored of his dissertation. And, there are definitely smarter and more experienced people probably looking at this issue. In fact, it could be nothing but a red herring distracting from something else or even that these products may be great, and may help solve the inevitable issue of supporting a growing elderly population with less and less young active workforce participants. However, the quote goes that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. Thus with fragile and flaccid western economic growth, being foreshadowed by a slowdown in China, and economic misery taking hold in South America, can we really risk another financial car crash?

30

|Tuesday 22 March, 2016

Mixed Hockey on a Roll Lee Wake LSE Men’s Hockey

Turning past defenders there, Winning the league,

Won the league, won the league, Won the league, onward!

LSE Mixed Hockey Team Have scored one hundred.

“Forward the Goal Brigade!

“Charge for the D!” he said: Into the Valley of Lee, Where they scored one hundred.

While all unis wondered: For they did not choke Past the last line they broke; South Bank and Goldsmiths Humbled by their masterstroke, All defences we sundered.

And then they moved on, To score their one hundred.

“Forward the Goal Brigade!”

All other teams they slayed, Joe Cunningham asked “Are we the best in London?”

Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to shoot – bull’s eye!

Into the Valley of Lee, Where they scored one hundred.

Defenders to right of them, Defenders to left of them, Defenders in front of them, Missed tackles and wondered: Stormed at by UCL, Boldly they played and well, On the Field of Dreams, To all they said farewell, As they scored one hundred.

Kingston lost 7-1, St Bart’s lost 5-1, Greenwich lost 3-1 Past them they thundered; Daily they killed it, Nicola with her wonder hit, At the top of the table they sit, For they scored one hundred.

When can their glory fade?

O the wild goals they made!

All unis wondered.

Honour the games they played, Honour the Goal Brigade, Noble one hundred.

Flashed their hockey sticks bare, Flashed as they showed our flair,

Volleyball Mens 1s vs. Kings College 1s won 3-0 Netball LSE 2s vs St Mary’s 3s won 42-35

Hockey Women’s 1s vs Surrey 1s won 3-1 Men’s 1s vs. UCL RUMS 2s drew 0-0

Rugby Men’s 1s vs. Kent 2s won 22-5 Women’s 1s vs. UCL 1s won 66-5

Badminton Men’s 3s vs. KCL GKT 3s won 7-1

Football Mens 1s vs. St Mary’s 2s won 3-1

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

Ode

To Highbrow Tomfoolery And into Lord’s they went, a pretty penny on tickets spent; In tuxedo, suit or ballgown, teams and clubs of world renown; Out of the woodworks came the masses, donning tweed, geek-chic and glasses; To share a night of sophistication, with class and with jubilation; And with free wine and beer to start, ‘twas thus impossible to not take part; In the festivities that catered to all; at the LSE AU Ball.

Indeed, on March 16th, 2016, the world-famous sporting haven that is Lord’s Cricket Ground hosted the 35th annual LSE Athletics Union Colours Ball (completely made up that number).

What with a chocolate fountain, a literal serpent and a 60-minute window within which free alcohol was almost forced upon sportsfolk, it seemed for a moment as though utopia had found its way to Earth.

Spoiler: it hadn’t, the security there didn’t like fun. And by ‘didn’t like’, I actually mean either ‘hated’, ‘despised’, ‘loathed’, or, perhaps most accurately, a deathly combination of the three. The autonomy awarded to one particularly interesting agent of the law – whose jurisdiction, it was rumoured, extended far beyond the walls of the stadium to the furthest parts of the Amazon Rainforest, where he had reportedly made a habit of assigning a star-rating to groups of guiltless indigenes by judging them on their dress, customs, mating habits and dental hygiene, more easily understood as his arbitrary will – was unquestioned

until he began to eject not only the Seediest of ballers but also the most Ryghteous, such that, at one point, rebellion was on the cards.

But what was lacking in the integrity of the security detail was more than made up for in the succulence of salmon fillets. After food had been tasted, colours misplaced and songs restrained, party buses ferried the 500 drunkest humans alive to their holding cell, their play-pen, their Zoo Bar. A Peaceful night Bekoned for one lady, until a Smooethe individual turned up. After spending his night slithering around the neck of a lady at Lord’s, the AU’s serpent wriggled his way to Bear Street, camouflaged in the Greenery of the Zoo, and waited for the right moment before heading forth into the Abyss.

A girl with more elegance than a Cartier watch found an equal and

eScotted him home, which was apparently the hardest part of their night. A studious pair of lovebirds decided to reed instead of party, taking a trip to the Ellese library.

Earlier, newlyweds Tinkered with door-locks while their food got Calder. Finally, ex-Tory leader and famed hater of Paupers met his Match and, Inebriated, absconded.

And so the end of the sporting and Zooing year is reached.

Through thick and thin, in sickness and in health, we stuck together, united by our Union as sportspeople. We spurned books, and preferred beer. We avoided maturity, and revelled in our youth. We rejected loneliness, and opted for community, because if anything is certain, anything whatsoever, it is that athletes condemned to two whole terms of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.

Sport | 31

Rugby Proving to be ‘Good Lads’ Will Allen LSE Men’s Rugby This year has been somewhat of a triumph for the club.

We’ve won the league; unprecedentedly reached the cup semi-finals; signed our jointprinciples constitution with the Women’s Rugby Club; and have emerged scandal-free, with eyes set on even bigger achievements for next season.

I’ll begin by explaining what my initial impressions were of the club when I first went to the trials and welcome barbecue.

Having two older siblings, both of whom were involved in the rugby scene at their Universities, painted a tainted picture in my head. To my surprise, everything was normal when I met the older players. I was reluctantly anticipating all sorts of ‘laddish’ behaviour at a university rugby club, especially in light of what I had heard about the general university rugby culture. But everything was very relaxed with the older players in Men’s rugby: we had played in trials, and were then socialising with a barbecue and a few drinks. It was remarkably like meeting older members on my course, or some other society, I was unfortunately quite narrow-minded about what to expect – the impression that the Broadsheet newspapers had given me of the club could not have been more deceiving.

On the pitch, we have been led by Owen McDermott, selfproclaimed King lash, stash, and all things rugby (his words, not mine). Owen has been a leader of steel this year. He’s made us focus solely on the rugby side of things. A successful ‘no train, no play policy’ was implemented under Owen’s guidance. It would be reasonable to believe that this encouraged everyone to try their best,

“We’ve won the league; unprecedently reached the cup semi-finals; signed our joint-principles constitution with the Women’s Rugby Club; and have emerged scandal-free, with eyes set on even bigger achievements for next season.” for fear of losing their place in the only team we had. The organisation of Friday gym sessions has been particularly successful, not least because Sam White actually turned up a few times, but also because this further encouraged emphasis on the game of rugby and self-improvement. Moreover, Owen’s leadership on the pitch was second to none. We had notable victories against Kent 2nd XV (55-0), whilst also defeating our close rivals, King’s 2nd XV (38-17). These initial victories set the precedent for our successful season. We were able to use the momentum from these striking wins and manifest it in the important fixtures: the win against Canterbury Christ Church was very special to us, as it secured our slot in the cup semi-final.

We fought a real nail-biter against Surrey University in

the semi-final, narrowly losing to a team which we were objectively better than. However unfamiliar weather conditions precluded our playing ability in the crucial last minutes, and we narrowly lost 26-20. However, reaching the semi-final was an unprecedented occurrence for Men’s Rugby, and therefore we took comfort from this accolade, but nonetheless sought solace in Zoo Bar. Equally memorable this year was the event organised

by Tom Carmichael, ‘Tackling Homophobia and Sexism in Rugby’. There was a diverse panel of speakers, all with thought-provoking stories which I will remember for a long time. I’m sure all present will recall the legendary contribution of Nigel Owens, rugby’s most respected, and first openly gay referee.

The signing of the Joint Prin-

“I’m sure all present will recall the legendary contribution of Nigel Owens, Rugby’s most respected, and first openly gay referee.” ciples Constitution with the Women’s Rugby Club also marked another milestone in the recent history of the LSE Men’s Rugby Club. Overall a tremendous thanks needs to be extended to Tom for organising such a successful evening.

Off the battlefields of Ber-

rylands, we’ve been expertly led by San Puri and Peter O’Donnell at the helm. Pete has rallied the troops on a Wednesday, executed an extremely memorable Carol ’15, and has still helped maintain the ethos of last year’s Good Lad campaign. San has organised a scheme wherein men’s rugby players can coach at schools around London, promoting the beautiful game, and which will continue onto next year. Like Pete, San has also continued his emphasis on rugby players being ‘good lads’, continuing his legacy from his campaign last year. His admin with regards to Athletics Union events has also been hugely helpful.

Overall, it’s been an incredibly successful year for the club, and I can only shake with excitement at what next year will bring for us.

VISIT US AT BEAVERONLINE.CO.UK OR TWEET @BEAVERONLINE

A Ball to Remember...

Section Editor: India Steele Deputy Editor: Vacant

Sport

AU Ball proved to be a massive success. The drinks were flowing as we arrived at Lords Cricket Ground and everyone looked amazing. Whilst some may have ejoyed the wine too much, it must be said that the food, setting and atmosphere was great!

A massive thank you to the AU Exec and all those involved in organising the event!