Beaver
Issue 859 | 8.11.16
the
Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union
Judicary LSE Research Reveals Strong Link ‘Brexit’ Row Shows No Signs of Abating Between Mental Health & Bullying Greg Sproston Managing Editor
Luke Anselm Undergraduate Student A LINK BETWEEN BULLYING and poor mental health seems obvious and commonsensical, but joint research from the LSE and Kings has now demonstrated an authoritative empirical link between the two. The study used an impressively large sample group of 9,000 individuals who were tracked over 40 years. This type of longitudinal research is common in the social sciences, particularly in social policy, and provides a more accurate representation of reality than studies which focus only on a single time-frame - thus providing a ‘snapshot’ of a situation at a given point. The research, which used data from the 1958 birth cohort in the UK, shows that around 50% of individuals who are bullied at a younger age access mental health services during adolescence. More surprisingly, 30% of this same cohort who experienced
bullying as children were still accessing mental health services into middle age. Straying dangerously close to stating the obvious, Professor Louise Arseneault of KCL stated that, ‘research has accumulated strong evidence to show that being bullied can be harmful for children…’ However, as obvious as this may seem, the work demonstrates an important step forward from a policy point of view. Though the findings were published in Psychological Medicine, the research included some economic analysis which indicated that the cost of bullying anti-initatives (estimated at around £15 per child), were far less expensive than the cost of mental health provision. Antibullying initiatives should thus be seen as a win-win; good for children and good for the taxpayer; a particularly important consideration given the immense pressure and constraints on mental health and social care in the UK today.
Whether it may seem cynical or, in the words of one third year student, ‘classically LSE!’ to reduce the moral outrage of bullying to a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, the study should nevertheless be seen as a progressive step given that it has the potential to bring together the interests of anti-bullying campaigners and policymakers who still favour austerity and value-for-money politics. The publication of the
research comes at a similar time of a separate LSE Europe-wide study, which found that 6% of children (from a sample group of 25,000) had experienced cyber-bullying either as a perpetrator or a victim. The findings, which formed part of the LSE EU Kids Online study, concluded that those who had experienced cyber-bullying were much more likely to seek out web content relating to self-harm and suicide.
FOLLOWING THE RESULT of the UK’s European Referendum result, Theresa May’s government has adopted a tight-lipped approach as to how it will approach Brexit, arguing that providing a running commentary will weaken the country’s negotiating position. Until now, the only information the public has received is that ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Following a week of upheaval, many political commentators now believe that the implicit position of the UK government is that Brexit not only means Brexit, it also means a staggering disregard for the rule of law and of the British constitutional settlement. The upheaval stems from a high court ruling, as three of the country’s most senior judges ruled that Theresa May cannot invoke Article 50, the mechanism for exiting the EU, alone but instead must consult Parliament. Their justification for this decision is premised on the longstanding idea that any rights conferred by Parliament (such as the myriad rights guaranteed under the 1972 European Communities Act) can only be revoked by Parliament - Parliament thus needs to be involved in the decision of when and how to trigger Article 50. This decision should not be particularly surprising; anyone studying LL106 or GV101 will be familiar with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. The idea of a sovereign parliament is not an arcane, niche component of Britain’s unwritten constitution. In fact, a civil war was fought over the very issue. Nonetheless the decision has sparked a vitriolic and at times hysterical response from Brexiteers, as senior politicians and the free press have demonstrated a poorer understanding and respect for the rule of law than the average first year university student.
Continued on Page 3..
Comment Sport
Today, Anxiety; Tomorrow, A New President
Page 10
Results Round Up! Page 31
Room 2.02, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, LSE Students’ Union London WC2A 2AE Executive Editor Taryana Odayar
editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk
Managing Editor Greg Sproston
managing@thebeaveronline.co.uk
News Editor Joseph Briers Joel Pearce Bhadra Sreejith
news@thebeaveronline.co.uk
Comment Editors Jenn Pavlick Hakan Ustabas
comment@thebeaveronline.co.uk
PartB Editor Flo Edwards Jacob Stokes
partb@thebeaveronline.co.uk
The City Editor Alex Gray
city@thebeaveronline.co.uk
Features Editors Daniel Shears Stefanos Argyros
features@thebeaveronline.co.uk
Sports Editor George Bettsworth Jenny Stokell
sports@thebeaveronline.co.uk
Online Editor Ellie Peake
online@thebeaveronline.co.uk
Collective Chair Benjamin Thomas
collective@thebeaveronline.co.uk
The Collective:
A Doherty, A Laird, A Leung, A Lulache, A Moro, A Qazilbash, A Ryzhonkova, A Santhanham, A Tanwa, A Thomson, 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 Smith, G Cafiero, G Ferris, G Harrison, G Kist, G Manners-Armstrong, G Saudelli, G Sproston, H Brentnall, 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, 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 Banerjee-Palmer, M Crockett, M Gallo, M Jaganmohan, M Johnson, M Neergheen, M Pennill, M Strauss, N Antoniou, N Bhaladhare, N Stringer, N Webb, O Hill, O Gleeson, P Amoroso, P Blinkhorn, P Gederi, P Grabosch, R Browne, R J Charnock, R Connelly-Webster, R Huq, R Kouros, R Serunjogi, R Siddique, R Uddin, R Way, S Ali, S Argyros, S Chandrashekhar, S CrabbeField, S Kunovska, 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
Beaver
the
the
Beaver
Established in 1949 Issue No. 859 - Tuesday 08 November 2016 issuu.com/readbeaveronline Telephone: 0207 955 6705 Email: editor@thebeaveronline.co.uk Website: www.beaveronline.co.uk Twitter: @beaveronline
From the Executive Editor Goodbye Beaver! Taryana Odayar THIS IS MY LAST EVER editorial – the very last one! Can you believe it?! Looking back over my time as Exec, I feel extremely proud of everything we have achieved as an Editorial Board and a sense of nostalgia for everything I will be giving up by stepping down. In my first ever Editorial as Exec, I said that, “No newspaper works in just one medium any more, and digital journalism plays an integral role in raising the immediacy with which a story gets out, as well as immersing readers in the stories being reported, using video, audio, pictures and text.” This is something that I have tried to address during my tenure, for instance by overseeing the development and publishing of ‘the Beaver LSE’ iPhone app. I am proud to say that the app has now exceeded 1,000 downloads at the time of writing, thereby improving the newspaper’s reach and visibility significantly. I also initiated a complete website redesign and campaign to reinvigorate our social media presence. Our Online team took to live tweeting LSE and SU events, and regularly scheduling and sharing articles on our Twitter and FB pages. After all, there is no point in expending so much time and effort on a paper if the content doesn’t reach its intended audience. I am also thrilled to be able to say that I was able to obtain a verified Twitter account for The Beaver, making it the only LSE society to have a verified Twitter account (to the best of my knowledge). Other contributions to the development of our online presence include our Online Editor’s rebranded blogs section to attract more readers and writers to The Beaver and diversify our content. One of our Features Editors also introduced Atavist to format and publish long form articles and interviews, and I collaborated with LooSE TV to arrange for these interviews to be filmed, edited and uploaded on LooSE TV’s YouTube channel. Having introduced an ‘Interviews’ section dedicated to discussions with high-profile public figures, I am pleased to report that we have published an interview every week in our 32-page print editions since introducing it as Executive Editor, with the exception of our Black History Month issue and the last issue of last year. The opportunity to interview Heads of State, Ministers, Nobel prize laureates and other high-profile figures is one that I have not taken for granted. The LSE’s location in the heart of London as well as its reputation have attracted some of the biggest movers and shakers of this era, and so I feel it would be tantamount to sin to let them walk in and out of these hallowed portals without at least trying to ask them the questions that we wish mainstream media would ask. Whilst many of you may be familiar with these newer developments, most students assume that apart from these, our Editors mainly just edit articles and respond to the odd email on a
weekly basis. However, there is much more to being an Editor than that. For instance, it also entails carrying heavy stacks of Beaver newspapers to far-flung locations across campus in an effort to distribute them, almost toppling over in the process. This is a struggle every Editor braves week in and week out, particularly the ones who carry two stacks of 100 newspapers to a particular location in one go. On the plus side, after you drop 100 newspapers on your foot the first time, this provides you with the Herculean willpower to skilfully march through LSE to your target location with single-minded determination, without even pausing to catch your breath. Who needs to go to the gym after that workout?! On a more serious note, our Ed board dutifully give up their Sundays evey week to come in to the Media Centre and work on the paper. They slog away at their sections, sometimes having to wait hours until writers send in articles at the eleventh hour before editing and then formatting them on Adobe InDesign. I myself am usually there from 10am till 10pm writing and editing sections such as The Union, Interviews, NAB, and till our last round of elections the Sports section as well. Since the Media Centre is located in Saw Swee Hock (SSH), and since SSH closes at 10pm every night, this has proved rather problematic in the past for eager beavers scrambling to finish working on the paper on Sunday night ahead of our Monday morning print deadline. As a result, there have been times when some of us have “risked it all” to stay in the Media Centre past 10pm to sort out the paper, got locked inside the building for our troubles, and then had to run to the ground floor and desperately flap our arms like geese gone wild in an effort to signal Security guards heading home after their shift so that we can be let out. Getting locked inside an LSE building for the night, without heating, without food, and without anywhere to sleep, is what we regularly put on the line to get our paper to the printers - and we don’t even get paid for it! Ha! Then when Sunday is over and done with, there’s Monday morning to look forward to. Having slept only a couple of hours the previous night after editing interviews and articles; walking into the Media Centre like a zombie at 8am with an empty stomach and a large black coffee to polish off the paper before the noon print deadline becomes pretty standard. So is forgetting to eat until 1pm, which is when everything has been sent to the printers and we’ve rung them up or emailed them to check that all 32 pages have gone through and the image resolutions are up to scratch. Once this is confirmed, getting food into the system is next on the agenda, followed by a well deserved nap (i.e. collapsing in exhaustion) on one of the Media Centre beanbags. I have also found out that being Executive Editor means that there is no “off” switch. Even when I’m not writing an article, doing research for or
transcribing an interview, formatting content on InDesign for the print issue, or uploading content on our website for our app and social media pages, I am constantly checking a steady stream of emails from publicists, promoters, marketing companies, PR agencies, writers, Editors, the SU, LSE Press Office and a whole spectrum of other parties, all talking about 101 different things. On Halloween alone - 31st October - I had emails from 33 different groups to respond to. So, although it will be nice to have some free time and to be able to go to class having done my readings for a change, and to be able to submit a formative essay on time and not have to pull an all-nighter to finish a summative due the following morning, there are some things that I will certainly miss about working at The Beaver. I will miss the hilarious office banter and running commentary on the articles received each week, I will miss the hectic pace of student journalism, and I will miss my desk in the Media Centre and the notso-glorious view of construction work on Clare Market Street from it. I will even miss working on the NAB. After all, there’s nothing like being able to poke fun at an institution that sometimes takes itself way too seriously, and doesn’t exactly help its situation by providing us with more ammo each week. However, one thing I will not miss is the strange look I get from Freshers or non-LSE people when they ask me what the name of the student newspaper is, and I brightly respond with “Beaver!” This is usually received with a comic, “You’ve gotta be shitting me” expression, until I hurriedly explain that the paper is named after our school mascot and is not in any way a reference to anything else. Awkward. This past year would not have gone as well as it did without the contributions of certain individuals - so now for the ‘Thank You’s’! Normally I would be flouting SU bylaws by thanking the following people, but since they have all upped and left the LSE there’s no fear of that. So I would like to sincerely thank Sian Thurgood, Heather Carroll and Dave Bradshaw, who were so supportive last year of The Beaver team and the work we do. The role of SU staff who are involved with LSE Societies should be facilitative and collaborative, as opposed to getting in the way of Societies and being more of a hindrance than a source of helpfulness. Whilst I am certain that sitting and reading our newspaper cover to cover for libel every Sunday evening wouldn’t have been Sian, Heather or our previous Libel officer’s idea of a relaxing, work-free weekend, they did it anyway because they knew it made our lives that much easier. Their work is all the more appreciated following their departure, especially after working with the SU and LSE Press Office over the past few weeks, which has made me decide to add “patience of a cathedral of Saints” to my CV with respect to the former and “cryptography and codecracking expert” for the latter.
I would also like to thank my Beaver mentor, mother-hen and most importantly ‘good centre-left’ Twitter account holder and Amstell lookalike Liam Hill for taking a chance on a kid like me and appointing me Deputy Features Editor in my first year, unknowingly setting me on the path to becoming Exec a year later. And last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my untiring, unwavering, unrelenting Editorial Board, who pulled all the stops on a weekly basis to chase down content and writers for the paper. I will miss wondering what secrets lie hidden in Greg’s beard, Stefanos’s exasperated cries whenever the name ‘Varoufakis’ is mentioned in the office, seeing a very hungover Dan strolling in on Sundays wearing sunglasses and a lopsided grin, Alex ‘50 shades’ Gray’s sarcastic nonsequiturs and atrocious rap lyrics, and looking like a pair of clowns with Joseph while trying to signal Security guards outside SSH after getting locked in past 10pm, as well as all of the other Editors whose antics I don’t have space to mention, but shan’t forget anytime soon. Looking back, we do seem very much like one big, dysfunctional family, and like any family there have been some truly nutty moments in the madhouse that we call the Media Centre, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. On another note, I honestly have no idea what I’m going to do on Sundays from now on. It’s like I’m gaining an extra day of the week! But at least I won’t get ticked off anymore by a horrified Niall Healy for choosing to hang out with Photoshop and InDesign over actual people - “Taryana it’s a Friday night!!! You’re young! You should be out partying instead of working on The Beaver!” Sorry Niall. Now lets just hope I don’t sleepwalk into the Beaver office next Sunday and startle the Ed board. As for whoever takes the wheel as the next Executive Editor, I would first like to say congratulations - you’ve taken on possibly the most demanding, timeconsuming society position at LSE, which means that on some days you will wish you could take a six-month vacation twice a year. But that’s ok, because those days are few and far in between. For the most part, you will enjoy every second of it, and so I urge you to appreciate it and make the most of it, because it is a privilege to lead a team of incredibly intelligent, hardworking and talented students, to deliver fresh and thoughtprovoking news on a weekly basis. It is a responsibility that I trust you will not take lightly, and I know you will protect the integrity of our newspaper above all else, attend to it with immense attention to detail, and watch over its long-term direction as well as the wellbeing of our Editors and writers. I wish you the very best of luck, and hope that you find it as rewarding and worthwhile as I did. And so, after nearly an entire year at the helm, this is your Executive Editor signing off for the very last time! So long Beaver! Thanks for the memories - we’ve had a good run! Over and out.
News | 3 ...Continued from Front Page Since the decision, The Daily Mail has decreed the judges to be enemies of the people - as well as attacking one for being ‘openly’ gay, The Express pronounced a time of death for British democracy, and a cabinet minister declared the decision to be unacceptable. Most significantly of all, Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor Liz Truss appears to have lost credibility in the eyes of the legal community after her failure to condemn the attacks on the independent judiciary. By convention, judges are
unable to respond to personal attacks and government of the day - via the Lord Chancellor is generally seen to be obligated to protect the judiciary. Remain supporters have widely mocked those criticising the decision to uphold parliamentary sovereignty on the basis that a significant amount of time was spent campaigning on this very issue, with ‘take back control’ being a commonly heard refrain during the referendum. Beyond hijinks which remainers see as hilarious, hypocritical and hysterical, there are serious
issues. The severity of attacks on the judiciary by leading politicians and the media is largely unprecedented; so much so that former Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP has likened the political atmosphere to that of the early days of Nazi Germany - specifically referencing Völkischer Beobachter, the party’s paper. Commentators have also drawn parallels between authoritarian states and leading UKIP figures - their sole MP Douglas Carwell and leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans hath both suggested compromising
the independence of Judges in order to secure more beneficial political outcomes for their party. The government now plans to appeal the high court judgement before the Supreme Court. Whilst leading legal pundits and academics do not believe the challenge has any real chance of success, there is significant trepidation in the legal community about the way judges are being treated; with many darkly warning we potentially risk dispensing with parliamentary democracy in favour of mob rule.
Section Editors: Joseph Briers Bhadra Sreejith Joel Pearce Deputy Editors: Beth Loynes Aruna Krishnan
Halls Go Home Empty-handed After Failing Students on Affordable Rents Saskia Neibig Undergraduate Student
Intercollegiate halls perform worse, with only 8 out of the 1531 beds costing below the national average. According to research by the LSESU last year, over half of students did not agree that they were satisfied with the cost of their rent. One respondent in the survey pointed out that the weekly cost of their room at Carr-Saunders Hall had increased by £30 a week, which represents an increased cost of £930 for the entire contract. LSESU is campaigning to reduce the cost of rent in halls. Other objections raised by the Student Accommodation Awards judges included fees of hundreds of pounds for service charges, and expensive guarantor services for international students. One entrant for the awards didn’t publish its fees at all, an illegal practice, while another had prioritised their shareholder satisfaction above student satisfaction in their application to the award category for “student experience”. Private owners benefit from four of the LSE halls of residence: Sidney Webb house is owned by
Unite Students and Sanctuary Students own Lilian Knowles House, while Urbanest have LSE properties in Westminster and Kings Cross. The Urbanest properties are significantly more expensive than LSE halls in similar locations. The Urbanest and Uniteowned halls had the lowest rates of satisfaction of any LSE halls, apart from Butlers Wharf. Last year, students from UCL and three other London universities staged a rent strike in response to increased costs, withholding over £1 million in protest at the “social cleansing” of the capital that excludes poorer students from London universities. The judging panel appear to have been influenced by this campaign, stating that “high rents are driving the social cleansing of education. Working class students are being priced out: unable to access higher education altogether, or forced to work long hours.” Thus, the refusal to allow property companies to congratulate themselves on providing good service to students.
News
LAST WEEK, A PANEL OF student judges refused to name a winner in Property Week’s inaugural Student Accommodation Awards because of their failure to supply affordable housing. The awards comprise 8 categories, with open nominations and student voting. A panel of students chose the final winner. This year, panelists for the category of “Student Experience” chose not to select a winner, and published an open letter, citing the fact that “working class students are being priced out”. A spokesperson for the Student Accommodation Awards said that they accept this outcome and intend to review the category before next year’s awards. The nominees shortlist has been removed from the award programme’s website, amid accusations of profiteering and illegal practices in one case. The primary complaint from student judges was the high rent prices, with the cheapest rooms being above the
average national student rent, with many being priced at over £300 per week. A London student from a low income family would receive a loan equivalent to £205.81 to live on weekly. A survey by the National Union of Students claims that university rent has increased by 18% in the UK over the last two years with the current average rent being £146 per week. Average house prices have increased by 14% during the same period, accounting for some of the difference, but both the NUS and the panel of student judges attribute some of the increase to the privatisation of student accommodation. Other privately rented accommodation has also been affected by the reduction in social housing. The average price of all privately rented accommodation in the UK has increased around 2.5% annually for the last two years, but the figure is 4% in London. LSE accommodation costs between £100 and £382 per week, with only 14% of LSE beds priced at below the national average.
4
| Tuesday 8 November, 2016
Saucy Tzar: Lamé to Boost London’s Nightlife Gabbie Gee Undergraduate Student MANY HERE AT THE LSE were shocked by the closure of Fabric in September after two drug-related deaths. The popular nightclub had its licence revoked when Islington Council found it had a ‘culture of drug use’ and staff were ‘incapable of controlling’ it. But Fabric is not the only London nightspot that has been shut down in recent times– nearly half the capital’s nightclubs, and over
“Fabric is not the only London nightspot that has been shut down in recent times...” 40% of its music venues, have closed their doors for good in the last 5 years. In light of the problems facing London nightlife, in October Mayor Sadiq Khan announced plans to appoint a “night tzar” in order to reverse this pattern; effectively a mayor to look after “London after dark” and help maintain its popularity and reputation as
a global centre for culture and tourism. The decision follows the appointment of night tzars in a number of other global “24-hour cities” such as Amsterdam, Berlin and San Francisco. The city’s nightlife is a hugely valuable economic asset with experts predicting it will be worth £2billion to the UK economy by 2029, yet bureaucracy and the continual redevelopment taking place within London are increasingly threatening the existences of these businesses. Earlier in the year Khan set up a London Night Time Commission, a group combining local planning and licensing authorities with club and venue owners, to try and improve some of the problems facing London’s night time industries. The new night tzar is to be charged with leading this mission by liaising with both the Night Time Commission and Transport for London. The new “tzar” has now been appointed and revealed to the public as comedian Amy Lamé. The forty-five year old, who was born in New Jersey, has often appeared on television and currently hosts a BBC London radio show with Danny Baker on weekday afternoons. Active in the LGBT+ community, she was Mayoress of Camden from 2010-
2011. The naturalised Brit seems an ideal choice for the role. Khan said ‘Her proven track-record of helping save venues, her first-hand experience of the industry over the last two decades as well as her love for London and its nightlife are what
“For too long, the capital’s nighttime industy has been under pressure...”
make her such a great candidate for the role.’ Lamé has promised to organize a series of “night surgeries” to meet with a range of members of the community once a month. These will serve as a way to garner ideas from businesses, employees, residents and party-goers in order to develop a plan of action to reinvigorate nighttime culture in the city. The tzar is excited about her new post having stated ‘It’s a privilege to be London’s very first night czar. I can’t wait to hit the
streets and have loads of ideas of what I can do for revellers, nighttime workers, businesses and stakeholders.’ She further stated ‘For too long, the capital’s night-time industry has been under pressure — music venues and nightclubs in particular are closing at an alarming rate. With the advent of the Night Tube, and the Mayor’s commitment to protect iconic venues across the city, I’m confident that I can inspire a positive change in the way people think about the night-time economy.’
LSE Get Stuck Into Sex, Drugs and Erotic Robots Beth Loynes Deputy News Editor WHILE MANY WERE preparing for the Halloween night ahead, the LSE Forum for European Philosophy celebjurated the occasion by hosting a discussion on “Future Sex: Technology, Desire and The
“The peak of sexual liberation had actually occured in the 19th century...” New Rules of Engagement.” Featuring authors and academics from Kings, Queen Mary, Kingston and Goldsmiths Universities, the 250 strong crowd waited in anticipation for enlightenment on our advancing sexual progression. The event began with a controversial analysis from Fern Riddell, the author of “A Victorian Guide to Sex”, who stated that the peak of sexual liberation had actually occurred
in the 19th century. Confronted by a sea of aghast faces, wondering if they were doomed to regress from the apparent peak, Riddell quickly lightened the tone by depicting Queen Alexandra’s “sex toy” as a saddle box with 3 settings, returning the audience to their initial hoots and giggles. Discussions then turned to the era of Tinder and the Foucauldian “convenience is king” ethos. Suggestions that technology had replaced the organic intimacy of meeting someone spontaneously created flashbacks to previous nights out, when the swiping scrum had commenced hunting down a companion for the evening. The panel then turned to the role of drugs in shaping sex lives, increasingly relevant due to the recent cancellation of the male pill trial because of “unacceptable side effects”, as the Guardian reported. Dr Angel postulated that as long as both sexes are constrained due to male reproductive desire and female reproductive resistance, sex would struggle to be equalised.
With the sobering thought of a “future sex” struggling to be intimate and equal, Dr Devlin then spiced things up with her “sexy robots.” She considered how advancing technology could further human intimacy through “distant learning sex” on platforms such as Skype, but could also further intimacy between humans and inanimate objects. With Dr Devlin expressing an obsessive adoration for her phone, followed by an audience member admitting to strong
“Things were clearly heating up despite the air conditioning...” passions for her very own robot, things were clearly heating up despite the Sheikh Zayed air conditioning. The discussion culminated in an open-ended debate on how consent would then be achieved
if robots were to infiltrate the sexual realm. Escalating somewhat from the influence of apps and virtual reality in our dating lives, the audience left this debate with
a newfound appreciation for the potential of technological advancements in their sex lives, along with an increased suspicion of the objects around them.
Rudd’s Ruthless Crackdown on International Students Saskia Neibig Undergraduate Student THE HOME SECRETARY has raised concerns that universities like LSE could be seriously affected by her plan to limit international students’ access to higher education in the UK. At the Conservative party conference last month, Amber Rudd declared plans to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK, potentially including measures such as tiered visas based on the quality of an educational institution, which would restrict the right to bring dependents and apply for jobs to students at elite universities. Ever since, vice chancellors have been expressing their concern that this could affect top universities. The speech initially drew criticism for a variety of other policies, including the nowretracted proposal to publish lists of businesses employing foreign workers. But the challenge to foreign students was immediately attacked by Universities UK, the University and College Union, and Paul Blomfield MP, co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Students, who called it a “spectacularly ill-informed […] act of madness”. In the weeks following, concern has mounted from top universities about the possible implementation of the policy. The Home Office has previously justified crackdowns on student visas on the grounds that they only target institutions which damage the reputation of the UK as a “provider of worldclass education”. However, the university sector seems increasingly fearful that the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) could be used to rank universities and their ability to offer student visas. The TEF is a proposed ranking system comprising of the results of the National Student Survey, graduate employment rates and other factors yet to be determined. Over 50 students unions have previously objected to the proposed framework on the grounds that it is a policy tool for raising the cost of elite higher education. The Vice-Chancellor of Cardiff University, Colin Riordan supports the TEF but not its use for the purpose of managing international students: “barely any of it refers to
News | 5
News In Brief Emma Watson:Mind the Pay Gap Emma Watson has been scurrying around the tube network leaving copies of Maya Angelou’s autobiography, ‘Mom, Me, and Mom’ on station platforms. Watson’s effort is part of a Books on the Underground’s project spreading reading material across London’s transport hubs. BoU said: “We are so excited to have such an amazing book shared by such an inspiring person as Emma Watson, and look forward to seeing the reactions of people who find them,”. Watson has spent the last year away from acting, focusing instead on feminism. As part of the Harry Potter actor’s equalityseeking gap year she has set up a feminist book club.
international students, who are mostly postgraduates”. The National Student Survey could hurt LSE’s standing given that the university tends to receive some of the lowest student satisfaction ratings in the country for courses, teaching and feedback. Lady Valerie Amos, Director of SOAS, argues that specialist universities could be disadvantaged. LSE and SOAS tend to perform worse in overall league tables such as QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education Rankings than they do for subject specific rankings. Smaller institutions
“The National Student Survey could hurt LSE’s standing given that the university tends to receive some of the lowest student satisfaction rates in the country for courses, teaching and feedback” that teach fewer subjects are pushed down the rankings despite being world leaders in their field. With 70 percent of students hailing from abroad and nearly 700 international academic staff, this could have severe
ramifications for the university culturally, academically and financially. The policy has also been connected to Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, Nick Timothy, who has previously proposed restricting post-study work visas to Russell Group graduates only. The Russell Group is made up of 17 universities, including LSE, but highly competitive universities such as St. Andrews and prestigious specialist institutions such as Central Saint Martins are not in the Group. Reducing international student numbers in any form is likely to have a significant economic impact, with non-EEA students having an estimated value of £7.2 billion in export earnings for the UK. A huge proportion of this value is in student fees, which constitute 12.7 percent of UK universities’ income. Currently, 312,000 international students from outside the EEA study full time in UK higher education institutions, making up 14 percent of Higher Education students in the UK. Immigration has been a key issue for the Conservative party at their party conference due to Brexit negotiations and the Prime Minister’s legacy at the Home Office. The party’s manifesto promised in 2010 and 2015 to bring immigration numbers down to the “tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands”. Annual net migration is at 327,000, with international students making up approximately 5 percent of all migrants residing in the UK.
Rudd, who campaigned for Remain, pointed to the result of the Brexit referendum as a strong mandate to reduce migration, but including international students in migration targets has long been a point of contention across parties. Prime Minister Theresa May’s tenure as Home Secretary saw a sharp decline in international students coming to the UK in 2013 prompting 5
“Non-EEA students have an estimated value of £7.2 billion in export earnings for the UK” APPG chairs to write to David Cameron in 2013 to request that students be excluded from migration targets because of the “lucrative” opportunities they offer, through paying fees and by building business relationships. Last year 30,000 international students had their visas curtailed, causing crossbench peer Lord Bilmoria to raise his concerns this summer that the UK was losing its share of the international student market. Other controversial immigration measures announced by Rudd at the conference include a reduction in foreign-born doctors in the NHS and a requirement for greater checks on migration status when opening bank accounts, receiving a taxi license or renting accommodation.
LSE’s Nobel Prize Winning President Visits Alma Mater Having boosted our alumni Nobel prize tally in October, Colombian president and former LSE student Juan Manuel Santos returned to campus last week. The peace prize winner shared his experiences of leading his country through its ongoing conflict. Though his peace plan was rejected just weeks ago in a national referendum, Santos said this could be a “blessing in disguise” and remained optimistic as he set out his vision for peace. Away from politics he shared gossip and memories from his time in London as a postgrad.
Prof. Chinkin Wins UN Award Director of LSE’s Centre for Women, Peace and Security, Professor Christine Chinkin, has been awarded the Sir Brian Urquhart Award for distinguished service to the United Nations by a UK citizen. Professor Chinkin’s current work with the UN is focussed on the Centre for Women, Peace and Security’s partnership in support of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. The United Nations Association, UK (UNA-UK) said the award was given to her as a mark of admiration for her work – as an academic and as a practitioner – in the fields of human rights; women, peace and security; and international law, justice and accountability.
6|
Tuesday 8 November, 2016
News Analysis: Professor Questions Latest Trend in Social Impact Measurement Scott Carpenter Postgraduate Student LSE PROFESSOR JULIA Morley quietly cheered when she recently read a tweet that blasted her new working paper as “disappointing.” It was a clue that her work, which looks critically at the rise of social impact reporting by some UK business or nonprofit groups, had struck a nerve. “It’s a good sign,” said Morley, a lecturer in the Accounting department. The tweet came from Social Value UK, one of several groups driving a shift toward what is known as social impact reporting - a way of evaluating how an organisation’s investments change the quality of people’s lives or the environment. An organisation might wish, say, to measure the savings to the local community of an after-school club that reduces truancy, or to test whether investment in a certain homelessness strategy generates social and financial returns. It could turn to social impact measures for the answers. Paralleled by the rise of “effective philanthropy” and other forms of charitable giving that place a premium on hard data, the new practice has noble intentions, says Morley, but also raises important questions. Would a focus on measurable results create “dysfunctional incentives,” driving social enterprises to focus on short-term and easy-to-solve problems while ignoring more complex ones? How can social measurements ensure that there
“The introduction of this new approach to measuring effectiveness is not without risks and evidence of its potential benefit is mostly anecdotal” is no “double-counting,” in which several social enterprises lay claim to a particular positive outcome? What if smaller social enterprises, unable to afford costly social measurement tools, are skipped over by investors intent on hard and fast evidence of impacts?
“In an age of austerity, it might make sense to believe that social impact reporting can be used to encourage good decisionmaking and to make social enterprises more accountable,” notes a blog post by Morley, “But the introduction of this new approach to measuring effectiveness is not without risks and evidence of its potential benefits is mostly anecdotal.” It isn’t surprising that her work
“The recent shift towards social impact reporting has been driven not from within the social enterprises sector but by professionals with backgrounds in finance and business”
would raise the ire of groups like Social Value UK, which advocates w i d e s p r e a d adoption of the measurement. A page on its website links social impact measurement broadly with the betterment of society: “We believe in a world where a broader definition of value will change decision making and ultimately decrease inequality and environmental degradation.” Its tweet came on October 20, a day after Morley’s blog post: “Disappointing views. Not measuring #SocialValue halts progress, skews perceptions & stops improvement for stakeholders.” “I think their hearts are in the right place - but I am guessing their business model depends on teaching organisations how to measure social impact,” said the Morley. The paper, “Elite Networks and the Rise of Social Impact Reporting in the UK Social
Sector,” finds that the recent shift toward social impact reporting in the UK has been driven not from within the social enterprises sector, but by professionals with backgrounds in finance and business. “Most [have experience in] private equity and venture capital and some strategy consulting,” the Professor said. “A large proportion have been to business school, where they would have done case studies… And as a result there are certain ways in which they like to measure success, using investment-style performance measures.” The arrival of this new trend may even be traceable to certain individuals, according to Morley. One of those people is Sir Ronald Mourad Cohen, “the granddaddy of venture capital
and private equity in the UK.” “He became interested in trying to get social investment on the radar. He often argued that if he was capable of shaping the business world and introducing venture capital, [then] he can introduce this new market for social investment which he believes will bring about huge benefits to the social sector and society in general,” Morley. Once interest in social value measurements reached a critical mass, thanks to people like Cohen, others piled in. “So they came together as this big force for change. And I think they’re a fascinating bunch of people, extremely well educated,” said Morley. “The jury’s out on whether it’s going to be useful or not.”
News | 7
University Round-Up Students Hearing Voices at Durham Uni Durham University has announced that it is hosting the world’s first major exhibition on hearing voices, aiming to challenge the stigma that voices are synonymous with severe mental illness. Rachel Waddingham, Chair of the International Hearing Voice Network, says the exhibition will “explore the multifaceted experience of voice-hearing” and act as a solace to young people hearing voices. It will shed light on the usually closeted subject in innovative ways, including the original manuscripts of Mrs Dalloway and artworks produced by voice-hearing 14 to 24 year olds from local areas.
Sparks Fly on Halloween at Manchester
Rockstar Economists Discuss Trade, Growth and Brexit at LSE Cameron Ormsesher Undergraduate Student ON THE EVENING OF THE 2nd of November, four rockstar economists descended on a packed Sheikh Zayed Theatre in the NAB to discuss the prospects for UK growth in the context of Brexit. The venue was buzzing as ticket-holding LSE students and a horde of journalists were treated to two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, George Osborne and Alistair Darling, the former BBC Economics Editor, Stephanie Flanders, and ex-Business Secretary Vince Cable.
“The speakers tried not to mention the elephant in the room: Brexit. It proved to be impossible...” They were here to discuss the remit of the LSE Growth Commission’s second Report and recommendations, which is due for publication this January. It has four main areas of concern: the UK’s economic relationship with Europe, the future of the
City of London, the role of future industrial policy, and the state of Britain’s labour markets. The speakers tried not to mention the elephant in the room: Brexit. It proved to be impossible to avoid such a seismic political event when discussing the British economy, and given the seemingly now accepted public suspicion of experts across the land, these three seemed to be here, in part, to craft a retort to this new rhetoric. Osborne was as slick as ever, sticking to his script of ‘free markets, open trading relationships and full employment’, while Darling went straight for the partypolitical jugular, calling Michael Gove’s referendum comments about having ‘had enough of experts’ ‘extraordinarily stupid’, saying ‘he’s only had enough of those that disagree with him’. Darling’s concern was focused on the earnings of millennials, the quality of work on offer, and the widespread disillusionment of those in the British regions and post-industrial towns, linking this to a pan- European frustration and the rise of Trump in America. Vince Cable said the priority should be offsetting that elephantine Brexit-uncertainty; something he said is preventing business investment. He spoke of innovation being a ‘particularly British failure’, but that the Growth Commission’s work on SME finance, infrastructure
investment and training and skills had been successful. The idea of a ‘siege economy’, where Britain pulls up the drawbridge to foreign labour and is therefore forced to innovate and become self-sufficient, was
“The idea of a ‘siege economy’, where Britain pulls up the drawbridge to foreign labour... was disparaged by all three” disparaged by all three; Darling called this ‘ridiculous’ and stressed the importance of our ability to trade with Europe, highlighting the aerospace industry as one that absolutely needs open collaboration and cooperation with major European economies in order to thrive in the UK. Osborne underscored a point made by Professor Alan Manning in a video last week, that British workers are not in direct competition with immigrant labour for jobs, and that Britain stands to benefit from foreign labour entering the nation. He returned to his full employment
argument, postulating that the UK still has one of the highest employment rates globally, but that this may be at risk due to Brexit. The importance of the financial industry in the UK was stressed and stressed again, as the three pointed out that 1/10 British workers work in the industry, and that it supports millions of jobs not just in London but in Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester and other cities. Osborne mounted a rare defence of bankers, saying financial services provides quality jobs that support investment across the country, and that Britain would be crazy to send it offshore– the elephant of Brexit returning to haunt the debate once more. An event that may otherwise
“Much like elephants, future generations never forget” have focused on the more mundane topics of industrial strategy and labour markets instead had a very pressing and rousing context, with the spectre of the referendum result steering every point back towards the UK’s post-Brexit future and policy–much like elephants, future generations never forget.
Halloween took a turn for the worse at Manchester Uni, where fireworks were used to frighten and injure students. One student was confronted by three men in white masks, posing as trick or treaters. When offered sweets, they “produced a lighter and started pointing a firework inside” the house. Another reported that four masked men her and a friend when they were walking down the street, before proceeding to throw fireworks. Only minor injuries and furniture damage occurred but victims felt “a bit shaken up”. Greater Manchester Police were criticised after calls about attacks were left unanswered.
Crimson Cheeks Over Harvard Football Scandal The Harvard men’s football team have had their season cancelled after they were discovered to have produced a document rating the attractiveness of the women’s team. The footballers also used said document to make lewd comments about their female counterparts and speculate as to their favourite sexual positions. In a series of events depressingly reminiscent of the LSE’s own ‘rugby-gate’, the team was subsequently suspended and had their entire season cancelled. Harvard President, Drew Faust, said - “The decision to cancel a season is serious and consequential...the team’s behaviour and the failure to be forthcoming when initially questioned are completely unacceptable.”
|
Tuesday 8 November, 2016
Get Off Your High Horse
A case for ethical relativism as a path back towards reason. Alen Maulitov Undergraduate Student
Section Editor: Hakan Ustabas Jennifer Pavlick Deputy Editors: Alen Maulitov Mohammed Dhaif
ARE YOU A HUMAN RIGHTS activist? Are you a fervent defender of the vegan lifestyle? Do you think Hillary is corrupt and shouldn’t be president? Do you believe that there are intransigent ethical principles that define ‘right’ and ‘wrong?’ Then maybe you should consider getting off your high horse. Without aiming at any personal injuries, I will hereby try to expose the vice of our generation’s moral superiority complex, and present you with a case for ethical relativism, as a path back towards reason. From the US presidential election to veganism, the widespread selfdeluding moral absolutism not only leads to the segmentation of our societies and fanatical levels of partisanship, but also foreshadows the abandonment of reason as a guide for collective action. Moral absolutism in one sentence: there are actions that are universally right or wrong, no matter their consequences or context. This is a seemingly commendable belief, whether your rationale comes from natural law, Kantian ethics or a religious conviction. If the conceptual argument for absolutism over relativism seems stronger, when applied to our current realities, this reasoning becomes dangerous. The blurred lines of employing universal morals in the real world lead to a ‘self-deluding’ moral absolutism: practical application of the theory no longer consistent with the original concept. Our generation has democratised elitism and selfrighteousness. There is no longer an aristocracy, so everybody can be an aristocrat. With an infinite number of social structures you can be a Goldman Sachs intern snob, a Corbyn-loving SU ‘intellectual’, or a Zoo bar raving rugby captain and you will have your own code of honour and your own field of accomplishment, allowing you to look down at everyone else from your mountaintop. This is reinforced by communications technology allowing you to construct your individualised cultural space from thousands of sector-specific magazines, hobby oriented Facebook groups and news sources catering to the social, ethnic, religious or political clique of your choice. The result is that everything you hear, see and read reinforces your sense of self-righteousness. It’s called the “optimism gap”, a concept echoed by George Carlin’s example of people’s attitude on the highway: I drive responsibly, but people who drive faster than I do are maniacs, and people who drive slower are idiots. The problem arises when you, like most people nowadays, start
Comment
8
considering your opinions and values developed within your own bubble as ‘moral’ and superior. When most people start living in their own worlds of self-validation and know decreasing amounts about the lives and values of other people, an increasing gap grows between our perceived reality and the reality we share with our fellow humans. This gap
“Our generation has democratised elitism and selfrighteousness. There is no longer an aristocracy, so everybody can be an aristocrat.” underpins the segmentation of society into partisan groups that feel the urging need to defend their worldview against a perceived attack on their values. Extremism ensues. Where reason calls for compromise and cooperation that leads to at least some mutual gain, morality calls for the staunch defence of own positions. The best example of this is the rise of populism in the US and UK. Many have already described this phenomenon as the polarisation of politics, however, most have diagnosed the cause elsewhere - mostly in the economic marginalisation caused by the dynamics of globalisation. Consider the following: it is the common assumption that those perceiving a direct threat from immigration delivered the winning margin in the Brexit vote. In fact, “the group most directly affected by low-wage competition from immigrants and imports – young people under 35 – voted against Brexit by a wide margin, 65% to 35%.” By contrast, “60% of pensioners who voted backed the ‘Leave’ campaign, as did 59% of voters with disabilities.” The Economist’s Anatole Kaletsky notes that these figures are comparable to the breakdown of Trump’s support, which suggests that those most embedded within the labour market and thus standing to gain or lose from the proposed reforms were not the main catalyst of these movements. Kaletsky argues that, “the 2008 financial crisis created conditions for a political backlash by older, more conservative voters, who have been losing the cultural battles over race, gender and social identity.” The catalyst is not economic but rather cultural. However, if the cultural differences precondition this segmentation of society, it is the prevalent belief of each side’s own absolute moral superiority that make the divide so bitter and stern.
Looking at cultural factors allows us to better understand the gap, while looking at moral judgments (or rather mis-judgments) allows us to understand the increasingly rapid widening of that gap. The polarisation of society, especially in the US, proceeds hand-in-hand with the polarisation of politics and notably, media. Look at the coverage of one and the same policy, say enhanced interrogation techniques and torture, by different news outlets. On the one hand, the democrat-leaning media lead by the CNN decries Trump’s intent to reintroduce waterboarding as a throwback to authoritarianism and a threat to the rule of law. On the other hand, the Republicanoriented Fox News frames the issue as a necessary step for national security, in light of the growing threat of ISIS . Media caters to their partisan viewers and defends the moral maxim of their camp: civil liberties on the left, national security on the right. Were the debates to be less restrained by moral absolutes, policymakers and voters could find a perfect space for consensus. In the logic of moral relativism, when instead of the intent or the value of the action it is ultimately its consequences that matter, we can clearly separate techniques such as waterboarding - that prove empirically inefficient, from those such as isolation - that yield some critical results. This allows for the development of more efficient and humane interrogation techniques. But for progress to be made we would have to get off our high horses and question our moral maxims. Let me give you another example that I call the ‘vegan non-sensical.’ The contemporary western obsession with rights makes it difficult to identify their limitations. In the case of animal rights, those who preach vegan lifestyle based on the moral claim
“Stick to your universal beliefs if you see it fit, after all, ignorant people like rigid rules — they grant them the freedom from individual reflection and personal responsibility.” that ‘animals have the right to life’ fall into the self-delusion of moral absolutism that is at the very least inconsistent, and at worst harmful to animal interests. The former relates to the fact
that rights imply responsibilities, which means that admitting the existence of an ‘animal right to life’ would inherently require that we, for example, prevent animals from hunting and killing one another. Such proposals seem clearly incoherent. Beyond an incoherent argument, this also hurts the animal welfare overall. Peter Singer, one of the intellectual fathers of the animal rights movement, doesn’t claim that animals have a right to life. In his seminal Animal Liberation he says we must act to stop the unnecessary suffering of animals. Never contending that animals suffer by having their life taken, he proponed that it is the cruelty of intensive farming that hurts them. With only a limited portion of Earth’s population considering a long-term commitment to vegan or vegetarian lifestyles, promoting it is an inefficient strategy. You would improve animal welfare significantly better by promoting consumption of meat from farms that treat animals ethically. This strategy has the potential to reach a wider public, thus reducing more significantly the aggregate suffering of the animals. But that would require you to put on the reality glasses and look past your moral myopia, examining the consequences of your actions rather than their principles. I can think of one organisation that applies moral relativism: the Red Cross. In over 150 years the organisation helped millions of people worldwide thanks to the principle of impartiality it adopted. Because its International Committee (ICRC) would historically refuse to make political statements or decry despots, its volunteers were admitted into most authoritarian states providing relief to people who would be otherwise left to perish. But ICRC is just a rare example, for moral high grounds are today’s ordre du jour. Just look how much Cameron misjudged the moral self-righteousness of our age when he thought that voters would defer to the consequences predicted by experts. Stick to your universal beliefs if you see it fit, after all, ignorant people like rigid rules—they grant them the freedom from individual reflection and personal responsibility. Did I say ‘ignorant’? I did, but only because it is necessary to say that people are deluded and morally self-righteous. Is that ‘elitist’? Perhaps. Perhaps we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise consequence and outcome. So by all means, lecture us about politics. Lecture us about foreign affairs. Lecture us about international law. But keep your moral lectures to yourself.
Comment | 9
Cake, and the Curtailment of Freedom The ‘Gay Cake Case’ shows that individuals in the UK are not self-determined. Hakan Ustabas Comment Editor A CASE OF THE MOST trivial facts has been considered by the most senior court of the United Kingdom, and highlights the competing tensions between freedom, equality, and religion. Ashers Bakery, a local business run by a Christian family, were fined £500, and face over £80,000 in legal costs, for refusing to
“If ‘to bake or not to bake’ is the question, it should only be the baker who decides the answer.” bake a cake which would bear a message supporting gay marriage. There were two main points of contention. Firstly, it was argued by the claimants who ordered the cake, that the bakery had discriminated against them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This argument was rightly rejected by the courts. The reason for refusing to bake the cake was because the cake contained a pro-gay message, rather than because the purchasers of the cake were gay.
If the homosexual purchasers had purchased a regular cake, it appears that the bakery would have served them without argument. The ground upon which the claimants won was that the bakery had discriminated against them based on their political belief. This was surely correctly decided on the facts, because the bakers refused to bake the cake because of the political message which the claimants wished to place on it. Furthermore, the legislation contained an express provision which rejected religious beliefs as being a legitimate reason not to comply with the law. With this being the correct interpretation of the law, it should be argued that the law needs to change. At the outset, and to dispel any possible misconception, I entirely support gay people, their right to marry, and their pursuit of equality in the eyes of both the law and the people of the world. The aim of the equality legislation in question was indeed noble, but it has the unforgivable effect of impeaching on the freedom of the bakers in this case. I firmly hold the belief that every individual is sovereign; that each person should be treated with the dignity and respect which allows them to decide how they wish to live their life, free from interference of others or the state. If ‘to bake or not to bake’ is the question, it should only be
the baker who decides the answer. The couple in this case have no moral right to force somebody to work for them against their will — this is nothing less than slavery. In a free society, parties contract with one another, and
“The bakers in question had the right to hold unpalatable views if they so wished. They have every right, as sovereign individuals, to refuse to work where they feel it will infringe their principles.” work together if the terms are mutually agreeable. Nobody should be able to force people to contract against their wishes. The bakers in question had the right to hold unpalatable views if they so wished. They have every right, as sovereign individuals, to refuse to work where they feel it will infringe their principles. To deny them this choice, the
state, and the claimants in this case, have turned the bakers into their slaves. The law needs to be reformed to respect the choices made by free people. My arguments may gain additional force if a number of analogies are given to the facts at hand. What if the baker was some sort of social liberal, and a customer had asked him to bake a cake which supported Nazism? To deny the Nazi his cake would be to discriminate against him based on his political belief, which would infringe the legislation. But do we want a law which would force a tolerant person to promote Nazism? What if the Baker were a Muslim, and a member of Britain First had asked for a picture of the Prophet Muhammed to be placed on the cake, with a derogatory but genuinely held message underneath it? Surely we would not ask the Muslim to publish something which would cause him such offence, and punish him if he refuses? If you support this idea, you may still question how citizens and the state can protect the needs of minority groups such as gays. The answer is simple: the free market shall provide the solution. While this bakery may hold Christian views which do not permit them to make the cake in question, most bakeries would happily have obliged. The magic of capitalism is that two
free parties agree to contract with one another for mutual benefit. The bakery receives money, and the customer receives a cake. We do not need to use force to place people in a position of slavery when the couple in question could have easily gone to another bakery. As free-market MEP Dan Hannan said, the appropriate
“The magic of capitalism is that two free parties agree to contract with one another for mutual benefit.” response would have been a negative TripAdvisor review, not a lawsuit costing almost £100,000. While it is arguably upsetting that gay marriage is still not universally supported, the answer lies in rational debate. Regardless of whether certain views are condemned by a large majority of citizens, the individuals who hold such views should to have the right to hold them. It is not for the state or the customer to enslave producers. This is the antithesis of the free market, and a stain on the liberal culture of the UK.
10
| Tuesday 8 November, 2016
Today, Anxiety; Tomorrow, a New President Last words on the relentless US election. are ‘impossible,’ but rather that they can be attained in and through very abstract forms. When I last went home to America in July, and turned on the news, it was rapidly obsessed with the election. In fact, it might as well have been the only thing broadcasted. How can America get out of this? The media has heightened the dangerous bubble of American ‘exceptionalism’ and, frankly, created and fulfilled an addiction to entertainment and drama, which has been served by all sides of the political spectrum throughout this election cycle. I listen to the news here in the UK, I have witnessed a British national election,
Jennifer Pavlick Comment Editor HERE IT IS, NOVEMBER 8. The nearly two-year long campaign process comes to fruition today while the American public votes for the President. As an American living here in London for over three years, I feel compelled to contribute to this media-obsessive imbroglio that the world has been witnessing, even if from afar. The trouble is, I don’t really know what to say. On the one hand, I feel I have nothing to contribute; I am not a political scientist or political theorist, and I am surrounded by fellow students at the LSE who are far more qualified to assess the ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of the situation that befalls us today. On the other hand, in as much as Donald Trump is qualified to run for President with no public service or military experience in his oeuvre, certainly as an American citizen, I am equally as qualified to throw my own voice in the ring of media craze, where it appears that accurate thinking, deep experience, commitment to research, and facts rarely have any bearing at all. While there were some special moments in this overlydrawn-out set of gruelling and torturous games that we are calling ‘democracy’ — like the popularity of Bernie Sanders which could have brought a super-PAC-rejecting candidate to the White House, or when it
was Clinton vs. Bush Part V — what we face today is a looming outcome that will determine if the United States is will be run by a sexist, narcissistic, megalomaniac, or instead by, what would be the first-ever woman President, who, herself, represents big money, unreliable track-records, and dubious outcomes for the future.
“These regular intervals of ‘risk’ seem to reveal a pattern of anxiety, excitment and drama that ensnare the American people in the process.” Last week when I saw that the FBI had re-opened Hilary Clinton’s email case, I wanted to give up. My heart sank, not because I love Hilary Clinton — yes, in this dichotomising situation “I’m with her” — but because the timing of that newly introduced precarity presented itself as so contrived, and so predictable, that I could not believe it was allowed to exist in the framework of reality. These regular intervals of ‘risk’ seem to reveal a pattern of anxiety, excitement, and drama that ensnare the American people in this process. The media creates
such an environment as to require the public to live out the plot of a drama film, but in the form of governmental process. I never fully noticed the acute drama of the American ‘democratic process’ until I moved to the UK. Perhaps it is because when I lived in America I was younger and less critical than I am now, or perhaps it is because the situation feels so all-encompassing, so suffocating an omnipotent when one is physically living in it, that there really seems to be nothing out of the ordinary about it at all. America really is portrayed to itself, from itself, as the centre of the universe and as the only universal reality. To steal Adam Curtis’ term from his new BBC documentary by the same name, it all indeed becomes dangerously ‘HyperNormalised’. Today is surreal and in a way, I feel things are standing still. And while I fear for the world at the thought of Trump winning, I don’t want to give in too quickly to living in fear, to being controlled by fear. My original draft of this article turned to claim that I am partially able to set aside my qualms by thinking “maybe it doesn’t even matter who wins.” Is extreme change — for better or for worse — even possible in the US anymore without a massive overhaul? I’m inclined to feel that it isn’t. But apathy didn’t feel right, nothing about apathy in this situation is useful, and after re-reading Evan Osnos’
The New Yorker article, “President Trump’s First Term,” my sense of fear is legitimated. Not only do I adamantly oppose the very principle that a blatantly sexist and racist individual can lead the United States, but also I am confronted with the reality that the President does have the power to change quite a lot. Osnos talks about the signing of executive orders that Trump plans to enact in what they are
“America really is portrayed to itself, from itself, as the centre of the universe and as the only universal reality...it all indeed becomes dangerously ‘HyperNormalised.” calling his “First Day Project.” As Osnos identifies, Trump can sign orders to suspend the Syrian refugee program, to relax background checks on gun purchases, or to re-start work on the Keystone pipeline, for example. He urges us not to dismiss the gravity of plans and ideas on the grounds that they
“...how can we save ourselves from this experience happening again? How can America reclaim its banjaxed media and democracy to serve the purpose of government and its people...” Brexit, and other major events occurring in the proximate continental Europe, and yet it doesn’t feel the way America feels. This seems like common knowledge, to an extent, since we all know of America as the world’s Las Vegas, but it is still urgent to ask, regardless of who wins the election today, how can we save ourselves from this experience happening again? How can America reclaim its banjaxed media and democracy to serve the purpose of government and its people, not to serve only the news industry, which createws such a perfectly crafted set of events? Alas, tonight we will all go to sleep (if possible), and wake up tomorrow to find out what the world we live in will be for the next four years and beyond. I cannot wait for tomorrow to be over, for this all to be over. I wish that tomorrow would bring finality, but tomorrow is actually just the beginning. Although now I too have fallen into the trap of spotlighting Trump, Clinton and the United States, let this be the last article about the 2016 election that you are ever presented with, we deserve a break from it all.
Comment | 11
The Dire Quality of the US “Debate” Clinton vs Trump: Ad Hominem, Ad Infinitum... Conor Mew Undergraduate Student THE MOST RECENT election debate saw Clinton and Trump lock horns in a battle to win over voters and promote themselves on various levels. What we saw was a Democrat and a Republican fighting their corners with a mixture of highly-charged rhetoric, contentious claims and most noticeably, ad hominem attacks. One may say that personal character strikes have become an entrenched tradition in Western politics and elections; however, what we saw during the latest debate was, quite frankly, shameful. Trump and Clinton launched personal attacks on one another which led to mixtures of laughter, booing, cheering and hissing. In fact, one may be forgiven for thinking they had tuned in to a Jerry Springer episode at first glance. After a good 20
minutes of jibes surrounding each other’s character, many of us hoped we were finally progressing towards policy talk and manifestos. Unfortunately, however, this was far from the case. Further allegations and accusations were pulled out of the woodwork by the two candidates; the debate was
“It may come across as ‘surface xenophobia’ when I say this tradition of constant personal strikes — whether libellous or accurate — possesses an inherently American quality.”
becoming less of a space for policy voicing, and more of a political boxing ring within which fighters tried to tarnish each other’s reputation with as much vindictiveness as possible. It may come across as ‘surface xenophobia’ when I say this tradition of constant personal strikes — whether libellous or accurate — possesses an inherently American quality. Election campaigns, conferences and debates in the UK seem to proceed with an emphasis on policy canvassing and on championing party manifestos, rather than a political zoo where candidates attempt to cause one another to slip on the proverbial banana skin of their private lives. Of course, the British population also witness instances of ad hominem statements from political candidates during elections, however, they are usually highlighted as symptomatic of a particular policy or stance,
“How important is a candidate’s private life and past behaviour in determining his or her effectiveness as an electable leader?” rather than from personal allegations like the misogyny of a fellow politician. Of course, this begs the question: how important is a candidate’s private life and past behaviour in determining his or her effectiveness as an electable leader? One view to take is that to hold public office requires a character filled with integrity, honesty, fairness and a clean, positive record in terms of private
affairs. On the other hand, however, we may be deemed as holding a Platonist totalitarian view of rulers if we were to claim the above; we are all human and consequently make mistakes over our life course. Perhaps the importance is that politicians learn from these mistakes positively? Looking towards a modern view of politics, I think it wise to take ad hominem attacks from contesting party heads with a pinch of political salt. Nevertheless, I can empathise with the view that personal characteristics form an essential part of a ruler’s ability to execute executive function. Whatever the case, I think it safe to say that we would all appreciate a more policyfocused debate and narrative from both republican and democratic figures, with a view to determining who can truly bring the most positive, pragmatic change to the US.
12 Tuesday 8 November, 2016
The FBI Reopens Clinton E-Mail Investigation The e-mail scandal is back, but we need to put it into perspective Edward Hockin Undergraduate student
Features
Section Editors: Stefanos Argyros Daniel Shears
WE’VE SEEN A FAIR FEW scandals during this US election campaign. For Clinton, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and emails are the recurring stories that blight her campaign, whilst sexism (Access Hollywood tape, and Miss Universe comments), Trump University and the issue of tax returns are just some of the many stains on Trump’s presidential bid. Yet with only a few days left before this year’s election, the scandals keep piling up at an alar ming rate. Crucially, Clinton’s emails are once again in the spotlight. Through its investigation of Anthony Wiener, the FBI has stumbled upon a number of Clinton emails that may be “pertinent” to the previous investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State. But what are we to make of this new development? It will undoubtedly damage Clinton at the worst possible time in the election, and will reinvigorate a struggling Trump campaign, desperate to pounce on any Clinto misstep. What is particularly concerning, however, is that the FBI’s Director, James Comey, has been extremely vague in justifying his actions, and admits that he does not yet know the significance of the findings the FBI has amassed. Why is this a problem on e might ask? Well, Such a potentially election-swaying an-
nouncement just days before Americans go to the polls should be backed by the most solid of evidence. Instead, James Comey’s actions are just fuelling hyperbole and exaggeration, in an election season already plagued with staggering mistruths. The FBI Director is rightly being criticized for this, and may have even broken the law. The Hatch Act states that government officials cannot use their status to interfere with elections. Obviously it is crucial that Clinton’s emails are properly investigated, but any investi-
“ What is concerning, however, is that the FBI Director James Comey has been extremely vague in justifying his actions, and admits that he does not yet know the significance of the findings” gation must be sensitive to the fact that an election lurks just around the corner, and that any interference can have a monumental impact. Just imagine. for instance, if this an-
nouncement leads to a Trump Presidency, only for the FBI to find that there was no wrongdoing by Clinton realting to the new email batch that was discovered. It is also worth noting that the FBI’s decision reeks of double standards; there are claims that James Comey has sought to withhold evidence of Russian support for Mr. Trump in the fear that it would influence the election. It is crucial as well that we remember that after a year and a half of emails dominating the headlines in the US, Hillary Clinton has been found guilty of no criminal wrongdoing whatsoever. This issue has been inflated, exaggerated, and hyped-up for political purposes, and not just by the GOP. Wikileaks has been consistently and gradually leaking controversial Clinton emails, Few of these have been highly damaging, but some a bit embarrassing. It seems odd that an organisation that seeks to promote transparency should be releasing these emails dripby-drip rather than just in one go; it’s almost as though they’re trying to damage Clinton as much as possible (but of course they wouldn’t be working with the Russian Government or anything...)! It also seems quite strange that this same organisation should find ample time to leak thousands of private Hillary Clinton emails, but seemingly cannot pin down a single Trump tax return. On November 8th, the
USA will decide who their next President will be. I won’t deny that the use of a private email server by Clinton was a
“Such a potentially election-swaying announcement just days before Americans go to the polls should be backed by solid evidence. Instead this is just fuelling hyperbole and exaggeration, in an election already plagued with mistruths.” serious one and her decisions often foolish, but we have to weigh this up against the vast stakes of this election. If this FBI announcement significantly influences the choice that the US faces, between a highly experienced, competent, intelligent, compassionate, liberal candidate, and a vile fascist to be their President, it will be nothing short of a tragedy.
Photo Credit: Flickr
Republican Climate Change Denial is Alive and Well On the Republican Party, climate change denial and the fossil fuel lobby Philip Apfel Deputy Features Editor TWO DAYS AGO, THE momentous Paris 2015 climate change deal finally came into force. It has been 11 months since 195 countries, including most major global players, came together to adopt the agreement last December. This might sound like a lot of time to some, but, considering that the Kyoto Protocol took about eight years to come into force, 11 months is really rather short. To politically astute citizens across the world who are worried about climate change, the palpable sense of urgency on the part of political leaders that this short time frame illustrates is a cause for optimism. Slowly but surely, the scientific consensus on climate change that has been there for many decades seems to be translating into a global political consensus to invest in renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Well, not if the American right has anything to say about it. The current Republican frontrunner, who could very well become the most powerful man in the world in two days (most current scientific polls show that Hillary Clinton might win by the skin of her teeth), has called manmade climate change a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, has said he would “cancel” the Paris Agreement, and wants to slash funding to the “Department of Environmental” (let us assume that he means the Environmental Protection Agency). Some might say that he can’t actually mean all that, and that he is just pandering to his right-wing base. However, that would be misguided. In fact, Donald Trump is just a tiny cog in a giant, often
fossil fuel-funded, scienceignoring, climate change denial machine. Even as the consensus over the reality of
“Over the course of the election, Fossil fuel lobbyists ‘invested’ more than 100 million US$ into Republican presidential Super Pacs” anthropogenic global warming strengthens across the rest of the Western world, in America, a well-funded, well-organised group of climate bloggers and self-designated experts, astroturf groups, conservative media outlets and pundits, and conservative politicians is putting up a considerable fight; the unwavering imprimatur of “drill baby drill”, perpetuated by deep-pocketed fossil fuel companies which bring the full weight of their financial power to bear on politicians. A quick look at several stated Republican positions shows a remarkable pattern: the glue that holds the cogs together is a shared opposition to any governmental regulatory efforts that could prevent big polluters from continuing to privatise their gains and socialise their losses, and the individual manifestations of those positions range from the meaninglessly anecdotal, over the clearly fallacious, to the simply irrelevant. The intended effect is always to distract or create false equivalencies, and in today’s age of post-
truth politics, such statements, aimed at the uninformed voter, can really hit home. According to Senator Marco Rubio, who consistently ignores climate science even though rising sea levels are already affecting his home state of Florida, climate policy is simply pointless. “We are not going to destroy our economy, make America a harder place to create jobs, in order to pursue a policy that will do nothing, nothing to change our climate, to change our weather. […] I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes to our climate.” The ever-illuminating governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, in what can only be called scientifically watertight logic, stated that “[a] volcano in one blast will contribute more than a hundred years of human activity.” Texas Senator Ted Cruz has resorted to simply denying the science by providing alternative sources. “If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming. The satellite says it ain’t happening.” Famously, Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, once took a snowball into Congress, jocularly ‘proving’ how, therefore, global warming is a hoax. Finally, Donald Trump has been recorded as saying, at a rally, that “it’s supposed to be 70 degrees today. It’s freezing! We need some global warming.” Over the course of the election, Fossil fuel lobbyists ‘invested’ more than 100 million US$ into Republican presidential Super Pacs. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio are all among the top recipients of Oil & Gas money in the country. According to Jesse Coleman,
a Greenpeace oil and gas campaigner, “Ted Cruz’s complete denial of climate change science is perfectly in line with the business interests of his biggest funders, […] these fossil funders have made denying climate change and ignoring
“Given the deleterious influence of fossil fuel companies on American climate change politics, it is remarkable that Paris even happened ” scientists a prerequisite for being a Republican candidate.” Given the deleterious influence of fossil fuel companies on American climate change politics, it is remarkable that Paris even happened. It is a testament to the fact that the Democratic Party leadership, though by no means immune, is at least slightly more resistant to fossil fuel lobbying efforts. Next Tuesday, that might all change. All the efforts that were made by the incumbent could be swept aside at the whim of the next American president. As has been illustrated, scientific facts are clearly not that relevant in this day and age. As such, the move towards a green future can only safely be secured once the corrupting effect of the fossil fuel industry is removed; the incessant flow of oil to the cogs of the climate change denial machine. Photo Credit: Cross-Cultural Reviews
Features |13
The Pocket Philosopher Musings on the unusual implications of folk morality Edmund Smith Undergraduate student TODAY I WANT TO POINT out an interesting feature of our folk morality. But first we need to look at what, exactly, a ‘folk morality’ is. I’m going to do this by taking a detour via folk physics. We have a set of intuitive expectations about how the world will respond when we interact with it. This lets us do things like predict where balls on a snooker table will go without having to get paper out and do any mathematics. These expectations take minimal cognitive effort on our part; at the same time they have their limitations. For example, our folk physics can’t really make sense of tacking in a boat. Nor does it cope well with high speeds, air pressure changes, or temperature fluctuations. Our folk morality is similar in nature. It is the intuitive set of norms we can apply to ethical situations without really having to explicitly think about them. Like in the case of folk physics, we can try to say these explicitly, and sometimes we realise that on rational contemplation (of one form or another) we would rather not act on them. Before we go on, I should also note that I’m not asserting the existence of one folk morality that maps across us all. Whether or not this is the case is really a matter of cognitive science, but I am inclined to think that there will be a surprising measure of congruence across cultures. Now, the wonderful thing about some of the more unusual implications of our folk morality is their poetical attraction. My rationally considered ethics might not leave a place for moral guilt, but my folk morality does. With only this, we can imagine a person who acts in a morally impermissible fashion in order that someone else does not have to. This a strange thought- we can make sense of someone who gives up some resources or liberty for another, and we find this intuitively praiseworthy. But someone who acts immorally for another’s ability to be moral cannot be praiseworthy, simply by definition. Still, they are intuitive admirable. This tension is not exactly a rare literary trope, but it is interesting to consider its origin.
14|Tuesday 8 November, 2016
In Defence of the Brexit Judgment The High Court’s Article 50 decision is indicative of the British Courts’ professionalism and integrity Kacper Zajac Postgraduate student ON THE 3RD OF NOVEMBER 2016, the British Government lost its battle before the High Court in judicial review proceedings against a group led by Gina Miller. The Court held that the Government lacked constitutional power under the doctrine of royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 and thereby initiate Brexit without Parliament’s scrutiny. The Court also gave its leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court which is due to take place on the 7th of December, 2016. Nevertheless, since the case was heard by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Roles and Justice Sales sitting in the High Court, it seems rather unlikely that the Supreme Court will be willing to overturn a verdict given by the Presidents of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the Court of Appeal who are effectively the joint heads of the British Judiciary. The likelihood is even smaller given the very straightforward nature of the judgement. The verdict is well-structured and based on the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. In simple terms, the High Court held that the European Communities Act 1972, which allows the law of the European Union to be directly applicable in the United Kingdom, bestows rights on individuals which cannot be revoked by way of royal prerogative. In other words, rights derived from an Act of British
Parliament cannot be restricted or terminated by an act of the executive. The simplicity of this judgment is striking. Before the hearing actually took place, various commentators, on both sides of the aisle, had made numerous extremely elaborate suggestions as to the anticipated legal submissions. However, it turns out that the position of the legislature vis-a-vis the executive is based on a straightforward and well-established principle that does not have to be overly complicated. Accordingly, the case comes down to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as once understood by AV Dicey, whereby Parliament has the power to make any law it wishes. The limited scope of royal prerogative is an inherent element of this doctrine. As per The Case of Proclamations dating back to 1610, the executive use of royal prerogative cannot interfere with any law passed by Parliament. Once this basic principle was invoked by the Court, the conclusions were not far away. The law of the European Union is backed by the European Communities Act 1972 which is an Act of Parliament. In some sense, the 1972 Act is like the Channel Tunnel – it allows the law coming from continental Europe to enter the United Kingdom, and, since Brexit means cutting the link between the mainland and the Isles, it would effectively render the 1972 Act, redundant. Triggering Article 50 under a royal prerogative would make an Act
of British Parliament meaningless which is equivalent to interfering with its contents. As a result, the Court held that triggering Article 50 without Parliament’s consent would undermine its sovereignty. At that point there was still a possibility that the 1972 Act itself, on its true construction, was intended to be flexible enough to allow the Government to withdraw from the European Union without any subsequent parliamentary involvement. However, the Court held that there was nothing in the Act that would warrant this proposition. Consequently, in a few simple steps, the case was broken down and the law was applied to all its elements leading to a clear conclusion: the Government lacks the power to initiate Brexit without the approval of British Parliament. The case has been described as the most important constitutional decision of our lifetime. There is little exaggeration in that. The very decision to withdraw from the European Union has massive political, social and legal consequences and the manner of withdrawal cannot be played down. There is plenty that can be said about the ruling in question. It appears that, first and foremost, it is brave. The British Judiciary showed real character in standing up to the Government. The political pressure on Theresa May to deliver Brexit is enormous and this pressure has been transferred onto the Court.
Secondly, despite what disappointed Leavers say, British Judges are not very keen on the European Union. In fact, anyone used to reading judgements produced by British Courts will be quick to point out that British Judges often seem annoyed with the law of the European Union and its place in the Brit-
“All political arguments aside, the Court stood for the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty – the same sovereignty that the Remainers desperately wanted to take back from the European Union” ish constitutional order. Accusing the High Court of bias completely misses the point. Thirdly, the judgment symbolises the professionalism of British Courts. The decision was politically difficult, its consequences will make the life of the Government much harder and probably turn part of society and the media against the courts. Yet amid all those non-legal concerns, the High Court has been able to focus on the law, apply it correctly and
in simple terms, to the issue at hand. This is pretty much everything we should expect from Courts of law. No more, no less. It appears that whether one is a ‘Leaver’or ‘Remainer,’ this judgment deserves nothing but the utmost respect. All political arguments aside, the Court stood for the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty – the same sovereignty that the Remaniners desperately wanted to take back from the European Union in the days leading to the referendum. Although today the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament did not work out for everyone, in the long term, everyone benefits from it immensely, even if it is without knowing it. In any event, the decision of the High Court does not in any manner preclude Brexit. It does, however, make it much more difficult to carry out. Assuming the ruling is not overturned on appeal, the Government will have to put together a majority in Parliament to authorise the withdrawal from the European Union. Inasmuch as the Conservatives have a narrow majority on their own in the House of Commons, at least half of the Party originally campaigned to remain. It is also not clear how many of SNP and Labour MPs who were strongly supporting Britain in Europe would respect the wishes of the public. Given all those circumstances, the May Government might have real difficulties to get the motion through the House. This would mean that Britain might see another general election in the Spring of 2017.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock photos
Features | 15
Liberal Democracy and the Problem of the Demos The rising problem of nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with modern notions of liberal democracy Angus Tatchell Undergraduate student
IN A HANDFUL OF DAYS, Donald Trump may become the elected President of the United States of America - the so-called ‘leader of the free world’. At the beginning of the campaign for the Republican Presidential Nomination most people would have thought this prospect absolutely ludicrous. But if there’s one thing that we’ve all learned throughout 2016 it’s that nothing is certain. Previously established orthodoxies the world over are being challenged and torn down. To many people this is in no way a bad thing. It’s about time a change shook up a system that is in many ways far from perfect. However, what we must be very careful about with any ‘revolution’ is what comes to replace the status quo, and whether or not this may be a step in the wrong direction.
“The Left would tell us that the problem is global capitalism, whilst the Right would not have us believe that global liberalism is the real culprit” Why we got to this point is probably quite clear to most people now. For too long a system of governance that was lauded as the best we could hope for has been failing too many people. As this system rose to pre-eminence, we were told that “there is no alternative”. And by the time this system had proliferated itself across the globe we were even told that it would spell ‘the end of history’. What has only become truly clear in 2016 is that even in those places where it works the best, a majority of people now seem to think otherwise. But in order to fix the problem, we need to understand where its causes lie. And to do this, we need to have a fundamental examination of which system itself is not working. The Left would tell us that the problem is global capitalism, whilst the Right would now have us believe that global liberalism is the real culprit. As someone who finds
themself in the political centre, like many of you probably do, it’s easy to disengage from addressing these somewhat ‘radical’ perspectives. However, it has been largely the failure of political moderates to engage with and address these issues with confidence (or at all) that has left the door open to populists to falsely proclaim these ideas as the solutions to all of our problems. And it may be this failure that spells the end of the liberal democratic project of the last two centuries. This is quite a bold statement, so let us examine the ideas behind the increasingly popular illiberalism that has managed to seize power in the UK (and looks like it may succeed in doing so in the US and the European Continent very soon) in order to fully realise the drastic consequences that may arise. During the run up to the EU Referendum in June this year an argument that gained popular traction amongst ‘Brexiteers’ and Eurosceptics was that the EU was fundamentally flawed because of something called the “No Demos Thesis”. The idea is that regardless of how democratic the EU could reform itself to be, its decisions would remain illegitimate because Europe ‘does not have a common political identity’. In democratic theory a ‘demos’ refers to the people which govern themselves. Thus the issue raised is that people in one member-state could be forced into doing something that they may have disagreed with because a majority of people in other member states chose to. This, many of them thought, would be no different from tyranny, and hence demanded that the people of Britain “take back control”. However, in Democratic Theory, the way a ‘demos’ is defined is a largely unexamined topic. And upon closer examination this argument can be used to completely deconstruct any kind of plural decision making process and, at its core, is not compatible with the ideas of liberalism or democracy (at least in the forms we are familiar with). Firstly, this argument depends upon a deeply nationalistic outlook on governance. It presupposes that a ‘demos’ is defined as a nation. And it also presupposes that everybody from a ‘nation’ thinks in a similar way. In order for there to be a ‘lack of a common political identity’ across the member-states of the EU we
“Democracy is fundamentally about bringing together a diverse range of opinions and views” are to accept that political ideas in one nation are fundamentally different from those in another. So fundamentally different apparently, that they are incompatible together in a single democracy. This is a very dangerous notion to accept. To view other nations as fundamentally different in their politics, purely based on cultural differences, is to make an implicitly discriminatory and divisive assertion. We are going as far as to say that a diversity of identities cannot function together because they produce different political preferences. The obvious problem with this argument is that it assumes that diversity itself prevents functional political decision making. In the 21st Century our understanding of democracy is supposed to fully embrace the idea that our society is tolerant of diversity, and that it does not prevent functional democracy. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Democracy is fundamentally about bringing together a diverse range of opinions and views, and having this diversity expressed in our legislatures and by our politics. Our parliaments exist only because of the plurality of ideas that we value. And we value all of these ideas equally. Each one of us is given one vote, and all of our votes count equally. If we did not believe in diversity in governance then we’d all simply cast our votes
at election, and whoever wins would become a dictator until the next election. The executive would be all that is necessary to fulfil democratic governance as diversity has no place in the process. This is obviously not the case, and our systems of democracy do not look to supress diversity. Not only is defining a demos based on a national criteria incompatible with the idea of individual diversity, but it also means in effect that all people are not equal. In order for our democracy to restrict people of other nations from involving themselves in our decision making process we implicitly argue that identity can be used a means to disenfranchise. If somebody can be excluded from the democratic process because they have a ‘different’ national identity, then we set a dangerous precedent that can be extended
“In order for a democracy to be considered liberal, it must not sacrifice the principles of equality among peoples” to other identities. In order for a democracy to be considered liberal, it must not sacrifice the principles of equality among peoples, and it must not be divisive. Otherwise we must admit our hypocrisy. Nationalism is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy. It is very important to make this absolutely clear to people. It is easy to forget today the dark
places that politics has come from. Our values and principles have evolved immensely over the last few decades, but there are still people who wish to return to the illiberal past that we came from.
“It is easy to forget today the dark place that politics has come from” And whilst it may not be fully clear how far we may regress, we must all be aware of exactly what this entails and the principles and precedents it creates. In the political climate of Theresa May’s Britain, the divisions of nationalism are being re-introduced into the political mainstream. The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has already called for companies to reveal the number of foreign workers they employ. Visa restrictions have already been significantly toughened during Mrs May’s time as Home Secretary, and now with the ‘mandate’ of Brexit which she has taken to interpret as an expression of English and Welsh nationalism, and a pledge to lower immigration numbers, we can expect even more divisive policies to come during her premiership. Ultimately what this spells for the United Kingdom as a cohesive political unit is quite harrowing and ironic. It seems easy to forget for people in England that the UK is itself a multi-national democracy. And it is also now an extremely divided one. Brexiteers may do well to consider the implications of the ‘No Demos Thesis’ in their own country.
16 | Tuesday 8 November, 2016
With Josh McAlastair, CEO of Frontline Charity
Interviews
Daniel Shears Features Editor JOSH MCALASTAIR IS THE founder and Chief Executive of Frontline, a charity recruiting young leaders to help vulnerable children through social work. Frontline’s two year graduate programme offers recent graduates and career changers an opputunity to gain a social worker and a Masters qualification by working in a local authority children’s services department. Our Features Editor sat down with Josh McAlastair to discuss the impetus behind the scheme and how it can benefit LSE graduates. (Q) Before you started Frontline you were a teacher with Teach First in Manchester. Was this your primary motivation for starting Frontline, or were other factors at play? It was the primary motivation. I worked eventually in two schools in Greater Manchester, and the first school that I taught in had quite a large number of children who were either in care, or had social workers involved in their home life. Through that process I saw the human face of lots of the statistics regularly bounded around regarding the number of children in care who [don’t] go to university, the number of children with social workers involved at home who are excluded from school, and really when you see children struggling in the classroom because of what’s going beyond the school gate, it really underscores the importance of social workers and the role that they can play for children. So that [the teaching] was definitely the primary influence, but also my dad was a social worker, and when I was at university and thinking about what to do afterwards, I was desperately looking for something with a sense of social purpose, and lots of banks, lots of management consultancies, lots of legal firms, you know, that traditional path was clearly set out in front; there weren’t many opportunities to do something which was a bit different. Teach First really grabbed my attention, and that experience made me realise the same kind of thing isn’t being done with social work in the way that it needs to be. (Q) How important do you think it is to encourage men to go into social work, and how can Frontline achieve this? It is important, in the sense that having diversity in social work is really important, and that extends to people who’ve come from different backgrounds, people of different ages, different degree backgrounds, as well as people who are black or white or male or female. I think in particular if you look at the make-up of social work it is overwhelmingly female, and actually for boys it can be really productive to have role models and more male social workers as part of that mix in the profession. It is definitely something that men should consider (Q) LSE students infamously tend to pursue careers of a more
corporate nature, especially in the investment banking industry. Why should people of such an inclination consider third sector, social enterprise professions, like Frontline, instead? Fundamentally it depends what you want to do with your life. I think there are lots of people who do a great job in financial services and in law, and those are certainly parts of the economy that are great for growing businesses and making money for the country, so I’m not, in any way, disparaging of them. However, there will be people at the LSE who have amazing empathy, who’ve got real resilience and who’ve got the potential for incredible leadership to apply to massive social problems. If we’re not tapping into those people as a country, if we’re not tapping into their talents, then we are not going to be able to make Britain a more equal, more fair country where we address huge social inequality. The question about why people should consider doing it, is really about purpose. Do you want your career to, at some stage, have some real, deep meaningful purpose for your fellow human beings? It’s as simple as that really. I think one of the best things you can do with your life, in terms of fulfilment, is have a real focus on somewhere where you can make a difference. I believe people here at the LSE are just as likely, if it’s put to them in the right way, to make such a choice as graduates who perhaps go to a less city-focused university. (Q) One of the goals of Frontline is to change the image of social work, by presenting it as a more reputable and attractive profession to new graduates. Are you not worried that by creating a “fast-track” scheme for graduates, you risk undermining the profession by allowing those without a full social work degree to become on parity with qualified professionals? People who do a two-year Masters degree, the more traditional route to get a social work Masters, often apply without having a social work undergraduate degree, so it’s not unusual to have people who come from a wide range of undergraduate degree backgrounds, doing social work as a post-graduate programme, which is what Frontline is; you get a Masters as part of the programme. The second point is that the LSE used to run its own twelve-month route to qualify as a social worker, which is the same as Frontline; you qualify after the first year, and then you’re a newly qualified social worker in year two. The third is that we’ve had an evaluation, which was published in March that showed that, even though people qualify under Frontline faster than on other routes in England at the moment, they are actually more prepared for the practice and have got greater social work skills than those on other routes. So historically and also looking at the evidence recently, the programme as it’s set up really does
give people a great opportunity to make a difference. (Q) What role can Frontline play in challenging the negative press which social work often gets? It has a role to play, for sure. One of them is simply in having people talking about a career in social work. I think having more people at university campus walking round, considering their options, at least having social work in contention for their option, is really an essential part of that. You know, people going home at Christmas and telling their parents saying “I’m considering applying to this social work programme”, it just starts a conversation at dinner that you might never have had as a family before. Just those subtle things are important. More fundamentally, I think, when you describe the work to people, without using the words “social work”, it’s actually remarkably attractive as an option. You get to work with a small group of families and children where you can make a difference, where you are there to help, you’re pulling together different agencies whether it’s the police, or schools, or health visitors, you’re having the opportunity to build a rapport and a relationship with people in real difficulty, and with your leadership qualities you’re able to set out a vision for where they are able to get to and convince people to act. All of that is being done in a way that can transform peoples’ lives. And when you describe that, that is social work, and it’s something that is really attractive. So I think instead of starting from a position of trying to change peoples’ perceptions of phrase, engage with people honestly on what the work involves, and you manage to get people interested. (Q) How many graduates at Frontline stay in the social work profession in the long term, and what other careers do former Frontline social workers go into if they choose to move on? Early indications are that over four in five stay in social work after the two year programme, which is really positive. The people that do leave, looking at what they do is really encouraging as well. A number of them have gone to work for third-sector organisations where they are leading or setting up projects, some have gone on to educate teachers in the methods that they use as social workers, we’ve got someone working at Save the Children, someone working at the Anna Freud Centre, and we’ve got people who are more interested in policy, one of
whom has gone off to work in the Cabinet office in the Civil Service. So there is a spread, but certainly the majority are staying on in social work which indicates, I think, that the job is a really rewarding one for people to do. Frontline opens more doors than it closes, and the two year programme gives you more options, more qualifications, gives you a salary, and it gives you the chance to make a difference. (Q) Finally, you’ve had backing from the political establishment, including Lord Adonis since 2010, and more recently the former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, who has funded the expansion of the programme. Do you think there is a role for the Government to play in social work? Is there more to be done, and if so, what? Frontline is very lucky in that we have had cross-party support since our inception. The government is increasingly interested in improving social work practice. I think more work needs to be done, which I know is not a simple answer, but we need to get more great people into public service roles, and that includes social work, in areas of the country where the need is greatest. It’s quite easy to convince people to do these sorts of jobs in London, but when you’re talking about some of the most deprived corners of our country, places like Blackpool or Grimsby or bits of the South Coast, that is where the talent is most needed, and it’s also where it is hardest to get the talent to go. So, you know, there is probably a case for some sort of incentive around student loans, debt relief, and we’ve written about that before, so there are some options to consider there.
17
State of the Union with our LGBT+ Officer Perdita Blinkhorn on what she’s been up to and her plans for the future... Taryana Odayar Executive Editor
(Q) Are there any particular issues you would like to tackle during your time as Officer? I’m currently working with the school to make toilets around campus more gender non-binary inclusive. At the moment signage is very binary and usually one has to occupy a disabled toilet if
“At the moment signage is very binary and usually one has to occupy a disabled toilet if they’d rather use an ungendered cubicle, which is very unhelpful for disabled students as well.” (Q) Has the LSE been supportive of its LGBT+ students and is there anything they could improve on? There are some areas that LGBT+ students are likely to need support in where their sexuality and/ or gender identity is a relevant factor. That’s why I was happy to be a part of LSE’s campaign to encourage the reporting of harassment on campus, as it demonstrates a renewed will to commit to student’s wellbeing with a zero-tolerance approach to harassment on campus.
I’m also trying to encourage LSE to be a part of Stonewall’s Global Diversity Champions programme. While we are already a part of the national equivalent of this scheme, for a university that has almost 70% international students, we are doing them a disservice by not focusing on international LGBT+ issues enough. (Q) Are there any particular areas of LGBT+ life you wished the media would focus more on? I think I’d like to see alternative sexualities and gender identities/ expressions in a more everyday light. I mean, if you see a lesbian couple on TV they’re always very one way or the other - hyperfemme and generically attractive, or hyper-butch and troubled. I’d like to see portrayals of more believable characters - LGBT+ people of colour, queer people with disabilities and essentially something that’s not fetishised for the mainstream (read: straight-cis) public. It would also be wonderful for more common coverage of polyamorous relationships which are judgement free, and that of trans individuals without some level of pity attached to them. (Q) What are some of the biggest accomplishments of LSE’s LGBT+ Officers or LGBT+ community so far? The thing I’ve noticed is just how many international and postgrad students are involved in the LSE LGBT+ scene. These groups are often under-represented in SU activities, so it’s really wonderful to
know that students are looking for a community and are willing to get involved. That’s a fantastic accomplishment in my book. (Q) How can freshers get involved with promoting LGBT+ rights and events on campus? One of the best ways to get involved is to join the LSE SU Pride: Gender and Sexual Diversity Alliance (Pride Alliance for short). It’s a great society that has a mix of events including round table discussions, panels and fabulous socials, as well as a lovely and supportive committee. If you’d like to keep up with what I’m doing, definitely join the LSE SU LGBT+ Students’ Assembly Facebook group. I post weekly about what I’ve been up to and LGBT+ related events coming each week. If you’d ever like me to campaign on something for you or you just need a chat, you can talk to me during my office hours (Tuesdays 1:30-2:30 in the ARC, first floor SAW) or send me an email at su.lgbt@lse.ac.uk. I’d love to get to know you a bit more!
The Union
(Q) What are your plans for this year as LSE’s LGBT+ Officer? I’ve got 3 main projects I said I’d work on in my manifesto and so I am! In terms of projects, I’m very keen to make sure students are supported in coming out at university, especially international students. I’ll be holding a couple of workshops this term (first one in week 5) to help bring this conversation alongside an exciting surprise street campaign in Pride week (week 9). I also want to continue my work from last year to make university sport as inclusive as possible. I’ve just finished delivering all the AU Ally training sessions for this term, working with the Anti-Racism Officer Sarah Floss to ensure it has a section on racism. The feedback has been wonderful and a thank you to all the clubs who took part! I’ve also organised a big speakers panel in January comprising of LGBT+ MPs, Lords and other key political figures as part of my aim to re-engage queer students in politics.
they’d rather use an ungendered cubicle, which is very unhelpful for disabled students as well. I’m also looking at introducing Consent workshops for incoming first years based on the NUS and Sexpression UK’s model. While it’s unlikely to be compulsory, the school have been very positive about both of these projects and I am confident they will be achieved by the end of my term.
18
AU HALLOWEE N!
19
20 | Tuesday 8 November, 2016
FILM
14
REVIEW IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER Tom Sayner THE TROUBLES HAVE FADED IN THE BRITISH NATIONAL consciousness, barely an abstraction in the minds of millennials. ‘In the name of the father’ is a devastatingly powerful evocation of this period and a fearless examination of how the British state operated. Most importantly the film’s themes and insights contain a huge amount of resonance in an era marked by ‘extraordinary renditions’ and 28 day detentions. Beginning in the 1970s ‘In the name of the father’ explores the true story of the Guildford Four – 4 innocents wrongly accused of the bombing of a pub in Guildford in 1974. The film focuses on Gerry Conlon (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his struggle to prove his innocence. Directed by Jim Sheridan, an Irish director with a history of ‘agitprop’ productions, the film focuses less on the morality of the Irish methods and more on the fascist brutality and Kafkaesque procedures of the British security state during the Troubles. There is a righteous anger coursing through the film but interwoven with a poignant and intense tale of the relationship between Gerry and his father, Giuseppe (Pete Postlethwaite). The film begins in occupied Belfast and a rather affectionate look at Irish solidarity. The period detail is excellent and a marvellous supporting cast succeed in capturing the turbulence of the times. We see Conlon’s days living in London and his subsequent arrest by the police. His time in prison occupies the bulk of the film and sees the emotional, psychological and physical states of the character’s revealed. The scene in which Gerry sees his father also being stripped, humiliated and forced into his cell was perhaps the most powerful in the film, perfectly capturing the individual struggle and the wider political context. ‘In the name of the father’ contains some of the best acting I have seen for a long time. Daniel Day-Lewis is unbelievably good showing superb versatility while the late Pete Postlethwaite delivers a performance tinged with love and sadness. The two actors have a long history and their chemistry is palpable. Their haunting Irish brogues elevate the film to elegiac levels. The morality of the IRA methods in their struggle for Irish independence are only explored to a limited extent. Giuseppe Conlon delivers a fierce rebuke of an IRA member and indeed the film begins with a look at the young, innocent victims of the Guildford bombing. But the film is not about balanced political analysis. It is about the authoritarian systems that Britain developed to counteract the ‘Fenian’ threat and the emotional toll this took on innocent Irish men and women. The parallels to modern victims of wrongful imprisonment are all too clear. Since the profusion of anti-terror legislation since 9/11 the UK’s legal and security systems again began to resemble that of the Trouble’s. The film making is not technically ambitious nor artistically stimulating. Yet ‘In the name of the father’ does not aim for this. Instead they rely on an inherently moving and troubling story combined with stunning acting to create a very well rounded film. Its emotional impact is undeniable and the simplicity of its themes and narrative make it a truly compelling film.
part
B
editorial team PartB Editor
Flo Edwards J.T Stokes
Fashion Jamie Lloyd Maria Maleeva Music Rob Funnell Will Locke
Film
Food & Lifestyle
Literature
Sarah Ku Alexander Lye Camila Arias Tom Sayner Caroline Schurman-Grenier Buritica Sean Tan Visual Arts Technology Theatre Edward Tan
Noah D’Aeth
Hanna Lee Yo-en Chin
21
FOOD
Review: Cha Chaan Teng CHA CHAA N TENG OP E N E D T H IS se rv es co n te AUTUMN O m p o ra ry H N K IN G S W o n g K o n g st a ls a li k e. T AY a n d y le cu is in e h e w eb si te to p ro st u d en ts a n Drive a n d st y le w v id es a co m d p ro fe ss io h ic h m a k es p re h en si v e nn o p re te n ce d es cr ip ti o n is ‘d el ic io u sl y a t a u th en ti o f it s et h o s u n u su a l d in ci ty in fana t th e re st a bu g ex p er ie n ce u ra n t’ s q u ir ’. A re la ti v el t d o es g u a ra n te e a k y a es th et ic tasti- d in in g a re y sm a ll sh o p a b el o w. U n b u t d is g u is fr o n t h in ts es a n ex p a n su r p ri si n g cally fe w p a rt ie ly si v e a n d la s ea ti n g b u fo r 9 p m o n a v is h t n o n et h el es a T u es d a y verfr o m th e w w e w er e o n s en jo y ed a a it in g st a ff e of w a rm a n d . In th e d im satile ti o n s a tt en ti v e re ly li t b o o th ce p ti o n fe a tu ri n g o film, rn a te ta b le d ec o ra I fe lt a m il li o n m il es fr o m th e li T h e a tt en ti b ra ry I h a d o n to d et a il le ft ju st te n in C h a C h a w e w er en ’t m in u te s b ef a n Ten g ’s m g o in g to m o re . en u is im p is s th e o p p S u it a b ly q u re ss iv e a n d o rt u n it y to sa en ch ed w e m p le a si g n w en t o n to ra n g e o f st a a tu re co ck ta se le ct w h a t rt er s, in cl u il . w e w er e a ss d in g L em o n E g g S p ri n g u re d w er e a g ra ss C h ic k R o ll s. M y fl good en S k ew er s a tm a te a n d p h a si z e ju st a n d C u rr ie d in in g co m h o w m u ch d p a n io n in si sh e en jo y ed o f fr en ch to st ed th a t I em th e P ea n u t a st , sm o th er B u tt er F re n ed in p ea n u is q u it e th e ch T o a st . A t b u tt er, a n in d u lg en ce sl a b d d u n k ed in b u t ce rt a in a n d u p w a rd co n d en se d ly w o rt h th s as we mo m il k e ca lo ri es . v ed o n to o u p o re It w a s o n w r m a in co u a rd s r se s. M y T ig er P ra w n S in g a F ri ed N o o d le s ce rt a in ly h it th e sp o t H a n n a h ’s st a n d a lt h o u u ff ed m u sh g h a li tt le o ro o m a n d ca fl a v o u r. T h n th e sp ic y rr o t o m el et e m ea l w a s si d e, te m a d e u p b ro u g h t to co tt a a n d a fo r th e h ea a cl o se w it h cu p o f d el ic t in a v el v et y co io u s m il k y st it u te fo r y co n u t p a n n te a w h ic h I o u r a ft er d a m u st re co m in n er co ff ee m en d y o u su . bCha Chaan Ten g is a re a l h id d en g it s p ro x im it em a n d n o t y to L S E . I o n e to b e m fo r o n e w il ev en in g s a t is se d co n si l d ef in it el y b T u n s w it h d er in g e tr ip s to C h a C h a a n Ten su p p le m en ti n g m y g fo r ‘l u ck y h o u r’ .
bridging many ap-
Review: Chi-Raq
22
Meaghan Clohessey Spike Lee’s Chi-Raq (2015) portrays modern day gang violence through a retelling of the classic Greek play Lysistrata. Against the backdrop of Chicago’s south side neighborhood, the Spartan and Trojan gangs claim territory through bullets and turf battles. When crossfire claims a young girl, Lysistrata (Teyonah Parris) resorts to creative measures to end the violence. With fellow women from both gangs, she initiates a sex strike withholding intimacy until the Spartans and Trojans call a truce. The movement spreads beyond Chicago and finds popularity across the world, drawing supporters and enemies alike. Meanwhile, Lysistrata’s boyfriend Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon), aspiring local rapper and Spartan leader, attempts to maintain the bloody status quo even while society begins to transform around him. The strike ultimately changes the discussion of gang violence while introducing the concept of female sexuality for the patriarchal society that precipitated the violence in the first place. Lee has devoted his career toward making films depicting a holistic representation of the African American community. His nuanced characters, often living within a hyper-real landscape, deconstructs stereotypes of African Americans while removing the monolith view imposed on the community by mainstream film and media. Chi-Raq departs slightly from this realism to frame the story within the narrative structure of a Greek play. The narrator Dolmedes (Samuel L. Jackson) functions as the chorus guiding audiences through the events of the play. Additionally, characters speak with specific rhyme and meter, mirroring the oral tradition. However, Lee replaces the loss of realism by the film’s reclaiming of classical literature. The study of ancient Greece had traditionally been relegated for the education of a more ‘civilized’ (see: rich white) society. African Americans, having been enslaved and treated as subhuman after emancipation, were denied entrance from this society. Infusing Greek classical tradition abolishes the cultural barrier historically imposed upon this literature. Chi-Raq’s lyrics, played throughout the film, complicates tradition further through connecting rap—generalized as brutish—with the civilized culture of Greek drama. Though the infusion may be forced at times, it provides audiences with a literacy into an often misrepresented community through the global heritage of classic Greek literature. As inferred by the plot, female sexuality is a central theme for the film. Though the concept of sexual manipulation can be problematic (i.e. the “Femme Fatale” archetype), control of sexuality rests primarily with the female characters. They express sexual desire and acknowledge the misogynist treatment from men based on those desires. Multiple women of different ages express desires, removing the myth that only young women can expose their sexuality. Lysistrata herself exposes the double standard of exoticizing women through the hilarious scene of seducing a Confederate-bred army colonel. Even the final sex scene between Lysistrata and Chi-Raq demonstrate mutual dominance as both openly court each other and are receptive to courting. The male reaction sparks a series of hilarious interactions that point out the ludicrous nature of patriarchy and the male ego. While the theme could have been analyzed further, it was enough to demonstrate that females can also have libidos and define their own relationship to that identity. Chi-Raq entertains while delivering social critique to social violence built on patriarchy. As the title suggests, we may not need to look overseas to find a war zone. We may just look at our own backyard.
FOOD
The Starving Student Simple weekday recipes for busy beavers Fiona Koch Crispy Ginger Garlic Pork with Noodles This recipe is quick and easy, taking about 20 minutes total. The combination of garlic, ginger and lime evokes South East Asian flavours. Beef or lamb mince substitutes nicely for pork, and the crispy meat pairs particularly well with cold rice or buckwheat (soba) noodles of any shape. This recipe also keeps well in the fridge for up to 3 days, so you can make a larger batch and save portions for later. SERVINGS: 4 Ingredients 10ml vegetable oil 500g minced pork, beef or lamb 300g soba, udon or ramen noodles 2 cloves of garlic Thumb-sized nub of ginger 10ml light soy sauce Juice of 1 lime
Heat a pan on medium and add vegetable oil (1 min) Slice spring onions, grate ginger and finely mince the garlic Add onions, ginger and garlic to the hot pan and fry to soften (about 3 min) Add the minced pork, beef or lamb to the middle of the pan and cook for about 5 min until it has started to brown Turn heat up to high and press the meat down into the pan, so that it begins to fry and crisp Add lime juice, zest and soy sauce to a small bowl and mix together Add this sauce to the pan and mix well with the meat Cook noodles according to packaging and rinse under cold water before draining Serve crispy pork on top of cold noodles and sprinkle with chopped coriander and hot sauce of your choice (Sriracha recommended!) Make it vegetarian/vegan: crumbled tofu or seitan would work nicely with this recipe
23
24 | Tuesday 8 November 2016 14
Review: Matilda
THE COVENT GARDENER
“London’s best and brightest” The Covent Gardener Nearly a month into the academic year, I felt it was time to go back to school. Back to the classroom. A classroom with desks (unlike the Peacock Theatre!) and home to London’s most best and brightest, Matilda. Cambridge Theatre in the heart of Seven Dials has staged a musical adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic Matilda for over 5 years. For those of you who haven’t read the novel, I wonder how you haven’t but here’s a quick summary. Matilda (played by Sara Sheen) is a young girl who has a dysfunctional relationship with her parents characterised by their neglect of her and her mischief. She excels in school but is unable to achieve her full potential as the diabolical headmistress Miss Agatha Trunchbull (played by Craige Els) prevents her from moving to a better class despite the pleas of her teacher Miss Honey (played by Miria Parvin). The plot follows Matilda’s time at school and her relationship with Miss Honey. Witty lyrics, breathtaking choreography and flawless acting – this is one theatre adaptation that’s better than the book. It highlights all that is despicable about Matilda’s school, Crunchem Hall, while capturing the endearing relationship between Matilda and Miss Honey. Matilda faces stiff competition from her portrayer Sara Sheen for the year’s most talented child. Captivating and honest performance, Sheen captures the audience right from the start. A great show for children and anyone who wants to be a child again. It conveys a powerful message about the limitless power of imagination and the value of reading. So if you need some motivation to do the readings for your lectures, this is for you. If all this is not enough to get you to head to the box office, then I’m sure £5 day seats would. Yes you heard me, £5! Can you spend it any better?
14
THE COVENT GARDENER
25
Keep Your Ears Peeled
The Covent Gardener To make the most of a rare sunny day, I spent my day outdoors to soak up as much Vitamin D as I could and combat the depression of not getting a reading week. As I was searching for a good lunch deal, I stumbled upon a highly peculiar sighting. An ear. Yes, you read that right. An ear. And in case you were wondering, no it wasn’t some Halloween prop. Rather, it is a plaster cast of an ear protruding from the building on Floral Street. Inconspicuous and nowhere near eye level, the only reason I spotted it was I happened to be glancing up at the glorious ocean blue sky and noticed it at the corner of my eye. I wish I had a better camera with me but it is still clear that modelled it on a left human ear and the artist attempted to blend it in with the colour of the wall. Walking further along the street I spotted another one. This sparked my in- terest and I decided to find out more about this unusual work of art. The ears were installed by Tim Fishlock, an artist who has some work dis- played in the nearby London Transport Museum. They are plaster of Paris reproductions of his own ears which he stuck onto buildings. There are two on Floral Street and (supposedly) many others dotted around Covent Garden. Much like the Seven Noses of Soho, the myth is great for- tune would be bestowed onto whoever found all of them. However it remains unclear how many ears there are scattered around. So if you are in dire need of great fortune or are up for a challenge, put your powers of observation to the test and make a trip to Covent Garden now. Happy hunting!
................
Part B Needs You! We are looking for enthusiastic and committed deputy editors to send us regular content for the following sections: Visual Arts Technology Literature Theatre
CareerHub
My Event bookings
Recommended for you : ALUMNI EVENTS this week
Civil Service Careers Cafe The Civil Service invites you to join them for a coffee and speak to Libyan civil service Fast Streamer Saif al-Islam Gaddafi about the quickest way of shimmying up the career ladder i.e. by just being an authoritarian Dictator. This event will be moderated by LSE’s own Dictator, Craig Calhoun.
View all events
Booking Status Bookings are closed.
Tues 8 Nov 2016, 11:00AM - 3:00PM Bao Yang Room, 6th Floor, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre, 1 Sheffield Street, London WC2A 2AP.
Meet an Alum - entrepreneurship Meet an Alum brings together alum Mick Jagger and current students for a small 30 minute group discussion. Find out what it’s really like to drop out of LSE and become a fucking legend instead.
Booking Status Bookings required.
Wed 9 Nov 2016, 4:00PM - 5:00PM Enquiries Desk, LSE Careers Resource Area, Floor 5, Saw Swee Hock Student Centre.
LSE #CharityThursday : Breakfast event Do you have a lot to be grateful for? You’ll know you do when Ed Miliband touches down on our campus. Come meet Team Milibae and get ready to count your blessings.
Booking Status No bookings required. Just come hungry.
Thurs 10 Nov 2016, 9:00AM - 10:00AM 4th Floor Cafe, Old Building. No LSE Cleaners allowed please.
The International Development Graduate Careers Fair An all-day event on the LSE campus wherein the jewel in Britain’s crown Sir David Attenborough, will explain the experience and qualifications required for a career working with unruly bankers beasts. Fri 11 Nov 2016, 1:00PM - 2:00PM Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Yes in the actual fields. Where else do you think Attenborough would park his Ark you muppet?
Booking Status Overbooked.
THE ESSENTIAL STUDENT DISCOUNT CARD Buy yours online at nus.org.uk/nus-extra
AND MUCH MORE
288 | Tuesday 8 November, 2016
Inflation Interrogated Brexit will surely increase inflation, and this will have previously unexamined effects on the standard of living for Britain’s BME population Phoebe Ward
The City
Section Editor: LSE Undergraduate Alex Gray THE BREXIT Deputy Editor: WHEN Referendum result was Ramone Bedi
announced it seemed to come as a shock to many living in the so called London Bubble. When looking at the votes we can see why, with most London Boroughs voting largely to Remain. Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Brent and Newham were amongst the boroughs that voted overwhelmingly against leaving the European Union. They are also some of the London Boroughs with the highest percentage of BME residents. Examining the figures across country, two thirds of Asian identifying voters and nearly three quarters of Black voters opted for Remain. Of White voters, 53% voted in the opposite direction. This seems like a lot of facts. What is evident from this, is that BME communities largely did not vote to leave the European Union. With talks of ‘hard Brexit’ there seems to be more uncertainty in the economy. More recent announcements from the Bank of England show us that the only continuum of clarity since the result announcement is that the British economy isn’t looking as strong as before. This is indicated with fears of greater inflation and a slumped exchange rate- all that were speculated about at length prior to June 23rd. This is all very easy to think of in the abstract but the
Credit: Wikipedia Commons
Governor has now said that the poorest will be hit the hardest by these inflationary pressures. Runnymede, the Independent Race Equality Group declared that BME families are ‘overrepresented’ in groups negatively affected by economic downturn. We can deduce that whilst BME voters didn’t want to leave the EU, they are certainly the ones that will absorb weight of the economic implications. What is worse, is that we were warned that this would happen.
“Results day saw the pound plummet and the sterling has now fallen by 18%, the lowest level in 168 years” Results day saw the pound plummet and the sterling has now fallen by 18%, the lowest level in 168 years. This weaker pound has obviously lead to a sharp rise in import costs and therefore costs of production that according to Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation will be passed onto consumers. The Central Bank has predicted exceeding the target rate of inflation in 2017 with some economists predicting rates of 3% or above. This would obviously be crushing for the poorest families. Whilst fuel increases affect all,
according to Rowntree, the lowest income quartile are said to spend 8% of their budget on fuel compared to the richest quartile 4% proportion. These cost increases are aggressively attached with distributional problems. If a household spends more than 10% of their income on fuel, they are said to live in fuel poverty. The hike in inflation this quarter has been attributed partly due to a rise in fuel costs, up by 1.4%. From the evidence, it seems inevitable that those existing in fuel poverty will be bare a greater burden of the vote. Not only this, but we will surely see more households dragged into fuel poverty if wages do not increase in line with inflation. To ensure Britain stays competitive in the Labour market, the level of increase in wages needed to avoid this is thought to be unlikely. In the same announcement the Governor reaffirmed the Bank’s Independence from the political sphere expressing that whilst they, ‘care a lot about distribution’ the main concern must be stable prices. This emphasises a need for government discussion on how to smooth the distributional effects of the further anticipated inflation. With half the people living in low income families in the capital being from ethnic minorities, it is clear this debate can not just focus on income inequality but should explore the punishing effects on BME communities. It is not only the monetary implications following Brexit that
must be considered. Runnymede also note 40% of those affected by benefit caps in 2015 were BME people, whilst BME make up just 14% of the population. Unlike the Bank of England, the government can not be impartial to disproportionately affecting minority groups. Runnymede rightly judge fiscal policy like this and others as a failing on the part of a ‘colourblind’ government. If changes to fiscal policy won’t alleviate the trouble created by Brexit (not voted for by the
“40% of those affected by benefit caps in 2015 were BME people, whilst BME make up just 14% of the population” main recipients of a declining economy) then we will be further exacerbating ethnic inequality in the UK. We have observed on social media the societal implication of a Brexit vote on BME people, with constant discussion of racism within the leave campaign. That doesn’t stop with the end of the campaign but rather, it is now essential to view the economic implications through the race lens that is so often dismissed or clouded by debates of income inequality alone.
The City |29
A Third Runway or More Disarray? The third runway decision at London Heathrow shows we need to rethink public investment Jeremy Wong-Kah-Chun LSE Undergraduate THE UK GOVERNMENT HAS recently announced that they have approved of a third runway to be built in Heathrow Airport. This announcement will no doubt kickstart the process needed to begin the expansion of airport capacity in London that has been delayed for decades. The issue will now be brought under public consultation before a final decision is made by the government as part of a national policy statement in aviation sometime next year. In reality, expansion of airport capacity in the city is very much needed as the current facilities are
facing a lot of problems in handling the massive passenger and cargo traffic that goes through London every year. It should be common knowledge that Heathrow is the busiest airport in the UK and second busiest in the world. Both of its runways are operating at over 98% of their capacity for a decade. To make things worse, Heathrow isn’t alone. Gatwick Airport is one of the world’s busiest single runway airport in the world and it is also fast approaching its limit. Both of these airports handle more than 110 million passengers a year and this number is expected to increase in the near future. By 2040, all of London’s airports are expected to be at full capacity if this trend continues.
Thus, expansion is unavoidable if London intends to improve global connectivity and keeping the UK open for business and international trade. The question now would be how best to expand while minimising the negative implications that results from the expansion. The Airport Commission that was set up in 2012 to study possible options favoured a third runway at Heathrow, although extension of the second runway in Heathrow or a second runway in Gatwick are also possible choices. Airport capacity was an issue that was difficult to solve in the past. Governments have lobbied for and opposed such an expansion to Heathrow in the past decade and
Credit: Wikipedia Commons
even the current decision by the present government faced fierce criticisms and possible legal action to block the plans from ever becoming a reality. So why is the government backing the proposal when so many are against it? It is estimated that the new runway in Heathrow would be able to bring in about 260,000 additional flights a year. This would mean more passengers and possibly tourists going on shopping sprees and more cargo capacity which encourages international trade. All of this can generate a boost of approximately £60 – 140 billion over the 60 years after the runway is ready for operations. All of these will require extra labour to support and manage and between 30,000 and 77,000 new jobs is estimated to be created by 2030 to support the new infrastructure in the airport. Such economic benefits would be a much needed relief considering the possible impacts of Brexit on the economy. The government isn’t alone in their decision as business leaders were delighted and urged the runway to be built as soon as possible with no more delays. However, keep in mind that many of the projections of benefits of a third runway are just that – projections. It may or may not happen and the longer the timeframe of the predictions, the bigger the uncertainties when trying to estimate possible benefits. Despite all these, the decision has caused a split among cabinet members. The price tag is a major concern as around 800 houses will need to be demolished and all homeowners are expected to be
compensated at around 125% of the value of their homes, if they agree to it. In addition, nearly £700 million will also be expected to be spent on noise insulation for nearby neighbourhoods. The new runway will also run above the M25 motorway and keeping it open while building a huge runway over it is also likely to incur significant costs. The estimated price tag would be around £17 billion and it also isn’t clear as to how much of this cost would have to be borne by taxpayers with polarising estimates ranging from no cost incurred to a staggering £15 billion. All of these are the more easily measurable material costs. There are still many questions left unanswered like will the new runway breech EU Legal Limits on air pollution? And how long would it take to even start groundbreaking? The process of negotiations are still in their early stages and things may change in the near future. If the government really wishes to commit to this project, there would be many hurdles to cross including legal suits from people who oppose this option and trying to convince people to leave their homes in south-west London “for the betterment of Britain”. While Theresa May’s government did make a bold stand in trying in order to bring an end to a decade long issue that previous governments before her failed to solve, it is still hard to say whether she has made the right choice in this runway saga which will likely change the future of Britain in the long run.
EdAid - A New Way to Fund University A new service offers an approach to student debt that starts with the student EdAid Staff Social Enterprise GOING TO UNIVERSITY IS, without a doubt, one of the most exciting moments in an individual’s life. You meet lifelong friends, make unforgettable memories, and graduate with a degree in a subject of your choosing. But due to just how terrific this part of your life is, it often tends to overshadow the elephant in the room that is student debt. In today’s world, the average student in the UK will graduate from university with £46,000 in debt. Just to give you an idea of
Credit: Wikipedia Commons
how much that is. With £46,000 you can put down a house deposit, take a yearly trip around the world (twice!), or buy 184,000 Freddos. But we’re not here to tell you how to spend your money. Whilst attending university your debt is adding interest at a rate of over 4%, and interest will be charged until the day it is all paid back. Interest charges on student loans in the UK & US are adding $200m each day to the mountain of student debt. Yes I know what you’re thinking, that’s 658 million Freddos. We here at EdAid are, to put it bluntly, disgusted with the way students are treated when it comes to
their finances. We understand the cost of university, but we couldn’t stand by and watch students pay astonishing amounts of interest on money that they need to borrow in order to further their education. Having been through the process ourselves we deemed it unclear and an unfair process and so we decided to do something about it. Back in 2013 we launched EdAid, and provided students with an alternative funding source to university. We are not riddled with interest charges, and our number 1 priority is our student users. We provide students with a platform to crowdfund the cost of university using support from their friends, family, alumni, colleagues, and future employers. There are absolutely 0 catches and all we ask is that each student who crowdfunds pays a one-off 5% fee to cover the banking, regulatory and technolo-
gy costs of their successfully funded loan. We aim to provide support not only with funding, but also by boosting students’ employability and access to jobs and internships. As well as a crowdfunding platform, we are working with companies around the UK to build a jobs dashboard specifically for students. We’ll provide all types of jobs for students whether that is part-time work, summer internships, or graduate schemes, and will partner employers with students who fit their needs whilst allowing all students users to search our job database for their perfect role. In fact, we are currently hiring for a Campus Ambassador to represent EdAid at LSE. If this tickles your fancy, apply today. As well as university fees, EdAid’s crowdfunding platform has been used for alternative pur-
poses. Dissertation research can often come with a cost and so we’ve had students crowdfund amounts of just £500 to fund this area of their research. Away from university we’re also popular among students taking up a side-project. Our most recent crowdfunding campaign was for a student of popular coding school, Makers Academy. Eva, needed £4,200 to put a deposit down on her place at Makers, a spot that is very much sought after among aspiring developers. At the moment EdAid is very popular among postgraduate students and those looking to fund side-projects, however we are currently trying to raise awareness so we can stop undergraduates having to put up with such astronomical interest charges. To help us spread the word, head to EdAid.com and join us on our journey to #fundthefuture.
30 | Tuesday 8 November, 2016
Strong Start For Cross Country Team Team and individual successes at the first two meets of the cross country season George Bettsworth LSE Running Team Captain IN THE MIDST OF ALL THE essays, readings and problem sets, the LSE Athletics and Running team embarked on their first two fixtures of the season. The London Colleges League was back and the likes of UCL, King’s as well as the ever-dominant St Mary’s were ready for another season of mud, rain and ultimately the chance to be victorious. The first fixture was at Parliament Hill on October 19th and the LSE Team produced a fantastic team performance, stemming from an excellent turnout. Twentytwo LSE athletes competed and a further five came to support, including Jacob Hood, the club’s new endurance coach, and Lio Ando-Bourguet, the club’s newly elected and enthusiastic Logistics Officer. The race was two laps for men and one lap for women, due to a controversial tradition which still exists. Each lap started with a direct ascent up Parliament Hill and then wound round the undulating forests and fields which make up Hampstead Heath. There are a number of noticeable features on the course, such as the “death wall”, a muddy steep slope towards the end of each lap, and the steep downhill finish, known simply as the ‘Home Straight’ which is terrifying yet exhilarating. In total each 3.7km lap contained 250 feet of elevation- meaning the men had 500 feet of elevation to complete. Despite the challenging course, LSE’s performance was exceptional, topping any London Colleges League performance in the past two years. The women’s first team were particularly strong. They finished with 280 points,
making them the 6th best team that day and putting them above last years’ league champions, King’s College, as well as Barts, Reading and Royal Holloway. The team were led out by Typhaine Christiaen, LSESU’s 2015/16 Sportsperson of the Year, who came 8th in a time of 14:24 (that is 3:53 per km on a very hilly course!). It was strength in depth however which saw the team do so well. Emma Achurch, the notorious race walker, came 17th only
“Despite the challenging course, LSE’s performance was exceptional, topping any London Colleges League performance in the past two years.” 34 seconds behind Typhaine, and only just behind her was Caitlin McIlwain in 19th. To complete the women’s first team was Lizzie Harmon, who narrowly beat Emily Sutcliffe by only 4 seconds. Alice Benzimra also ran well and contributed to the best turnout for women in the London Colleges League in past 2 years. The men’s first team also produced an exquisite performance, scoring 527 points – again beating King’s. Amrik Gill, the Leicester raised athlete, led out the team, leaping over the
hills, averaging a pace of 3:38 per km. Amrik came in 27th. Not too far behind him were the French duo; Antonin Boissin (37th) and Pierre-Louis Lostis (38th). To complete the men’s first team was Fernando Ortiz, myself and our vice-captain, Lauri Ojala. Joe Meegan, the well-known LSE staff member and alumni, competed in the race too for Motspur AC, the new alumni club for the London Universities and Colleges. Indeed, Joe ran well, coming 59th. Eight other LSE men completed the race to finish off a successful day for the club. And so, the Parliament Hill fixture was over. We went away and prepared for Mitcham Common which was to follow in two weeks. These two weeks were the perfect preparation for a strong performance; Jacob ordered us to run up and down Parliament Hill many times on Saturdays, some athletes competed in a Beer Mile, Andy Cowan yearned for, and successfully obtained, a trip to Zoo and Antonin accidently booked a flight to Stockholm – meaning he couldn’t do the upcoming race. All of a sudden it was November 2nd, and the second fixture was upon us. Once again we packed our 35 vests, our banner and 24 milkshakes (courtesy of Nurishment Active) and got ready for another packed day of cross country. This time the venue was Mitcham Common in Bromley. The course was three 3K laps for men, and two for women and mostly consisted of low lying grassland with a few sudden and steep ascents and descents. Despite suffering a low turnout due to team members going on holiday during reading week, the men’s team did remarkably well scoring 549
points and putting LSE in 6th place at the meet. Amrik, in fine form, came in 16th. This made him the first male LSE athlete in at least 3 years to come in the top 20 of a London Colleges League race. Behind him was the elusive Dave Meegan, or ‘Big Dave’ as he prefers. Just seconds behind Dave was myself – which was admittedly very frustrating. And after me was Lauri, who obtained his best ever finishing position in the fiercely competitive London Colleges League, coming 42nd. Completing the men’s first team was Brandon Seah and Eric Lam, who both put in excellent runs. Gaetan Burret, Andy Cowan, Alex Yeo and Arthur Wadsworth all turned out for the team and again contributed to what was a successful day for the club. Caitlin McIlwain was
the only LSE women competing that day. To make up for it, Caitlin went off quick, gritted her teeth and managed to come 4th – which is remarkable. Hence, the cross country team are in good shape. Here is a summary of where the LSE teams and top athletes sit after two races in the London Colleges League: LSE Men’s 1st Team are in 6th place, out of 30 teams, with 1076pts. LSE Women’s 1st Team are in 11th place, out of 24 teams, with 377pts LSE’s top female athlete is Caitlin McIlwain in 7th place overall, followed by Typhaine Christiaen and Emma Achurch. LSE’s top male athlete is Amrik Gill in 11th place overall, followed by George Bettsworth and Lauri Ojala .
Results Round-Up! THE FIRST OF A regular feature for The Beaver, this is the place to catch up with LSE’s most recent sporting results. All results come from first team matches in BUCS leagues, unless stated otherwise. Badminton (M) 0 - 8 UCL 1st 2nd in SE 1A Badminton (W) 7-1 UCL 2nd (RUMS) 3rd in SE 2B Basketball (M) 108-60 Kent 1st in SE 3B Basketball (W) 63-41 UAL 1st
2nd in SE 3B Cross Country (M - LUCA) 549pts at Mitcham Common, 6th place 6th in LUCA League Cross Country (W - LUCA) 97pts at Mitcham Common, 17th place 11th in LUCA League Fencing (M) 124-127 University of London 1st 7th in SE 2B Fencing (W) 135-69 Essex 1st 1st in SE 2B Football (M) 6-3 Brighton 4th 1st in SE 3B Football (W)
8-0 UCL 2nd (RUMS) 3rd in SE 3B Futsal (M) 4-8 Portsmouth 1st 6th in SE 2A Hockey (M) 2-2 Imperial 2nd 3rd in SE 2B Hockey (W) 4-1 Brunel 1st 3rd in SE 2A Kabaddi (M - Comp) 2nd place Kabaddi Cup Kabaddi (W - Comp) 2nd place Kabaddi Cup Lacrosse (Mi - LUSL) 6-5 Imperial 1st
2nd in Competitive Premier Netball (W) 28-32 Brunel 2nd 6th in SE 1A Rugby (M) 34-17 Reading 2nd 4th in SE 2A Rugby (W) 60-0 GKT 2nd 1st in SE 2B Squash (M) 3-2 Queen Mary’s 1st 1st in SE 2B Squash (W) 4-0 Imperial 1st 3rd in SE 1A Table Tennis (M) 12-5 Imperial 1st 1st in Premier South
Table Tennis (W) 3-0 KCL 1st 3rd in SE 1A Tennis (M) 12-0 Imperial 1st 1st in South 1A Tennis (W) 10-2 Kent 1st 1st in SE 1A Ultimate Disc(M) No result this week Volleyball (M) 3-1 Sussex 1st 2nd in SE 1A Volleyball (W) 3-0 UAL 1st 4th in SE 2B *SE: South East
Sport | 31
Basketball Back on Track for New Season Wins over UAL and Imperial put Women’s Basketball in good shape Megan Beddoe Former Basketball Captain LSE WOMEN’S BASKETBALL have continued to build on their successes from last year, starting the new season with two resounding victories over Imperial College in LUSL league and University of the Arts London in BUCS. The women’s basketball finished the last academic year on a high with successes in their leagues, cups and even abroad! They won their LUSL league to earn promotion this season, and reached the final of the cup, only losing to Royal Holloway. In BUCS, the team was on a winning run until the semi-final of the SE Conference Cup where they lost to Essex Blades. The season’s achievements were crowned by victory at Les Parisiennes in Paris, where the team beat universities such as Bristol, Sorbonne and hosts Sciences Po
nervous about doing so as many of the star players in the team were unfortunately one-year masters students or studying at LSE on the
“the new committee were soon comforted by the appearance at trials of several new rising stars in the club”
to win the whole tournament. Given the track record of the last season, the club were keen to build on their successes but
general course so left some big holes in the team with their departure. However, the new committee were soon comforted by the appearance at trials of several new rising stars in the club (and of course the return of several of the most valuable players from last year). In addition, new coach, Mike, has brought a new atmosphere to the club, which has seen all the players working harder on fitness and tactics, but for a good reason! The first game of the season was played against UAL on 26th October. The scores in the first quarter were close with LSE leading by just one point, despite strong opening performances from Danni and Chantelle. The gap had widened to 24-17 by half time, but LSE’s real time of dominance came in the third quarter where they outscored UAL by 18-8. The
AS ZOO EMPTIES AND THE Zoo-enthusiasts stroll home on a fine November evening, there is a call in the wind, a call for all the secrets to be revealed. Luckily, the Bev reporter has answered that call. All will be exposed. As always, the AU’s version of Halloween produced the expected delights, the queues and the damp sweatiness which we have all grown to love. So, for many the night started at the Venue. Well, actually, for many the night undoubtedly started at somebody’s flat, where a team member would apply some make-up to your face and you would drink several, or many,
beverages. But it was not until the clubs arrived at the Venue that the mayhem began. The night started how it always starts, with a great big queue. But it gave time for this reporter to take in the many costumes of all our marvellous clubs. Men’s FC, notorious for their awe-inspiring and innovative costumes, were ghosts. Men’s Rugby went in their traditional AU-night costume - shirtless. The other clubs seemed dashing, and warmer by comparison, with athletics dressed as some sort of vampire and women’s FC living up to the creativity of men’s club, as skeletons. Upon entry there was a familiar sight. A scrum of fiftyodd blokes pushing and shoving to get a taste of those sweet, sweet snakebites (or Jägerbombs as the case may be). Then, all of a sudden a rumour spread. An overheard conversation
“women’s basketball finished the last academic year on a high”
final score was a convincing victory for LSE: 60-41. Fresher Chantelle scored the opening and closing baskets of the game, bringing a taste of the new stars of the club, but her partnership with experienced final year Danni gave LSE particular strength in the game. The LUSL season opener was played against Imperial College on Sunday 30th October. The team was smaller than for the BUCS game, with many more experienced players away for reading week, however LSE was still able to field a strong team, and give opportunities to beginners to get some vital game
“LSE was able to field a strong team, and give opportunities to beginners to get some vital game experience” experience. The result was an incredible victory to LSE – they scored 73 points while conceding just 6 – a result which is even more impressive given that the team was promoted up into the Premier League after last season’s successes. The club continues its busy BUCS and LUSL seasons with the first Conference Cup match of the season, which will be played against Kingston University on Wednesday.
between two FC lads led to “The Rumour”, as it quickly became known, that Zoo was no longer on the cards - that Wednesday was to be just a Saucy night. But this proved untrue and the Zooafficionados excitably galloped up the Saucy stairs - there was no chance of keeping them out of Zoo. So, there it was, in all its glory. Zoo Bar and Club. And as the Captains cued and drank their pitchers - with that perfect ratio, 2 shots of vodka and entire can of Monster - it became apparent that the Zoo staff were on their best behaviour. They were unusually polite and less insulting than usual. One of the AU’s most dashing Captains was told by a Zoo bouncer that he couldn’t get his pitcher, for a reason left mysterious, but, remarkably, the bouncer was “sorry” he couldn’t be of more help. This reporter suspects the rumour that LSE could leave Zoo
forced this change in behaviour. However, there are limits to how far the Zoo fanatics could stretch this. Two lads attempted to bring a Boris Bike directly into Zoo were quickly escorted away by police officers. The rest of the night followed the tradition of a typical Zoo - tropical heat, the stench of Monster with vodka, the special Zoo polish which covers your shoes and a whole load of very tired yet excitable athletes. And though the night lacked the spooks and the scares of traditional Halloween night in, it did provide the ultimate Zoo experience. So I leave you with a quote from Lord Summerisle in the Wicker Man, an undoubtedly spooky film: “I think I could turn and live with the animals. They are so placid and self-contained”. It seems that Lord Summerisle would be very surprised by Zoo.
DOWNLOAD ‘THE BEAVER LSE‘ APP ON THE APPLE STORE!
32
In the Spotlight: LSE Kabaddi George Bettsworth Jenny Stokell Sports Editors
Sport
Section Editors: George Bettsworth IT WAS OUR PLEASURE Jenny Stokell to meet two members of the
Kabaddi club at LSE, Meredydd Rix and Jay Depala who have both represented England at the Kabaddi World Cup. So firstly, as I asked myself when preparing for the meeting with these students, what is Kabaddi? Naturally, this is an important question and as it turns out, it produces a very interesting response which results in a visit to YouTube to see how it looks, and sounds. So, the basics of Kabaddi: it is a sport played in teams of seven on a rectangular court, where players attempt to tag as many of the opposing team as possible whilst holding their breath, saying ‘kabaddi’ repeatedly to demonstrate that they are doing so. Whilst the player is ‘raiding’ the opposition, his/her opponents are attempting to tackle the raider. This of course makes it more difficult for the raider to score points; it’s not a case of simply tagging opponents, but also avoiding their tackles. Representing England: This is the big news. LSE’s Kabaddi team has contributed two players to the National England Kabaddi team and that’s worth some celebration. I asked Meredydd and Jay a few questions about playing Kabaddi on the world stage. Jay told me that it was fairly “overwhelming”, and ultimately “amazing”, to play in such a big competition.
This was primarily due to the huge difference in the attention around the University matches, from which Jay and Meredydd were spotted to play for England, and the attention around the international competition. The Kabaddi World Cup is, unsurprisingly, an event of great importance and attracts crowds of thousands, due partially to the sport’s popularity in southern Asia, and the England team performed well at the competition, finishing 4th in their group.
“LSE’s Kabaddi team has contributed two players to the National England Kabaddi team and that’s worth some celebration.” The issues facing Kabaddi: It was also interesting to investigate the issues facing the LSE’s Kabaddi Club. Indeed, this conversation was a stark contrast to the positivity of the achievements of the club as there are a couple of obstacles preventing the Club from being as successful as it could be. Meredydd told of the funding struggles the club faces, given the fairly small AU Grant allocated
to them and their difficulty in obtaining Annual Fund money. This funding issue could result in the quashing of the club’s ability to fulfil its targets for the year. For example, the Club would like to host an inter-university competition at LSE but this will require financial support. Furthermore, the Club has problems with room bookings as they were unable to get a twohour block booking on Mondays and Fridays – which does constrain the club’s ability to put on a full training session. Now, Kabaddi certainly need these issues addressed and ultimately solved – they are a growing Club with over 20 regular members and 4 training sessions a week. They certainly have the opportunity to achieve a lot over the next year if they are given the right support.
Increasing participation: As aforementioned, the Kabaddi club hope to host an interuniversity tournament in the remainder of the year. This competition would be at a national level, with teams from across the country invited to compete; a high level tournament that would undoubtedly provide another platform for awareness and appreciation of Kabaddi to grow. LSE’s Kabaddi club is already at the forefront of increasing participation in the sport, sending a women’s team to compete in the first ever national level women’s tournament in the UK this past Saturday. This team competed as well as both LSE’s 1st and 2nd men’s team, with all three experiencing success over the weekend.
AU Update from the AU Exec Zoe Oakley AU Engagement Officer THIS YEAR’S ‘THIS LSE Girl Can’ project aims to build on the success of last year’s ‘Women In Sport Week’ to engage more women in sport as well as raise the level of appreciation given to female athletes. The week will coincide with the BUCS’ campaign of the same name, running from the 7th to the 13th of November. Based on the hugely popular national campaign, BUCS hopes to raise female participation in sport both during university and the years beyond. Female students at LSE are invited to try out a new sport at any one of the free sessions put on during the week. The events are almost entirely student led, with Netball Club Captain Georgia Poil running a Boot Camp in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and LSE Women’s Hockey 1st Team Captain Lauren Vallender putting on a ladies-only weights session! Women will also have the chance to try out Muay Thai, Yoga, Pole
Fitness, Swimming, Running, Dance, and even Wakeboarding. Plus, there’s an exciting opportunity to ‘swap sports’, with Women’s FC, Women’s Rugby and Netball all taking on the challenge to pick up a new sport and put their newfound skills to the test in a match within an hour! With the numerous exciting events and activities organised for This LSE Girl Can week, LSE’s sportswomen – from the casual to the competitive – will have the chance to expand their sporting horizons. The events aren’t limited to just physical activities – there is also a Consent Workshop running, as well as an event with talks from several inspirational sportswomen from the world of international sport. We hope as many students take advantage of these opportunities as possible. Women’s Officer, Fathia Begum, will launch the first consent workshop with LSESU Sexpression as part of her campaign to make consent workshops compulsory for freshers next year. From over 70 nominations,
10 female students were chosen by their peers to receive an LSE Inspirational Sportswoman Award for their incredible athletic achievements. These are: Zara Ashraf, Paula Prenzel, Perdita Blinkhorn, Abi Steadman, Georgia Poil, Eva Kandoul, Sam PinterThompson, Beth Warne, Tiana Gordon and Alyssa Alkahone. Look out for the display of our 10 winners in the SU 1st floor cafe during the week! Check out the full events listing here: Monday 7th November: Women’s only boxing session 12-2pm in the Old Gym, Opening event to showcase the LSE #ThisLSEGirlCan video and present Inspirational Sportswoman awards at 6pm. Tuesday 8th November: Women’s only weights-session 1-2pm in the LSE Gym, Female only swimming 8-9pm @ Pancras Square Leisure Centre with Active LifeStyle Wednesday 9th November: Support women’s sports teams at their BUCS matches! Thursday 10th November:
LUCA ‘This LSE Girl Can’ Neon Rave Run meet at 6pm at the SSH main entrance, Muay Thai 12pm Badminton Courts, Pole Fitness taster on Sheffield Street 10am-4pm, Consent Workshop with Sexpressions & SU Women’s Officer 5pm. Friday 11th November: Dance workshop for Fem-Soc members 6th floor studio SSH 11.30-1pm, Ladies-only yoga 1-2pm, Boot Camp in Lincoln’s Inn Fields/ Old Gym 4-5pm, Panel event with prominent athletes and spokeswomen in the world of sport 6pm 1st Floor SU (Annamarie Phelps, Dina Asher-Smith and Monique-Amy Newton) Saturday 12th November: RAG Sport Swap: charity multisports session with Women’s Rugby, Netball and Football @ Berrylands 1.30-4.30pm Sunday 13th November: Open Wakeboard Session 11-5pm (organised discount applies; sign-up needed), Pole fitness Give-It-A-Go 7.158.15pm, support women’s sports teams at their LUSL matches!